"That tree" in front of TSBD

[claviger]

Mrs Carolyn Walther

"The first statement that I made I said the man was on the 4th or 5th floor and I still feel the same way. He was just about, in a window that was just about even with the top of that tree."


16671387365_173af1a08f_b.jpg


http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/images/DealeyPlaza.jpg


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmcadams.posc.mu.edu%2Fslug.htm&psig=AFQjCNEhZtleI7y_Qwzz24QrmJMkD4ER_Q&ust=1457270660720835


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj2g76306nLAhUP3GMKHetqA9UQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftpaak.com%2Fjfk-crime-scen%2F&psig=AFQjCNEhZtleI7y_Qwzz24QrmJMkD4ER_Q&ust=1457270660720835


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwinpPvt1KnLAhVELmMKHZ_DA3wQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DatjBX8Nm6lI&psig=AFQjCNEhZtleI7y_Qwzz24QrmJMkD4ER_Q&ust=1457270660720835


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjPp97d0qnLAhVS-mMKHfQJCDUQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tripadvisor.com.pe%2FLocationPhotoDirectLink-g55711-d106016-i40917213-The_Sixth_Floor_Museum_Texas_School_Book_Depository-Dallas_Texas.html&psig=AFQjCNEhZtleI7y_Qwzz24QrmJMkD4ER_Q&ust=1457270660720835



https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiJ782J1qnLAhVL7mMKHaohCjQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prayer-man.com%2Fgalleries%2F&psig=AFQjCNEhZtleI7y_Qwzz24QrmJMkD4ER_Q&ust=1457270660720835



4th floor open window

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjg8oOl16nLAhVU62MKHZbaC_kQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2F22novembernetwork.wordpress.com%2Fcategory%2Fjack-ruby-2%2F&psig=AFQjCNEhZtleI7y_Qwzz24QrmJMkD4ER_Q&ust=1457270660720835

[bigdog]

Don't worry. Chris will "correct" her statements to make them fit his
theory.

[mainframetech]

No neeed, since I don't have a theory, I simply have the sworn
testimony or statements of the wirneses that eere present during the
events they speak of.


If you were able to follow logic, you'd know that you have no option
but to deal with the facts as the witnesses have put them out. Give it a
try.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Never rely on witnesses. Sometimes you can triangulate them to get a
consensus.

[donald willis]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:57:06 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
> Mrs Carolyn Walther
>
> "The first statement that I made I said the man was on the 4th or 5th floor and I still feel the same way. He was just about, in a window that was just about even with the top of that tree."

The topmost part of the tree does seem to be even with the *top* of the
4th-floor windows, and just below the *bottom* of the 5th-floor
windows....

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:46:33 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:57:06 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
> > Mrs Carolyn Walther
> >
> > "The first statement that I made I said the man was on the 4th or 5th floor and I still feel the same way. He was just about, in a window that was just about even with the top of that tree."
>
> The topmost part of the tree does seem to be even with the *top* of the
> 4th-floor windows, and just below the *bottom* of the 5th-floor
> windows....
>

Is that looking from the street and looking up at an angle, which
would make the tree come to a higher point on the building? And was it a
photo from 1963?

Chris

[donald willis]

I think it was from '63. From a distance. From an angle right in front
it would seem taller, right? 5th floor, then....

dcw

[mainframetech]

5th floor wasn't possible, since the black workers were there and didn't
have a gun. The 4th floor was one possibility, but that would mean that
there were 2 floors that had 2 men in the window with a gun, the 4th and
the 6th. So it had to be the 6th floor within which Walther saw the 2 men
with a gun.

Chris

[bigdog]

There are a number of major flaws to your approach. One is you assume
witnesses remember things perfectly and their accounts are accurate. Of
course you only make those assumptions with witnesses who say things you
want to believe. With the others you take the liberty of amending what
they have said until it fits with what you want to believe. That would be
bad enough but then you compound the problem by drawing illogical
conclusions from what the witnesses have said. If there are a number of
possible explanations for something a witness has told us, you will
arbitrarily select the explanation that best fits what you want to believe
and discard all other possibilities. It's no wonder that after over 52
years you can't figure out such a simple case of murder.

[claviger]

Again, you keep trying to put words in the mouth of witnesses they didn't
say. Carolyn Walther never said she saw those two men on the 6th floor.
She said 3rd or 4th floor in the middle of the building and noticed the
top of that tree in the same area. Those trees are not much taller to
this day. No tree in front of the TSBD reached to the 5th or 6th floor.
Rowland never saw two men together in one window. Henderson did not see
two men with a rifle on any floor. The only two men she nocticed were
described as dark complexioned. We know from photos who they were and
what floor they were on. None of these witnesses support your cobbled
together theory. It is completely disingenuous of you to distort the
testimony of these witnesses when it's so patently obvious how wrong you
are.

Here is a photo of the TSBD circa 1965. Notice the top of the treeline is
the 3rd floor. The first tree is located in the middle of the building.
The angle of this photo is close to where Walther and Henderson were
standing watching the parade. You can see why there is no way she would
confuse a lower window in the middle of the building with a window on the
far east side 3 floors above.

CBS DC
50th Anniversary of JFK Assassination
Photo #18
Building Gunman Used
circa 1965: The Texas School Book Depository at Dallas, Texas, from which US president John F Kennedy
was shot and killed. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)
http://washington.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2013/11/21/50th-anniversary-of-jfk-assassination/


More photos:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-079.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-POLugvZcdAs/UqPW78XobpI/AAAAAAAAxXE/rs3ujwrCV1c/s1600/TSBD-On-
November-22-1963.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vUKKgMl2dSQ/TZGMnK-hIAI/AAAAAAAATgk/-U2bEMmkUCU/s2000/TSBD.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qR8F87ryKXg/TZPWcVqULfI/AAAAAAAATro/T4b8wik346o/s1600/Bell%2BFrame-02.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h9EUNvXCF64/TZGPB5H5_RI/AAAAAAAATg8/ztti3PAt5P4/s1600/TSBD-4.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LvcCcEhJPXU/T07-NjOGexI/AAAAAAAAF4A/VYd1FdfCWDo/s1600/TSBD-11-24-63.jpg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwie64aa_7zLAhWHKWMKHQCmAmIQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjfk-archives.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fwas-oswald-planted-in-tsbd.html&psig=AFQjCNGt2s4ivU4X2h3mHRXfneFkNjndRw&ust=1457934323143345

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj3k73P_bzLAhVHxmMKHZHeA74QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkennedy-photos.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fkennedy-gallery-083.html&psig=AFQjCNGt2s4ivU4X2h3mHRXfneFkNjndRw&ust=1457934323143345

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjas9S2_rzLAhUHxmMKHdDgAIYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fderosaworld.typepad.com%2Fderosaworld%2F2009%2F11%2F30-days-of-jfk-assassination-facts-bullets-bullets-everywhere-part-two.html&psig=AFQjCNGt2s4ivU4X2h3mHRXfneFkNjndRw&ust=1457934323143345

[donald willis]

I thought she said 4th or 5th floor, corner window.
dcw

[mainframetech]

I'm fully aware that Walther did NOT say she saw 2 men with a gun on
the 6th floor. Where have you been? I've explained all that and you're
still going on about it. Have you ignored everything I've said for a few
days now to get you straightened out? You're not going to learn by
ignoring these things.

> She said 3rd or 4th floor in the middle of the building and noticed the
> top of that tree in the same area. Those trees are not much taller to
> this day. No tree in front of the TSBD reached to the 5th or 6th floor.

It doesn't matter where the tree comes to. It doesn't matter what
Rowland saw. None of the things you throw up means anything until we
solve the problem you're having with Walther's mistake. THEN we can touch
on those other items. Walther could NOT see the 2 men with a gun on the
5th floor, because the black workers were there, without a gun. That
leaves the 4th floor. If she saw 2 men with a gun on the 4th floor, then
we have 2 men seen on the 4th floor with a gun, and 2 men with a gun seen
on the 6th floor. So now you've got 2 groups of 2 men on the 4th and the
6th floor. I don't believe that's right, and the only possible correction
that could be made is that Walther saw the 2 men on the 6th floor. No
other possibility is close enough to consider. There is absolutely NO
evidence whatsover that there were 2 'teams' of shooters assigned to the
TSBD, so we're left with correcting Walthers' mistake.

Now if you see errors there, generate some logic to disprove my logic
and we can discuss it logically.

> Rowland never saw two men together in one window. Henderson did not see
> two men with a rifle on any floor. The only two men she nocticed were
> described as dark complexioned. We know from photos who they were and
> what floor they were on. None of these witnesses support your cobbled
> together theory. It is completely disingenuous of you to distort the
> testimony of these witnesses when it's so patently obvious how wrong you
> are.
>

Sorry, you've made yet another mistake. I am not pushing a theory, I'm
using logic to recognize errors in Walther's statement, and using logic to
correct her statements, but there is no theory here except in your mind.

> Here is a photo of the TSBD circa 1965. Notice the top of the treeline is
> the 3rd floor. The first tree is located in the middle of the building.
> The angle of this photo is close to where Walther and Henderson were
> standing watching the parade. You can see why there is no way she would
> confuse a lower window in the middle of the building with a window on the
> far east side 3 floors above.
>

As noted above, I'm not interested in the height of the tree right now.
I'm interested in correcting Walther's mistake. If that mistake includes
the tree height, we can get to that later. We need to agree on what steps
to take to correct the problem we now have of 2 'teams' of shooters on
both the 4th and the 6th floors, and using imagination isn't really the
answer to that.

Chris

[mainframetech]

As usual, you've lost it again and gone over the edge. You haven't a
clue what I think, so don't try to guess it. And don't pretend that
you're a psych major because your obviously nowhere near that area. Now
I'm going to strawighten you out ion things you've tried to guess at and
failed again.

1. I do NOT assume witnesses remember everything perfectly. That would
be like you swearing that Carolyn Walther was absolutely right when she
stated firmly that she saw 2 men with a gun in the 4th or 5th floor
window.

2. I do NOT change witness testimony to fit my beliefs, I will only
change testimony if what they said was logically impossible (see #1
above).

3. I have presented logic to you that I believe is without error, but I
will be glad to discuss it if you will put together logic that proves my
logic is wrong, otherwise, I will accept my logic.

4. I do not listen to foolishness for very long when it is thrust at me.
I try to corect it and go from there.

Chris

[claviger]

Your'e right. The first guy she saw was 3rd or 4th floor in a middle
window. The next two guys she saw were in a 4th or 5th floor window but
she is not specific about which window She is quite specific it was NOT on
the 6th floor. The reason this is significant her interview was amost 2
weeks after the shooting so she is fully aware by that time there was a
sniper in the 6th floor window of the TSBD, but she makes it clear the two
guys she saw were not in that window. There is simply no way to transfer
her sighting to the 6th floor window.

Statement to FBI
_______________________________________________________________________________
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 crowed 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 or 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 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.
______________________________________________________________________

[mainframetech]

Me too, but Claviger decided to say it was 3rd or 4th, and I went
along with it because it wasn't important to the logic where he had 2
teams of shooters on the 4th and 6th floors by insisting that Walther was
right about it being the 4th....:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Well, of course there is. Since we agree that Walther didn't see them on the 5tyh floor because the black workers were there and didn't have a gun, then that leaves the 4th floor. If the 4th floor had 2 men with a gun, then that's the second window with someone with a gun in it. So now we have guns in the 6th floor window and the 4th floor window. Seems a bit much, don't you think? And no one else reported seeing any guns in the 4th floor window. So the obvious thing is to admit that Walther had made a mistake and the floor wasn't the 5th, but the 6th. where others had seen the 2 men with a gun.

See above for explanation of Walthers mistake.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:15:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter where the tree comes to. It doesn't matter what
> Rowland saw. None of the things you throw up means anything until we
> solve the problem you're having with Walther's mistake. THEN we can touch
> on those other items. Walther could NOT see the 2 men with a gun on the
> 5th floor, because the black workers were there, without a gun. That
> leaves the 4th floor. If she saw 2 men with a gun on the 4th floor, then
> we have 2 men seen on the 4th floor with a gun, and 2 men with a gun seen
> on the 6th floor. So now you've got 2 groups of 2 men on the 4th and the
> 6th floor. I don't believe that's right, and the only possible correction
> that could be made is that Walther saw the 2 men on the 6th floor. No
> other possibility is close enough to consider. There is absolutely NO
> evidence whatsover that there were 2 'teams' of shooters assigned to the
> TSBD, so we're left with correcting Walthers' mistake.
>
> Now if you see errors there, generate some logic to disprove my logic
> and we can discuss it logically.
>

There is nothing logical about your approach to this issue or any others.
None of the witnesses' accounts fits your theory of two men with a rifle
on the sixth floor. You are forced to "correct" their statements to make
it fit that scenario. Of course in this context "correct" is a euphemism
for "fudge". The fact that you have to fudge the accounts of these
witnesses is an acknowledgement that these witnesses got some things
wrong. However, you arbitrarily decide which things they got right and
which ones they got wrong based on what fits with your predetermined
conclusion. Take for example Walthers belief that she saw two men with a
rifle on a lower floor. You arbitrarily decided that the element she got
wrong was the floor she saw them on. You don't consider the possibility
she saw two men on a lower floor and the part she got wrong was that they
had a rifle. She may have looked up to see Oswald with a rifle on the
sixth floor and either before or after that looked up and saw two men on a
lower floor and simply conflated the two causing her to believe she saw
two men with a rifle on a lower floor. With the other witnesses there are
other possible ways to resolve the conflicts in their stories other than
the one you have arbitrarily chosen. But you refuse to consider the other
possible ways the witnesses could have been wrong and simply decide that
the resolution to conflicts is the one that fits your two men with a rifle
on the 6th floor theory. It is completely illogical when faced with
multiple possible resolutions to assume one to be true and dismiss all
others. Alternative explanations cannot be logically dismissed unless
there is evidence to indicate those alternatives are not possible. You
have never even attempted to present such evidence. You simply decided
what parts the witnesses got right and what parts they got wrong based on
what fits with your chosen belief.

[Anthony Marsh]

And that sounds like Oswald?

> 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.
>

Sounds more like a SS agent.
I notice that you are afraid to actually upload her statement as a GIF.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 9:50:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:15:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the tree comes to. It doesn't matter what
> > Rowland saw. None of the things you throw up means anything until we
> > solve the problem you're having with Walther's mistake. THEN we can touch
> > on those other items. Walther could NOT see the 2 men with a gun on the
> > 5th floor, because the black workers were there, without a gun. That
> > leaves the 4th floor. If she saw 2 men with a gun on the 4th floor, then
> > we have 2 men seen on the 4th floor with a gun, and 2 men with a gun seen
> > on the 6th floor. So now you've got 2 groups of 2 men on the 4th and the
> > 6th floor. I don't believe that's right, and the only possible correction
> > that could be made is that Walther saw the 2 men on the 6th floor. No
> > other possibility is close enough to consider. There is absolutely NO
> > evidence whatsover that there were 2 'teams' of shooters assigned to the
> > TSBD, so we're left with correcting Walthers' mistake.
> >
> > Now if you see errors there, generate some logic to disprove my logic
> > and we can discuss it logically.
> >
>
> There is nothing logical about your approach to this issue or any others.
> None of the witnesses' accounts fits your theory of two men with a rifle
> on the sixth floor. You are forced to "correct" their statements to make

So you have fallen back on your excuse to avoid producing logic by
giving your opinon of my logic. Sorry, you lose again, that's not logic,
which should be able to completely blow up mine if you had any.

> it fit that scenario. Of course in this context "correct" is a euphemism
> for "fudge". The fact that you have to fudge the accounts of these
> witnesses is an acknowledgement that these witnesses got some things
> wrong. However, you arbitrarily decide which things they got right and

No 'fudging' here. But since you provided no logic to disprove my
proof that logic as needed, you lose again and 'fudging' is simply your
opinioon, useless here. You see, I even provided logicas to why logic was
needed to correc the statement. And there was only one statemnt that
needed correction, so get straight. The statement of Rubty Henderson
simply needed figuring out, and no change. We're only speaking of
Walthers's statement that I changed, for liogical reasons.

> which ones they got wrong based on what fits with your predetermined
> conclusion. Take for example Walthers belief that she saw two men with a
> rifle on a lower floor. You arbitrarily decided that the element she got
> wrong was the floor she saw them on. You don't consider the possibility
> she saw two men on a lower floor and the part she got wrong was that they
> had a rifle. She may have looked up to see Oswald with a rifle on the
> sixth floor and either before or after that looked up and saw two men on a
> lower floor and simply conflated the two causing her to believe she saw

Oh, get away with that crap! You're making it up as you go in your
desperation! She saw 2 men with a gun. With the many floors in the
building, it's much easier to make a mistake on the floor where the
sighting occured than who had a gun. Now you're trying to justify the
silliness that there were 2 shooters in one floor, and shooter(s) in
another floor. Give it up!

> two men with a rifle on a lower floor. With the other witnesses there are
> other possible ways to resolve the conflicts in their stories other than
> the one you have arbitrarily chosen. But you refuse to consider the other
> possible ways the witnesses could have been wrong and simply decide that
> the resolution to conflicts is the one that fits your two men with a rifle
> on the 6th floor theory. It is completely illogical when faced with
> multiple possible resolutions to assume one to be true and dismiss all
> others. Alternative explanations cannot be logically dismissed unless
> there is evidence to indicate those alternatives are not possible. You
> have never even attempted to present such evidence. You simply decided
> what parts the witnesses got right and what parts they got wrong based on
> what fits with your chosen belief.

WRONG! I've supplied logical proof as to why the change in Walther's
statement was needed, and you've supplied only a bunch of opinions to
replace any logic you might have supplied, but failed to supply. Walther
made a mistake and I corrcted it with logic so that it was right. If
other people in the street had seen one or more men with guns on the 4th
floor, I would have to give consideration to your wild speculation, but
they didn't. There was no one with a gun on other floors. It was the 6th
floor where a gun was seen by all the witnesses that saw a gun.

Chris

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 6:50:57 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:15:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the tree comes to. It doesn't matter what
> > Rowland saw. None of the things you throw up means anything until we
> > solve the problem you're having with Walther's mistake. THEN we can touch
> > on those other items. Walther could NOT see the 2 men with a gun on the
> > 5th floor, because the black workers were there, without a gun. That
> > leaves the 4th floor. If she saw 2 men with a gun on the 4th floor, then
> > we have 2 men seen on the 4th floor with a gun, and 2 men with a gun seen
> > on the 6th floor. So now you've got 2 groups of 2 men on the 4th and the
> > 6th floor. I don't believe that's right, and the only possible correction
> > that could be made is that Walther saw the 2 men on the 6th floor. No
> > other possibility is close enough to consider. There is absolutely NO
> > evidence whatsover that there were 2 'teams' of shooters assigned to the
> > TSBD, so we're left with correcting Walthers' mistake.
> >
> > Now if you see errors there, generate some logic to disprove my logic
> > and we can discuss it logically.
> >
>
> There is nothing logical about your approach to this issue or any others.
> None of the witnesses' accounts fits your theory of two men with a rifle
> on the sixth floor.

Rowland comes close--man with a gun standing back from a middle window,
old black man in the "nest", something like that....

dcw

[claviger]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/15/2016 6:47 PM, claviger wrote:

> > The man was wearing a white shirt and had had blond or light brown hair.
> And that sounds like Oswald?

LHO did wear a white T-shirt but his hair was darker. She did not
insinuate this guy was LHO.

> > 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.
> Sounds more like a SS agent.

How so?

> I notice that you are afraid to actually upload her statement as a GIF.

Why don't you do that for us since you know how?

[BOZ]

All foam, no beer.

[mainframetech]

Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
that was the black workers and they had no gun. So if it were the 4th
floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor. so if
we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th 4th and
6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place to
put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.

Chris

[bigdog]

You're really sounding desperate now.

>
>
> > which ones they got wrong based on what fits with your predetermined
> > conclusion. Take for example Walthers belief that she saw two men with a
> > rifle on a lower floor. You arbitrarily decided that the element she got
> > wrong was the floor she saw them on. You don't consider the possibility
> > she saw two men on a lower floor and the part she got wrong was that they
> > had a rifle. She may have looked up to see Oswald with a rifle on the
> > sixth floor and either before or after that looked up and saw two men on a
> > lower floor and simply conflated the two causing her to believe she saw
>
>
> Oh, get away with that crap! You're making it up as you go in your
> desperation! She saw 2 men with a gun. With the many floors in the
> building, it's much easier to make a mistake on the floor where the
> sighting occured than who had a gun. Now you're trying to justify the
> silliness that there were 2 shooters in one floor, and shooter(s) in
> another floor. Give it up!
>

First you chastise me for not presenting a logical alternative and when I
do you arbitrarily reject it. The alternative destroys what you choose to
believe so you must reject it. For your explanation to be correct, we
would have to believe that everyone else who saw a single gunman on the
6th floor was wrong. So not only do you have to "correct" Walthers
regarding the floor, you have to "correct" everyone else who said their
was a single gunman on the sixth floor.

>
>
> > two men with a rifle on a lower floor. With the other witnesses there are
> > other possible ways to resolve the conflicts in their stories other than
> > the one you have arbitrarily chosen. But you refuse to consider the other
> > possible ways the witnesses could have been wrong and simply decide that
> > the resolution to conflicts is the one that fits your two men with a rifle
> > on the 6th floor theory. It is completely illogical when faced with
> > multiple possible resolutions to assume one to be true and dismiss all
> > others. Alternative explanations cannot be logically dismissed unless
> > there is evidence to indicate those alternatives are not possible. You
> > have never even attempted to present such evidence. You simply decided
> > what parts the witnesses got right and what parts they got wrong based on
> > what fits with your chosen belief.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've supplied logical proof as to why the change in Walther's
> statement was needed, and you've supplied only a bunch of opinions to
> replace any logic you might have supplied, but failed to supply. Walther
> made a mistake and I corrcted it with logic so that it was right. If
> other people in the street had seen one or more men with guns on the 4th
> floor, I would have to give consideration to your wild speculation, but
> they didn't. There was no one with a gun on other floors. It was the 6th
> floor where a gun was seen by all the witnesses that saw a gun.
>

We agree she was mistaken. We also agree there was a gun on the 6th floor.
Everyone who said there was a gun on the 6th floor said there was one man.
Walthers said two men on a lower floor. So if the other witnesses were
correct, and the physical evidence indicates that they were, she was
either wrong about the floor she saw two men with a gun (your choice) or
she was wrong that the two men she saw on a lower floor had a gun (which
would fit with what the other witnesses who saw a gun said). You
illogically and arbitrarily decide what Walthers mistake was, refusing to
consider other elements she might have been mistaken about which would
also resolve the conflict in her account.

[Anthony Marsh]

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm

CE 2086


Why is it that you WC defenders never have the documents? Only
conspiracy types.
Because you have never read the WC documents.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said "old black man in the nest"?
Cite and quote please.

> dcw
>

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm

CE 2086


Why is it that you WC defenders never have the documents? Only
conspiracy types.

We can look up documents and copy them from the Internet just like you do.
They only serve to prove that Oswald acted alone. All your copying and
pasting the work of others is a huge waste of time.

[mainframetech]

> > opinion, useless here. You see, I even provided logic as to why logic was
> > needed to correct the statement. And there was only one statement that
> > needed correction, so get straight. The statement of Ruby Henderson

> > simply needed figuring out, and no change. We're only speaking of

> > Walthers's statement that I changed, for logical reasons.

>
> You're really sounding desperate now.
>

Or you can't understand logic and need something to keep from responding
intelligently.

> >
> >
> > > which ones they got wrong based on what fits with your predetermined
> > > conclusion. Take for example Walthers belief that she saw two men with a
> > > rifle on a lower floor. You arbitrarily decided that the element she got
> > > wrong was the floor she saw them on. You don't consider the possibility
> > > she saw two men on a lower floor and the part she got wrong was that they
> > > had a rifle. She may have looked up to see Oswald with a rifle on the
> > > sixth floor and either before or after that looked up and saw two men on a
> > > lower floor and simply conflated the two causing her to believe she saw
> >
> >
> > Oh, get away with that crap! You're making it up as you go in your
> > desperation! She saw 2 men with a gun. With the many floors in the
> > building, it's much easier to make a mistake on the floor where the

> > sighting occurred than who had a gun. Now you're trying to justify the

> > silliness that there were 2 shooters in one floor, and shooter(s) in
> > another floor. Give it up!
> >
>
> First you chastise me for not presenting a logical alternative and when I
> do you arbitrarily reject it. The alternative destroys what you choose to
> believe so you must reject it. For your explanation to be correct, we
> would have to believe that everyone else who saw a single gunman on the
> 6th floor was wrong. So not only do you have to "correct" Walthers
> regarding the floor, you have to "correct" everyone else who said their
> was a single gunman on the sixth floor.
>

So you were unable to present any logic to refute mine. Saying you did
does not mean that you did. You once again tried to insult my logic, and
state a 'possibility' of a second set of shooters in the building.
That's not logic, and you have no logic for there to be 2 teams of
shooters in the building, you just refuse to admit that you can't design
any logic and you can't admit that you were wrong about the statement
needing correction. Applying logic should include reasonableness.

> >
> >
> > > two men with a rifle on a lower floor. With the other witnesses there are
> > > other possible ways to resolve the conflicts in their stories other than
> > > the one you have arbitrarily chosen. But you refuse to consider the other
> > > possible ways the witnesses could have been wrong and simply decide that
> > > the resolution to conflicts is the one that fits your two men with a rifle
> > > on the 6th floor theory. It is completely illogical when faced with
> > > multiple possible resolutions to assume one to be true and dismiss all
> > > others. Alternative explanations cannot be logically dismissed unless
> > > there is evidence to indicate those alternatives are not possible. You
> > > have never even attempted to present such evidence. You simply decided
> > > what parts the witnesses got right and what parts they got wrong based on
> > > what fits with your chosen belief.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I've supplied logical proof as to why the change in Walther's
> > statement was needed, and you've supplied only a bunch of opinions to
> > replace any logic you might have supplied, but failed to supply. Walther

> > made a mistake and I corrected it with logic so that it was right. If

> > other people in the street had seen one or more men with guns on the 4th
> > floor, I would have to give consideration to your wild speculation, but
> > they didn't. There was no one with a gun on other floors. It was the 6th
> > floor where a gun was seen by all the witnesses that saw a gun.
> >
>
> We agree she was mistaken. We also agree there was a gun on the 6th floor.
> Everyone who said there was a gun on the 6th floor said there was one man.

WRONG! You don't remove witnesses by putting out an opinion. There
were 3 witnesses to there being 2 men in the 6th floor window. The logic
makes it clear.

> Walthers said two men on a lower floor. So if the other witnesses were
> correct, and the physical evidence indicates that they were, she was
> either wrong about the floor she saw two men with a gun (your choice) or
> she was wrong that the two men she saw on a lower floor had a gun (which
> would fit with what the other witnesses who saw a gun said). You
> illogically and arbitrarily decide what Walthers mistake was, refusing to
> consider other elements she might have been mistaken about which would
> also resolve the conflict in her account.

Stop trying to weasel out of the situation. There is far less reason
to believe that Walther was mistaken about there being a gun, since there
was another witness that said there as a gun. In fact, many witnesses in
the street saw a gun in the 6th floor window. Reason suggests that you
take the obvious match of information and go with that. The overwhelming
amount of sightings of a gun in the 6th floor window makes that what
Walther saw. There's the logic for what she saw.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/19/2016 9:21 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
>
> CE 2086
>
>
> Why is it that you WC defenders never have the documents? Only
> conspiracy types.
>
>
>
> We can look up documents and copy them from the Internet just like you do.

But you don't have the original documents to post. We do. You've never
been to the National Archives or filed an FOIA request. I have.

> They only serve to prove that Oswald acted alone. All your copying and
> pasting the work of others is a huge waste of time.
>

All of you phony attacks are just a way to fill your dull, lonely life.

[claviger]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> that was the black workers and they had no gun.

The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
motorcade.

> So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.

No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
was found on that floor by a police search of the building.

> so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> Chris

Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
batting .000 on this topic.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> > mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> > she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> > that was the black workers and they had no gun.
>
> The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> motorcade.
>
> > So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
>
> No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
>

WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men on the 6th floor, as per her own words.
You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
understand her.

> > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> > 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> > to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> > 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> > Chris
>
> Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
> person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
> described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
> floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
> batting .000 on this topic.

Given the totality of the evidence, it does indeed show that there were
2 men on the 6th floor with a gun. Learn logic or give it up altogether.

Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2016 11:37 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
>> mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
>> she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
>> that was the black workers and they had no gun.
>
> The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> motorcade.
>
>> So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
>
> No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
>

Of course it's obvious. Just as obvious that Euins saw the black men on
the fifth floor, not Oswald. But obvious means absolutely nothing to a
kook. No one ever makes simple mistakes. Everything must be a massive
conspiracy. Like the driver taking the wrong turn at the the assassination
of the Archduke Ferdinand. The driver was hand delivering the Archduke to
the assassins because they couldn't afford a taxi. Likewise Greer couldn't
be old and incompetent. He had to stop the limo, because the shooters were
so incompetent they couldn't hit a moving target. (Hell, Oswald couldn't
even hit a stationary target) So your common sense is worth absolutely
squat here.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:58:16 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> > > mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> > > she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> > > that was the black workers and they had no gun.
> > The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> > 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> > Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> > building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> > motorcade.
> > > So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> > Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> > obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> > was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
> WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men on the 6th floor, as per her own words.

Show us where she said that:
Henderson, Ruby December 6, 1963, FBI report
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2089.htm

> You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> understand her.

You mean use your fractured logic to manipulate her statement to come out
the way you want it too. She never saw a rifle and from her description
she obviously saw the black employees on the 5th floor. Henderson did not
see anyone on the 6th floor, with or without a rifle.

> > > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> > > 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> > > to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> > > 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> > > Chris
> > Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
> > person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
> > described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
> > floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
> > batting .000 on this topic.
> Given the totality of the evidence, it does indeed show that there were
> 2 men on the 6th floor with a gun. Learn logic or give it up altogether.

Learn to quote witnesses accurately. Stop putting words in their mouth
they never said. There is a word for that kind of manipulation. It's
called a "scam".

> Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
> memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.
> Chris

Powell's 15 year late testimony backfired on you. He only saw black
employees on the 5th floor and did not see a white guy with a rifle on the
6th floor. The theory you are trying to put together with paste and
tissue paper just fell apart again.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:50:28 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/22/2016 11:37 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >> Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> >> mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> >> she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> >> that was the black workers and they had no gun.
> >
> > The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> > 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> > Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> > building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> > motorcade.
> >
> >> So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> >
> > No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> > Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> > obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> > was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
> >
>
> Of course it's obvious. Just as obvious that Euins saw the black men

"man" -- Euins never said that he saw more than one person....
dcw

[claviger]

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:58:16 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> > > mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> > > she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> > > that was the black workers and they had no gun.
> > The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> > 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> > Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> > building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> > motorcade.
> > > So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> > Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> > obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> > was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
> WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men on the 6th floor, as per her own words.

Show us her words, not your words.

> You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> understand her.

You keep rewriting a script for these witnesses. It's not working.

> > > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> > > 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> > > to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> > > 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> > > Chris
> > Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
> > person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
> > described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
> > floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
> > batting .000 on this topic.
> Given the totality of the evidence, it does indeed show that there were
> 2 men on the 6th floor with a gun. Learn logic or give it up altogether.

You are using words you don't understand. Logic is based on what
witnesses really said, not a script you write for them to fit your
baseless theory.

> Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
> memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.
> Chris

Powell disqualified himself with the two men "darker than whites" comment.
Those men were employees one floor below.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:57:03 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:58:16 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> > > > mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> > > > she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> > > > that was the black workers and they had no gun.
> > > The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> > > 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> > > Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> > > building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> > > motorcade.
> > > > So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > > No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> > > Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> > > obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> > > was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
> > WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men on the 6th floor, as per her own words.
>
> Show us her words, not your words.
>

See the previous post, but we've been over this before a few times.
Why is it you've forgotten everything again?

> > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > understand her.
>
> You keep rewriting a script for these witnesses. It's not working.
>
> > > > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> > > > 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> > > > to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> > > > 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> > > > Chris
> > > Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
> > > person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
> > > described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
> > > floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
> > > batting .000 on this topic.
> > Given the totality of the evidence, it does indeed show that there were
> > 2 men on the 6th floor with a gun. Learn logic or give it up altogether.
>
> You are using words you don't understand. Logic is based on what
> witnesses really said, not a script you write for them to fit your
> baseless theory.
>

WRONG! Logic is applied to situations and is not inherent in them.
Think it through for a change and try using the logic you say you know,
and you'll have no choice but to come to the same result.
Scientifically, logic is duplicatable. It will come out the same way
every time if you're doing it right. Try it for a change.

> > Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
> > memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.
> > Chris
>
> Powell disqualified himself with the two men "darker than whites" comment.
> Those men were employees one floor below.

Those employees won't do what you want. They didn't have a gun with a
scope on it like the guys on the 6th floor that Powell saw. Which is
corroborated by other statements.


Chris

[mainframetech]

True, but he also saw a rifle sticking out 14 inches from the same
window. Th black men didn't have a gun that we know of.


Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:58:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:58:16 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> > > > mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> > > > she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> > > > that was the black workers and they had no gun.
> > > The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> > > 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> > > Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> > > building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> > > motorcade.
> > > > So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > > No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> > > Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> > > obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> > > was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
> > WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men on the 6th floor, as per her own words.
>
> Show us where she said that:
> Henderson, Ruby December 6, 1963, FBI report
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2089.htm
>

Henderson's exact words from her FBI interview were:

"She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
were on."

From:
http://www.jfk-online.com/henderson.html

Since the black workers were on the 5th floor and some were hanging out
the window, and 2 men we seen in the 6th floor window, the 6th floor was
the highest window with people in it. So she saw the 2 men on the 6th
floor, because there was no one on a higher floor. Simple. Now we've
done this simple operation many times, why is it that you still can't
understand what she said?

> > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > understand her.
>
> You mean use your fractured logic to manipulate her statement to come out
> the way you want it too. She never saw a rifle and from her description
> she obviously saw the black employees on the 5th floor. Henderson did not
> see anyone on the 6th floor, with or without a rifle.
>

If you used some logic yourself you could prove whether my logic was
"fractured" or not. But it seems to be out of your area of expertise.
By saying that there was no one on the 6th floor, you've ignored 2
witnesses and made up your own evidence. That's an error.

> > > > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> > > > 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> > > > to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> > > > 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> > > > Chris
> > > Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
> > > person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
> > > described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
> > > floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
> > > batting .000 on this topic.
> > Given the totality of the evidence, it does indeed show that there were
> > 2 men on the 6th floor with a gun. Learn logic or give it up altogether.
>
> Learn to quote witnesses accurately. Stop putting words in their mouth
> they never said. There is a word for that kind of manipulation. It's
> called a "scam".
>
>
> > Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
> > memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.
> > Chris
>
> Powell's 15 year late testimony backfired on you. He only saw black
> employees on the 5th floor and did not see a white guy with a rifle on the
> 6th floor. The theory you are trying to put together with paste and
> tissue paper just fell apart again.

Now you're trying to tell me what Powell saw, different from his
statement. You're making up evidence as you go along. Give it up. Take
the statements of the witnesses as they are recorded and deal with them.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

But that would be too much like common sense. Not allowed here. The WC
defenders here won't let me get away with saying that Euins saw the 3

black men on the fifth floor, not Oswald.

[Bud]

I thought you didn`t trust FBI interviews.

> "She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
> but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
> were on."
>
> From:
> http://www.jfk-online.com/henderson.html
>
> Since the black workers were on the 5th floor and some were hanging out
> the window, and 2 men we seen in the 6th floor window, the 6th floor was
> the highest window with people in it.

You don`t know when she looked. She didn`t know when she looked.

> So she saw the 2 men on the 6th
> floor, because there was no one on a higher floor. Simple. Now we've
> done this simple operation many times, why is it that you still can't
> understand what she said?

In what meaningful way have you ruled out that she saw people on the
fifth and didn`t see anyone on the sixth?

>
>
> > > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > > understand her.
> >
> > You mean use your fractured logic to manipulate her statement to come out
> > the way you want it too. She never saw a rifle and from her description
> > she obviously saw the black employees on the 5th floor. Henderson did not
> > see anyone on the 6th floor, with or without a rifle.
> >
>
>
> If you used some logic yourself you could prove whether my logic was
> "fractured" or not.

It accepts as fact things that aren`t established as fact. The usual
assumptions and phony figuring that is apparent in everything you write.

> But it seems to be out of your area of expertise.
> By saying that there was no one on the 6th floor, you've ignored 2
> witnesses and made up your own evidence. That's an error.

Henderson may have not seen anyone in the 6th floor when she looked.
That would mean that people on the fifth floor would not have anyone above
them. Think it through.

[claviger]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 7:44:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:57:03 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:58:16 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:26:08 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:07:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > Actually, of the 2 witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun, only one had a
> > > > > mistake as to what floor they were on. And the problem with that is that
> > > > > she said they were on the 4th or 5th floor. It couldn't be the 5th, since
> > > > > that was the black workers and they had no gun.
> > > > The 5th floor is the key dividing line. We know from photos and witnesses
> > > > 3 TSBD employees were on that floor and all three had dark complexion.
> > > > Two of these employees were in the same window on the right side of the
> > > > building under the 6th floor window where LHO fired his rifle at the
> > > > motorcade.
> > > > > So if it were the 4th floor, there was also a report of 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > > > No witness said there were two men in a window on the 6th floor, except
> > > > Powell who said they both had dark complexion. It could not be more
> > > > obvious he's talking about the two employees on the 5th floor and no rifle
> > > > was found on that floor by a police search of the building.
> > > WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men on the 6th floor, as per her own words.
> > Show us her words, not your words.
> See the previous post, but we've been over this before a few times.
> Why is it you've forgotten everything again?

OK,

You like scrambled eggs, I like hard boiled eggs.

Ruby Henderson - FBI Statement 12-5-63
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2089.htm

Please identify the sentence containing her statement as to the following:

A. Show where she saw two men in the 6th floor window.

B. Show where she saw one man in the 6th floor window.

C. Show where she saw a rifle in any window.

Please identify the sentence containing this information using the
following code below.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2089.htm
This FBI document has 5 paragraphs:

P 1 - 4 sentences

P 2 - 10 sentences

P 3 - 2 sentences

P 4 - 2 sentences

P 5 - 2 sentences


This code is very simple:

Example: Paragraph 2, Sentence 8 = P 2.8

I look forward to your answers.

> > > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > > understand her.
> > You keep rewriting a script for these witnesses. It's not working.
> > > > > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on th
> > > > > 4th and 6th floors. That doens't make any sense, so there is only one place
> > > > > to put the 2 shooters, where they had been seen by another witness, on the
> > > > > 6th floor. It's a logical problem, and a logical solution.
> > > > > Chris
> > > > Completely illogical given the totality of evidence. One witness saw no
> > > > person with a rifle on any floor, one witness saw two men with an object
> > > > described as a strange short rifle with no scope or sling on a lower
> > > > floor, and Powell's 15 year old memory was obviously confused. Your are
> > > > batting .000 on this topic.
> > > Given the totality of the evidence, it does indeed show that there were
> > > 2 men on the 6th floor with a gun. Learn logic or give it up altogether.
> > You are using words you don't understand. Logic is based on what
> > witnesses really said, not a script you write for them to fit your
> > baseless theory.
> WRONG! Logic is applied to situations and is not inherent in them.
> Think it through for a change and try using the logic you say you know,
> and you'll have no choice but to come to the same result.
> Scientifically, logic is duplicatable. It will come out the same way
> every time if you're doing it right. Try it for a change.

You would be better off trying to prove there was no one in the 6th floor
window than two men no one else saw, except Johnny Powell who wants us to
believe two dark skinned men in work clothes were fooling with a scope on
a rifle in the 6th floor window. Did they shoot the President then race
down to the 5th floor to blame the PLP in the lunchroom?

> > > Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
> > > memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.
> > > Chris
> > Powell disqualified himself with the two men "darker than whites" comment.
> > Those men were employees one floor below.
> Those employees won't do what you want. They didn't have a gun with a
> scope on it like the guys on the 6th floor that Powell saw. Which is
> corroborated by other statements.
> Chris

Powell is the only witness to see two "darker than whites" employees with
a rifle in the 6th floor window. Walther did nor see that, nor did
Henderson. Rowland saw one black employee in the 6th floor window, but
not holding a rifle. B R Williams testified he ate lunch on the 6th floor
but moved down to the 5th floor before the parade passed by. Three black
employees ended up on the 5th floor. None we know of were on the 6th
floor at the time of the shooting. This is strong evidence Powell got it
wrong, unless you exonerate LHO and blame two black employees. To
consider Powell a good witness you have to accept a hit team of two dark
men killed the President. Powell is LHO's alibi no white guy in the
window where shots were fired from.

[claviger]

Yes, what part of that simple statement did you not understand?

> From:
> http://www.jfk-online.com/henderson.html
>
> Since the black workers were on the 5th floor and some were hanging out
> the window,

Yes, good so far.

> and 2 men we seen in the 6th floor window,

Not by Walther, Henderson, or Rowland. Only Johnny "Hey, I've doubled my
age!" Powell who is all grown up and ready to tell the world "The darker
employees did it!!!"

Don't think so Johnny Tardy, Late-For-The-Party. All black employees were
accounted for on the 5th floor.

> the 6th floor was the highest window with people in it.

According to Rowland yes. He saw two guys on opposite ends of the 6th
floor, but did not see them together. His description was a good fit for
LHO who had the whole floor to himself once Williams joined his friends on
the 5th floor.

> So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor, because there was no one
> on a higher floor. Simple.

She saw no one on a floor higher than the one the black employees were on.
She saw no one with a rifle on ANY floor. Henderson is not a helpful
witness to your bamboozle theory.

> Now we've done this simple operation many times, why is it that you still can't
> understand what she said?

Where does she say "I saw two guys on the 6th floor with a rifle." She
saw nobody above the 5th floor. Doesn't mean there was nobody up there
hiding in a dark corner, just means she did not see them from where she
was standing. We know somebody was up there blasting away with a Carcano.
LHO is the only employee who brought one to work in a curtain rod bag.

> > > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > > understand her.
> > You mean use your fractured logic to manipulate her statement to come out
> > the way you want it too. She never saw a rifle and from her description
> > she obviously saw the black employees on the 5th floor. Henderson did not
> > see anyone on the 6th floor, with or without a rifle.
> If you used some logic yourself you could prove whether my logic was
> "fractured" or not. But it seems to be out of your area of expertise.
> By saying that there was no one on the 6th floor, you've ignored 2
> witnesses and made up your own evidence. That's an error.

When you pick witnesses they are supposed to help your theory not
contradict it. Do you understand that concept? Same thing happened on
the 40+ List. When I finally read it I thought you were playing a
practical joke on us! You never thought anyone would take the time to
read it did you?

I quoted Johnny Powell verbatim. How could you not notice? He's your
star witness! The two black guys did it after they adjusted the scope.
Either that or they handed it to LHO to do the shooting. It's time for
you to latch onto the Loy Factor confession. It's the only hope you have
to put shooters in the TSBD other than LHO.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you actually believe the witnesses?
So if 4 witnesses each saw 2 men with 2 rifles that means to you that
there were 8 men with 8 rifles?

[mainframetech]

Make a note: I'm not going to do your silly test just because you can't
use logic as a tool. Learn logic and we can talk or argue as you like.
Anyone else can understand what I'm trying to get across to you. What
seems to be pour problem with logic that you can't grasp it? The key
statement from Henderson's FBI report was:

"She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
were on."

Since people were seen on the 6th floor (by many witnesses), THAT was
the floor that was the highest floor that men were on. Get it yet?
That's where she saw the 2 men. Now since they were on the 6th floor,
they were NOT the black workers. Simple. And I've not change or
corrected ANY words.

> > > > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > > > understand her.
> > > You keep rewriting a script for these witnesses. It's not working.

I've done ABSOLUTELY no rewriting of what she said. NONE. I simply
explained it for those that just can't grasp it.

LORDEE!! Where is your head? You believe that Oswald was in the 6th
floor window and could be seen by a few witnesses, right? So don't try to
make that window empty then. So now you've got Oswald in the 6th floor
window and 2 men in the 4th floor window. And 3 black workers on the 5th
floor without a gun.

> > > > Deciding based on nothing but your personal desire to delete Powell's
> > > > memory won't work. You're batting foul balls again.
> > > > Chris
> > > Powell disqualified himself with the two men "darker than whites" comment.
> > > Those men were employees one floor below.
> > Those employees won't do what you want. They didn't have a gun with a
> > scope on it like the guys on the 6th floor that Powell saw. Which is
> > corroborated by other statements.

Now you've got it!

>
> Powell is the only witness to see two "darker than whites" employees with
> a rifle in the 6th floor window. Walther did nor see that, nor did
> Henderson. Rowland saw one black employee in the 6th floor window, but
> not holding a rifle. B R Williams testified he ate lunch on the 6th floor
> but moved down to the 5th floor before the parade passed by. Three black
> employees ended up on the 5th floor. None we know of were on the 6th
> floor at the time of the shooting. This is strong evidence Powell got it
> wrong, unless you exonerate LHO and blame two black employees. To
> consider Powell a good witness you have to accept a hit team of two dark
> men killed the President. Powell is LHO's alibi no white guy in the
> window where shots were fired from.

You've gone over the edge. And you've just made up a fantasy beyond
anything I could do. You are completely confused about this, and can't
follow simple logic. Well, I tried.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

So you actually believe the witnesses?
So if 4 witnesses each saw 2 men with 2 rifles that means to you that
there were 8 men with 8 rifles?

Again I ask: Are you really that dense? Because I have a hard time
believing that anyone could be so clueless and still be able to use the
Internet.

[claviger]

Is this question to me or mainframetech? When dealing with witnesses I
always give them the benefit of the doubt, so I first analyze their
observations as legitimate honest witnesses telling the truth as they
perceived it as first impressions. Their observations may not hold up
based on other evidence but the starting point is the initial impression
of what they saw. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes not. The
weight of corroborating evidence is often the deciding factor. Even if
wrong I don't assume they were lying. They could be mistaken on some
details but got most of it right.

It's like taking a test in school. If you get 90% right you make an A in
the class. If you get 80% right you make a B and 70% will get you a
passing grade. So it is with witnesses. Few witnesses get 100% right.
The accumulated witness testimony will often point in the right direction,
but is not perfect. The collective impression may be due to a known
factor such as echoes off hard surfaces. A majority may hear the echoes
not the initial sonic causation.

Witnesses saw the head explode and thought it was an entrance wound
instead of exit wound. They all testified honestly if not accurately.
Only a few bogus witnesses show up later like Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman.
Beverly Oliver, and Walter Rishel who may have been the victim of
practical joke by Lee Bowers. Jean Hill was a legitimate witness but her
imagination got the better of her judgement. She truly believed she saw
things that did not show up in her original statements.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
many people in the street. So there were people in the 6th floor window.
Try and think it through and not jump so quickly. It leads to mistakes.

> Don't think so Johnny Tardy, Late-For-The-Party. All black employees were
> accounted for on the 5th floor.
>
> > the 6th floor was the highest window with people in it.
>
> According to Rowland yes. He saw two guys on opposite ends of the 6th
> floor, but did not see them together. His description was a good fit for
> LHO who had the whole floor to himself once Williams joined his friends on
> the 5th floor.

Thank you for your agreement that there were people (no matter who) in
the 6th floor window. That means that Henderson's statement of the 2 men
being in the highest window that people were in, is the 6th floor. Like I
said. So the 2 men she saw in the 6th floor window, were NOT the black
workers from the 5th floor.

>
> > So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor, because there was no one
> > on a higher floor. Simple.
>
> She saw no one on a floor higher than the one the black employees were on.
> She saw no one with a rifle on ANY floor. Henderson is not a helpful
> witness to your bamboozle theory.
>

LOL! You forgot again that you believe that Oswald was on the 6th
floor in the window seen by people in the street! Making the 6th the
highest floor with people on it, therefore the floor that Henderson saw 2
men on.

> > Now we've done this simple operation many times, why is it that you still can't
> > understand what she said?
>
> Where does she say "I saw two guys on the 6th floor with a rifle." She
> saw nobody above the 5th floor. Doesn't mean there was nobody up there
> hiding in a dark corner, just means she did not see them from where she
> was standing. We know somebody was up there blasting away with a Carcano.
> LHO is the only employee who brought one to work in a curtain rod bag.
>

First you say no one was on the 6th floor, then you say Oswald was
there. Make up your mind. Was Oswald on the 6th floor or not?

>
> > > > You're going to keep having these problems until you learn to use logic to
> > > > understand her.
> > > You mean use your fractured logic to manipulate her statement to come out
> > > the way you want it too. She never saw a rifle and from her description
> > > she obviously saw the black employees on the 5th floor. Henderson did not
> > > see anyone on the 6th floor, with or without a rifle.

> > If you used some logic yourself you could prove whether my logic was
> > "fractured" or not. But it seems to be out of your area of expertise.
> > By saying that there was no one on the 6th floor, you've ignored 2
> > witnesses and made up your own evidence. That's an error.
>
> When you pick witnesses they are supposed to help your theory not
> contradict it. Do you understand that concept? Same thing happened on
> the 40+ List. When I finally read it I thought you were playing a
> practical joke on us! You never thought anyone would take the time to
> read it did you?
>

I expected everyone to read it and learn a good deal from it,
especially that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And that
corroboration of 40+ witnesses proves it.



>
> > > > > > so if we leave the statements as is, we have two teams of shooters on the
> > > > > > 4th and 6th floors. That doesn't make any sense, so there is only one place

Powell said that he saw 2 men that "were darker than whites". Given
the time of day, that could be the result of the sun being overhead and
the men being in shadow. That isn't what you said just above, so you
didn't quote Powell exactly like you said you did. Check it here:

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339748/m1/1/

Chris

[claviger]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
> the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
> many people in the street.

Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
it as a mistake on your part.

> So there were people in the 6th floor window.

You have yet to prove there was more than one person in the 6th floor
window prior to or during the shooting. Even Powell doesn't make that
clear. He only saw two dark men in the 6th floor window prior to the
parade but not during the shooting. So these two dark men could have
handed the rifle to LHO and let him do the shooting since it belonged to
him.

> Try and think it through and not jump so quickly. It leads to mistakes.

Your whole theory on this topic is a big mistake. Just like your bizarre
list of 40+ Witnesses was a big mistake.

> > > the 6th floor was the highest window with people in it.
> > According to Rowland yes. He saw two guys on opposite ends of the 6th
> > floor, but did not see them together. His description was a good fit for
> > LHO who had the whole floor to himself once Williams joined his friends on
> > the 5th floor.
> Thank you for your agreement that there were people (no matter who) in
> the 6th floor window.

Correction: Rowland never said there were two people in the 6th floor
window. The two men he saw were on opposite sides of the building.

> That means that Henderson's statement of the 2 men being in the highest
> window that people were in, is the 6th floor.

The highest floor she noticed had men with dark complexion in the windows.
She did not see them holding a rifle. We know there were 3 employees on
the 5th floor from photographs and police interviews. We know they were
James Jarman, Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams. All had dark
complexion. Williams was lighter than the others and from a distance
might look hispanic. No other dark employees were on the 6th floor. A
thorough search of the building turned up no rifle on the 5th floor. A
rifle belonging to LHO was discovered on the 6th floor. Rowland saw a
white man with a rifle on the 6th floor.

> Like I said. So the 2 men she saw in the 6th floor window, were NOT the black
> workers from the 5th floor.

So you are saying these were the two dark men Powell saw in the 6th floor
window prior to the parade? How did they escape past Truly and Baker?

> > > So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor, because there was no one
> > > on a higher floor. Simple.

Not simple at all. Just more of your twisted logic.

> > She saw no one on a floor higher than the one the black employees were on.
> > She saw no one with a rifle on ANY floor. Henderson is not a helpful
> > witness to your bamboozle theory.
> LOL! You forgot again that you believe that Oswald was on the 6th
> floor in the window seen by people in the street! Making the 6th the
> highest floor with people on it, therefore the floor that Henderson saw 2
> men on.

Not everybody on the street saw LHO in the window even after he stared
firing his rifle at the motorcade. He was only seen by a few people prior
to the parade. The black men on the 5th floor can be verified as
employees with no weapons. Henderson saw no weapon which indicates she
was looking at the 5th floor. If you believe she is a corroborating
witness to Powell, then explain how those two dark men escaped the
building unnoticed. How did they get past Truly and Baker? Williams came
from the 6th floor to the 5th floor just in time for the parade. Why did
he not see these 2 dark men on the 6th floor?

> > > Now we've done this simple operation many times, why is it that you still can't
> > > understand what she said?
> > Where does she say "I saw two guys on the 6th floor with a rifle." She
> > saw nobody above the 5th floor. Doesn't mean there was nobody up there
> > hiding in a dark corner, just means she did not see them from where she
> > was standing. We know somebody was up there blasting away with a Carcano.
> > LHO is the only employee who brought one to work in a curtain rod bag.
> First you say no one was on the 6th floor, then you say Oswald was
> there. Make up your mind. Was Oswald on the 6th floor or not?

Where did I say no one on the 6th floor? Cite please. I've made up my
mind LHO was on the 6th floor in a window on the east side of the building
and fired his milsurp rifle at the passing motorcade.

> > When you pick witnesses they are supposed to help your theory not
> > contradict it. Do you understand that concept? Same thing happened on
> > the 40+ List. When I finally read it I thought you were playing a
> > practical joke on us! You never thought anyone would take the time to
> > read it did you?
> I expected everyone to read it and learn a good deal from it,
> especially that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And that
> corroboration of 40+ witnesses proves it.

That's the strange part. Half those witnesses prove you wrong.

alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo/Di4r-EvA4HsJ

> > I quoted Johnny Powell verbatim. How could you not notice? He's your
> > star witness! The two black guys did it after they adjusted the scope.
> > Either that or they handed it to LHO to do the shooting. It's time for
> > you to latch onto the Loy Factor confession. It's the only hope you have
> > to put shooters in the TSBD other than LHO.
> Powell said that he saw 2 men that "were darker than whites". Given
> the time of day, that could be the result of the sun being overhead and
> the men being in shadow. That isn't what you said just above, so you
> didn't quote Powell exactly like you said you did. Check it here:
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339748/m1/1/
> Chris

Thanks for the link. I've quoted Powell correctly. He is the only
witness you have that put two men in the 6th floor window at the same
time. As usual you can't explain who they are, how they got there, or how
they got away.

Nothing Walther, Henderson, or Rowland said supports your nonsensical
theory.

[mainframetech]

Interesting that you think the head "exploded", but you then think
there was no 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK! Where was the 'large hole'
that was the result of that "explosion"?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/30/2016 8:50 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:11:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/29/2016 8:34 AM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 7:44:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> So you actually believe the witnesses?
>> So if 4 witnesses each saw 2 men with 2 rifles that means to you that
>> there were 8 men with 8 rifles?
>
> Is this question to me or mainframetech? When dealing with witnesses I
> always give them the benefit of the doubt, so I first analyze their
> observations as legitimate honest witnesses telling the truth as they
> perceived it as first impressions. Their observations may not hold up
> based on other evidence but the starting point is the initial impression
> of what they saw. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes not. The
> weight of corroborating evidence is often the deciding factor. Even if
> wrong I don't assume they were lying. They could be mistaken on some
> details but got most of it right.
>
> It's like taking a test in school. If you get 90% right you make an A in
> the class. If you get 80% right you make a B and 70% will get you a
> passing grade. So it is with witnesses. Few witnesses get 100% right.
> The accumulated witness testimony will often point in the right direction,
> but is not perfect. The collective impression may be due to a known
> factor such as echoes off hard surfaces. A majority may hear the echoes
> not the initial sonic causation.
>

Who said that? Your kindergarten teacher? I can see you've never been a
teacher.

> Witnesses saw the head explode and thought it was an entrance wound

I like your explanation better than the kooks, but do you understand
that where the skull fragments come flying out from does not have to be
where the bullet exited? And the bullet does not have to come from the
side opposite where the debris goes. If that were true, you'd need the
bullet to come from below.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. I guess I have to invent an emoji to signal that it's a strawman
argument. Also know as sarcasm. Emoticons do not always show up well on
an ASCII newsgroup.

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

[claviger]

As we can see in the Zapruder film the President is in a position of
tilting his head forward and turning slightly to his left. This is why
the exit wound was on top of the skull and no injury to his face. There
was a small entrance wound on the back of his skull near the cowlick.
All this was confirmed by X-rays, autopsy photos, and visual examination
by a team of pathology doctors. The idea any doctor could patch up a
gaping wound in the lower back of the skull and make a new hole on top of
the skull in 45 minutes without anyone noticing is preposterous.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/mcclelland_wound.jpg

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >
> > WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
> > the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
> > many people in the street.
>
> Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
> prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
> it as a mistake on your part.
>

Don't try to order me to present evidence YOUR way. I've used the
proper way to convince a normal person. You know that if I explained the
evidence YOUR way, it would imply what YOU want it to, and that's
manipulating evidence. I've proved how Walther was mistaken logically,
and logically proved what she meant to say. There is no problem with the
logic, other than you're not able to understand it. I won't sound stupid
for you.

> > So there were people in the 6th floor window.
>
> You have yet to prove there was more than one person in the 6th floor
> window prior to or during the shooting. Even Powell doesn't make that
> clear. He only saw two dark men in the 6th floor window prior to the
> parade but not during the shooting. So these two dark men could have
> handed the rifle to LHO and let him do the shooting since it belonged to
> him.
>

So now you've got THREE people in the 6th floor window. 2 men with a
gun and Oswald receiving that gun at the right time...:) It's going to
get crowded up there. However, I HAVE proved that there were 2 men in
that window at the time of the shooting. The 2 men were seen about the
same time that Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom, 12:15pm. The
problem is your inability to understand simple logic. You think the words
someone says are logic, and they're not. In this case Walther's words
were wrong, and that was proved. That's when you went off into your blue
funk and started talking about double teams of shooters and all sorts of
oddities.

> > Try and think it through and not jump so quickly. It leads to mistakes.
>
> Your whole theory on this topic is a big mistake. Just like your bizarre
> list of 40+ Witnesses was a big mistake.
>

So rather than continue trying to understand the logic of the
witnesses, you decided to stop and begin insulting me. Typical LN. The
insults are more important than the facts.

> > > > the 6th floor was the highest window with people in it.
> > > According to Rowland yes. He saw two guys on opposite ends of the 6th
> > > floor, but did not see them together. His description was a good fit for
> > > LHO who had the whole floor to himself once Williams joined his friends on
> > > the 5th floor.
> > Thank you for your agreement that there were people (no matter who) in
> > the 6th floor window.
>
> Correction: Rowland never said there were two people in the 6th floor
> window. The two men he saw were on opposite sides of the building.
>
> > That means that Henderson's statement of the 2 men being in the highest
> > window that people were in, is the 6th floor.
>
> The highest floor she noticed had men with dark complexion in the windows.
> She did not see them holding a rifle. We know there were 3 employees on
> the 5th floor from photographs and police interviews. We know they were
> James Jarman, Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams. All had dark
> complexion. Williams was lighter than the others and from a distance
> might look hispanic. No other dark employees were on the 6th floor. A
> thorough search of the building turned up no rifle on the 5th floor. A
> rifle belonging to LHO was discovered on the 6th floor. Rowland saw a
> white man with a rifle on the 6th floor.
>

WHOA! What happened to your theory that we should believe exactly what a
witness says? Henderson said that the 2 men were seen by her in the
window of the highest people in a window. That was the 6th floor, as you
just now admitted. Therefore Henderson saw the 2 men in the 6th floor
window.

> > Like I said. So the 2 men she saw in the 6th floor window, were NOT the black
> > workers from the 5th floor.
>
> So you are saying these were the two dark men Powell saw in the 6th floor
> window prior to the parade? How did they escape past Truly and Baker?
>

Did someone tell you they ran past Baker and Truly? I didn't. No one
said that. The 2 men might have been workers in one of the companies that
inhabited the TSBD, or they might have left like Oswald did, and not been
seen by anyone.

> > > > So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor, because there was no one
> > > > on a higher floor. Simple.
>
> Not simple at all. Just more of your twisted logic.
>

The logic is just fine until you are able to use logic to prove its not.

> > > She saw no one on a floor higher than the one the black employees were on.
> > > She saw no one with a rifle on ANY floor. Henderson is not a helpful
> > > witness to your bamboozle theory.
> > LOL! You forgot again that you believe that Oswald was on the 6th
> > floor in the window seen by people in the street! Making the 6th the
> > highest floor with people on it, therefore the floor that Henderson saw 2
> > men on.
>
> Not everybody on the street saw LHO in the window even after he stared
> firing his rifle at the motorcade. He was only seen by a few people prior
> to the parade. The black men on the 5th floor can be verified as
> employees with no weapons. Henderson saw no weapon which indicates she
> was looking at the 5th floor. If you believe she is a corroborating
> witness to Powell, then explain how those two dark men escaped the
> building unnoticed. How did they get past Truly and Baker? Williams came
> from the 6th floor to the 5th floor just in time for the parade. Why did
> he not see these 2 dark men on the 6th floor?
>

Stop running away from the facts. Henderson aw the 2 men on the 6th
floor, the logic is inescapable. Williams left the 6th floor at 12:20 at
the latest. Here's his testimony:

"Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten
the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes
after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.
Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
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."

> > > > Now we've done this simple operation many times, why is it that you still can't
> > > > understand what she said?
> > > Where does she say "I saw two guys on the 6th floor with a rifle." She
> > > saw nobody above the 5th floor. Doesn't mean there was nobody up there
> > > hiding in a dark corner, just means she did not see them from where she
> > > was standing. We know somebody was up there blasting away with a Carcano.
> > > LHO is the only employee who brought one to work in a curtain rod bag.
> > First you say no one was on the 6th floor, then you say Oswald was
> > there. Make up your mind. Was Oswald on the 6th floor or not?
>
> Where did I say no one on the 6th floor? Cite please. I've made up my
> mind LHO was on the 6th floor in a window on the east side of the building
> and fired his milsurp rifle at the passing motorcade.
>
>
> > > When you pick witnesses they are supposed to help your theory not
> > > contradict it. Do you understand that concept? Same thing happened on
> > > the 40+ List. When I finally read it I thought you were playing a
> > > practical joke on us! You never thought anyone would take the time to
> > > read it did you?
> > I expected everyone to read it and learn a good deal from it,
> > especially that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And that
> > corroboration of 40+ witnesses proves it.
>
> That's the strange part. Half those witnesses prove you wrong.
>

As usual, you found a way to misunderstand the information you were
given. I've had to correct your wrong impressions a number of times so
far.

> alt.assassination.jfk ›
> 52 Autopsy Photos
> 27 posts by 6 authors
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo/Di4r-EvA4HsJ
>

Yep, like I said, the witnesses were recorded for their earlier
impressions most times. The false photos and Autopsy Report (AR) would
also make some folks change their impressions later, which was the idea of
having the prosectors falsify the AR, so that folks would change their
impressions. But the list of Over 40+ witnesses remains correct. What
was recorded for the individuals was what they said. So as I've said
before, you're wrong yet again. The list stays as it is, with the one and
only correction I made.

> > > I quoted Johnny Powell verbatim. How could you not notice? He's your
> > > star witness! The two black guys did it after they adjusted the scope.
> > > Either that or they handed it to LHO to do the shooting. It's time for
> > > you to latch onto the Loy Factor confession. It's the only hope you have
> > > to put shooters in the TSBD other than LHO.
> > Powell said that he saw 2 men that "were darker than whites". Given
> > the time of day, that could be the result of the sun being overhead and
> > the men being in shadow. That isn't what you said just above, so you
> > didn't quote Powell exactly like you said you did. Check it here:
> > http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339748/m1/1/
> > Chris
>
> Thanks for the link. I've quoted Powell correctly. He is the only
> witness you have that put two men in the 6th floor window at the same
> time. As usual you can't explain who they are, how they got there, or how
> they got away.
>
> Nothing Walther, Henderson, or Rowland said supports your nonsensical
> theory.

I'm not presenting a theory. I'm presenting what was said by the
witnesses. You are unable to understand simple logic and so you go off
the edge with your wild assertions.


Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The top of the head. Where Bowron packed gauze strips into the massive
hole.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2016 4:06 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>> WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
>>> the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
>>> many people in the street.
>>
>> Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
>> prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
>> it as a mistake on your part.
>>
>
>
> Don't try to order me to present evidence YOUR way. I've used the
> proper way to convince a normal person. You know that if I explained the

If you've devised your arguments to convince a normal person, you're in
the wrong newsgroup.

[mainframetech]

What is preposterous is the foolishness I see here. First of all, the
Z-film was altered and I've supplied the proof of that. Also I've
supplied the corroboration location. The witness said that the Z-film was
altered most at the place on it called Z-313. The exit wound was NOT on
top of the skull. The Entrance was in the right forehead/temple area and
can be seen when the Stare-of-death photo is ENLARGED. that wound carries
through the skull and exits at the right rear of the skull leaving a
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK seen by Over 40+ witnesses.

When the body arrived at Bethesda at about 6:35pm, Humes and Boswell
were seen altering the wounds by expanding them, which is an easy step to
carry out. The expansion was along the right side and a bit of the top of
the head, leaving the wounds looking larger and more on the right side of
the head. There was NO "small entrance wound on the back of his skull
near the cowlick". That has been proven wrong with the autopsy photo of
the back of the head, which can be compared to the Ida Dox drawing to show
the effort to make it look like there was a small wound there. But there
really was a 'large hole' there see by Over 40+ witnesses.

Doesn't anyone with logic ability ask why the descriptions of the head
by the prosectors in their testimony has NO photo to show that 'large
hole' they describe? The photo of th eBOH shows that there was NO 'large
hole;' there, but the prosectors described it clearly in that location.

here's the BOH photo, and if you look along the right side, there's no
'large hole' as described by the prosectors in testimony:

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg

As well, in that same photo there is NO bullet hole as described by the
prosectors, but in the Ida Dox drawing of the exact same photo they put in
the bullet hole, just a clue that you can't trust much of the photo or Dox
evidence in the JFK case:

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_07-aug-20-19-45.jpg

Here's another BOH photo showing NO bullet hole or 'large hole described
by the prosectors in their testimony:

http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab327/bbrown222/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_3.jpg


And here are drawings by witnesses that saw the large hole' in the BOH
and drew it. While the size varies from person to person, the hole is
there:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif

Nutse Audrey Bell:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg

Nurse Diana Bowron:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg

Dr. Crenshaw:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/crenshaw_wound.jpg

Tom Robinson (mortician):
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Saundra Kay Spencer:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679

James Sibert, FBI agent:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719


Don't bother trying to discredit so many witnesses, it can't be done.
They all drew what they saw, and many of them were medically trained.

Only a fool would deny this evidence.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2016 1:04 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:50:08 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you think the head "exploded", but you then think
>> there was no 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK! Where was the 'large hole'
>> that was the result of that "explosion"?
>>
>> Chris
>
> As we can see in the Zapruder film the President is in a position of
> tilting his head forward and turning slightly to his left. This is why
> the exit wound was on top of the skull and no injury to his face. There
> was a small entrance wound on the back of his skull near the cowlick.

Is that what the WC said? See, you aren't really a WC defender. You
throw them under the bus to push a kook theory.

> All this was confirmed by X-rays, autopsy photos, and visual examination
> by a team of pathology doctors. The idea any doctor could patch up a
> gaping wound in the lower back of the skull and make a new hole on top of
> the skull in 45 minutes without anyone noticing is preposterous.
>

Yes, that's an excellent straw man argument. But no one in the real
world said that.

> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/mcclelland_wound.jpg
>
>
>
>

[claviger]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > >
> > > WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
> > > the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
> > > many people in the street.
> > Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
> > prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
> > it as a mistake on your part.
> Don't try to order me to present evidence YOUR way. I've used the
> proper way to convince a normal person. You know that if I explained the
> evidence YOUR way, it would imply what YOU want it to, and that's
> manipulating evidence. I've proved how Walther was mistaken logically,
> and logically proved what she meant to say. There is no problem with the
> logic, other than you're not able to understand it. I won't sound stupid
> for you.

You have no clue what logic is. All you've tried to do is put words in
the mouth of Walther and Henderson as if writing a script for a TV
screenplay to slant your way since the facts don't help you at all.

> > > So there were people in the 6th floor window.
> > You have yet to prove there was more than one person in the 6th floor
> > window prior to or during the shooting. Even Powell doesn't make that
> > clear. He only saw two dark men in the 6th floor window prior to the
> > parade but not during the shooting. So these two dark men could have
> > handed the rifle to LHO and let him do the shooting since it belonged to
> > him.
> So now you've got THREE people in the 6th floor window. 2 men with a
> gun and Oswald receiving that gun at the right time...:)

Well two dark men and a rifle plus the rifle owner makes three. Other
witnesses saw a white guy in that window with a rifle, so the two dark
guys must be standing in the background guarding the door.

> It's going to get crowded up there.

If LHO had two helpers then yes. No witness other than Powell saw two men
in the 6th floor window. Accurate witness statements prove that beyond a
doubt.

> However, I HAVE proved that there were 2 men in that window at the time of the shooting.

You have not. In fact you proved otherwise by your witness selection.

> The 2 men were seen about the same time that Oswald was seen in the
> 2nd floor lunchroom, 12:15pm.

What happened to those two men? How did they escape to the ground floor
without being seen by Truly and Baker? LHO was seen on the second floor
so how did the two dark men make it all the way to the ground floor?
Nobody reported any strangers in the building.

> The problem is your inability to understand simple logic.

Your whole scenario is simply illogical.

> You think the words someone says are logic, and they're not.
> In this case Walther's words were wrong, and that was proved.

No it wasn't. She was very clear she saw no one with a rifle on the 6th
floor. Those are your words you keep trying to sneak in her statements.
She was very clear she did not see anyone with a rifle on the 6th floor.

> That's when you went off into your blue funk and started talking about
> double teams of shooters and all sorts of oddities.

Well if Walther saw two men with a rifle on the 4th floor and Powell saw
two men with a rifle on the 6th floor that makes 2 teams of men with
rifles. Walther describes two different men than Powell and described a
different kind of rifle than Powell. The rifle Walther saw was short with
no scope and no sling. Powell saw a rifle with a scope. There is no way
to put Walther's sighting on the 6th floor unless Powell got it wrong.
If he did there goes your star witness, the only witness to place two men
in the 6th floor window.

> > > Try and think it through and not jump so quickly. It leads to mistakes.

Correcting your mistakes has become a full time job.

> > Your whole theory on this topic is a big mistake. Just like your bizarre
> > list of 40+ Witnesses was a big mistake.
> So rather than continue trying to understand the logic of the
> witnesses, you decided to stop and begin insulting me. Typical LN. The
> insults are more important than the facts.

You can't deal with facts so you invent witness testimony.

> WHOA! What happened to your theory that we should believe exactly what a
> witness says? Henderson said that the 2 men were seen by her in the
> window of the highest people in a window. That was the 6th floor, as you
> just now admitted. Therefore Henderson saw the 2 men in the 6th floor
> window.

This is real simple. Henderson did not see a man with a rifle on any
floor or in any window. Many witnesses saw three black employees on the
5th floor. Henderson is one of those witnesses. Only a few saw the
sniper on the 6th floor. Henderson is not one of those witnesses. She
never mentioned seeing a rifle on any floor. She never mentioned seeing a
white man in the 6th floor window. She never mentioned seeing two men in
the 6th floor window.

If the white guy was not yet positioned in the window on the 6th floor
then she would not have seen him. One reason is where she was standing
looking up at the TSBD. Nowhere can you show a Henderson statement where
she saw a man with a rifle in the 6th floor or anywhere else in the
building. She did not see a man with a rifle in the TSBD that day.

Walther was even more emphatic she did not see a man with a rifle in the
6th floor window. Her description of the rifle she saw was a short rifle
with no scope, which proves she did not see a long rifle with a scope in
the 6th floor window.

You've struck out once again.

> > > Like I said. So the 2 men she saw in the 6th floor window, were NOT the black
> > > workers from the 5th floor.
> > So you are saying these were the two dark men Powell saw in the 6th floor
> > window prior to the parade? How did they escape past Truly and Baker?
> Did someone tell you they ran past Baker and Truly? I didn't. No one
> said that. The 2 men might have been workers in one of the companies that
> inhabited the TSBD, or they might have left like Oswald did, and not been
> seen by anyone.

LHO was seen by 3 people walking towards the ground floor. So how did the
two men walk down the stairs and get past Truly who would know if they were
employees or not?

> > > > > So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor, because there was no one
> > > > > on a higher floor. Simple.
> > Not simple at all. Just more of your twisted logic.
> The logic is just fine until you are able to use logic to prove its not.

Instead of musical chairs you're playing musical floors. Walther made it
clear everything she saw was below the 5th floor. She emphatically denied
she saw anyone on the 6th floor. Henderson described two men on the 5th
floor where one was taller and one was lighter complexion. That is a good
description of Williams and Norman in the 5th floor window.

> > > > She saw no one on a floor higher than the one the black employees were on.
> > > > She saw no one with a rifle on ANY floor. Henderson is not a helpful
> > > > witness to your bamboozle theory.
> > > LOL! You forgot again that you believe that Oswald was on the 6th
> > > floor in the window seen by people in the street! Making the 6th the
> > > highest floor with people on it, therefore the floor that Henderson saw 2
> > > men on.
> > Not everybody on the street saw LHO in the window even after he stared
> > firing his rifle at the motorcade. He was only seen by a few people prior
> > to the parade. The black men on the 5th floor can be verified as
> > employees with no weapons. Henderson saw no weapon which indicates she
> > was looking at the 5th floor. If you believe she is a corroborating
> > witness to Powell, then explain how those two dark men escaped the
> > building unnoticed. How did they get past Truly and Baker? Williams came
> > from the 6th floor to the 5th floor just in time for the parade. Why did
> > he not see these 2 dark men on the 6th floor?
> Stop running away from the facts. Henderson aw the 2 men on the 6th
> floor, the logic is inescapable.

Logic escapes you again. I think you must be allergic to logic or vice
versa.

> > > > When you pick witnesses they are supposed to help your theory not
> > > > contradict it. Do you understand that concept? Same thing happened on
> > > > the 40+ List. When I finally read it I thought you were playing a
> > > > practical joke on us! You never thought anyone would take the time to
> > > > read it did you?
> > > I expected everyone to read it and learn a good deal from it,
> > > especially that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And that
> > > corroboration of 40+ witnesses proves it.
> > That's the strange part. Half those witnesses prove you wrong.
> As usual, you found a way to misunderstand the information you were
> given. I've had to correct your wrong impressions a number of times so
> far.

Yes we can revisit that fiasco again. For me it's like reading a favorite
comic book.

> > alt.assassination.jfk ›
> > 52 Autopsy Photos
> > 27 posts by 6 authors
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo/Di4r-EvA4HsJ
> Yep, like I said, the witnesses were recorded for their earlier
> impressions most times. The false photos and Autopsy Report (AR) would
> also make some folks change their impressions later, which was the idea of
> having the prosectors falsify the AR, so that folks would change their
> impressions. But the list of Over 40+ witnesses remains correct. What
> was recorded for the individuals was what they said. So as I've said
> before, you're wrong yet again. The list stays as it is, with the one and
> only correction I made.

Remember the original list is on the record. Too late to sneak in any
funny business.

> > Nothing Walther, Henderson, or Rowland said supports your nonsensical
> > theory.
> I'm not presenting a theory. I'm presenting what was said by the
> witnesses.

No you're not. You are trying to be a ventriloquist. Silly games you
play when witnesses don't cooperate with your fictional storyline.

> You are unable to understand simple logic and so you go off the edge with
> your wild assertions.
> Chris

Simple logic that you intentionally misquote witnesses. Who do you think
you're fooling? Newbies? Lurkers? Senior members of the Newsgroup got
bored with your shtick a long time ago. Only me and one other member
visit your sandbox on a regular basis to hear your latest fairy tales.
Most are whoppers but a few are somewhat interesting in a peculiar sort of
way.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/2/2016 10:42 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 1:04:08 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:50:08 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting that you think the head "exploded", but you then think
>>> there was no 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK! Where was the 'large hole'
>>> that was the result of that "explosion"?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> As we can see in the Zapruder film the President is in a position of
>> tilting his head forward and turning slightly to his left. This is why
>> the exit wound was on top of the skull and no injury to his face. There
>> was a small entrance wound on the back of his skull near the cowlick.
>> All this was confirmed by X-rays, autopsy photos, and visual examination
>> by a team of pathology doctors. The idea any doctor could patch up a
>> gaping wound in the lower back of the skull and make a new hole on top of
>> the skull in 45 minutes without anyone noticing is preposterous.
>>
>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/mcclelland_wound.jpg
>
>
>
>
> What is preposterous is the foolishness I see here. First of all, the
> Z-film was altered and I've supplied the proof of that. Also I've

No, you haven't. If you really believed that you shouldn't ever be
citing the Zapruder film at all. Maybe you can think that the unaltered
Zapruder film showed JFK turned around looking back at the TSBD.
That would explain the entrance wound in the forehead coming from the TSBD.

> supplied the corroboration location. The witness said that the Z-film was
> altered most at the place on it called Z-313. The exit wound was NOT on
> top of the skull. The Entrance was in the right forehead/temple area and
> can be seen when the Stare-of-death photo is ENLARGED. that wound carries
> through the skull and exits at the right rear of the skull leaving a
> 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK seen by Over 40+ witnesses.
>

The gauze strips were packed into the big hole in the head. We can see
them on the TOP of the head. No hole on the back of the head. So now you
have to claim that all the autopsy photos and X-rays are fake.
That's why you are an alterationist. Because the real evidence makes
your fantasy theories physically impossible.

> When the body arrived at Bethesda at about 6:35pm, Humes and Boswell
> were seen altering the wounds by expanding them, which is an easy step to
> carry out. The expansion was along the right side and a bit of the top of
> the head, leaving the wounds looking larger and more on the right side of

Well, jeez, pay attention for 2 seconds. Autopsy doctors have to extend
the head wound to remove the brain for study.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
> > > > the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
> > > > many people in the street.
> > > Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
> > > prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
> > > it as a mistake on your part.
> > Don't try to order me to present evidence YOUR way. I've used the
> > proper way to convince a normal person. You know that if I explained the
> > evidence YOUR way, it would imply what YOU want it to, and that's
> > manipulating evidence. I've proved how Walther was mistaken logically,
> > and logically proved what she meant to say. There is no problem with the
> > logic, other than you're not able to understand it. I won't sound stupid
> > for you.
>
> You have no clue what logic is. All you've tried to do is put words in
> the mouth of Walther and Henderson as if writing a script for a TV
> screenplay to slant your way since the facts don't help you at all.
>

I used logic in a successful career in programming for 43 years. Can
you come even close to that with YOUR logic experience? No. So don't
try. You have no clue what logic is and yet you pretend you do. A fool's
errand. I have put no words in the mouth of Henderson. Her words wee
just fine...if you can understand them. She needed no change to her
words, and you continue to think she did, which shows your lack of logic
ability.

In the case of Carolyn Walther, I proved logically that she made a
mistake, and you were unable to understand it, so you fall away as anyone
that can comment on my logic to correct Walther's info. You have
discredited yourself.

> > > > So there were people in the 6th floor window.
> > > You have yet to prove there was more than one person in the 6th floor
> > > window prior to or during the shooting. Even Powell doesn't make that
> > > clear. He only saw two dark men in the 6th floor window prior to the
> > > parade but not during the shooting. So these two dark men could have
> > > handed the rifle to LHO and let him do the shooting since it belonged to
> > > him.
> > So now you've got THREE people in the 6th floor window. 2 men with a
> > gun and Oswald receiving that gun at the right time...:)
>
> Well two dark men and a rifle plus the rifle owner makes three. Other
> witnesses saw a white guy in that window with a rifle, so the two dark
> guys must be standing in the background guarding the door.
>

There was no door anywhere near the 6th floor window in question. A
knowledge of logic would save you from those embarrassments.

> > It's going to get crowded up there.
>
> If LHO had two helpers then yes. No witness other than Powell saw two men
> in the 6th floor window. Accurate witness statements prove that beyond a
> doubt.
>

WRONG! Henderson also saw 2 men in that window, but you need to
understand logic to know what she said. And Walther did too, but had to
be corrected before it was logically obvious. Again, a knowledge of logic
is required.

> > However, I HAVE proved that there were 2 men in that window at the time of the shooting.
>
> You have not. In fact you proved otherwise by your witness selection.
>

WRONG! When will you go get training in logic? Correcting you all the
time is irritating when you fail to understand the simplest tools of
deduction.

> > The 2 men were seen about the same time that Oswald was seen in the
> > 2nd floor lunchroom, 12:15pm.
>
> What happened to those two men? How did they escape to the ground floor
> without being seen by Truly and Baker? LHO was seen on the second floor
> so how did the two dark men make it all the way to the ground floor?
> Nobody reported any strangers in the building.
>

Who told you that strangers were the 2 men in the 6th floor window?
Are you going off assuming things again? It's been suggested that Oswald
made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom from the 6th floor window, why can't
the 2 men do the same? And if they were strangers, no one was watching
the door. Anyone could come and go and not be noticed or remembered.
Especially after a 'patsy' had been named. You've got to use logic to
think these things through.

> > The problem is your inability to understand simple logic.
>
> Your whole scenario is simply illogical.
>

There's no scenario! It's simply the statements of witnesses telling
us who was where at the time of the shooting.

> > You think the words someone says are logic, and they're not.
> > In this case Walther's words were wrong, and that was proved.
>
> No it wasn't. She was very clear she saw no one with a rifle on the 6th
> floor. Those are your words you keep trying to sneak in her statements.
> She was very clear she did not see anyone with a rifle on the 6th floor.
>
> > That's when you went off into your blue funk and started talking about
> > double teams of shooters and all sorts of oddities.
>
> Well if Walther saw two men with a rifle on the 4th floor and Powell saw
> two men with a rifle on the 6th floor that makes 2 teams of men with
> rifles. Walther describes two different men than Powell and described a
> different kind of rifle than Powell. The rifle Walther saw was short with
> no scope and no sling. Powell saw a rifle with a scope. There is no way
> to put Walther's sighting on the 6th floor unless Powell got it wrong.
> If he did there goes your star witness, the only witness to place two men
> in the 6th floor window.
>

What blather! Think it through with logic. Walther made it clear
that she had NO knowledge of guns. What she would see would be very
different to what a knowledgeable person would see. As well, she was
shown to have made a mistake as to what floor the 2 men with a gun were
on. Not only was the 5th floor impossible, so was the 4th floor. Your
attempt to pretend that a separate team of shooters was in the building on
the 4th floor was ridiculous and illogical. So, logically, the 2 men with
a gun could only be on the 6th floor, where everyone saw a man with a gun.
NO ONE saw anyone with a gun or without a gun on the 4th floor! Think it
through logically.

>
> > > > Try and think it through and not jump so quickly. It leads to mistakes.
>
> Correcting your mistakes has become a full time job.
>
>
> > > Your whole theory on this topic is a big mistake. Just like your bizarre
> > > list of 40+ Witnesses was a big mistake.

> > So rather than continue trying to understand the logic of the
> > witnesses, you decided to stop and begin insulting me. Typical LN. The
> > insults are more important than the facts.
>
> You can't deal with facts so you invent witness testimony.
>

And here comes more insults, which proves my point. When will you learn?

>
> > WHOA! What happened to your theory that we should believe exactly what a
> > witness says? Henderson said that the 2 men were seen by her in the
> > window of the highest people in a window. That was the 6th floor, as you
> > just now admitted. Therefore Henderson saw the 2 men in the 6th floor
> > window.
>
> This is real simple. Henderson did not see a man with a rifle on any
> floor or in any window. Many witnesses saw three black employees on the
> 5th floor. Henderson is one of those witnesses. Only a few saw the
> sniper on the 6th floor. Henderson is not one of those witnesses. She
> never mentioned seeing a rifle on any floor. She never mentioned seeing a
> white man in the 6th floor window. She never mentioned seeing two men in
> the 6th floor window.
>

As usual, your logic is crazy. You need training in it. Henderson saw
2 men in the 6th floor window as per her statement. She did NOT see men
in the 5th floor window because she said she saw 2 men in the HIGHEST
window that had people in it. That was the 6th floor.

> If the white guy was not yet positioned in the window on the 6th floor
> then she would not have seen him. One reason is where she was standing
> looking up at the TSBD. Nowhere can you show a Henderson statement where
> she saw a man with a rifle in the 6th floor or anywhere else in the
> building. She did not see a man with a rifle in the TSBD that day.
>

OK, now you've got Henderson seeing a white guy in the 6th floor window.
And while true that she did not mention a rifle, she DID mention that the
2 men she saw (not one white guy) were on the highest floor with people in
the window, which was the 6th floor. Henderson did not mention seeing a
rifle. So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor. Simple logic.

> Walther was even more emphatic she did not see a man with a rifle in the
> 6th floor window. Her description of the rifle she saw was a short rifle
> with no scope, which proves she did not see a long rifle with a scope in
> the 6th floor window.
>
> You've struck out once again.
>

No, you lack the understanding of logic to admit your error. Can you
admit that she did NOT see 2 men with a gun on the 5th floor? You've said
yes in the past. So the 5th is out. However, we have to also eliminate
the 4th too, since we have to be realistic here and having 2 teams of
shooters in the building at the same time and probably unaware of each
other is ridiculous and illogical.

>
> > > > Like I said. So the 2 men she saw in the 6th floor window, were NOT the black
> > > > workers from the 5th floor.
> > > So you are saying these were the two dark men Powell saw in the 6th floor
> > > window prior to the parade? How did they escape past Truly and Baker?
> > Did someone tell you they ran past Baker and Truly? I didn't. No one
> > said that. The 2 men might have been workers in one of the companies that
> > inhabited the TSBD, or they might have left like Oswald did, and not been
> > seen by anyone.
>
> LHO was seen by 3 people walking towards the ground floor. So how did the
> two men walk down the stairs and get past Truly who would know if they were
> employees or not?
>

Oswald got past everyone and out of the building. Use logic! You'll
see that others could walk out the same way, and they might be employees
too for all you know.

>
> > > > > > So she saw the 2 men on the 6th floor, because there was no one
> > > > > > on a higher floor. Simple.


> > > Not simple at all. Just more of your twisted logic.

You see "twists" because you don't understand logic. To you, it's
just "twists".

> > The logic is just fine until you are able to use logic to prove its not.
>
> Instead of musical chairs you're playing musical floors. Walther made it
> clear everything she saw was below the 5th floor. She emphatically denied
> she saw anyone on the 6th floor. Henderson described two men on the 5th
> floor where one was taller and one was lighter complexion. That is a good
> description of Williams and Norman in the 5th floor window.
>

WRONG! Walther made it clear that what she saw was on the 4th or the
5th floors. One or the other. Henderson did NOT say anything about the
5th floor. Now that we have we have corrected your statements, we can
work with them logically. Henderson told the truth and needs no
correction, but YOU need some instruction in what she said. Henderson
said she saw the 2 men on the HIGHEST floor that had people on it. The
HIGHEST floor that had people on it was the 6th, which you said yourself.
That means that Henderson saw 2 men on the 6th floor, and not the 5th as
you keep hoping.

The case of Walther has been simplified to the nth degree and yet you
still can't understand the logic, so you'll just have to scroll back to
get the correction to your error there.

> > > > > She saw no one on a floor higher than the one the black employees were on.
> > > > > She saw no one with a rifle on ANY floor. Henderson is not a helpful
> > > > > witness to your bamboozle theory.
> > > > LOL! You forgot again that you believe that Oswald was on the 6th
> > > > floor in the window seen by people in the street! Making the 6th the
> > > > highest floor with people on it, therefore the floor that Henderson saw 2
> > > > men on.
> > > Not everybody on the street saw LHO in the window even after he stared
> > > firing his rifle at the motorcade. He was only seen by a few people prior
> > > to the parade. The black men on the 5th floor can be verified as
> > > employees with no weapons. Henderson saw no weapon which indicates she
> > > was looking at the 5th floor. If you believe she is a corroborating
> > > witness to Powell, then explain how those two dark men escaped the
> > > building unnoticed. How did they get past Truly and Baker? Williams came
> > > from the 6th floor to the 5th floor just in time for the parade. Why did
> > > he not see these 2 dark men on the 6th floor?

> > Stop running away from the facts. Henderson saw the 2 men on the 6th

> > floor, the logic is inescapable.
>
> Logic escapes you again. I think you must be allergic to logic or vice
> versa.
>

Explain yourself with logic and prove your case, so far you haven't
been able to use logic for anything. And yet you keep pretending you
understand it. Otherwise your efforts are in vain.

I agree. What you see is what I put together with the rules that I've
stated with no "funny business". However, I'm interested that you think
only HALF of the list is wrong, which means that you have admitted that at
least 20 witnesses prove there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
This you have just admitted, so it must be right in your mind. 20 is
quite a large number of witnesses that corroborate each other. Time for
you to admit there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK based on witness
statements.

>
> > > Nothing Walther, Henderson, or Rowland said supports your nonsensical
> > > theory.
> > I'm not presenting a theory. I'm presenting what was said by the
> > witnesses.
>
> No you're not. You are trying to be a ventriloquist. Silly games you
> play when witnesses don't cooperate with your fictional storyline.
>
> > You are unable to understand simple logic and so you go off the edge with

> > your wild assertions. Henderson did not need ANY changes to her statement. ONLY Walther was logically wrong.

> > Chris
>
> Simple logic that you intentionally misquote witnesses. Who do you think
> you're fooling? Newbies? Lurkers? Senior members of the Newsgroup got
> bored with your shtick a long time ago. Only me and one other member
> visit your sandbox on a regular basis to hear your latest fairy tales.
> Most are whoppers but a few are somewhat interesting in a peculiar sort of
> way.

I have NOT misquoted ANY witness of the 3 who saw 2 men in the 6th
floor window. Prove your statement or it's more foolishness, and while
you're at it, please also provide the cites and links for the statement
you made the other day that Walter Rischel tried to go on TV to tell his
story. That was requested and as often happens, you failed to provide it,
and probably hoped it would be forgotten. It wasn't forgotten.

Chris

[donald willis]

The ATF guy said the rifle was found on a floor *lower* than the 6th.
And DPD Homicide officers Johnson & Montgomery were on the 6th with the
"nest" from about 1:10 to 2:20, and did not hear anything about the
discovery of a rifle on their floor....

dcw

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
> > > > the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
> > > > many people in the street.
> > > Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
> > > prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
> > > it as a mistake on your part.
> > Don't try to order me to present evidence YOUR way. I've used the
> > proper way to convince a normal person. You know that if I explained the
> > evidence YOUR way, it would imply what YOU want it to, and that's
> > manipulating evidence. I've proved how Walther was mistaken logically,
> > and logically proved what she meant to say. There is no problem with the
> > logic, other than you're not able to understand it. I won't sound stupid
> > for you.
>
> You have no clue what logic is. All you've tried to do is put words in
> the mouth of Walther and Henderson as if writing a script for a TV
> screenplay to slant your way since the facts don't help you at all.
>

Chris should put a disclaimer on his theories.

BASED ON A TRUE STORY.

[mainframetech]

A shame that you have absolutely no interest in correcting the failed
logic ability of Claviger. Obviously your interest is not in finding the
truth about the murder, but to simply harass those that are trying.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:48:42 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> In the case of Carolyn Walther, I proved logically that she made a
> mistake, and you were unable to understand it, so you fall away as anyone
> that can comment on my logic to correct Walther's info. You have
> discredited yourself.
>

Walther may have made a mistake, but it is illogical for you to assume
what part of here account was in error. You leap to the illogical
conclusion that part she got wrong was the part that didn't fit your
theory. When one makes illogical assumptions, one is likely to reach
illogical conclusions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2016 6:48 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:42:46 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG! You seem to have forgotten that Powell and Walther saw 2 men in
>>>>> the 6th floor window, and also you believe that Oswald was seen there by
>>>>> many people in the street.
>>>> Please show us where "Walther saw 2 men in the 6th floor window". Either
>>>> prove this assertion by quoting a verbatim statement by Walther or retract
>>>> it as a mistake on your part.
>>> Don't try to order me to present evidence YOUR way. I've used the
>>> proper way to convince a normal person. You know that if I explained the
>>> evidence YOUR way, it would imply what YOU want it to, and that's
>>> manipulating evidence. I've proved how Walther was mistaken logically,
>>> and logically proved what she meant to say. There is no problem with the
>>> logic, other than you're not able to understand it. I won't sound stupid
>>> for you.
>>
>> You have no clue what logic is. All you've tried to do is put words in
>> the mouth of Walther and Henderson as if writing a script for a TV
>> screenplay to slant your way since the facts don't help you at all.
>>
>
>
> I used logic in a successful career in programming for 43 years. Can
> you come even close to that with YOUR logic experience? No. So don't

Have you ever designed logic circuits for computers?

[mainframetech]

The most logical conclusion to make when Walther said she saw a gunman
on the 4th or 5th floor, is that it was another floor, since the incorrect
part of her statements was the floor. The gunman was seen by others in
the street and 2 men were seen with a gun too, and therefore corroborated
her sighting except for the floor. Try to think it through next time so
as not to embarrass yourself again.

So once the particular wrong part of her statement was isolated, we can
then use logic to determine which floor she meant.

Chris

[claviger]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 11:23:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:23:48 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:48:42 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > In the case of Carolyn Walther, I proved logically that she made a
> > > mistake, and you were unable to understand it, so you fall away as anyone
> > > that can comment on my logic to correct Walther's info. You have
> > > discredited yourself.
> > >
> >
> > Walther may have made a mistake, but it is illogical for you to assume
> > what part of here account was in error. You leap to the illogical
> > conclusion that part she got wrong was the part that didn't fit your
> > theory. When one makes illogical assumptions, one is likely to reach
> > illogical conclusions.
>
> The most logical conclusion to make when Walther said she saw a gunman
> on the 4th or 5th floor, is that it was another floor, since the incorrect
> part of her statements was the floor.

Actually that is the least logical conclusion. Walther worked in the next
block. She had plenty of time to go back and look at the TSBD and discuss
with her friend Pearl Springer who was standing next to her. She was well
aware from newspapers and TV a sniper was on the 6th floor so it would
have been easy for her to simply say she saw the same guy. After 3
interviews she remained consistent the man she saw with a rifle was not on
the 6th floor and the rifle she described was very different from the
Carcano belonging to LHO. A few witnesses on the street saw a man with a
rifle or the rifle barrel in the 6th floor window. None of them reported
two men in that window. Again, Johnny Powell is the only witness to
report seeing two dark men in a window fooling with a scope on a rifle.
His description of what he saw came 15 years too late, which means it is
worthless to the police.

> The gunman was seen by others in the street and 2 men were seen
> with a gun too, and therefore corroborated her sighting except for
> the floor. Try to think it through next time so as not to embarrass
> yourself again.

Try identifying the witnesses you are referring to we can read their sworn
statements to see if you are describing their testimony correctly.

> So once the particular wrong part of her statement was isolated, we can
> then use logic to determine which floor she meant.
> Chris

Nope. You have other elements in her testimony to deal with such as the
description of the rifle she saw. It was shorter than rifles she was
familiar with and had no scope and no sling. So Walther provides 5 details
that eliminate any confusion she was talking about the 6th floor.
1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.
2. Her impression it was a machine gun.
3. The man was holding the gun out the window with both hands.
4. 4th or 5th floor.
5. Window just above the top of that tree.

So this is why she was certain it was not the 6th floor window. Walther
was interviewed 13 days after the shooting. Unless she took vacation for
the next 2 weeks she had several workdays to look at the TSBD again to
remember what she saw. LHO's Carcano was not a machine gun and it had a
scope and a strap attached. No one saw him hold it out the window with
two hands. Of the two floors she identified there were 3 employees on the
5th floor which leaves only the 4th floor available. The 4th floor was
just above "that tree". See how all this works together? The 6th floor
has no connection with the basic elements of Walther's detailed
description.

[Anthony Marsh]

OK. Just don't admit that there was a second rifle.

>> The gunman was seen by others in the street and 2 men were seen
>> with a gun too, and therefore corroborated her sighting except for
>> the floor. Try to think it through next time so as not to embarrass
>> yourself again.
>
> Try identifying the witnesses you are referring to we can read their sworn
> statements to see if you are describing their testimony correctly.
>
>> So once the particular wrong part of her statement was isolated, we can
>> then use logic to determine which floor she meant.
>> Chris
>
> Nope. You have other elements in her testimony to deal with such as the
> description of the rifle she saw. It was shorter than rifles she was
> familiar with and had no scope and no sling. So Walther provides 5 details
> that eliminate any confusion she was talking about the 6th floor.

False logic. Maybe the second rifle was also on the 6th floor.

> 1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.
> 2. Her impression it was a machine gun.

Not that she knows what a machine gun is.

> 3. The man was holding the gun out the window with both hands.
> 4. 4th or 5th floor.
> 5. Window just above the top of that tree.
>
> So this is why she was certain it was not the 6th floor window. Walther

A lot of witnesses were certain that the 6th floor was not the 6th floor.

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual! But it might be interesting to tell us which floor you
think Walther meant that had 2 men with a gun. If you like the 5th floor,
you'll have to work out what the 3 black workers did with the gun. If you
think the 4th floor, then you'll have to accept that there were 2 windows
both of which had 2 men with a gun. When investigating a murder, there is
no such thing as "too late" with evidence. Powell was clear that he saw 2
men with a gun on the 6th floor. Hensderson was also clear in that she
also said the 6th floor when you decode the way she said it. No change
was needed for either of those 2 witnesses. So do you now accept that
there were 2 sets of 2 men, one on the 4th floor, and one on the 6th
floor? Do you want to repeat that silly idea of your about there being 2
teams of shooters unaware of each other firing on the motorcade from 2
different floors of the TSBD?

Or would you like to join the sensible people and realize that seeing 2
men with a gun where 2 other witnesses had seen two men on the 6th floor
was the correction to her mistake? You've got to choose some floor for
the 2 men wit ha gun. What'll it be?

> > The gunman was seen by others in the street and 2 men were seen
> > with a gun too, and therefore corroborated her sighting except for
> > the floor. Try to think it through next time so as not to embarrass
> > yourself again.
>
> Try identifying the witnesses you are referring to we can read their sworn
> statements to see if you are describing their testimony correctly.
>

Don't give me that crap. You know their names by heart by now, since
you've banged away at this fruitlessly for many days. And I've also put
out their statements too. We need your choice of which floor that you
believe Walther meant when she said 4th or 5th. Please respond.

> > So once the particular wrong part of her statement was isolated, we can
> > then use logic to determine which floor she meant.
> > Chris
>
> Nope. You have other elements in her testimony to deal with such as the
> description of the rifle she saw. It was shorter than rifles she was
> familiar with and had no scope and no sling. So Walther provides 5 details
> that eliminate any confusion she was talking about the 6th floor.

You have made yet another error. Walther was clear that she knew
nothing about guns. So she wouldn't necessarily know the right length of
a rifle, or whether it was too short or too long.

> 1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.

It could be too hard for her to tell whether there was a strap on the
rifle.

> 2. Her impression it was a machine gun.

She said she knew nothing about guns, so the type of gun cannot be
trusted to her judgment.

> 3. The man was holding the gun out the window with both hands.

So that's something that others saw. so what?

> 4. 4th or 5th floor.

An obvious mistake, and we haven't had a choice from you as to what
floor YOU like for it to be.

> 5. Window just above the top of that tree.

A quick judgment, seen fro just below the tree, might make it look higher
than it was.


None of your list of stuff is as easy to mistake as which floor the 2
men wit ha gun were on. Please choose the floor you would like it to be
and stop stalling.

>
> So this is why she was certain it was not the 6th floor window. Walther
> was interviewed 13 days after the shooting. Unless she took vacation for
> the next 2 weeks she had several workdays to look at the TSBD again to
> remember what she saw. LHO's Carcano was not a machine gun and it had a
> scope and a strap attached. No one saw him hold it out the window with
> two hands. Of the two floors she identified there were 3 employees on the
> 5th floor which leaves only the 4th floor available. The 4th floor was
> just above "that tree". See how all this works together? The 6th floor
> has no connection with the basic elements of Walther's detailed
> description.

So you finally chose the 4th floor, and by so doing you have now
created a NEW shooting team on the 4th floor, that will be shooting at the
motorcade. Now if you follow me, the 6th floor had 3 shells by it,
suggesting that 3 shots were fired out that window, how many shots do you
think were fired out the 4th floor window, and where do you suppose they
struck in Dealey Plaza? That (of course) means that more than 3 shots
rained down on Dealey Plaza that day.

Chris

[claviger]

Anyone capable of reading plain english can understand Walther presented 2
choices, either the 5th floor or the 4th floor. Here is how detectives
would solve this simple problem. There were 3 employees on the 5th floor.
They did not see a man with a machine gun on the 5th floor. So the man
Walther saw must have been on the 4th floor. See how easy that was?
Like flipping a coin, you only have two choices.

Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.

Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.

Another clue is the rifle she saw on the 4th floor did not have a scope.
Nobody would put a scope on a handheld machine-gun. It would do no good.
She also said the weapon she saw had no strap for a sling.

So let's add up all the clues and see if we come up with a rational
solution:

1. She is talking about midlevel floors 4 and 5.
2. Three employees on the 5th floor, no rifle.
3. The 4th floor is just above a tree.
4. No tree reaches above the 4th floor.
5. No tree anywhere close to 6th floor.
6. Rifle with sling + scope on 6th floor.
7. No machine-gun found on 6th floor.
8. Employees on 5th floor had dark complexion.
9. Man on 4th floor white + blond hair.
10. Powell saw two dark men on 6th floor w/rifle+scope.
11. Only dark men were on 5th floor.
12. Walther saw nobody on 6th floor.

Any detective would be forced to conclude Walther did not see a man with
machine-gun on the 6th floor. If there was a MG Man on the 4th floor he
fired no shots at the motorcade and escaped the building unseen, while the
sniper on the 6th floor was firing 3 shots at the motorcade. There is no
way to put Walther's MG Man on the 6th floor. It's foolish to even try
and she was consistent and unwavering in her several interviews the guy
she saw was on a lower floor.

> When investigating a murder, there is no such thing as "too late" with
> evidence.

There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, so in that
sense you are correct. Detectives place the most reliability on witness
testimony as close as possible to the incident, the sooner the better.
Late blooming witnesses are more suspect and have a tendency to conflate
evidence like Powell obviously did.

> Powell was clear that he saw 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.

No other witness saw two dark complexion men on the 6th floor. No other
witness saw two men on the 6th floor together in the same window.

> Hensderson was also clear in that she also said the 6th floor when you
> decode the way she said it.

You need a new decoder ring from the box of cereal you found the first one
in.

> No change was needed for either of those 2 witnesses.

Correct, their witness testimony is clear and understandable.

> So do you now accept that there were 2 sets of 2 men, one on the 4th floor,
> and one on the 6th floor?

Of course not. The only witness you have is Johnny Powell who conflated
seeing LHO firing his rifle with the two black employees in the window
just below. Had Powell stepped forward sooner he may not have not made
that mistake. No witness saw two dark men in the 6th floor window. No
witness on the street below saw a black sniper in the 6th floor window.
The only person who pushes that idea is Marsh who's been trying to frame
Givens for years.

> Do you want to repeat that silly idea of your about there being 2 teams of
> shooters unaware of each other firing on the motorcade from 2 different
> floors of the TSBD?

Don't need to repeat it. That option came up when both you and Marsh
pointed out there was no security in the TSBD that day. Marsh thinks
multiple snipers got inside the TSBD. With no security that's possible,
if not probable. Only one witness saw 2 men in the 6th floor window.
Only one witness saw 2 men in the 4th floor window. All other witnesses
saw only 1 sniper in the 6th floor window and no other snipers in any
other windows, buildings, or behind a fence.

> Or would you like to join the sensible people and realize that seeing 2
> men with a gun where 2 other witnesses had seen two men on the 6th floor
> was the correction to her mistake? You've got to choose some floor for
> the 2 men wit ha gun. What'll it be?

I'll go with the majority of witnesses who saw 1 sniper in the 6th floor
window and nowhere else.

Also the majority of witnesses who heard 3 shots from the TSBD building.
The clincher is 3 employees on the 5th floor who heard 3 shots from the
floor above.

> > > The gunman was seen by others in the street and 2 men were seen
> > > with a gun too, and therefore corroborated her sighting except for
> > > the floor. Try to think it through next time so as not to embarrass
> > > yourself again.
> > Try identifying the witnesses you are referring to we can read their sworn
> > statements to see if you are describing their testimony correctly.
> Don't give me that crap. You know their names by heart by now, since
> you've banged away at this fruitlessly for many days. And I've also put
> out their statements too. We need your choice of which floor that you
> believe Walther meant when she said 4th or 5th. Please respond.

Since there were 3 employees on the 5th floor I'll go with the 4th floor
where Walther thought she saw a man holding a weapon out the window.

> > > So once the particular wrong part of her statement was isolated, we can
> > > then use logic to determine which floor she meant.
> > > Chris
> > Nope. You have other elements in her testimony to deal with such as the
> > description of the rifle she saw. It was shorter than rifles she was
> > familiar with and had no scope and no sling. So Walther provides 5 details
> > that eliminate any confusion she was talking about the 6th floor.
> You have made yet another error. Walther was clear that she knew
> nothing about guns. So she wouldn't necessarily know the right length of
> a rifle, or whether it was too short or too long.

She was somewhat ambiguous about that. She grew up in North Carolina and
moved to Texas. Both states in the South where hunting is popular with
menfolk and a lot of mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters can handle a
.22 or a shotgun, so I'm sure she knew something about rifles. Machine
Gun Kelly got a lot notoriety in the early 1930s and was well known along
with Bonnie and Clyde. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre got nationwide
attention because of the machine guns used to cut down the victims.

Korean War TV News
1950-1953

Hit Movies:
Stagecoach 1939
Sergeant York 1941
Sands of Iwo Jima 1949
To Hell and Back 1955

1960
Comanche Station
North to Alaska
The Crossing of the Rhine

1961
The Last Sunset
The Comancheros
The Guns of Navarone
The Second Time Around

1962
The Longest Day
Hell is For Heroes
Ride the High Country
The Manchurian Candidate
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence

TV Westerns 1960-63
Rawhide
Cheyenne
Gunsmoke
The Rifleman
Johnny Yuma
Wanted Dead or Alive
Have Gun - Will Travel

WWII TV Series
Combat! 1962

The Texas Theater 11/22/63
Cry of Battle
War is Hell

Carolyn Walther would have plenty of exposure to a variety of weapons seen
on TV and movie theaters.

> > 1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.
> It could be too hard for her to tell whether there was a strap on the
> rifle.

From the 6th floor maybe, the 4th floor was closer to see more details.

> > 2. Her impression it was a machine gun.
> She said she knew nothing about guns, so the type of gun cannot be
> trusted to her judgment.

She knew something about guns from the newspapers, magazines, WWII films,
Hollywood, and TV.

> > 3. The man was holding the gun out the window with both hands.
> So that's something that others saw. so what?

She is the only witness I know of who said that.

> > 4. 4th or 5th floor.
> An obvious mistake, and we haven't had a choice from you as to what
> floor YOU like for it to be.

Like for it to be? Is this a freudian slip? Did you just reveal your
modus operandi?

> > 5. Window just above the top of that tree.
> A quick judgment, seen fro just below the tree, might make it look higher
> than it was.

Not from where she was standing.

> None of your list of stuff is as easy to mistake as which floor the 2
> men wit ha gun were on. Please choose the floor you would like it to be
> and stop stalling.

I would like it to be where the witness said it happened. In this case
nowhere near the 6th floor.

> > So this is why she was certain it was not the 6th floor window. Walther
> > was interviewed 13 days after the shooting. Unless she took vacation for
> > the next 2 weeks she had several workdays to look at the TSBD again to
> > remember what she saw. LHO's Carcano was not a machine gun and it had a
> > scope and a strap attached. No one saw him hold it out the window with
> > two hands. Of the two floors she identified there were 3 employees on the
> > 5th floor which leaves only the 4th floor available. The 4th floor was
> > just above "that tree". See how all this works together? The 6th floor
> > has no connection with the basic elements of Walther's detailed
> > description.
> So you finally chose the 4th floor, and by so doing you have now
> created a NEW shooting team on the 4th floor, that will be shooting at the
> motorcade.

No shots were fired from the 4th floor, at least not according to Walther.
You have to check with Marsh on that, he believes 3 snipers were inside
the TSBD. If Walther really saw a man with a machine-gun on the 4th floor
he obviously lost his nerve or changed his mind when he saw the wives in
the Limousine.

> Now if you follow me, the 6th floor had 3 shells by it, suggesting that 3 shots

> were fired out that window, . . .

SFSG.

> . . . how many shots do you think were fired out the 4th floor window, and where

> do you suppose they struck in Dealey Plaza?

I think no shots were fired out the window on the 4th floor and therefore
none struck anywhere in Dealey Plaza.

> That (of course) means that more than 3 shots
> rained down on Dealey Plaza that day.
> Chris

I don't believe in rain bullets either. There might be one witness who
does. Was that guy in the crowd holding a bulletproof umbrella?

[claviger]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 7:31:21 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

typo correction:

Of course not. The only witness you have is Johnny Powell who conflated
seeing LHO firing his rifle with the two black employees in the window

just below. Had Powell stepped forward sooner he may not have made that

[mainframetech]

Well, that was one of the choices I gave you above. So now you've
decided that there were 2 men in the 6th floor window with a gun, and 2
men in the 4th floor window with a gun. Sounds stupid to me, but that's
the way you wanted it. And since these 2 sets of men in the windows with
guns were there obviously to shoot at the POTUS, that would explain the
many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. And the many shots fired
toward JFK. Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men
had? Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?

> Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
> floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
> Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.
>

Well now, if you were at street level the tree might look a lot higher
if you were looking up past the top of the tree to the 6th floor window.
The closer to the tree, the higher the top of the tree would look.

> Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
> She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
> a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.
>

Logically, Walther made a mistake of which floor she saw the men with a
gun. But you decided to settle on the 4th floor, which then left us with
2 sets of men with a gun on the 6th and the 4th floors. You have refused
to allow for an error in Walthers' guess.

> Another clue is the rifle she saw on the 4th floor did not have a scope.
> Nobody would put a scope on a handheld machine-gun. It would do no good.
> She also said the weapon she saw had no strap for a sling.
>

Whether there was a scope or not Walther wouldn't know. She made it
clear she knew nothing about guns. So it didn't have to be a
"machine-gun" either.

> So let's add up all the clues and see if we come up with a rational
> solution:
>
> 1. She is talking about midlevel floors 4 and 5.

An obvious error, but for argument's sake, you've picked the 4th floor.

> 2. Three employees on the 5th floor, no rifle.

One point of agreement.

> 3. The 4th floor is just above a tree.

Not necessarily. Depending on the closeness to the tree, it may appear
higher.

> 4. No tree reaches above the 4th floor.

See above.

> 5. No tree anywhere close to 6th floor.

See above.

> 6. Rifle with sling + scope on 6th floor.

Unclear, since Walther didn't see a sling, but she knew nothing about
guns.

> 7. No machine-gun found on 6th floor.

See above.

> 8. Employees on 5th floor had dark complexion.

3 black employees did not have a gun. The 5th floor is out.

> 9. Man on 4th floor white + blond hair.

WRONG! Walther said "light" 'maybe brown hair".

> 10. Powell saw two dark men on 6th floor w/rifle+scope.
> 11. Only dark men were on 5th floor.
> 12. Walther saw nobody on 6th floor.
>

Witnesses saw 2 men on the 6th floor in the window, and one of them
saw them with a gun.

> Any detective would be forced to conclude Walther did not see a man with
> machine-gun on the 6th floor. If there was a MG Man on the 4th floor he
> fired no shots at the motorcade and escaped the building unseen, while the
> sniper on the 6th floor was firing 3 shots at the motorcade. There is no
> way to put Walther's MG Man on the 6th floor. It's foolish to even try
> and she was consistent and unwavering in her several interviews the guy
> she saw was on a lower floor.
>

That's an illogical presentation. No detective would be forced to
conclude that Walther saw no one on the 6th floor. Since 2 people (at
least) saw 2 men on the 6th floor, so that's ridiculous. Detectives would
conclude that Walther was in error and meant the 6th floor where everyone
saw men with a gun. The many people in the street saw a man with a gun,
and it was in the 6th floor window as well. It is simply not logical to
assume that Walther was the single only person that saw men in the 4th
floor window with a gun, and that that person never fired a shot. Which
couldn't be determined anyway.

> > When investigating a murder, there is no such thing as "too late" with
> > evidence.
>
> There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, so in that
> sense you are correct. Detectives place the most reliability on witness
> testimony as close as possible to the incident, the sooner the better.
> Late blooming witnesses are more suspect and have a tendency to conflate
> evidence like Powell obviously did.
>
> > Powell was clear that he saw 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
>

There was no conflation, since his sighting matched the others. He was
corroborated. Be as suspicious as you like, I've given you a possible
reasons for Powell to keep the info to himself for a good while. There
were also other people in this case that also kept info to themselves for
fear of retribution.

> No other witness saw two dark complexion men on the 6th floor. No other
> witness saw two men on the 6th floor together in the same window.
>

ALL other witnesses that saw 2 men saw them together, meaning they were
in the same window.



Walther for instance state that the first man was in the window and the
second man was "standing to his right".

> > Hensderson was also clear in that she also said the 6th floor when you
> > decode the way she said it.
>
> You need a new decoder ring from the box of cereal you found the first one
> in.
>

So you admit that you can't figure out the logic of Henderson's remark.

> > No change was needed for either of those 2 witnesses.
>
> Correct, their witness testimony is clear and understandable.
>
> > So do you now accept that there were 2 sets of 2 men, one on the 4th floor,
> > and one on the 6th floor?
>
> Of course not. The only witness you have is Johnny Powell who conflated
> seeing LHO firing his rifle with the two black employees in the window
> just below. Had Powell stepped forward sooner he may not have not made
> that mistake. No witness saw two dark men in the 6th floor window. No
> witness on the street below saw a black sniper in the 6th floor window.
> The only person who pushes that idea is Marsh who's been trying to frame
> Givens for years.
>

WRONG! You're in error again! Powell's statements are just as surely
made as anyone else's. And no one saw a "black sniper". Plenty of people
saw a man in the 6th floor window with a gun though. And none except
Walther saw someone on the 4th floor. so that's crap and is changed to
the 6th floor where everyone saw a man with a gun.

> > Do you want to repeat that silly idea of your about there being 2 teams of
> > shooters unaware of each other firing on the motorcade from 2 different
> > floors of the TSBD?
>
> Don't need to repeat it. That option came up when both you and Marsh
> pointed out there was no security in the TSBD that day. Marsh thinks
> multiple snipers got inside the TSBD. With no security that's possible,
> if not probable. Only one witness saw 2 men in the 6th floor window.
> Only one witness saw 2 men in the 4th floor window. All other witnesses
> saw only 1 sniper in the 6th floor window and no other snipers in any
> other windows, buildings, or behind a fence.
>

WRONG! 3 witnesses saw 2 men in the 6th floor window, you just don't
want to admit it after fighting about it for so long. And we haven't
determined how the shooter got into the building, and up to the 6th floor
window.

>
> > Or would you like to join the sensible people and realize that seeing 2
> > men with a gun where 2 other witnesses had seen two men on the 6th floor
> > was the correction to her mistake? You've got to choose some floor for

> > the 2 men witha gun. What'll it be?

>
> I'll go with the majority of witnesses who saw 1 sniper in the 6th floor
> window and nowhere else.
>

So all the witnesses that saw 2 men in the 6th floor window are now
out? You've changed your mind? You had 2 men in the 6th floor windows
and 2 men in the 4th floor windows, both sets of men with a gun. Make up
your mind.

> Also the majority of witnesses who heard 3 shots from the TSBD building.
> The clincher is 3 employees on the 5th floor who heard 3 shots from the
> floor above.
>

Hearing can be manipulated with silencers as an example. Also by
firing a gun back in a room out the window, it can cover a lot of the
noise.

She says she knows "nothing" about guns, and you decided that she does.
Get off it. You're so busy taking her word exactly for the 4th floor, but
when she says something about a gun that doesn't fit your theory, you say
she knows better! Try consistency.

So to avoid taking the word of a witness, you're listing a bunch of old
westerns as proof that she knew about guns? What's wrong with you? You
have no idea whether she even watched TV or goes to the movies, or if she
dislikes westerns and war movies. She said she knew "nothing" about guns.

>
> > > 1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.
> > It could be too hard for her to tell whether there was a strap on the
> > rifle.
>
> From the 6th floor maybe, the 4th floor was closer to see more details.
>

Naah!

>
> > > 2. Her impression it was a machine gun.
> > She said she knew nothing about guns, so the type of gun cannot be
> > trusted to her judgment.
>
> She knew something about guns from the newspapers, magazines, WWII films,
> Hollywood, and TV.
>

Where said she knew "nothing" about guns.

>
> > > 3. The man was holding the gun out the window with both hands.
> > So that's something that others saw. so what?
>
> She is the only witness I know of who said that.
>
> > > 4. 4th or 5th floor.
> > An obvious mistake, and we haven't had a choice from you as to what
> > floor YOU like for it to be.
>
> Like for it to be? Is this a freudian slip? Did you just reveal your
> modus operandi?
>
> > > 5. Window just above the top of that tree.

> > A quick judgment, seen from just below the tree, might make it look higher

> > than it was.
>
> Not from where she was standing.
>
> > None of your list of stuff is as easy to mistake as which floor the 2

> > men with a gun were on. Please choose the floor you would like it to be

> > and stop stalling.
>
> I would like it to be where the witness said it happened. In this case
> nowhere near the 6th floor.
>
> > > So this is why she was certain it was not the 6th floor window. Walther
> > > was interviewed 13 days after the shooting. Unless she took vacation for
> > > the next 2 weeks she had several workdays to look at the TSBD again to
> > > remember what she saw. LHO's Carcano was not a machine gun and it had a
> > > scope and a strap attached. No one saw him hold it out the window with
> > > two hands. Of the two floors she identified there were 3 employees on the
> > > 5th floor which leaves only the 4th floor available. The 4th floor was
> > > just above "that tree". See how all this works together? The 6th floor
> > > has no connection with the basic elements of Walther's detailed
> > > description.

See above.

> > So you finally chose the 4th floor, and by so doing you have now
> > created a NEW shooting team on the 4th floor, that will be shooting at the
> > motorcade.
>



> No shots were fired from the 4th floor, at least not according to Walther.
> You have to check with Marsh on that, he believes 3 snipers were inside
> the TSBD. If Walther really saw a man with a machine-gun on the 4th floor
> he obviously lost his nerve or changed his mind when he saw the wives in
> the Limousine.
>

I have no discussions with Marsh at any time. See above for my reply.

> > Now if you follow me, the 6th floor had 3 shells by it, suggesting that 3 shots
> > were fired out that window, . . .
>
> SFSG.
>
> > . . . how many shots do you think were fired out the 4th floor window, and where
> > do you suppose they struck in Dealey Plaza?
>
> I think no shots were fired out the window on the 4th floor and therefore
> none struck anywhere in Dealey Plaza.
>

How in the world did you determine that NO shots were fired out the
4th floor window? Remember, you've placed 2 men with a gun there. Why
would they have been there and not fired a shot? Your story is getting
stranger and stranger.

> > That (of course) means that more than 3 shots
> > rained down on Dealey Plaza that day.
> > Chris
>
> I don't believe in rain bullets either. There might be one witness who
> does. Was that guy in the crowd holding a bulletproof umbrella?

Apparently you have no way of knowing that info, and have simply made
it up.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The Fallacy of False Choices. Could be both. Or neither.

>
>
>> Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
>> floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
>> Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.
>>
>
>
> Well now, if you were at street level the tree might look a lot higher
> if you were looking up past the top of the tree to the 6th floor window.
> The closer to the tree, the higher the top of the tree would look.
>
>
>
>> Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
>> She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
>> a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.
>>
>
>
> Logically, Walther made a mistake of which floor she saw the men with a
> gun. But you decided to settle on the 4th floor, which then left us with
> 2 sets of men with a gun on the 6th and the 4th floors. You have refused
> to allow for an error in Walthers' guess.
>

Almost all the witnesses got the floors wrong.

Babble, Babble, Toil and Trouble.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. I am just making fun of your pollyanna theories.

[mainframetech]

You have no proof of any conflation that Powell might have done. He
came out with a straight story of seeing something at the same exact floor
that he was on in the jail. Too easy to get right. Nor did he mention
black shooters. With the light the right way the 2 men might have been
standing in a darker area out of the sun when seen.

Chris

[claviger]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

> > Anyone capable of reading plain english can understand Walther presented 2
> > choices, either the 5th floor or the 4th floor. Here is how detectives
> > would solve this simple problem. There were 3 employees on the 5th floor.
> > They did not see a man with a machine gun on the 5th floor. So the man
> > Walther saw must have been on the 4th floor. See how easy that was?
> > Like flipping a coin, you only have two choices.
> Well, that was one of the choices I gave you above. So now you've
> decided that there were 2 men in the 6th floor window with a gun, and 2
> men in the 4th floor window with a gun. Sounds stupid to me, but that's
> the way you wanted it.

It was an comment you made that opened the door to this possibility plus
Marsh's long held belief multiple snipers were inside the TSBD. Both of
you mentioned there was no security at the TSBD so anyone could have
walked in and found a window to ambush the motorcade. So if you believe
that then it is possible two sets of snipers took advantage of the
situation and infiltrated the TSBD. Why would Walther's observation be
any less valid than Powell? In fact her observations were reported 13
days later as opposed to 15 years later in the case of Powell, so Walther
should have more credibility for that reason alone.

> And since these 2 sets of men in the windows with guns were there obviously to
> shoot at the POTUS, that would explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza
> that day.

If they all fired their weapons that would be true. No evidence the man
she observed on the 4th floor actually fired the weapon he was holding.

> And the many shots fired toward JFK.

At most 3-4 shots.

> Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?

Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.

> Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?

No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
Carcano rifles to frame LHO.

> > Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
> > floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
> > Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.
> Well now, if you were at street level the tree might look a lot higher
> if you were looking up past the top of the tree to the 6th floor window.
> The closer to the tree, the higher the top of the tree would look.

You've tried this excuse before. Walther and Springer were standing on
Houston St looking west toward the TSBD. They were not under the tree
looking up, instead they had a side view of the trees compared to the
building. So nice try, but no cigar.

> > Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
> > She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
> > a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.
> Logically, Walther made a mistake of which floor she saw the men with a
> gun.

She narrowed it down to the 4th and 5th floors. Of that she was sure.

> But you decided to settle on the 4th floor, which then left us with 2 sets of men
> with a gun on the 6th and the 4th floors.

It was a binary choice. If the 5th floor is eliminated that leaves only
the 4th floor.

> You have refused to allow for an error in Walthers' guess.

She narrowed the universal set from 7 to only 2 subsets, so it was a
binary x 2 solution.

> > Another clue is the rifle she saw on the 4th floor did not have a scope.
> > Nobody would put a scope on a handheld machine-gun. It would do no good.
> > She also said the weapon she saw had no strap for a sling.>
> Whether there was a scope or not Walther wouldn't know.

From the 4th floor she could tell if the weapon had a scope or not. A few
witnesses noticed the scope on the 6th floor.

> She made it clear she knew nothing about guns.

She made it clear she knew the difference between a rifle and machine-gun.
Walther even describes why she thought it was a machine-gun not a rifle.

> So it didn't have to be a "machine-gun" either.

Yes, it could have been an M1 Carbine which would actually make more sense.

> > So let's add up all the clues and see if we come up with a rational
> > solution:
> > 1. She is talking about midlevel floors 4 and 5.
> An obvious error, but for argument's sake, you've picked the 4th floor.

Logic has narrowed it down to the 4th floor as explained above.

> > 2. Three employees on the 5th floor, no rifle.
> One point of agreement.
> > 3. The 4th floor is just above a tree.
> Not necessarily. Depending on the closeness to the tree, it may appear
> higher.

The lateral angle Walther viewed the relative position of the tree to the
building mitigates that issue.

> > 4. No tree reaches above the 4th floor.
> See above.

She would have to be standing close to the tree to have that kind of
distortion. Walther was across Houston St and had a much better view.

> > 5. No tree anywhere close to 6th floor.
> See above.

From any position anyone with normal eyesight and normal intelligence can
tell no tree grows as tall as the 6th floor.

> > 6. Rifle with sling + scope on 6th floor.
> Unclear, since Walther didn't see a sling, but she knew nothing about
> guns.

She obviously knew about scopes and slings or why would she mention the
absence of both? Walther no doubt watched TV, read the newspaper, and
discussed with fellow employees this shooting incident. She got a crash
course in rifle terminology by the media for almost 2 weeks before she was
interviewed by the FBI. By then she knew what a scope and sling were and
probably saw this photo in that timeframe:

http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/35/35/3535fd35-2fb0-4cd6-b710-afc60adcf422/be025673.jpg

> > 7. No machine-gun found on 6th floor

> See above.
> > 8. Employees on 5th floor had dark complexion.
> 3 black employees did not have a gun. The 5th floor is out.

Correct.

> > 9. Man on 4th floor white + blond hair.
> WRONG! Walther said "light" 'maybe brown hair".

OK, a white guy with light brown hair.

> > 10. Powell saw two dark men on 6th floor w/rifle+scope.
> > 11. Only dark men were on 5th floor.
> > 12. Walther saw nobody on 6th floor.
> Witnesses saw 2 men on the 6th floor in the window, and one of them
> saw them with a gun.

Only one witness saw 2 dark men in the 6th floor window fooling with a
scope on a rifle. No other witness corroborates that sighting.

> > Any detective would be forced to conclude Walther did not see a man with
> > machine-gun on the 6th floor. If there was a MG Man on the 4th floor he
> > fired no shots at the motorcade and escaped the building unseen, while the
> > sniper on the 6th floor was firing 3 shots at the motorcade. There is no
> > way to put Walther's MG Man on the 6th floor. It's foolish to even try
> > and she was consistent and unwavering in her several interviews the guy
> > she saw was on a lower floor.
> That's an illogical presentation. No detective would be forced to
> conclude that Walther saw no one on the 6th floor.

If the detective is doing a fact based investigation using witness
testimony he would be forced to accept all evidence in a wholistic process
and would soon realize there is nothing in her testimony that indicates
she was talking about the 6th floor. Detectives are not allowed to
fantasize like you do. They have to deal with reality.

> Since 2 people (at least) saw 2 men on the 6th floor, so that's ridiculous.

I'm only aware of one witness who claims to have seen two men with dark
complexion fooling with a rifle in the 6th floor window. I know of no
other witness who claimed to see two men in that window. Cite please for
any other witness who saw two men with a rifle in the 6th floor window.

> Detectives would conclude that Walther was in error and meant the 6th floor where
> everyone saw men with a gun.

Everyone? That's a lot of people!

> The many people in the street saw a man with a gun, and it was in the 6th floor
> window as well.

I'm only aware of 8-10 people who saw a man with a rifle or a rifle barrel
in that window. None of those witness saw two men with a rifle.

> It is simply not logical to assume that Walther was the single only person that
> saw men in the 4th floor window with a gun, and that that person never fired
> a shot.

I find it hard to believe Walther was the only person who saw that
situation on a lower floor closer to the street. I guess it's possible if
the guy was only there for a minute or two. As for not firing a shot,
sounds like the guy chickened out or changed his mind when he saw wives in
the car.

> Which couldn't be determined anyway.

What couldn't be determined?

> > > When investigating a murder, there is no such thing as "too late" with
> > > evidence.
> > There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, so in that
> > sense you are correct. Detectives place the most reliability on witness
> > testimony as close as possible to the incident, the sooner the better.
> > Late blooming witnesses are more suspect and have a tendency to conflate
> > evidence like Powell obviously did.
> > > Powell was clear that he saw 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> There was no conflation, since his sighting matched the others.

What others? Cite please.

> He was corroborated.

By whom?

> Be as suspicious as you like, I've given you a possible reasons for Powell to
> keep the info to himself for a good while.

The other inmates would beat him up theory? He was only in jail for 3
days for a misdemeanor. Who would care about him?

> There were also other people in this case that also kept info to themselves for
> fear of retribution.

Who were they? Do you have a complete list?

> > No other witness saw two dark complexion men on the 6th floor. No other
> > witness saw two men on the 6th floor together in the same window.
> ALL other witnesses that saw 2 men saw them together, meaning they were
> in the same window.

Can you name all other witnesses or any other witnesses who saw that?

> Walther for instance state that the first man was in the window and the
> second man was "standing to his right".

Yes on the 4th floor.

> > > Hensderson was also clear in that she also said the 6th floor when you
> > > decode the way she said it.
> > You need a new decoder ring from the box of cereal you found the first one
> > in.
> So you admit that you can't figure out the logic of Henderson's remark.

Yes, she saw nobody above the 5th floor. That is patently obvious.

> > > No change was needed for either of those 2 witnesses.
> > Correct, their witness testimony is clear and understandable.
> > > So do you now accept that there were 2 sets of 2 men, one on the 4th floor,
> > > and one on the 6th floor?
> > Of course not. The only witness you have is Johnny Powell who conflated
> > seeing LHO firing his rifle with the two black employees in the window
> > just below. Had Powell stepped forward sooner he may not have not made
> > that mistake. No witness saw two dark men in the 6th floor window. No
> > witness on the street below saw a black sniper in the 6th floor window.
> > The only person who pushes that idea is Marsh who's been trying to frame
> > Givens for years.
> WRONG! You're in error again! Powell's statements are just as surely
> made as anyone else's.

!5 years is a long time, but even if 15 days ago or 15 minutes ago he got
it wrong. No one else saw two black workers in the 6th floor window at
the time shots were fired. Many people saw two black employees in the 5th
floor window just below.

> And no one saw a "black sniper".

Powell mentioned two dark men with a rifle. He doesn't mention a white
guy so now you're suggesting there were 3 guys in that window? It's
getting crowded in the sniper's nest.

> Plenty of people saw a man in the 6th floor window with a gun though.

How many?

> And none except Walther saw someone on the 4th floor. so that's crap and is
> changed to the 6th floor where everyone saw a man with a gun.

So you just changed crap and moved it to the 6th floor. I cannot state it
any better than that. Well done.

> > > Do you want to repeat that silly idea of your about there being 2 teams of
> > > shooters unaware of each other firing on the motorcade from 2 different
> > > floors of the TSBD?
> > Don't need to repeat it. That option came up when both you and Marsh
> > pointed out there was no security in the TSBD that day. Marsh thinks
> > multiple snipers got inside the TSBD. With no security that's possible,
> > if not probable. Only one witness saw 2 men in the 6th floor window.
> > Only one witness saw 2 men in the 4th floor window. All other witnesses
> > saw only 1 sniper in the 6th floor window and no other snipers in any
> > other windows, buildings, or behind a fence.
> WRONG! 3 witnesses saw 2 men in the 6th floor window, you just don't
> want to admit it after fighting about it for so long.

OK, one more time. Who are those 3 witnesses? I know Johnny "Come
Lately" Powell. Who are the other two? The facts and accurate testimony
have eliminated Walther and Henderson. Who are the other two?

> And we haven't determined how the shooter got into the building, and up to
> the 6th floor window.

You are the one who said it would be easy for anyone off the street to do
that.

> > > Or would you like to join the sensible people and realize that seeing 2
> > > men with a gun where 2 other witnesses had seen two men on the 6th floor
> > > was the correction to her mistake? You've got to choose some floor for
> > > the 2 men witha gun. What'll it be?
> > I'll go with the majority of witnesses who saw 1 sniper in the 6th floor
> > window and nowhere else.
> So all the witnesses that saw 2 men in the 6th floor window are now
> out?

I don't trust Powell's memory or his motive after 15 years, so the answer
is yes.

> You've changed your mind?

No.

> You had 2 men in the 6th floor windows and 2 men in the 4th floor windows, both sets
> of men with a gun.

No I have two witnesses, one who claimed to see two men in the 4th floor
window and one in the 6th floor window with a gun. Neither witness has
any corroboration from any other witness in Dealey Plaza. Powell
obviously got mixed up, as for Walther I don't know what to think. Maybe
she watched some guy doing a prank or what she thought was a machine-gun
was some kind of tool or maybe BBGun as a joke.

> Make up your mind.

I have. Powell is a bogus witness, not sure about Walther.

> > Also the majority of witnesses who heard 3 shots from the TSBD building.
> > The clincher is 3 employees on the 5th floor who heard 3 shots from the
> > floor above.
> Hearing can be manipulated with silencers as an example. Also by
> firing a gun back in a room out the window, it can cover a lot of the
> noise.

The two witnesses claim the weapons were at the window. How would either
one shoot a target down on Elm Street from the back of the room?

> > > You have made yet another error. Walther was clear that she knew
> > > nothing about guns. So she wouldn't necessarily know the right length of
> > > a rifle, or whether it was too short or too long.
> > She was somewhat ambiguous about that. She grew up in North Carolina and
> > moved to Texas. Both states in the South where hunting is popular with
> > menfolk and a lot of mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters can handle a
> > .22 or a shotgun, so I'm sure she knew something about rifles. Machine
> > Gun Kelly got a lot notoriety in the early 1930s and was well known along
> > with Bonnie and Clyde. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre got nationwide
> > attention because of the machine guns used to cut down the victims.
> She says she knows "nothing" about guns, and you decided that she does.

Yes I do based on some of her comments.

> Get off it. You're so busy taking her word exactly for the 4th floor, but

> > Carolyn Walther would have plenty of exposure to a variety of weapons seen
> > on TV and movie theaters.
> So to avoid taking the word of a witness, you're listing a bunch of old
> westerns as proof that she knew about guns?

Yes indeed.

> What's wrong with you?

Just common sense unless Walther is a complete hermit who lives in a cave.
She was a wife and mother so I assume they had a TV, read newspapers, went
to movies, and thumbed through magazines at the dentist office. Could be
she liked the local library too. Maybe she read the morning newspaper at
the office or overheard other employees talking about the rifle used by
LHO.

> You have no idea whether she even watched TV or goes to the movies, or if
> she dislikes westerns and war movies.

No I don’t but I figure the chances are good she had seen guns in
lighter TV dramas like Annie Oakley, The Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Show,
The Gene Autry Show, The Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, The Cisco Kid, The
Range Rider, Maverick, Sugarfoot, et al.

“Annie Get Your Gun” was a big hit comedy Western in 1950. So unless Walther was a recluse I have a feeling she saw many of these popular shows on TV and the movies.

> She said she knew "nothing" about guns.

And proceeded to belie that statement by noticing the weapon she saw in
the 4th floor window did not look like a rifle, more like a machine-gun.

> > > > 1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.
> > > It could be too hard for her to tell whether there was a strap on the
> > > rifle.
> > From the 6th floor maybe, the 4th floor was closer to see more details.
> Naah!

The Fourth floor is approximately 45 feet above the street. That would
equate to a 15 yard penalty in football.

> > > > 2. Her impression it was a machine gun.
> > > She said she knew nothing about guns, so the type of gun cannot be
> > > trusted to her judgment.
> > She knew something about guns from the newspapers, magazines, WWII films,
> > Hollywood, and TV.
> Where said she knew "nothing" about guns.

But she obviously did know something about guns.

> How in the world did you determine that NO shots were fired out the
> 4th floor window? Remember, you've placed 2 men with a gun there. Why
> would they have been there and not fired a shot? Your story is getting
> stranger and stranger.

No witnesses reported any shots from the 4th floor, not even Walther. No
weapon or empty shells found of the 4th floor.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Wrong. I am just making fun of your pollyanna theories.

Pot, meet kettle.

[claviger]

Powell is the only witness to notice two dark complexion workers in
possession of a rifle in the 6th floor window. All other witnesses said
there was a single white shooter in the window firing at the motorcade.
So what happened to the two dark complexion workers? Did they run down to
the 5th floor after fooling with the scope? Is this a conspiracy of
workers in the TSBD?

[bigdog]

The shooter was on the south side of the building and since it was late
November the midday sun would be in the southern sky shining directly on
everyone on the southside of the building. All you need to do to confirm
that is look at the shadows cast in the Z-film. Or do you think "they"
faked those too?

[bigdog]

I doubt Powell saw anything at all. Why would he be the only one? I
haven't brought this up before because I can't find the source but I
remember reading that Powell could not have seen what he claims from his
vantage point. Someone pointed this out to Oliver Stone who went up to the
jail cell to take a look and see that for himself but he decided to use
the Powell piece anyway.

I'm wondering if anyone else has read that anywhere. DVP or John McAdams,
are you aware of this. I figure if anyone knows, it would be one of you.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:08:33 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:31:21 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> > > Anyone capable of reading plain english can understand Walther presented 2
> > > choices, either the 5th floor or the 4th floor. Here is how detectives
> > > would solve this simple problem. There were 3 employees on the 5th floor.
> > > They did not see a man with a machine gun on the 5th floor. So the man
> > > Walther saw must have been on the 4th floor. See how easy that was?
> > > Like flipping a coin, you only have two choices.
> > Well, that was one of the choices I gave you above. So now you've
> > decided that there were 2 men in the 6th floor window with a gun, and 2
> > men in the 4th floor window with a gun. Sounds stupid to me, but that's
> > the way you wanted it.
>
> It was an comment you made that opened the door to this possibility plus
> Marsh's long held belief multiple snipers were inside the TSBD. Both of
> you mentioned there was no security at the TSBD so anyone could have
> walked in and found a window to ambush the motorcade. So if you believe
> that then it is possible two sets of snipers took advantage of the
> situation and infiltrated the TSBD. Why would Walther's observation be
> any less valid than Powell? In fact her observations were reported 13
> days later as opposed to 15 years later in the case of Powell, so Walther
> should have more credibility for that reason alone.
>

The reason that Powell's statement was taken before Walther's is that
many more people saw a man with a gun in the 6th floor window, and NONE
saw anyone, with or without a gun, in the 4th floor window. Simple.

> > And since these 2 sets of men in the windows with guns were there obviously to
> > shoot at the POTUS, that would explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza
> > that day.
>
> If they all fired their weapons that would be true. No evidence the man
> she observed on the 4th floor actually fired the weapon he was holding.
>

Not much sense in having a window to yourself and a gun and not firing
it. Seems like those 2 men could simply vanish and it would make no
difference. We could say that Walther made a mistake on the floor and
meant the 6th, and all would be cool and tidied up neatly!

>
> > And the many shots fired toward JFK.
>
> At most 3-4 shots.
>

Nothing like a person that knows exactly how many shots were fired at
JFK. And of course, if we take those 4 shots, and add to them the strike
on the right hand curb that 'Steve' Ellis saw, and the shot that hit the
curb next to Jsmes Tague and hit his cheek, and a few others, and we would
have it all counted and tidy.

> > Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?
>
> Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.
>

How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
about guns.

> > Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?
>
> No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
> Carcano rifles to frame LHO.
>

I doubt it, since there were only 2 bullets found that were of the MC
type. If they intended to frame Oswald with MC bullets, they would have
made sure the MC bullets were found so it would fall on Oswald.

> > > Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
> > > floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
> > > Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.
> > Well now, if you were at street level the tree might look a lot higher
> > if you were looking up past the top of the tree to the 6th floor window.
> > The closer to the tree, the higher the top of the tree would look.
>
> You've tried this excuse before. Walther and Springer were standing on
> Houston St looking west toward the TSBD. They were not under the tree
> looking up, instead they had a side view of the trees compared to the
> building. So nice try, but no cigar.
>

Doesn't matter if they were offset a bit like that, it would still look
higher from that point of view. But a mistake is a mistake.

> > > Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
> > > She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
> > > a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.

> > Logically, Walther made a mistake of which floor she saw the men with a
> > gun.
>
> She narrowed it down to the 4th and 5th floors. Of that she was sure.
>
> > But you decided to settle on the 4th floor, which then left us with 2 sets of men
> > with a gun on the 6th and the 4th floors.
>
> It was a binary choice. If the 5th floor is eliminated that leaves only
> the 4th floor.
>

weelll, it leaves all the floors if you have proven logically that she
made a mistake. Pick the best choice (the one that everyone else saw a
shooter in).

> > You have refused to allow for an error in Walthers' guess.
>
> She narrowed the universal set from 7 to only 2 subsets, so it was a
> binary x 2 solution.
>
> > > Another clue is the rifle she saw on the 4th floor did not have a scope.
> > > Nobody would put a scope on a handheld machine-gun. It would do no good.

So your going to stick with her talk of a machine gun, though she knew
nothing about guns. And of course, you stuck with her voices of the 4th
and 5th floors too. It's wrong-way Walther now.

> > > She also said the weapon she saw had no strap for a sling.


> > Whether there was a scope or not Walther wouldn't know.
>

> From the 4th floor she could tell if the weapon had a scope or not. A few
> witnesses noticed the scope on the 6th floor.
>
> > She made it clear she knew nothing about guns.
>
> She made it clear she knew the difference between a rifle and machine-gun.
> Walther even describes why she thought it was a machine-gun not a rifle.
>
> > So it didn't have to be a "machine-gun" either.
>
> Yes, it could have been an M1 Carbine which would actually make more sense.
>

True, so we can't depend on her talk of guns and type of guns.

> > > So let's add up all the clues and see if we come up with a rational
> > > solution:
> > > 1. She is talking about midlevel floors 4 and 5.
> > An obvious error, but for argument's sake, you've picked the 4th floor.
>
> Logic has narrowed it down to the 4th floor as explained above.
>

No, logic won't do that for you. It might help in narrowing down to
the 6th, but not the 4th. Don't forget the difference between the 4th and
6th floor. The 6th floor had many people that saw a man or men with a gun
in it. The 4th had NONE, making it far less probable.

> > > 2. Three employees on the 5th floor, no rifle.
> > One point of agreement.
> > > 3. The 4th floor is just above a tree.
> > Not necessarily. Depending on the closeness to the tree, it may appear
> > higher.
>
> The lateral angle Walther viewed the relative position of the tree to the
> building mitigates that issue.
>

However, noticing a tree and it's height was less important to anyone
that sees guns and men. Relative importance takes over.

> > > 4. No tree reaches above the 4th floor.
> > See above.
>
> She would have to be standing close to the tree to have that kind of
> distortion. Walther was across Houston St and had a much better view.
>

Less important.

> > > 5. No tree anywhere close to 6th floor.
> > See above.
>
> From any position anyone with normal eyesight and normal intelligence can
> tell no tree grows as tall as the 6th floor.
>
> > > 6. Rifle with sling + scope on 6th floor.
> > Unclear, since Walther didn't see a sling, but she knew nothing about
> > guns.
>
> She obviously knew about scopes and slings or why would she mention the
> absence of both? Walther no doubt watched TV, read the newspaper, and
> discussed with fellow employees this shooting incident. She got a crash
> course in rifle terminology by the media for almost 2 weeks before she was
> interviewed by the FBI. By then she knew what a scope and sling were and
> probably saw this photo in that timeframe:
>

She stated that she knew nothing about guns. You were willing to
believe her without reservation about floor number and tree height and
machine guns, and now you won't believe her about not knowing about guns.
Inconsistent.



> http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/35/35/3535fd35-2fb0-4cd6-b710-afc60adcf422/be025673.jpg
>


Hmm. Where's the clip?

> > > 7. No machine-gun found on 6th floor
> > See above.
> > > 8. Employees on 5th floor had dark complexion.
> > 3 black employees did not have a gun. The 5th floor is out.
>
> Correct.
>
> > > 9. Man on 4th floor white + blond hair.
> > WRONG! Walther said "light" 'maybe brown hair".
>
> OK, a white guy with light brown hair.
>

And no gun.

> > > 10. Powell saw two dark men on 6th floor w/rifle+scope.
> > > 11. Only dark men were on 5th floor.

WRONG! They are thought of as 'black' men, a different sort of fellow
from a 'dark' man which could be latino of it may have been dark out of
the sun.

> > > 12. Walther saw nobody on 6th floor.
> > Witnesses saw 2 men on the 6th floor in the window, and one of them
> > saw them with a gun.
>

We know what Walther saw on the 6th floor, the same thing that
everybody else saw there.

> Only one witness saw 2 dark men in the 6th floor window fooling with a
> scope on a rifle. No other witness corroborates that sighting.
>

Think it over.

> > > Any detective would be forced to conclude Walther did not see a man with
> > > machine-gun on the 6th floor. If there was a MG Man on the 4th floor he
> > > fired no shots at the motorcade and escaped the building unseen, while the
> > > sniper on the 6th floor was firing 3 shots at the motorcade. There is no
> > > way to put Walther's MG Man on the 6th floor. It's foolish to even try
> > > and she was consistent and unwavering in her several interviews the guy
> > > she saw was on a lower floor.
> > That's an illogical presentation. No detective would be forced to
> > conclude that Walther saw no one on the 6th floor.
>
> If the detective is doing a fact based investigation using witness
> testimony he would be forced to accept all evidence in a wholistic process
> and would soon realize there is nothing in her testimony that indicates
> she was talking about the 6th floor. Detectives are not allowed to
> fantasize like you do. They have to deal with reality.
>

Oh, baloney. Detectives also use rumor and hearsay. Anything that
solves a case. Once a criminal is known, then they work out evidence that
is acceptable in court.

> > Since 2 people (at least) saw 2 men on the 6th floor, so that's ridiculous.
>


> I'm only aware of one witness who claims to have seen two men with dark
> complexion fooling with a rifle in the 6th floor window. I know of no
> other witness who claimed to see two men in that window. Cite please for
> any other witness who saw two men with a rifle in the 6th floor window.
>

I've given you that many times. You know very well that I'm speaking of
Henderson, whom you cannot work out her stating the 6th floor because you
can't use logic. That's not my problem. I KNOW she said 6th floor in her
statement in a roundabout way.

>
> > Detectives would conclude that Walther was in error and meant the 6th floor where
> > everyone saw men with a gun.
>
> Everyone? That's a lot of people!
>

YEP.

> > The many people in the street saw a man with a gun, and it was in the 6th floor
> > window as well.
>
> I'm only aware of 8-10 people who saw a man with a rifle or a rifle barrel
> in that window. None of those witness saw two men with a rifle.
>

To make sure Walther was talking of the 6th floor mistakenly, I mention
the others in the street that saw one man with a gun. That is still
valid, since they might have missed seeing the other man, but saw one of
them.

> > It is simply not logical to assume that Walther was the single only person that
> > saw men in the 4th floor window with a gun, and that that person never fired
> > a shot.
>
> I find it hard to believe Walther was the only person who saw that
> situation on a lower floor closer to the street. I guess it's possible if
> the guy was only there for a minute or two. As for not firing a shot,
> sounds like the guy chickened out or changed his mind when he saw wives in
> the car.
>

Or he was in the 6th floor window.

> > Which couldn't be determined anyway.
>
> What couldn't be determined?
>
>
> > > > When investigating a murder, there is no such thing as "too late" with
> > > > evidence.

> > > There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, so in that
> > > sense you are correct. Detectives place the most reliability on witness
> > > testimony as close as possible to the incident, the sooner the better.
> > > Late blooming witnesses are more suspect and have a tendency to conflate
> > > evidence like Powell obviously did.

> > > > Powell was clear that he saw 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > There was no conflation, since his sighting matched the others.
>
> What others? Cite please.
>

No cite needed because you've been given the cite many times.
Obviously I'm speaking of the other witnesses to 2 men in the 6th floor
window and all the street witnesses to a man with a gun in the 6th floor
window.

> > He was corroborated.
>
> By whom?
>
> > Be as suspicious as you like, I've given you a possible reasons for Powell to
> > keep the info to himself for a good while.
>
> The other inmates would beat him up theory? He was only in jail for 3
> days for a misdemeanor. Who would care about him?
>

That was also answered but with your theory you can't let it bother you.
Getting out of jail does not automatically confer immunity to you if
you're a rat. You could be seen on the street, or the plotters that
killed JFK could hear about you and kill you. Powell may have been
worried about that. 15 years would be a good safety period.

> > There were also other people in this case that also kept info to themselves for
> > fear of retribution.
>
> Who were they? Do you have a complete list?
>

How in the world could anyone have a complete list? You'd have to be a
mind reader. How about starting with Howard Brennan, then move on to Lee
Bowers too.

Powell did NOT say BLACK person.

> > And no one saw a "black sniper".
>
> Powell mentioned two dark men with a rifle. He doesn't mention a white
> guy so now you're suggesting there were 3 guys in that window? It's
> getting crowded in the sniper's nest.
>

There is still a possibility that 'dark men could be white, or Latino.
They certainly weren't black men, because they would have ben obvious to
Powell.

> > Plenty of people saw a man in the 6th floor window with a gun though.
>
> How many?
>

A number of them in the street.

> > And none except Walther saw someone on the 4th floor. so that's crap and is
> > changed to the 6th floor where everyone saw a man with a gun.
>
> So you just changed crap and moved it to the 6th floor. I cannot state it
> any better than that. Well done.
>

I gave a good reason too, so don't forget to mention it.

>
> > > > Do you want to repeat that silly idea of your about there being 2 teams of
> > > > shooters unaware of each other firing on the motorcade from 2 different
> > > > floors of the TSBD?
> > > Don't need to repeat it. That option came up when both you and Marsh
> > > pointed out there was no security in the TSBD that day. Marsh thinks
> > > multiple snipers got inside the TSBD. With no security that's possible,
> > > if not probable. Only one witness saw 2 men in the 6th floor window.
> > > Only one witness saw 2 men in the 4th floor window. All other witnesses
> > > saw only 1 sniper in the 6th floor window and no other snipers in any
> > > other windows, buildings, or behind a fence.
> > WRONG! 3 witnesses saw 2 men in the 6th floor window, you just don't
> > want to admit it after fighting about it for so long.
>
> OK, one more time. Who are those 3 witnesses? I know Johnny "Come
> Lately" Powell. Who are the other two? The facts and accurate testimony
> have eliminated Walther and Henderson. Who are the other two?
>

WRONTG! Don't be eliminating my witnesses when you haven't a clue what
logic is. Henderson needs NO CHANGE in her statement to be talking about
the 6th floor, you just can't understand it. And Walther was logically
corrected to have meant the 6th floor too, since NO ONE saw anyone with or
without a gun on the 4th floor.

> > And we haven't determined how the shooter got into the building, and up to
> > the 6th floor window.
>
> You are the one who said it would be easy for anyone off the street to do
> that.
>

LISTEN WHEN YOUR SPOKEN TO. I said we haven't determined HOW they got
into the building and up to the 6th floor. What path did they take, did
they use the elevators, did they use the stairs...etc.

Think it through. If someone were in the Dal-Tex building, on say the
2nd floor, they could shoot from the back of the room and not be heard.

"Chances are"!!!

> “Annie Get Your Gun” was a big hit comedy Western in 1950. So unless Walther was a recluse I have a feeling she saw many of these popular shows on TV and the movies.
>
> > She said she knew "nothing" about guns.
>
> And proceeded to belie that statement by noticing the weapon she saw in
> the 4th floor window did not look like a rifle, more like a machine-gun.
>

Which is stupid thinking there was a machine gun there. We certainly
would have heard from a witness if they heard the sound of a machine gun!
Give that one up.

> > > > > 1. The rifle was short, no scope, no strap.
> > > > It could be too hard for her to tell whether there was a strap on the
> > > > rifle.
> > > From the 6th floor maybe, the 4th floor was closer to see more details.
> > Naah!
>
> The Fourth floor is approximately 45 feet above the street. That would
> equate to a 15 yard penalty in football.
>
> > > > > 2. Her impression it was a machine gun.
> > > > She said she knew nothing about guns, so the type of gun cannot be
> > > > trusted to her judgment.
> > > She knew something about guns from the newspapers, magazines, WWII films,
> > > Hollywood, and TV.
> > Where said she knew "nothing" about guns.
>
> But she obviously did know something about guns.
>
> > How in the world did you determine that NO shots were fired out the
> > 4th floor window? Remember, you've placed 2 men with a gun there. Why
> > would they have been there and not fired a shot? Your story is getting
> > stranger and stranger.
>
> No witnesses reported any shots from the 4th floor, not even Walther. No
> weapon or empty shells found of the 4th floor.

Given your problems with this particular part of the case, and your
inabilities with certain tools, I'm not going to discuss this part of the
case with you anymore. What you think just like an LN will remain engraved
on the inside of your eyeballs and you will repeat this junk until
Christmas and beyond, so I'm done with it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe, but not proved yet. I know one kook who thinks the SS used an
AR-15.

>>> Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
>>> floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
>>> Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.
>> Well now, if you were at street level the tree might look a lot higher
>> if you were looking up past the top of the tree to the 6th floor window.
>> The closer to the tree, the higher the top of the tree would look.
>
> You've tried this excuse before. Walther and Springer were standing on
> Houston St looking west toward the TSBD. They were not under the tree
> looking up, instead they had a side view of the trees compared to the
> building. So nice try, but no cigar.
>
>>> Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
>>> She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
>>> a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.
>> Logically, Walther made a mistake of which floor she saw the men with a
>> gun.
>
> She narrowed it down to the 4th and 5th floors. Of that she was sure.
>

Somewhere on the TSBD. Close enough for government work.

> No I don???t but I figure the chances are good she had seen guns in

> lighter TV dramas like Annie Oakley, The Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Show,
> The Gene Autry Show, The Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, The Cisco Kid, The
> Range Rider, Maverick, Sugarfoot, et al.
>

> ???Annie Get Your Gun??? was a big hit comedy Western in 1950. So unless Walther was a recluse I have a feeling she saw many of these popular shows on TV and the movies.

[donald willis]

They faked shadows in the '33 "King Kong"

[mainframetech]

If you used your head, you'd realize that the men may not have been
standing right up against the window, and with the sun high in the sky,
from the south or not, if they were standing back a bit, the top of the
window may have put them in shadow when see by Powell. He was on the 6th
floor too, so there was not any problem with him making a mistakes on the
floor.

As well, many others saw men or a man in the 6th floor window with a
gun. So Powell's story is corroborated.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, I like that. Fake shadows. Sounds like something that Cinque would
come up with. How about a fake Sun?

[mainframetech]

Being a dedicated anti-conspiracy hobbyist, you would have to try to
discredit Powell's statement. Yet there are reasons why he might have
held back from advertising his knowledge. It's possible that Lee Bowers
and Howard Brennan were holding back because they had fears of retaliation
from some terrible 'communist' or other group. Powell might have had the
same reasons. He may also have thought they would think of him as a 'rat'
and want to chastise him.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I am sorry to inform you, but we took a vote and kicked you out of the
Alterationist Club for not being kooky enough. You are supposed to claim
that they used a fake Sun.

[Anthony Marsh]

Could be the sniper's spotter, there to protect him from return fire.

>
>
>>
>>> And the many shots fired toward JFK.
>>
>> At most 3-4 shots.
>>
>
> Nothing like a person that knows exactly how many shots were fired at

I like how the WC defender change sides so quickly and start admitting 4
shots.

> JFK. And of course, if we take those 4 shots, and add to them the strike
> on the right hand curb that 'Steve' Ellis saw, and the shot that hit the
> curb next to Jsmes Tague and hit his cheek, and a few others, and we would
> have it all counted and tidy.
>

Once again, there does not have to be a separate shot for each point of
damage. Add up all YOUR shots and then add in 2 more, one for the dent of
the chrome topping and one for the smashing in of the rearview mirror. You
think someone was aiming for the chrome topping?

>
>
>>> Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?
>>
>> Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.
>>
>
>
> How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
> about guns.
>
>
>
>>> Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?
>>
>> No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
>> Carcano rifles to frame LHO.
>>
>
>
> I doubt it, since there were only 2 bullets found that were of the MC
> type. If they intended to frame Oswald with MC bullets, they would have
> made sure the MC bullets were found so it would fall on Oswald.
>

I doubt that you will ever find anyone here who will ever tell the truth
about what I have said. The only way most people here can argue is by
lying. This is the LIARS CLUB.

>> No I don???t but I figure the chances are good she had seen guns in

>> lighter TV dramas like Annie Oakley, The Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Show,
>> The Gene Autry Show, The Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, The Cisco Kid, The
>> Range Rider, Maverick, Sugarfoot, et al.
>>
>
>
> "Chances are"!!!
>
>
>

>> ???Annie Get Your Gun??? was a big hit comedy Western in 1950. So unless Walther was a recluse I have a feeling she saw many of these popular shows on TV and the movies.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, you say no conspiracy believer could be aware of it?
Have they talked to Oliver Stone?

[claviger]

Walther's statement was taken long before Powell, a decade and a half
before he surfaced as a possible witness. She volunteered information to
authorities two weeks after the assassination but Powell had to be coaxed
into telling his dubious story many years later. He never shared info
with the authorities, instead interviewed with a newspaper reporter with
no in depth discussion. A lot of witnesses you like did the same.
Curiously they did not go directly to local detectives investigating this
case, instead preferred media attention: Gordon Arnold, Walter Rishel, Ed
Hoffman, Beverly Oliver, James R Sterling and Johnny Powell. Why did none
of them provide information to the proper authorities who were focussed on
this national tragedy?

[claviger]

There is no way for you to sell that silly idea. All one has to do is
look at photos of the TSBD in 1963 or even today to realize that theory is
a nonstarter. The 6th floor window is almost to the top of the building
on the far east side. The window Walther is talking about is half way
down in the middle of the building. There is no tree anywhere close to
the 6th floor window. There is a tree close to the 4th floor in the
middle of the building.

> > > And the many shots fired toward JFK.
> > At most 3-4 shots.
> Nothing like a person that knows exactly how many shots were fired at
> JFK. And of course, if we take those 4 shots, and add to them the strike
> on the right hand curb that 'Steve' Ellis saw, and the shot that hit the
> curb next to Jsmes Tague and hit his cheek, and a few others, and we would
> have it all counted and tidy.

A majority of witnesses heard 3 loud sounds like gunshots (81%). The second
large group only heard 2 shots (12%). Only 5% heard 4 or more shots.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

> > > Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?
> > Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.
> How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
> about guns.

After saying that she proved otherwise. One does not have to be an expert
to notice one rifle is longer or shorter than the one seen in a photo.

> > > Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?
> > No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
> > Carcano rifles to frame LHO.
> I doubt it, since there were only 2 bullets found that were of the MC
> type. If they intended to frame Oswald with MC bullets, they would have
> made sure the MC bullets were found so it would fall on Oswald.

If this was a coordinated attack why would any of these multiple snipers
use anything but Carcano ammo if the idea was to frame LHO? If a planned
frame-up why fire from any direction other than behind the Limousine?
The Dal-Tex building was a better position than the TSBD.

[claviger]

Yes, no evidence anyone fired a shot from a 4th floor window. If there
was a man with a real machine-gun on the 4th floor he either lost his
nerve or changed his mind when he saw female passengers. All this must've
happened in a short timespan since Walther was the only one to see him or
them since she saw two guys together. It could have been a prank with a
toy Tommy Gun that were sold in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

> Not much sense in having a window to yourself and a gun and not firing
> it. Seems like those 2 men could simply vanish and it would make no
> difference. We could say that Walther made a mistake on the floor and
> meant the 6th, and all would be cool and tidied up neatly!

When we study photos of the TSBD we can see how unlikely that possibility
is. We would have to discount every other clue she gave to believe that.
We see the top of a tree near the 4th floor and how could she mistake the
lower center of the building for the upper side of the building? She gave
a detailed description of the two men she saw which is not a match for
Powell's description of two dark men in work clothes. Nothing Walther
said is compatible with the 6th floor window.

> > > And the many shots fired toward JFK.
> >
> > At most 3-4 shots.
> Nothing like a person that knows exactly how many shots were fired at
> JFK. And of course, if we take those 4 shots, and add to them the strike
> on the right hand curb that 'Steve' Ellis saw, and the shot that hit the
> curb next to Jsmes Tague and hit his cheek, and a few others, and we would
> have it all counted and tidy.

Sgt. Steve Ellis saw the 1st shot miss. Tague was most likely nicked by a
tiny fragment from that ricochet.

> > > Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?
> > Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.
> How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
> about guns.

Don't have to be an expert to notice the difference from a short gun and a
long gun.

> > > Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?
> > No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
> > Carcano rifles to frame LHO.
> I doubt it, since there were only 2 bullets found that were of the MC
> type. If they intended to frame Oswald with MC bullets, they would have
> made sure the MC bullets were found so it would fall on Oswald.
> > > > Also, no tree reached anywhere close to the 6th floor. However, the 4th
> > > > floor was just above the top of a tree growing in front of the building.
> > > > Walther noticed that clue and she was right about that point of reference.
> > > Well now, if you were at street level the tree might look a lot higher
> > > if you were looking up past the top of the tree to the 6th floor window.
> > > The closer to the tree, the higher the top of the tree would look.
> > You've tried this excuse before. Walther and Springer were standing on
> > Houston St looking west toward the TSBD. They were not under the tree
> > looking up, instead they had a side view of the trees compared to the
> > building. So nice try, but no cigar.
> Doesn't matter if they were offset a bit like that, it would still look
> higher from that point of view. But a mistake is a mistake.

She made no mistake. There is a tree that reaches just below the 4th
floor. There is no tree that reaches anywhere close to the 6th floor.

> > > > Walther consistently denied she saw a man on the 6th floor with a rifle.
> > > > She insisted the man she saw had a strange shaped weapon, she guessed was
> > > > a machine-gun because it was short and wide at the back.
> > > Logically, Walther made a mistake of which floor she saw the men with a
> > > gun.
> > She narrowed it down to the 4th and 5th floors. Of that she was sure.
> > > But you decided to settle on the 4th floor, which then left us with 2 sets of men
> > > with a gun on the 6th and the 4th floors.
> > It was a binary choice. If the 5th floor is eliminated that leaves only
> > the 4th floor.
> weelll, it leaves all the floors if you have proven logically that she
> made a mistake. Pick the best choice (the one that everyone else saw a
> shooter in).

Logic is on her side as to the relationship of the 4th floor being just
above the top of a tree growing in front of and near the middle of the
building. The 6th floor window is too high and too far to the east side
of the building.

> > > You have refused to allow for an error in Walthers' guess.
> > She narrowed the universal set from 7 to only 2 subsets, so it was a
> > binary x 2 solution.
> > > > Another clue is the rifle she saw on the 4th floor did not have a scope.
> > > > Nobody would put a scope on a handheld machine-gun. It would do no good.
> So your going to stick with her talk of a machine gun, though she knew
> nothing about guns. And of course, you stuck with her voices of the 4th
> and 5th floors too. It's wrong-way Walther now.

She described the gun being shorter and wider at the back than any rifle
she was familiar with. That is an apt description of a Tommy-Gun.

> > > > She also said the weapon she saw had no strap for a sling.
> > > Whether there was a scope or not Walther wouldn't know.
> > From the 4th floor she could tell if the weapon had a scope or not. A few
> > witnesses noticed the scope on the 6th floor.
> > > She made it clear she knew nothing about guns.
> > She made it clear she knew the difference between a rifle and machine-gun.
> > Walther even describes why she thought it was a machine-gun not a rifle.
> > > So it didn't have to be a "machine-gun" either.
> > Yes, it could have been an M1 Carbine which would actually make more sense.
> True, so we can't depend on her talk of guns and type of guns.

We can depend on her description of a short gun vs long gun. The
Tommy-Gun and M1 Carbine are short guns.

> > > > So let's add up all the clues and see if we come up with a rational
> > > > solution:
> > > > 1. She is talking about midlevel floors 4 and 5.
> > > An obvious error, but for argument's sake, you've picked the 4th floor.
> > Logic has narrowed it down to the 4th floor as explained above.
> No, logic won't do that for you. It might help in narrowing down to
> the 6th, but not the 4th.

There is no logical way to take Walther's description and make it fir the 6th floor.

> Don't forget the difference between the 4th and 6th floor.

How can I forget that? Not just elevation but Walther said on a lower
floor more in the middle of the building near a treetop. We see nothing
like that under the 6th floor window.

> The 6th floor had many people that saw a man or men with a gun in it. The 4th had NONE,
> making it far less probable.

Several people saw one man with a rifle in the 6th floor window. Some of
those saw the man and some just the rifle. Johnny Powell is the only
witness to see two men in the 6th floor window. You have not been able to
provide any other witnesses who saw two men in that window. What you have
been doing is trying to pound two square pegs in a round hole and it's not
working.

> > > > 2. Three employees on the 5th floor, no rifle.
> > > One point of agreement.
> > > > 3. The 4th floor is just above a tree.
> > > Not necessarily. Depending on the closeness to the tree, it may appear
> > > higher.
> > The lateral angle Walther viewed the relative position of the tree to the
> > building mitigates that issue.
> However, noticing a tree and it's height was less important to anyone
> that sees guns and men. Relative importance takes over.

So when physical evidence doesn't fit your silly theory then just ignore
it. And you call that kind of thinking logical?

> > > > 4. No tree reaches above the 4th floor.
> > > See above.
> > She would have to be standing close to the tree to have that kind of
> > distortion. Walther was across Houston St and had a much better view.
> Less important.

You wish.

> > > > 5. No tree anywhere close to 6th floor.
> > > See above.
> > From any position anyone with normal eyesight and normal intelligence can
> > tell no tree grows as tall as the 6th floor.
> > > > 6. Rifle with sling + scope on 6th floor.
> > > Unclear, since Walther didn't see a sling, but she knew nothing about
> > > guns.
> > She obviously knew about scopes and slings or why would she mention the
> > absence of both? Walther no doubt watched TV, read the newspaper, and
> > discussed with fellow employees this shooting incident. She got a crash
> > course in rifle terminology by the media for almost 2 weeks before she was
> > interviewed by the FBI. By then she knew what a scope and sling were and
> > probably saw this photo in that timeframe:
> She stated that she knew nothing about guns. You were willing to
> believe her without reservation about floor number and tree height and
> machine guns, and now you won't believe her about not knowing about guns.
> Inconsistent.

She seems to know that pistols are different from rifles, and rifles are
different from machine-guns. That's all she really needs to know. Where
would she absorb this knowledge? From the Movies, TV shows, LIFE
Magazine, LOOK magazine, TIME magazine, WWII newsreels, photos of the
murder weapons in the newspapers and on TV.

> > http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/35/35/3535fd35-2fb0-4cd6-b710-afc60adcf422/be025673.jpg
> >
> Hmm. Where's the clip?>
> > > > 7. No machine-gun found on 6th floor
> > > See above.
> > > > 8. Employees on 5th floor had dark complexion.
> > > 3 black employees did not have a gun. The 5th floor is out.
> > Correct.
> > > > 9. Man on 4th floor white + blond hair.
> > > WRONG! Walther said "light" 'maybe brown hair".
> > OK, a white guy with light brown hair.
> And no gun.

You need to read this again:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
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

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 hand 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 hort 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
soulders.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm

> > > > 10. Powell saw two dark men on 6th floor w/rifle+scope.
> > > > 11. Only dark men were on 5th floor.
> WRONG! They are thought of as 'black' men, a different sort of fellow
> from a 'dark' man which could be latino of it may have been dark out of
> the sun.

Isn't it curious there were two black employees in the window just below
wearing work clothes but Powell makes no mention of them? They were
obvious to several other witnesses below. What Powell should have said is
there were two dark men in the 6th floor window and two dark men in the
window just below, then he might have some credibility. He makes no
mention of 4 dark men in two windows above and below. Obviously Powell is
confusing the two employees on the 5th floor. No rifle was found on that
floor.

> > > > 12. Walther saw nobody on 6th floor.
> > > Witnesses saw 2 men on the 6th floor in the window, and one of them
> > > saw them with a gun.
> We know what Walther saw on the 6th floor, the same thing that
> everybody else saw there.

She makes no mention of seeing anyone on the 6th floor.

> > Only one witness saw 2 dark men in the 6th floor window fooling with a
> > scope on a rifle. No other witness corroborates that sighting.
> Think it over.

OK, I've thought it over and LHO situated himself in the corner to be less
obvious to the crowd below. When he started shooting it drew attention
from some of the witnesses below. One witness does claim to have seen him
gazing down Elm street before the parade arrived.

> > > > Any detective would be forced to conclude Walther did not see a man with
> > > > machine-gun on the 6th floor. If there was a MG Man on the 4th floor he
> > > > fired no shots at the motorcade and escaped the building unseen, while the
> > > > sniper on the 6th floor was firing 3 shots at the motorcade. There is no
> > > > way to put Walther's MG Man on the 6th floor. It's foolish to even try
> > > > and she was consistent and unwavering in her several interviews the guy
> > > > she saw was on a lower floor.
> > > That's an illogical presentation. No detective would be forced to
> > > conclude that Walther saw no one on the 6th floor.
> > If the detective is doing a fact based investigation using witness
> > testimony he would be forced to accept all evidence in a wholistic process
> > and would soon realize there is nothing in her testimony that indicates
> > she was talking about the 6th floor. Detectives are not allowed to
> > fantasize like you do. They have to deal with reality.
> Oh, baloney. Detectives also use rumor and hearsay. Anything that
> solves a case. Once a criminal is known, then they work out evidence that
> is acceptable in court.

Yes experienced detectives use every type of clues available including
rumors and hearsay, but to get a conviction they need more compelling
evidence. Facts and logic are much more helpful. Nothing Walther had to
say corroborates LHO being the guy in the 6th floor window and a defense
attorney would emphatically point that out to the jury. That works both
ways. If she didn't see LHO in the 6th floor window she must have seen
someone else in another window. LHO didn't own a machine-gun and a weapon
like that was not found in a search of the building. The guys Walther saw
must have decided to leave the building rather than spray the Limousine
with bullets killing all the passengers.

> > > Since 2 people (at least) saw 2 men on the 6th floor, so that's ridiculous.
> > I'm only aware of one witness who claims to have seen two men with dark
> > complexion fooling with a rifle in the 6th floor window. I know of no
> > other witness who claimed to see two men in that window. Cite please for
> > any other witness who saw two men with a rifle in the 6th floor window.
> I've given you that many times. You know very well that I'm speaking of
> Henderson, whom you cannot work out her stating the 6th floor because you
> can't use logic. That's not my problem. I KNOW she said 6th floor in her
> statement in a roundabout way.

Henderson saw no person in the 6th floor window and nobody with a rifle or
weapon of any sort. It is illogical and inappropriate to claim her as a
witness to the presence of two men with a weapon in the 6th floor window.
LHO's lawyer would be quick to point that out.

> > > Detectives would conclude that Walther was in error and meant the 6th floor where
> > > everyone saw men with a gun.
> > Everyone? That's a lot of people!
> YEP.

So now you are claiming everyone in Dealey Plaza saw two men with a gun in
the 6th floor window? So far you can't prove anyone other than Johnny
Powell saw two men in that window. Walther and Henderson don't help your
theory at all, in fact quite the opposite. Using them simply illustrates
how bereft you are of any corroborating witnesses.

> > > The many people in the street saw a man with a gun, and it was in the 6th floor
> > > window as well.
> > I'm only aware of 8-10 people who saw a man with a rifle or a rifle barrel
> > in that window. None of those witness saw two men with a rifle.
> To make sure Walther was talking of the 6th floor mistakenly, I mention
> the others in the street that saw one man with a gun. That is still
> valid, since they might have missed seeing the other man, but saw one of
> them.

Yes, others on the street did see one man with a weapon but neither
Walther not Henderson saw any person in the 6th floor window with a rifle.

> > > It is simply not logical to assume that Walther was the single only person that
> > > saw men in the 4th floor window with a gun, and that that person never fired
> > > a shot.
> > I find it hard to believe Walther was the only person who saw that
> > situation on a lower floor closer to the street. I guess it's possible if
> > the guy was only there for a minute or two. As for not firing a shot,
> > sounds like the guy chickened out or changed his mind when he saw wives in
> > the car.
> Or he was in the 6th floor window.

So now you think LHO started off on the 4th floor then moved up to the 6th
floor? What happened to the machine-gun?

> > > Which couldn't be determined anyway.
> > What couldn't be determined?
> > > > > When investigating a murder, there is no such thing as "too late" with
> > > > > evidence.
> > > > There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, so in that
> > > > sense you are correct. Detectives place the most reliability on witness
> > > > testimony as close as possible to the incident, the sooner the better.
> > > > Late blooming witnesses are more suspect and have a tendency to conflate
> > > > evidence like Powell obviously did.
> > > > > Powell was clear that he saw 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor.
> > > There was no conflation, since his sighting matched the others.
> > What others? Cite please.
> No cite needed because you've been given the cite many times.
> Obviously I'm speaking of the other witnesses to 2 men in the 6th floor
> window and all the street witnesses to a man with a gun in the 6th floor
> window.

You say witnesses as plural. I only count one witness, Johnny Powell and
he was obviously wrong.

> > > He was corroborated.
> > By whom?
> > > Be as suspicious as you like, I've given you a possible reasons for Powell to
> > > keep the info to himself for a good while.
> > The other inmates would beat him up theory? He was only in jail for 3
> > days for a misdemeanor. Who would care about him?
> That was also answered but with your theory you can't let it bother you.
> Getting out of jail does not automatically confer immunity to you if
> you're a rat. You could be seen on the street, or the plotters that
> killed JFK could hear about you and kill you. Powell may have been
> worried about that. 15 years would be a good safety period.

All Powelll could do is implicate two dark men as the hit-team. If the
hit-team were two white guys then Powell is safe because his testimony
would confuse the police and FBI. How do you know Powell was not a plant
in the jailhouse to distract the police, a false witness to confuse the
police detectives and waste time on a wild goose chase looking for two
dark men?

[mainframetech]

::: sigh :::

When I used the word "taken" it meant that I had 'taken' as valid
Powell's statement, because it fit the bulk of sightings of a man with a
gun in the 6th floor window. Of course Walther's statement was collected
before Powell's.

And you might want to add Lee Bowers and Howard Brennan to your list
of those that didn't tell their stories early on. Many gave as their
reason for hanging back, that they were afraid of retaliation from the
killers if they gave information. This kind of reason has been discussed
before, so it's not a new thought. Think it through.

Chris

[bigdog]

Excellent point. If these people really had something of importance to
tell, why would they wait so long and why wouldn't they tell law
enforcement what they knew. Telling their stories to the news media is an
indication they were more interested in getting attention than
contributing important information.

[Anthony Marsh]

How do you figure that? By misrepresenting what a witness said.
That's what kooks do. Do you really want to be known as a KOOK?

> the 6th floor window. There is a tree close to the 4th floor in the
> middle of the building.
>

Something like that. You have to analyze HOW a witness would have seen it.
It's called perspective. No witness said they saw a shooter IN a tree.
The reference to the tree is just to explain the relative height since
they didn't know the exact distance in feet.
It does not mean the sniper was IN the tree or on the tree or near the
tree. Just above the tree.

>
>>>> And the many shots fired toward JFK.
>>> At most 3-4 shots.
>> Nothing like a person that knows exactly how many shots were fired at
>> JFK. And of course, if we take those 4 shots, and add to them the strike
>> on the right hand curb that 'Steve' Ellis saw, and the shot that hit the
>> curb next to Jsmes Tague and hit his cheek, and a few others, and we would
>> have it all counted and tidy.
>
> A majority of witnesses heard 3 loud sounds like gunshots (81%). The second
> large group only heard 2 shots (12%). Only 5% heard 4 or more shots.
>

Sure, where are you getting your statistics? Are those the phony
statistics from McAdams?
Just shut up with your phony nonsense.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
>>>> Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?
>>> Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.
>> How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
>> about guns.
>
> After saying that she proved otherwise. One does not have to be an expert
> to notice one rifle is longer or shorter than the one seen in a photo.
>

Which rifle? Are you talking about the Mauser? Or the other Carcano?
You've never seen or held the long rifle Carcano from 1898.

>>>> Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?
>>> No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
>>> Carcano rifles to frame LHO.

Something like that. I never proved it.

>> I doubt it, since there were only 2 bullets found that were of the MC
>> type. If they intended to frame Oswald with MC bullets, they would have

They never found the bullet which hit JFK's head.
You never found the bullet from the missed shot.

>> made sure the MC bullets were found so it would fall on Oswald.
>

It's not that simple.

> If this was a coordinated attack why would any of these multiple snipers
> use anything but Carcano ammo if the idea was to frame LHO? If a planned
> frame-up why fire from any direction other than behind the Limousine?
> The Dal-Tex building was a better position than the TSBD.
>

There is no good firing location from the Dal-Tex.
Again, you never heard of an insurance shooter.

[mainframetech]

It's sold. Now, tell me how you know that Walther was speaking ONLY of
the window that "is half way down in the middle of the building", and not
the window that everybody else was speaking of, which was the 6th floor
east window.

> > > > And the many shots fired toward JFK.
> > > At most 3-4 shots.

> > Nothing like a person that knows exactly how many shots were fired at
> > JFK. And of course, if we take those 4 shots, and add to them the strike
> > on the right hand curb that 'Steve' Ellis saw, and the shot that hit the
> > curb next to Jsmes Tague and hit his cheek, and a few others, and we would
> > have it all counted and tidy.
>
> A majority of witnesses heard 3 loud sounds like gunshots (81%). The second
> large group only heard 2 shots (12%). Only 5% heard 4 or more shots.
>

And you think that because some people heard 3 shots that there were 3
shots? Some people heard 8 shots, does that mean there were 8 shots?
What if silencers were used? What if a single person signaled all the
shooters to fire at one time and multiple shots went off at the same time?
As was the case with Loy Factor from his experience?

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
> > > > Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?

> > > Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.

> > How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
> > about guns.
>
> After saying that she proved otherwise. One does not have to be an expert
> to notice one rifle is longer or shorter than the one seen in a photo.
>

When looking UP at a window that has a high bottom to it, I don't know
how she could suddenly be knowledgeable about guns when she said she
wasn't. Of course, you badly need for her to know about guns, so you
decided the witness knew about guns. It won't do. She knew nothing about
guns as she said. You want to believe her exact words and let her decide
that the 2 men with a gun were on the 4th floor, but when she needs to
know about guns, you ignore her statement about knowing nothing. Not too
cool.

> > > > Did they also have an MC rifle like Oswald's?

> > > No, but that is a good question. Marsh thinks all the snipers were using
> > > Carcano rifles to frame LHO.

> > I doubt it, since there were only 2 bullets found that were of the MC
> > type. If they intended to frame Oswald with MC bullets, they would have
> > made sure the MC bullets were found so it would fall on Oswald.
>
> If this was a coordinated attack why would any of these multiple snipers
> use anything but Carcano ammo if the idea was to frame LHO? If a planned
> frame-up why fire from any direction other than behind the Limousine?
> The Dal-Tex building was a better position than the TSBD.

It's obvious if you think it through. They had decided to make sure the
body was taken to a military base where they could order the pathologists
as to what they found. And they also gave them time before the autopsy to
hunt through the body and removed any bullets that were still there. It
worked perfectly and the suckers were all fooled to this very day.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Are you claiming that wasn't an Oswald bullet? Again, do you know
that Oswald's bullets were copper jacketed? Those copper jackets do not
just fall off in flight. You are thinking of the sabots.

>>>> Now have you decided what kind of rifle the second set of men had?
>>> Walther said it looked like a machine-gun.
>> How can we believe her on that? She was clear that she knew NOTHING
>> about guns.
>
> Don't have to be an expert to notice the difference from a short gun and a
> long gun.
>

Yes, you do. You can't tell the difference.

Something like that.

>>>> You have refused to allow for an error in Walthers' guess.
>>> She narrowed the universal set from 7 to only 2 subsets, so it was a
>>> binary x 2 solution.
>>>>> Another clue is the rifle she saw on the 4th floor did not have a scope.
>>>>> Nobody would put a scope on a handheld machine-gun. It would do no good.
>> So your going to stick with her talk of a machine gun, though she knew
>> nothing about guns. And of course, you stuck with her voices of the 4th
>> and 5th floors too. It's wrong-way Walther now.
>
> She described the gun being shorter and wider at the back than any rifle
> she was familiar with. That is an apt description of a Tommy-Gun.
>

AS if she knew anything about guns. She didn't.

>>>>> She also said the weapon she saw had no strap for a sling.
>>>> Whether there was a scope or not Walther wouldn't know.
>>> From the 4th floor she could tell if the weapon had a scope or not. A few
>>> witnesses noticed the scope on the 6th floor.
>>>> She made it clear she knew nothing about guns.
>>> She made it clear she knew the difference between a rifle and machine-gun.
>>> Walther even describes why she thought it was a machine-gun not a rifle.
>>>> So it didn't have to be a "machine-gun" either.
>>> Yes, it could have been an M1 Carbine which would actually make more sense.
>> True, so we can't depend on her talk of guns and type of guns.
>
> We can depend on her description of a short gun vs long gun. The
> Tommy-Gun and M1 Carbine are short guns.
>

So now you think it was an M-1?

>
>>>>> So let's add up all the clues and see if we come up with a rational
>>>>> solution:
>>>>> 1. She is talking about midlevel floors 4 and 5.
>>>> An obvious error, but for argument's sake, you've picked the 4th floor.
>>> Logic has narrowed it down to the 4th floor as explained above.
>> No, logic won't do that for you. It might help in narrowing down to
>> the 6th, but not the 4th.
>
> There is no logical way to take Walther's description and make it fir the 6th floor.
>
>> Don't forget the difference between the 4th and 6th floor.
>
> How can I forget that? Not just elevation but Walther said on a lower
> floor more in the middle of the building near a treetop. We see nothing
> like that under the 6th floor window.
>

From what angle? Show me a photo of the TSBD from HER angle.

>> The 6th floor had many people that saw a man or men with a gun in it. The 4th had NONE,
>> making it far less probable.
>

English please.

> Several people saw one man with a rifle in the 6th floor window. Some of

Name them.

[claviger]

Powell's statement did not fit the bulk of sightings. The bulk saw only
one man in the 6th floor window. Powell is a stand alone witness who
claims he saw 2 men in the 6th floor window. No other witness ever said
that.

> And you might want to add Lee Bowers and Howard Brennan to your list
> of those that didn't tell their stories early on.

Lee Bowers Affidavit, 11/22/63 Sheriff's report
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers1.htm

H. L. Brennan 11/22/63 Affidavit
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm

> Many gave as their reason for hanging back, that they were afraid of retaliation
> from the killers if they gave information. This kind of reason has been discussed
> before, so it's not a new thought. Think it through.
> Chris

Can you name many witnesses who said that?

[bigdog]

When you have 15 years to see the bulk of those statements its easy to
make up a story that fits them.

> And you might want to add Lee Bowers and Howard Brennan to your list
> of those that didn't tell their stories early on.

Why would anyone want to do that? Brennan told a cop where he saw the
shots fired from within minutes of the shooting and gave a description of
the shooter. A short time later Bowers told Boone he hadn't seen anyone on
his side of the fence when the shots were fired. You'd probably find both
of them more believable if they had waited 15 years to tell their stories.

> Many gave as their
> reason for hanging back, that they were afraid of retaliation from the
> killers if they gave information.

Bowers never said that. Bowers didn't hold anything back.

> This kind of reason has been discussed
> before, so it's not a new thought.

No it isn't. It's still as dumb as ever.

> Think it through.
>

We have. We figured it out a long time ago. We aren't optimistic you ever
will.

[mainframetech]

What a phony line! In this case we have a number of witnesses that
decided not to speak right away fearing retribution from various places.

Chris