Provable Lies of the Warren Commission (#13)
Ben Holmes
bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other
than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a
statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept
eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. As Mark
Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came
from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss
Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad
yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important
question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give
an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not
from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds
of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer,
Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)
And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location,
TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of
eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
Credible eyewitnesses.
Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
lazu...@webtv.net
sidewalk directly under the TSBD said they heard the shots coming from
the grassy knoll, railroad yards area. And even topping that, the four
ladies on the fourth floor unanimously testified that the shots came
from below and to their right (the knoll, pergola area), and not to
their left and above them (the SN). SSID has a good earwitness chart in
it, showing that the vast majority of witnesses favored the Grassy
Knoll, overpass area. So indeed, the WC lied when they claimed there was
"no credible evidence" for shots coming from anywhere except the 6th
floor east window.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad
> bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other
> than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a
> statement such as this.
Why? Did someone report seeing a shooter elsewhere?
> And since the legal system in America *does* accept
> eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.
No, you are simply an idiot. They allow it, but that doesn`t speak
to it`s reliability. The WC is talking about reliable information here.
The fact that people right next to one another thought the shoots came
from entirely different directions demonstrates this informations
unreliability.
> As Mark
> Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came
> from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss
> Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad
> yardman that spoke with him. ...
Where did these people see gunmen?
> Of the 90 persons who were asked this important
> question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give
> an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not
> from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds
> of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer,
> Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)
And most of the witnesses indicated a single direction/location for
the origin of the shots, while most kook theories posit multiple
origins.
> And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location,
> TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of
> eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
But they generally didn`t report seeing the rifle that was was
causing the noise they heard. Those that did see a rifles and shooters
saw them in the TSBD.
> Credible eyewitnesses.
Earwitnesses, who expressed the direction they thought the shots of
the shots came from. That isn`t reliable information.
> Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
It was information that wasn`t very useful in pinpointing the origin
of the shots. It was useful information in order to compare the number
of spent shells found in the TSBD with the number of shots most people
heard, though. Turns out those numbers were identicle.
Robert Harris
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad
> > bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place
> > other
> > than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> >
> > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a
> > statement such as this.
>
> Why? Did someone report seeing a shooter elsewhere?
>
> > And since the legal system in America *does* accept
> > eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.
>
> No, you are simply an idiot. They allow it, but that doesn`t speak
> to it`s reliability. The WC is talking about reliable information here.
> The fact that people right next to one another thought the shoots came
> from entirely different directions demonstrates this informations
> unreliability.
And why exactly, doesn't this suggest that shots did indeed, "come from
entirely different directions"??
Do you think agent, Paul Landis, who stood on the right running board of
the Secret Service car was unreliable because he described the final
shot this way, "the shot came from somewhere towards the front,
right-hand side of the road."?
If so, then you must think he was really crazy for saying, "I also
remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of
the car at the time the second shot was fired."
But Hill didn't get to the limo until well after the shot at 312 was
fired, did he?
I guess Hill must have been nuts too, because he ALSO said he was
attempting to mount the back of the limousine when the final shot was
fired.
Remember - both of those guys only reported TWO gunshots that day.
That's because they were exposed to the shockwave of the bullet at Z285,
which passed high and to the right of those vehicles, and generated a
130 decibel sound level.
The ensuing muzzle blast was between 115 and 120db - still high enough
to blow out a pair of good loudspeakers.
Their ears were ringing and they were temporarily deafened at Z312, Bud.
But they recovered enough to hear the final shot at 323.
Robert Harris
--
There is no question an honest man will evade.
Bud
You seem convinced on the precision and particulars of your
theories, Harris. I would think that in an eight second attack, the SS
men would be more busy trying the fill the void of information they
suddenly found themselves with, but no, they were busy marking the
minute steps of their actions accurately.
In any case, my point had more to do with witnesses who were near in
proximity to each other (think Jarman and Norman, although it can apply
almost anywhere in Dealey) indicating completely different directions
for the source of the loud sounds they heard. Seems to me that either
these witnesses heard different loud sounds from one another, or they
heard the same sounds and just thought they came from different
directions. Put it this way, four people see a body, with wounds. The
body is unavailable for examination, and all four witnesses describe
the location of the wounds differently. What can be possitively
determined with certainty from what these witnesses relate? That there
was a body with wounds, and not much else, by my way of looking at it.
Same with the directions of the shots, the differing indications negate
the information`s usefulness, except to determine that shots were
fired, that most people felt the sound of the shots came from a single,
as opposed to multiple, locations, and the number of shots they heard.
Robert Harris
I base my case on a lot more than just the witness statements, Bud.
The upper rear of JFK's head was totally intact and visibly undamaged,
well after the 313 explosion had subsided, but it was obviously,
devastated by the 330's. Compare the BOH at 317 for example, with its
condition at 337.
It is easy to see, that a great deal of damage occured sometime
*after* the 313 explosion.
Mrs. Kennedy stated that she saw tissue and skull ejected from the
head, which was the only way she could have known that anything was on
the trunk, to retrieve. But she could only have seen that after frame
322.
Looking out from the slot in that long ridiculed storm drain, I
personally confirmed that JFK could not have been seen from there at
313, but he pulled into view and almost exactly, Z323.
Add to that, the fact that Drs. Riley, Mantik and Robertson
unanimously concluded that the autopsy Xrays proved the existence of
TWO headshots.
This is not about a few random, subjective opinions, Bud. If it was I
sure as hell wouldn't have wasted all these years on it.
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Gerry Simone (H)
You mentioned that the 2 SSAs reported only 2 shots that day.
Which ones, 312 and 323 (I'm not sure of the latter)?
What about 285 which you say they were exposed to the shockwave?
BTW, have you observed any involuntary reactions to a shot at 323?
Did Alverez find a jiggle there?
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-52C94...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...