"Reclaiming History," II: The Rosetta Stone: "The Second Window from the End"--Bugliosi Officially Joins the Cover-up (3)
dcwi...@netscape.net
spotted on the "second floor", Bugliosi notes, "Brewer no doubt meant
the sixth-floor sniper's nest window, which would have been at the
southeast corner, *second floor down from the roof* (emphasis his).
What's good for the goose.... In "Pictures of the Pain" (p523),
Richard Trask quotes from his own transcription (1:11pm) of a
transmission from Insp JH Sawyer, "On the third floor of this book
company down here, we found empty rifle hulls...." And Jim Bowles
reached the same conclusion re the "third floor" in his 1964
transcription (CE 705 p78). Sawyer, then, no doubt, meant the *fifth
floor", or the third floor "down from the roof"! In sum, there is
some doubt as to what the respective officers actually meant, altho
elsewhere, Sawyer is quoted as saying, "Police found the remains of
fried chicken & paper on the fifth floor." (Stockton Record (AP)
11/22/63 p8)
Sgt DV Harkness radioed at 12:36 that his witness, Amos Euins, saw
something on the "fourth" or "fifth" floor--the recording is unclear.
(DPD radio tapes: Harkness (12:36), & the dispatcher (12:46): "All
the information we have received, 9 [Sawyer], indicates that it did
come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building"; & Victoria
Adams (v6p391): "the police radio... said that shots had been fired
which apparently came either from the second floor or the fourth floor
window...") Harkness testified that, altho he had radioed "5th
floor", his witness had indicated "6th": "The exact words of the
witness, 'It was under the ledge', which would put in on the sixth
floor." (v6p313 & RH p52) But Euins' "exact words" remain in
question. In his 11/23/63 report, Deputy CL Lewis wrote, about Euins,
"Saw man on 5th floor". (v19p527) And cameraman James Underwood
reported, about 1pm: "Finally, one of the officers found a small
colored boy who said he saw a man fire from about the fourth window of
the TSBD". (Trask p421) Again, we can't be certain what Underwood
actually meant, but the "fourth window" up, in the depository, is the
5th floor.
Things get a little more certain when we hear what Euins was first
telling reporters about the *man* he saw. On pages 52 & 53, Bugliosi
quotes cameraman James Underwood's WC testimony, to the effect that
Euins was telling him that the man with the rifle was a "colored
man". (See also p159n.) Uncorroborated, this piece of testimony
remained, for years, just a curiosity--until November 21, 2000, when
the Dallas Morning News reprinted reporter Kent Biffle's article,
"This Couldn't Be Happening," from 1964. From page 2: "A policeman
was talking to a Negro boy. 'It was a colored man done it, I saw
him', the boy was saying. The boy was pointing at the upper levels of
the building." Now, we see, starkly, why Bugliosi did not want to
include the phrase "second window from the end" in his book. "Colored
man"... "third floor" from the top... "fourth window" from the
bottom... "5th floor"... "second window from the end": These are the
exact coordinates of the window at which Bonnie Ray Williams was
photographed, on the fifth floor, directly after the shooting.
(Trask, pp442, 448 & 449)
c2007 dcw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Bugliosi Officially Joins the Cover-up." <<<
>
> Dear Mary & Joseph. When will the silliness end?
>
> You'd think if Bugliosi was amongst the official "cover-uppers", he
> never would have even mentioned Euins' statements about seeing a Negro
> doing the shooting. And yet he did anyway. Go figure. ~shrug~
Gad! Someone else who stays up late....
Yah (as Bud likes to say), da Bug cited Underwood, whose testimony, on
its own--as I duly noted--was just a curiosity, for decades--easily
"mentioned", easily dismissed. But with Biffle's confirmation of
Euins' original take, things get a little more serious, & da Bug don't
mention da Biff.... And, David, check your tape of the radio logs, if
you dare....
dw
> I guess Vince isn't a very good cover-upper after all. Either that, or
> some CTers are just kooks. Take your pick.
>
> Funny thing is, by FAR the most stupid error in Vince's whole book
> (i.e., including the paraffin test as his 41st item of 53 pointing to
> LHO's obvious guilt) is something that the CTers seemingly couldn't
> care less about....even though VB dances on both sides of the aisle
> re. the paraffin test in the same book.
>
> ~another shrug~
David Von Pein
Dear Mary & Joseph. When will the silliness end?
You'd think if Bugliosi was amongst the official "cover-uppers", he
never would have even mentioned Euins' statements about seeing a Negro
doing the shooting. And yet he did anyway. Go figure. ~shrug~
I guess Vince isn't a very good cover-upper after all. Either that, or
some CTers are just kooks. Take your pick.
Funny thing is, by FAR the most stupid error in Vince's whole book
(i.e., including the paraffin test as his 41st item of 53 pointing to
LHO's obvious guilt) is something that the CTers seemingly couldn't
care less about....even though VB dances on both sides of the aisle
re. the paraffin test in the same book.
~another shrug~
Paraffin Footnote........
Of course, as we all know, the positive nitrates on LHO's hands were
almost certainly caused by the gunpowder from his revolver when he
shot Tippit. The odds of the nitrates being caused by something OTHER
than the 4 or 5 shots he fired at Tippit are virtually nil. But Vince
should have at least added such an addendum for his #41 item since he
insisted on using it on his list after previously arguing the
UNreliability of paraffin tests.
David Von Pein
saw the "pipe" being withdrawn from the 6th Floor, and somehow in his
mind "merged" the two visions together.
What was the color of the 6th-Floor man seen by Brennan, Fischer, and
Edwards? Black or white?
Plus: There's CE367 (Euins' sworn affidavit; below), which says that
Euins saw a "white man" doing the shooting. Go figure that about-face.
Was it a cover-up? Or: maybe it was just a confused young witness who
saw some black men on the 5th Floor and Oswald--a white guy--firing a
gun on the floor just above the Negroes. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0494a.htm
Bud
Wow, there seems to have been a lot of confusion early on about
what floor was which in the TSBD. Good thing the pronderance of
evidence shows what window shells were found under, and what window
shots were fired from. Kooks will continue to spin their wheels on
this misinformation for decades more, and continue to claim this case
is a "mystery", long after others have charted a course past these
difficulties.
> Things get a little more certain when we hear what Euins was first
> telling reporters about the *man* he saw. On pages 52 & 53, Bugliosi
> quotes cameraman James Underwood's WC testimony, to the effect that
> Euins was telling him that the man with the rifle was a "colored
> man". (See also p159n.) Uncorroborated, this piece of testimony
> remained, for years, just a curiosity--until November 21, 2000, when
> the Dallas Morning News reprinted reporter Kent Biffle's article,
> "This Couldn't Be Happening," from 1964. From page 2: "A policeman
> was talking to a Negro boy. 'It was a colored man done it, I saw
> him', the boy was saying. The boy was pointing at the upper levels of
> the building." Now, we see, starkly, why Bugliosi did not want to
> include the phrase "second window from the end" in his book.
For starters, why do you imply this information by Biffle was
unknown until 2000, when it was printed in the newspaper in 1964? And
in what way have you established Bugliousi was aware of this article,
there have been tens of thousands of articles written about this
event?
And why has no one asked Euins why he changed his acount, he seems
the obvious source to go to. Has he died in some mysterious was, like
having a safe fall him (I wouldn`t find it suspicious if he did).
RICLAND
I gave up at part one. My sense was that the key elements could have
been shown in one post but that you stretched it out to three very long
posts.
I don't understand why you can't simply zero-in on two or three errors,
format the presentation of them correctly and leave it at that. You're
writing these incredibly long and convoluted posts that pack no punch.
ricland
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
Bud
Theres the tenacity that made this country great.
> My sense was that the key elements could have
> been shown in one post but that you stretched it out to three very long
> posts.
Kind of like "Pirates of the Caribbean".
> I don't understand why you can't simply zero-in on two or three errors,
What do you mean "errors"? There were shells and shooters on all
the floors mentioned. Kooks never let the dust settle, they keep it in
the art in perpetruity. They think it somehow lends clarity. The
purpose is to make events seem more mysterious and suspicious, so they
don`t appear as lunatics for thinking something fishy happened.
> format the presentation of them correctly and leave it at that. You're
> writing these incredibly long and convoluted posts that pack no punch.
I agree, Don tends to meander, never going anywhere, or making a
clear point.
Walt
> Amos Euins (quite obviously) saw the black men on the 5th Floor, and
> saw the "pipe" being withdrawn from the 6th Floor, and somehow in his
> mind "merged" the two visions together.
RIGHT... a "pipe"like thing. Which rifle would most resemble a
"pipe".. A hunting rifle with a long exposed metal pipe like barrel,?
or a military rifle with a wooden stock coverin that metal barrel?
>
> What was the color of the 6th-Floor man seen by Brennan, Fischer, and
> Edwards? Black or white?
I believe all witnesses who saw the sixth floor gunman said he was
either white or a light colored Latino.
And since you are asking about color.... What color was the gunmans
shirt and trousers?
>
> Plus: There's CE367 (Euins' sworn affidavit; below), which says that
> Euins saw a "white man" doing the shooting. Go figure that about-face.
Why is it that you'll accept that people were human and made human
errors when it serves you but refuse to make allowances for human
failures when it doesn't serve you?
Walt
>
> Was it a cover-up? Or: maybe it was just a confused young witness who
> saw some black men on the 5th Floor and Oswald--a white guy--firing a
> gun on the floor just above the Negroes. .....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
David Von Pein
OK, Walt. I'll admit it......
Euins was human. He made a mistake. The mistake being: When he IDed
the SN sniper as being "black". He got it right (obviously) in his
sworn affidavit.
Oops....you wanted me to say that the other way around, didn't you?
Sorry.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 02:18, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Amos Euins (quite obviously) saw the black men on the 5th Floor, and
> > saw the "pipe" being withdrawn from the 6th Floor, and somehow in his
> > mind "merged" the two visions together.
>
> RIGHT... a "pipe"like thing. Which rifle would most resemble a
> "pipe".. A hunting rifle with a long exposed metal pipe like barrel,?
> or a military rifle with a wooden stock coverin that metal barrel?
Irrelevant. The question is could Euins find the barrel of the M-C
to resemble a pipe, and describe it as such. It doesn`t matter if
other makes of rifles have more "pipe-like" barrels. Idjit.
> > What was the color of the 6th-Floor man seen by Brennan, Fischer, and
> > Edwards? Black or white?
>
> I believe all witnesses who saw the sixth floor gunman said he was
> either white or a light colored Latino.
>
> And since you are asking about color.... What color was the gunmans
> shirt and trousers?
White t-shirt and dark pants. Wearing Oz`s face.
> > Plus: There's CE367 (Euins' sworn affidavit; below), which says that
> > Euins saw a "white man" doing the shooting. Go figure that about-face.
>
> Why is it that you'll accept that people were human and made human
> errors when it serves you but refuse to make allowances for human
> failures when it doesn't serve you?
I wonder if Euins didn`t reconsider his original assertion because
he heard Brennan say it was a white man he saw.
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 22 Jun, 02:18, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Amos Euins (quite obviously) saw the black men on the 5th Floor, and
> > > saw the "pipe" being withdrawn from the 6th Floor, and somehow in his
> > > mind "merged" the two visions together.
>
> > RIGHT... a "pipe"like thing. Which rifle would most resemble a
> > "pipe".. A hunting rifle with a long exposed metal pipe like barrel,?
> > or a military rifle with a wooden stock coverin that metal barrel?
>
> Irrelevant. The question is could Euins find the barrel of the M-C
> to resemble a pipe, and describe it as such. It doesn`t matter if
> other makes of rifles have more "pipe-like" barrels. Idjit.
Irrelevant?? I don't think so.... Both Arnold Rowland and Howard
Brennan described the gunman's rifle as " a high powered rifle" a
"deer rifle" or a hunting rifle"... Euins said the barrel of the
rifle resembled a "pipe". It's very doubful that he would have
described the wooden covered barrel of a Mannlicher Carcano as a "pipe
like thing"
>
> > > What was the color of the 6th-Floor man seen by Brennan, Fischer, and
> > > Edwards? Black or white?
>
> > I believe all witnesses who saw the sixth floor gunman said he was
> > either white or a light colored Latino.
>
> > And since you are asking about color.... What color was the gunmans
> > shirt and trousers?
>
> White t-shirt and dark pants. Wearing Oz`s face.
Liar.... You a forced to lie to protect the big lie ( the WR) You
know damned well that the witnesses said the gunman was wearing a
light colored sport shirt with a button front and a collar. Brennan
said the gunman's trousers were a shade light than his shirt.
Walt
>
> > > Plus: There's CE367 (Euins' sworn affidavit; below), which says that
> > > Euins saw a "white man" doing the shooting. Go figure that about-face.
>
> > Why is it that you'll accept that people were human and made human
> > errors when it serves you but refuse to make allowances for human
> > failures when it doesn't serve you?
>
> I wonder if Euins didn`t reconsider his original assertion because
> he heard Brennan say it was a white man he saw.
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > > Was it a cover-up? Or: maybe it was just a confused young witness who
> > > saw some black men on the 5th Floor and Oswald--a white guy--firing a
> > > gun on the floor just above the Negroes. .....
>
> > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Amos Euins (quite obviously) saw the black men on the 5th Floor, and
> saw the "pipe" being withdrawn from the 6th Floor, and somehow in his
> mind "merged" the two visions together.
>
> What was the color of the 6th-Floor man seen by Brennan, Fischer, and
> Edwards? Black or white?
>
> Plus: There's CE367 (Euins' sworn affidavit; below), which says that
> Euins saw a "white man" doing the shooting. Go figure that about-face.
>
> Was it a cover-up? Or: maybe it was just a confused young witness who
> saw some black men on the 5th Floor and Oswald--a white guy--firing a
> gun on the floor just above the Negroes. .....
>
with Hill on his transcription? Why did Haygood replace Hill at the
Commission hearings? Why did Bugliosi omit "second window from the
end"? Why did Bugliosi lie & say that he heard "142" on the DPD radio
tapes? (Checked in with them yet??) And it's very unlikely that
Euins was Hill's witness. Sgt Harkness took the former in hand at one
end of Dealey & motored him back to the TSBD. Hill's witnesses all
seemed to have stayed with him until going to police hq--Tague, Brehm
& the "2nd window" mystery witness.... The latter must not have seemed
"confused" or "young".
dw
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
dcwi...@netscape.net
LNers like Bugliosi want to turn that "preponderance" into
"unanimous", omitting phrases like "2nd window from the end"....
Kooks will continue to spin their wheels on
> this misinformation for decades more, and continue to claim this case
> is a "mystery", long after others have charted a course past these
> difficulties.
>
> > Things get a little more certain when we hear what Euins was first
> > telling reporters about the *man* he saw. On pages 52 & 53, Bugliosi
> > quotes cameraman James Underwood's WC testimony, to the effect that
> > Euins was telling him that the man with the rifle was a "colored
> > man". (See also p159n.) Uncorroborated, this piece of testimony
> > remained, for years, just a curiosity--until November 21, 2000, when
> > the Dallas Morning News reprinted reporter Kent Biffle's article,
> > "This Couldn't Be Happening," from 1964. From page 2: "A policeman
> > was talking to a Negro boy. 'It was a colored man done it, I saw
> > him', the boy was saying. The boy was pointing at the upper levels of
> > the building." Now, we see, starkly, why Bugliosi did not want to
> > include the phrase "second window from the end" in his book.
>
> For starters, why do you imply this information by Biffle was
> unknown until 2000, when it was printed in the newspaper in 1964? And
> in what way have you established Bugliousi was aware of this article,
> there have been tens of thousands of articles written about this
> event?
Biffle wrote the piece in '64, but it was apparently forgotten until
its reprint. Guess there weren't as many kooks around (on either
side) back then... Bugliosi's been at this about 10 years longer than
I have, & has more resources (one would hope) than I have, yet he
never heard of this? In the end, it doesn't matter. It exists, &
it's corroboration for Underwood....
dw
> And why has no one asked Euins why he changed his acount, he seems
> the obvious source to go to. Has he died in some mysterious was, like
> having a safe fall him (I wouldn`t find it suspicious if he did).
>
Actually, Bud, I tried several times to contact Euins, by letter & by
phone, some years back, but never got a response. My guess is he
became pretty disgusted with the whole process, especially if (as Mark
Lane wrote in "Rush to J") his family was threatened....
> > "Colored
> > man"... "third floor" from the top... "fourth window" from the
> > bottom... "5th floor"... "second window from the end": These are the
> > exact coordinates of the window at which Bonnie Ray Williams was
> > photographed, on the fifth floor, directly after the shooting.
> > (Trask, pp442, 448 & 449)
>
> > c2007 dcw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> RICLAND wrote:
one yet seems to have checked the DPD radio tapes to verify my main
point. Surely, DVP has them. David? David?
dw
>
>
> > ricland
>
> > --
>
> > Max Holland on Bugliosi:
>
> > "He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
> > -- Max Holland
> > ---
> > Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
> > The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 18:02, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 22 Jun, 02:18, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Amos Euins (quite obviously) saw the black men on the 5th Floor, and
> > > > saw the "pipe" being withdrawn from the 6th Floor, and somehow in his
> > > > mind "merged" the two visions together.
> >
> > > RIGHT... a "pipe"like thing. Which rifle would most resemble a
> > > "pipe".. A hunting rifle with a long exposed metal pipe like barrel,?
> > > or a military rifle with a wooden stock coverin that metal barrel?
> >
> > Irrelevant. The question is could Euins find the barrel of the M-C
> > to resemble a pipe, and describe it as such. It doesn`t matter if
> > other makes of rifles have more "pipe-like" barrels. Idjit.
>
> Irrelevant?? I don't think so....
Of course not, because you didn`t understand the point. You did the
same thing with Markhams "bushy hair" description. It wasn`t the words
you would have chosen. Or Oswald doen`t have his spare bullets in the
pocket you would have. You are an idjit.
> Both Arnold Rowland and Howard
> Brennan described the gunman's rifle as " a high powered rifle" a
> "deer rifle" or a hunting rifle"...
No, they both didn`t, you lying idjit.
> Euins said the barrel of the
> rifle resembled a "pipe". It's very doubful that he would have
> described the wooden covered barrel of a Mannlicher Carcano as a "pipe
> like thing"
The whole barrel of the rifle isn`t covered with wood, is it,
idjit. Now, claim to know Euins`s thinking so well that you know he
wouldn`t describe the portion of barrel sticking out past the stock as
a "pipe". Idjit.
> > > > What was the color of the 6th-Floor man seen by Brennan, Fischer, and
> > > > Edwards? Black or white?
> >
> > > I believe all witnesses who saw the sixth floor gunman said he was
> > > either white or a light colored Latino.
> >
> > > And since you are asking about color.... What color was the gunmans
> > > shirt and trousers?
> >
> > White t-shirt and dark pants. Wearing Oz`s face.
>
> Liar.... You a forced to lie to protect the big lie ( the WR) You
> know damned well that the witnesses said the gunman was wearing a
> light colored sport shirt with a button front and a collar.
I`m a liar? Quote all the witnesses relating what you just did,
idjit. BTW, all shirts have a collar.
Walt
Dud ... I've posted the witnesses testimonies many times......and you
know it. They said the gunman on the sixth floor was wearing a LIGHT
colored sport shirt with a button front, open at the collar. Oswald
was wearing a DARK reddish brown shirt.
BTW .... T-shirts, sweat shirtshirts, polo shirts etc... have NECK
BANDS.... NO collars. Yer trying to wiggle away from the evidence ,
aren't you worm??
Walt
>
>
>
> > Brennan
> > said the gunman's trousers were a shade light than his shirt.
>
> > Walt
>
> > > > > Plus: There's CE367 (Euins' sworn affidavit; below), which says that
> > > > > Euins saw a "white man" doing the shooting. Go figure that about-face.
>
> > > > Why is it that you'll accept that people were human and made human
> > > > errors when it serves you but refuse to make allowances for human
> > > > failures when it doesn't serve you?
>
> > > I wonder if Euins didn`t reconsider his original assertion because
> > > he heard Brennan say it was a white man he saw.
>
> > > > Walt
>
> > > > > Was it a cover-up? Or: maybe it was just a confused young witness who
> > > > > saw some black men on the 5th Floor and Oswald--a white guy--firing a
> > > > > gun on the floor just above the Negroes. .....
>
> > > > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Thats why what you said is a lie. You can`t even claim ignorance.
>and you
> know it. They said the gunman on the sixth floor was wearing a LIGHT
> colored sport shirt with a button front, open at the collar.
*They* did not say this, idjit. Rowland mentioned the buttons, and
he was the furthest away of the four witnesses to the man on the 6th
floor, and couldn`t possibly make out such details. You take what one
said, tell the lie that they were unanimous in that observation. One
witness said the man they saw could be wearing a t-shirt. This makes
"t-shirt" a possibility. Oz was wearing a t-shirt that day, and a
witness who saw hinm shortly after the shooting said that is what Oz
was wearing.
> Oswald
> was wearing a DARK reddish brown shirt.
Not according to many of the people who saw him that day, idjit.
They were there, not you.
> BTW .... T-shirts, sweat shirtshirts, polo shirts etc... have NECK
> BANDS.... NO collars. Yer trying to wiggle away from the evidence ,
> aren't you worm??
Do you ever get anything right? Type in "t-shirt collar" in Google
Images to see dozens of examples where the neck openning on a t-shirt
is called a "collar". Here is one example, see "Rounded t-shirt
collar" in the description of the t-shirt shown. Idjit.
Bud
Yah, to get a clearer picture of what occurred, you have to
disregard all the bad information. It is that bad information that
kooks cherish.
Are you more comfortable assuming he did?
> In the end, it doesn't matter. It exists, &
> it's corroboration for Underwood....
Yah, it is. Now, who asked Euins why he changed his mind?
> dw
> > And why has no one asked Euins why he changed his acount, he seems
> > the obvious source to go to. Has he died in some mysterious was, like
> > having a safe fall him (I wouldn`t find it suspicious if he did).
> >
> Actually, Bud, I tried several times to contact Euins, by letter & by
> phone, some years back, but never got a response. My guess is he
> became pretty disgusted with the whole process, especially if (as Mark
> Lane wrote in "Rush to J") his family was threatened....
Those conspiracy folks are a vicious lot. Lane never asked Euins
why he originally said it was a colored man he saw? Seems impossible
to go anywhere with information like this when you can`t take the
first logical step.
Bud
True enough, in a maze you don`t follow someone who has gone down a
corridor to a dead end, and insists this is the way to go. Not when
there is a clearly marked path through.
> Frinstance--no
> one yet seems to have checked the DPD radio tapes to verify my main
> point.
Which was? What do the tapes say?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 5:47 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > 3) Commenting on Officer Brewer's 12:38 radio message re a weapon
> > > > the sixth-floor sniper's nestwindow, which would have been at the
> > > > southeast corner, *secondfloor down from the roof* (emphasis his).
> > > > What's good for the goose.... In "Pictures of the Pain" (p523),
> > > > Richard Trask quotes from his own transcription (1:11pm) of a
> > > > transmission from Insp JH Sawyer, "On the third floor of this book
> > > > company down here, we found empty rifle hulls...." And Jim Bowles
> > > > reached the same conclusion re the "third floor" in his 1964
> > > > transcription (CE 705 p78). Sawyer, then, no doubt, meant the *fifth
> > > > floor", or the third floor "down from the roof"! In sum, there is
> > > > some doubt as to what the respective officers actually meant, altho
> > > > elsewhere, Sawyer is quoted as saying, "Police found the remains of
> > > > fried chicken & paper on the fifth floor." (Stockton Record (AP)
> > > > 11/22/63 p8)
>
> > > > Sgt DV Harkness radioed at 12:36 that his witness, Amos Euins, saw
> > > > something on the "fourth" or "fifth" floor--the recording is unclear.
> > > > (DPD radio tapes: Harkness (12:36), & the dispatcher (12:46): "All
> > > > the information we have received, 9 [Sawyer], indicates that it did
> > > > come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building"; & Victoria
> > > > Adams (v6p391): "the police radio... said that shots had been fired
> > > >window...") Harkness testified that, altho he had radioed "5th
> > > > floor", his witness had indicated "6th": "The exact words of the
> > > > witness, 'It was under the ledge', which would put in on the sixth
> > > > floor." (v6p313 & RH p52) But Euins' "exact words" remain in
> > > > question. In his 11/23/63 report, Deputy CL Lewis wrote, about Euins,
> > > > "Saw man on 5th floor". (v19p527) And cameraman James Underwood
> > > > reported, about 1pm: "Finally, one of the officers found a small
> > > > colored boy who said he saw a man fire from about the fourthwindowof
> > > > the TSBD". (Trask p421) Again, we can't be certain what Underwood
> > > > 5th floor.
>
> > > Wow, there seems to have been a lot of confusion early on about
> > > what floor was which in the TSBD. Good thing the pronderance of
> > > evidence shows whatwindowshells were found under, and whatwindow
> > > shots were fired from.
> > LNers like Bugliosi want to turn that "preponderance" into
>
> Yah, to get a clearer picture of what occurred, you have to
> disregard all the bad information. It is that bad information that
> kooks cherish.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >Kooks will continue to spin their wheels on
> > > this misinformation for decades more, and continue to claim this case
> > > is a "mystery", long after others have charted a course past these
> > > difficulties.
>
> > > > Things get a little more certain when we hear what Euins was first
> > > > telling reporters about the *man* he saw. On pages 52 & 53, Bugliosi
> > > > quotes cameraman James Underwood's WC testimony, to the effect that
> > > > Euins was telling him that the man with the rifle was a "colored
> > > > man". (See also p159n.) Uncorroborated, this piece of testimony
> > > > remained, for years, just a curiosity--until November 21, 2000, when
> > > > the Dallas Morning News reprinted reporter Kent Biffle's article,
> > > > "This Couldn't Be Happening," from 1964. From page 2: "A policeman
> > > > was talking to a Negro boy. 'It was a colored man done it, I saw
> > > > him', the boy was saying. The boy was pointing at the upper levels of
> > > > the building." Now, we see, starkly, why Bugliosi did not want to
> > > > bottom... "5th floor"... "secondwindowfrom the end": These are the
> > > > exact coordinates of thewindowat which Bonnie Ray Williams was
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 5:47 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > 3) Commenting on Officer Brewer's 12:38 radio message re a weapon
> > > > the sixth-floor sniper's nestwindow, which would have been at the
> > > > southeast corner, *secondfloor down from the roof* (emphasis his).
> > > > What's good for the goose.... In "Pictures of the Pain" (p523),
> > > > Richard Trask quotes from his own transcription (1:11pm) of a
> > > > transmission from Insp JH Sawyer, "On the third floor of this book
> > > > company down here, we found empty rifle hulls...." And Jim Bowles
> > > > reached the same conclusion re the "third floor" in his 1964
> > > > transcription (CE 705 p78). Sawyer, then, no doubt, meant the *fifth
> > > > floor", or the third floor "down from the roof"! In sum, there is
> > > > some doubt as to what the respective officers actually meant, altho
> > > > elsewhere, Sawyer is quoted as saying, "Police found the remains of
> > > > fried chicken & paper on the fifth floor." (Stockton Record (AP)
> > > > 11/22/63 p8)
>
> > > > Sgt DV Harkness radioed at 12:36 that his witness, Amos Euins, saw
> > > > something on the "fourth" or "fifth" floor--the recording is unclear.
> > > > (DPD radio tapes: Harkness (12:36), & the dispatcher (12:46): "All
> > > > the information we have received, 9 [Sawyer], indicates that it did
> > > > come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building"; & Victoria
> > > > Adams (v6p391): "the police radio... said that shots had been fired
> > > >window...") Harkness testified that, altho he had radioed "5th
> > > > floor", his witness had indicated "6th": "The exact words of the
> > > > witness, 'It was under the ledge', which would put in on the sixth
> > > > floor." (v6p313 & RH p52) But Euins' "exact words" remain in
> > > > question. In his 11/23/63 report, Deputy CL Lewis wrote, about Euins,
> > > > "Saw man on 5th floor". (v19p527) And cameraman James Underwood
> > > > reported, about 1pm: "Finally, one of the officers found a small
> > > > colored boy who said he saw a man fire from about the fourthwindowof
> > > > the TSBD". (Trask p421) Again, we can't be certain what Underwood
> > > > 5th floor.
>
> > > Wow, there seems to have been a lot of confusion early on about
> > > what floor was which in the TSBD. Good thing the pronderance of
> > LNers like Bugliosi want to turn that "preponderance" into
>
> Yah, to get a clearer picture of what occurred, you have to
> disregard all the bad information. It is that bad information that
> kooks cherish.
>
information" would certainly include the photos of the hulls found on
an upper floor of the depository, since Capn Fritz picked them up or
was handed them *before* Day & co. got there for photographs. "Bad
information" would include saying that witnesses Brennan, Fischer &
Mrs Walther saw an obvious, acrobatic suspect on the *6th* floor since
the Weaver Polaroid & the Hughes film, taken the minute before the
shooting, show only *boxes* on the 6th floor. "Bad information" would
include Reynolds testifying before the Warren Commish that he last saw
the suspect heading for the parking lot behind the Texaco station,
since 11/22/63 film footage shows him telling officers he last the
suspect heading the*other* way, into the back of an old house. LNers
must deal with a lot of such bad info....
dw
>
>
>
> > >Kooks will continue to spin their wheels on
> > > this misinformation for decades more, and continue to claim this case
> > > is a "mystery", long after others have charted a course past these
> > > difficulties.
>
> > > > Things get a little more certain when we hear what Euins was first
> > > > telling reporters about the *man* he saw. On pages 52 & 53, Bugliosi
> > > > quotes cameraman James Underwood's WC testimony, to the effect that
> > > > Euins was telling him that the man with the rifle was a "colored
> > > > man". (See also p159n.) Uncorroborated, this piece of testimony
> > > > remained, for years, just a curiosity--until November 21, 2000, when
> > > > the Dallas Morning News reprinted reporter Kent Biffle's article,
> > > > "This Couldn't Be Happening," from 1964. From page 2: "A policeman
> > > > was talking to a Negro boy. 'It was a colored man done it, I saw
> > > > him', the boy was saying. The boy was pointing at the upper levels of
> > > > the building." Now, we see, starkly, why Bugliosi did not want to
> > > > bottom... "5th floor"... "secondwindowfrom the end": These are the
> > > > exact coordinates of thewindowat which Bonnie Ray Williams was
Bud
No, we really don`t. We need only point out that thiis kind of bad
information always takes you into a corner in which it is impossible
to proceed any further. You can obsess about the difficulties, and in
some cases invent them, but if these troublesome problems are the key
to the case, why don`t they unlock anything?
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
I'll add the BOH photo - which is contradicted by both the autopsy, and by the
great majority of eyewitnesses, the X-rays, which self-contradict themselves,
the "paper bag", which had so little support, and strange problems... CE399,
which has been denied up and down the evidence chain (and had no medical support
for what it was alleged to have done), and of course, the extant Z-film, the
problems with which even the "defenders of the faith" refuse to answer.
>LNers must deal with a lot of such bad info....
>dw
Hitting the nail on the head, as usual!
There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this case - some (perhaps
even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufactured. CT'ers take
it *all* in, and make judgements based on how best the evidence can be
reconciled. It's only CT'ers that can *explain* the contradictory evidence.
LNT'ers, on the other hand, have a very simple basis on which to make their
determination as to it's accuracy - does it support the theory the WCR put out?
If not, it's "weak" evidence, or "kook" evidence, or whatever the latest spin
the LNT'ers wish to put on it. But *explain* it, they can't. Omit it,
misrepresent it, or simply lie about it; is the common tactic that they -must-
employ.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> In article <1182660367.927940.89...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> dcwill...@netscape.net says...
yeah, I guess they would, & have. See, for instance, Bugliosi's
endnote re the 12:37 DPD radio transmission....
dw
Bud
Truly sad. Ben used to be one of the leading battlers against the
LN position, before running up the white flag, and killfiltering most
dissenting opinion. Now he is reduced to patting fellow kooks on the
back. Sad.
> There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this case - some (perhaps
> even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufactured.
Yah, kooks intentionally manufacture much of the difficulties.
> CT'ers take
> it *all* in, and make judgements based on how best the evidence can be
> reconciled.
<snicker> Kooks are incapable of rationally weighing the evidence.
Witnesses say where the shots came from. Physical evidence of a
shooter is found at that location. Where do kook figure the shots came
from. The sewer. The knoll. Anywhere but the TSBD, because that where
Ozzie worked, and he said he was a patsy. Stellar work, kooks, on that
"reconciling".
> It's only CT'ers that can *explain* the contradictory evidence.
Leprechauns!
> LNT'ers, on the other hand, have a very simple basis on which to make their
> determination as to it's accuracy - does it support the theory the WCR put out?
You are just jealous because we have a working thesis to plug
information into. The only kook criteria is that it casts doubt on the
official explaination. Shooter, anybody but Oz, location shots were
fired from, anyplace but the 6th floor of the TSBD, ect.
> If not, it's "weak" evidence, or "kook" evidence, or whatever the latest spin
> the LNT'ers wish to put on it. But *explain* it, they can't.
Nor is it necessary to do so in order to figure this event out.
When reviewing a historical event, say, Gettysburg, you don`t
contest that Pickett`s charge occurred, just because there is a
difficulty or dispute over when Longstreet arrived on the field.
> Omit it,
> misrepresent it, or simply lie about it; is the common tactic that they -must-
> employ.
<snicker> How do kooks get around all the lies Oz told on custody.
Ignore, omit or deny.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
with anything explaining this....
dw
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
I don`t have the tapes, only the transcript I`m working from, and
that shows no transmission at 12:37...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/index.htm
I`m not sure of your point, what is it you think VB lied about?
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Jun 24, 3:07 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > In article <1182660367.927940.89...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>>
>> > >On Jun 23, 6:31 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > >> > On Jun 22, 5:47 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>apon
>> > >> > > > spotted on the "secondfloor", Bugliosi notes, "Brewer no doubt=
> meant
>> > >> > > > the sixth-floor sniper's nestwindow, which would have been at =
>the
>> > >> > > > southeast corner, *secondfloor down from the roof* (emphasis h=
>is).
>> > >> > > > What's good for the goose.... In "Pictures of the Pain" (p523),
>> > >> > > > Richard Trask quotes from his own transcription (1:11pm) of a
>book
>> > >> > > > company down here, we found empty rifle hulls...." And Jim Bow=
>les
>> > >> > > > reached the same conclusion re the "third floor" in his 1964
> *fifth
>> > >> > > > floor", or the third floor "down from the roof"! In sum, ther=
>e is
>> > >> > > > some doubt as to what the respective officers actually meant, =
>altho
>> > >> > > > elsewhere, Sawyer is quoted as saying, "Police found the remai=
>ns of
>> > >> > > > fried chicken & paper on the fifth floor." (Stockton Record (A=
>P)
>> > >> > > > 11/22/63 p8)
>>
>> > >> > > > Sgt DV Harkness radioed at 12:36 that his witness, Amos Euins,=
> saw
>> > >> > > > something on the "fourth" or "fifth" floor--the recording is u=
>nclear.
>> > >> > > > (DPD radio tapes: Harkness (12:36), & the dispatcher (12:46): =
> "All
>> > >> > > > the information we have received, 9 [Sawyer], indicates that i=
>t did
>> > >> > > > come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building"; & Vict=
>oria
>> > >> > > > Adams (v6p391): "the police radio... said that shots had been =
>fired
>> > >> > > > which apparently came either from thesecondfloor or the fourth=
> floor
>> > >> > > >window...") Harkness testified that, altho he had radioed "5th
>the
>> > >> > > > witness, 'It was under the ledge', which would put in on the s=
>ixth
>> > >> > > > floor." (v6p313 & RH p52) But Euins' "exact words" remain in
>t Euins,
>> > >> > > > "Saw man on 5th floor". (v19p527) And cameraman James Underwo=
>od
>> > >> > > > reported, about 1pm: "Finally, one of the officers found a sm=
>all
>> > >> > > > colored boy who said he saw a man fire from about the fourthwi=
>ndowof
>> > >> > > > the TSBD". (Trask p421) Again, we can't be certain what Under=
>wood
>> > >> > > > actually meant, but the "fourthwindow" up, in the depository, =
>is the
>> > >> > > > 5th floor.
>>
>> > >> > > Wow, there seems to have been a lot of confusion early on abo=
>ut
>> > >> > > what floor was which in the TSBD. Good thing the pronderance of
>> > >> > > evidence shows whatwindowshells were found under, and whatwindow
>> > >> > > shots were fired from.
>> > >> > LNers like Bugliosi want to turn that "preponderance" into
>> > >> > "unanimous", omitting phrases like "2ndwindowfrom the end"....
>>
>> > >> Yah, to get a clearer picture of what occurred, you have to
>> > >> disregard all the bad information. It is that bad information that
>> > >> kooks cherish.
>>
>> > >"Bad information" is in the eye of the beholder. I'd say "bad
>> > >information" would certainly include the photos of the hulls found on
>> > >an upper floor of the depository, since Capn Fritz picked them up or
>> > >was handed them *before* Day & co. got there for photographs. "Bad
>> > >information" would include saying that witnesses Brennan, Fischer &
>> > >Mrs Walther saw an obvious, acrobatic suspect on the *6th* floor since
>> > >the Weaver Polaroid & the Hughes film, taken the minute before the
>> > >shooting, show only *boxes* on the 6th floor. "Bad information" would
>> > >include Reynolds testifying before the Warren Commish that he last saw
>> > >the suspect heading for the parking lot behind the Texaco station,
>> > >since 11/22/63 film footage shows him telling officers he last the
>> > >suspect heading the*other* way, into the back of an old house.
>>
> by the
>> > great majority of eyewitnesses, the X-rays, which self-contradict thems=
>elves,
>> > the "paper bag", which had so little support, and strange problems... =
>CE399,
>> > which has been denied up and down the evidence chain (and had no medica=
>l support
>> > for what it was alleged to have done), and of course, the extant Z-film=
>, the
>> > problems with which even the "defenders of the faith" refuse to answer.
>>
>> > >LNers must deal with a lot of such bad info....
>> > >dw
>>
>> > Hitting the nail on the head, as usual!
>>
>> Truly sad. Ben used to be one of the leading battlers against the
>> LN position,
Still am... considering that you *still* can't answer the posts and points I
raise. The evidence is what it is, and you can't handle it.
>> before running up the white flag, and killfiltering most
>> dissenting opinion.
Untrue, Troll... I killfile only trolls... most of whom seem to be LNT'ers, but
there are a few CT'ers in there too. I don't waste my time with trolls.
>> Now he is reduced to patting fellow kooks on the
>> back. Sad.
>>
>Why did Bugliosi lie about the 12:37 transmission? No one has come up
>with anything explaining this....
>dw
I predicted "omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright lies"... my
prediction has proven itself correct, and not a single troll will admit it.
Come to think of it, even the LNT'ers refuse to admit it.
Bugliosi also lied about the NAA results.
>> > There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this case - some (=
>perhaps
>> > even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufactured.
>>
>> Yah, kooks intentionally manufacture much of the difficulties.
>>
>> > CT'ers take
>> > it *all* in, and make judgements based on how best the evidence can be
>> > reconciled.
>>
>> <snicker> Kooks are incapable of rationally weighing the evidence.
>> Witnesses say where the shots came from. Physical evidence of a
>> shooter is found at that location. Where do kook figure the shots came
>> from. The sewer. The knoll. Anywhere but the TSBD, because that where
>> Ozzie worked, and he said he was a patsy. Stellar work, kooks, on that
>> "reconciling".
>>
>> > It's only CT'ers that can *explain* the contradictory evidence.
>>
>> Leprechauns!
>>
>> > LNT'ers, on the other hand, have a very simple basis on which to make t=
>heir
>> > determination as to it's accuracy - does it support the theory the WCR =
>put out?
>>
>> You are just jealous because we have a working thesis to plug
>> information into. The only kook criteria is that it casts doubt on the
>> official explaination. Shooter, anybody but Oz, location shots were
>> fired from, anyplace but the 6th floor of the TSBD, ect.
>>
>> > If not, it's "weak" evidence, or "kook" evidence, or whatever the lates=
>t spin
>> > the LNT'ers wish to put on it. But *explain* it, they can't.
>>
>> Nor is it necessary to do so in order to figure this event out.
>>
>> When reviewing a historical event, say, Gettysburg, you don`t
>> contest that Pickett`s charge occurred, just because there is a
>> difficulty or dispute over when Longstreet arrived on the field.
>>
>> > Omit it,
>> > misrepresent it, or simply lie about it; is the common tactic that they=
> -must-
>> > employ.
>>
>> <snicker> How do kooks get around all the lies Oz told on custody.
>> Ignore, omit or deny.
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> > >Kooks will continue to spin their wheels on
>> > >> > > this misinformation for decades more, and continue to claim this=
> case
>> > >> > > is a "mystery", long after others have charted a course past the=
>se
>> > >> > > difficulties.
>>
>> > >> > > > Things get a little more certain when we hear what Euins was f=
>irst
>> > >> > > > telling reporters about the *man* he saw. On pages 52 & 53, B=
>ugliosi
>> > >> > > > quotes cameraman James Underwood's WC testimony, to the effect=
> that
>> > >> > > > Euins was telling him that the man with the rifle was a "color=
>ed
>> > >> > > > man". (See also p159n.) Uncorroborated, this piece of testim=
>ony
>> > >> > > > remained, for years, just a curiosity--until November 21, 2000=
>, when
>> > >> > > > the Dallas Morning News reprinted reporter Kent Biffle's artic=
>le,
>> > >> > > > "This Couldn't Be Happening," from 1964. From page 2: "A pol=
>iceman
>> > >> > > > was talking to a Negro boy. 'It was a colored man done it, I =
>saw
>> > >> > > > him', the boy was saying. The boy was pointing at the upper l=
>evels of
>> > >> > > > the building." Now, we see, starkly, why Bugliosi did not wan=
>t to
>> > >> > > > include the phrase "secondwindowfrom the end" in his book.
>>
>> > >> > > For starters, why do you imply this information by Biffle was
>> > >> > > unknown until 2000, when it was printed in the newspaper in 1964=
>? And
>> > >> > > in what way have you established Bugliousi was aware of this art=
>icle,
>> > >> > > there have been tens of thousands of articles written about this
>> > >> > > event?
>>
>> > >> > Biffle wrote the piece in '64, but it was apparently forgotten unt=
>il
>> > >> > its reprint.
>> > >> > Guess there weren't as many kooks around (on either
>> > >> > side) back then... Bugliosi's been at this about 10 years longer t=
>han
>> > >> > I have, & has more resources (one would hope) than I have, yet he
>> > >> > never heard of this?
>>
>> > >> Are you more comfortable assuming he did?
>>
>> > >> > In the end, it doesn't matter. It exists, &
>> > >> > it's corroboration for Underwood....
>>
>> > >> Yah, it is. Now, who asked Euins why he changed his mind?
>>
>> > >> > dw
>> > >> > > And why has no one asked Euins why he changed his acount, he =
>seems
>> > >> > > the obvious source to go to. Has he died in some mysterious was,=
> like
>> > >> > > having a safe fall him (I wouldn`t find it suspicious if he did).
>>
>> > >> > Actually, Bud, I tried several times to contact Euins, by letter &=
> by
>> > >> > phone, some years back, but never got a response. My guess is he
>> > >> > became pretty disgusted with the whole process, especially if (as =
>Mark
>> > >> > Lane wrote in "Rush to J") his family was threatened....
>>
>> > >> Those conspiracy folks are a vicious lot. Lane never asked Euins
>> > >> why he originally said it was a colored man he saw? Seems impossible
>> > >> to go anywhere with information like this when you can`t take the
>> > >> first logical step.
>>
>> > >> > > > "Colored
>> > >> > > > man"... "third floor" from the top... "fourthwindow" from the
>> > >> > > > bottom... "5th floor"... "secondwindowfrom the end": These ar=
>e the
>> > >> > > > exact coordinates of thewindowat which Bonnie Ray Williams was
>> > >> > > > photographed, on the fifth floor, directly after the shooting.
>> > >> > > > (Trask,
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
My opinion only. There are honest CT'ers, for example, who believe that the
evidence supports the authenticity of the "paper bag". But as long as they are
willing to *admit* of the evidential problems, I'd consider them honest in their
research.
>However... "lie"??? Would they? Well, yeah, I guess they would, & have.
Someone here, probably one of the trolls, keeps insisting that "intent" is a
necessary component for telling a lie - but when your mind is so closed to
anything that doesn't prove your case - I'd consider "intent" to be a given.
Rare is the LNT'er who hasn't been caught on these forums telling outright lies.
And despite citations proving them wrong - refuse to admit it.
>See, for instance, Bugliosi's endnote re the 12:37 DPD radio transmission....
>dw
I'm sure many more examples will come up ... Bugliosi is a lawyer arguing a
case, not a scholar researching historical truth.
Bud
I do, on a regular basis. I go right to the heart of these
problems... kooks.
> The evidence is what it is, and you can't handle it.
I can easily handle you, and anything you can muster. Thats why
you killfiled me.
> >> before running up the white flag, and killfiltering most
> >> dissenting opinion.
>
>
> Untrue, Troll... I killfile only trolls...
Spin it any way you want to, kook. Look at the top ten prolific LN
posters. How many of those have you killfiled?
> most of whom seem to be LNT'ers, but
> there are a few CT'ers in there too. I don't waste my time with trolls.
Yet once again, you reply through another poster. How is this less
of a waste of time?
> >> Now he is reduced to patting fellow kooks on the
> >> back. Sad.
> >>
> >Why did Bugliosi lie about the 12:37 transmission? No one has come up
> >with anything explaining this....
> >dw
>
>
> I predicted "omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright lies"... my
> prediction has proven itself correct, and not a single troll will admit it.
Bugliousi wove a narative as large as the AIDS quilt. Now the kooks
will attempt to unravel it by pulling on what they claim are loose
threads. They must resort to microanalyzing this book, because the
large picture paints a clear and compelling picture.
> Come to think of it, even the LNT'ers refuse to admit it.
>
> Bugliosi also lied about the NAA results.
Ben is reduced to making claims.
> >> > There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this case - some (=
> >perhaps
> >> > even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufactured.
> >>
> >> Yah, kooks intentionally manufacture much of the difficulties.
> >>
> >> > CT'ers take
> >> > it *all* in, and make judgements based on how best the evidence can be
> >> > reconciled.
> >>
> >> <snicker> Kooks are incapable of rationally weighing the evidence.
> >> Witnesses say where the shots came from. Physical evidence of a
> >> shooter is found at that location. Where do kook figure the shots came
> >> from. The sewer. The knoll. Anywhere but the TSBD, because thats where
Bud
How could it matter whether you consider them honest or not?
> >However... "lie"??? Would they? Well, yeah, I guess they would, & have.
>
> Someone here, probably one of the trolls, keeps insisting that "intent" is a
> necessary component for telling a lie -
It was Webster, the guy who wrote the dictionary.
> but when your mind is so closed to
> anything that doesn't prove your case - I'd consider "intent" to be a given.
That you consider your conclusions and assuptions as fact is what
causes you to be so wrong so often.
> Rare is the LNT'er who hasn't been caught on these forums telling outright lies.
Rare is the CT who isn`t insane.
> And despite citations proving them wrong - refuse to admit it.
I showed where you lied, used cites to prove it, and you refused to
admit it.
> >See, for instance, Bugliosi's endnote re the 12:37 DPD radio transmission....
> >dw
>
> I'm sure many more examples will come up ... Bugliosi is a lawyer arguing a
> case, not a scholar researching historical truth.
When does the CT version of this historical event come out?
dcwi...@netscape.net
sent the 12:37 message re the second window from the end. He says the
radio-log tapes say this. But they have #22 (Patrolman Leonard Hill)
as the author. You can hear the number twice.... The aforementioned
post deals with the significance of this outright lie....
Bud
Like I said, I don`t have the tapes, and I read the original post,
and couldn`t decipher the significance of this discrepancy. I did
notice that a transmission attributed to Hill (22) contained
information that Hargrove testified to gathering. The transmission "I
have one guy that was possibly hit by a richocet from the bullet off
the pavement and another guy who saw the President slump." was
attribute to Hill, but from what Hargrove told the WC, it was he who
was questioning those two (one of which was obviously Tague.) Seems
there is some kind of mix-up between Hill and Hargrove.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > radio-log tapes say this. But they have #22 (Patrolman Leonard Hill)
> > as the author. You can hear the number twice.... The aforementioned
> > post deals with the significance of this outright lie....
>
> Like I said, I don`t have the tapes, and I read the original post,
> and couldn`t decipher the significance of this discrepancy. I did
> notice that a transmission attributed to Hill (22) contained
> information that Hargrove testified to gathering. The transmission "I
> have one guy that was possibly hit by a richocet from the bullet off
> the pavement and another guy who saw the President slump." was
> attribute to Hill, but from what Hargrove told the WC, it was he who
> was questioning those two (one of which was obviously Tague.) Seems
> there is some kind of mix-up between Hill and Hargrove.
>
all 12:37 transmissions, including the one covering Tague & apparently
Brehm. "22" not "142". That's what you hear--can anyone direct Bud
to an online tape of the 12:37-38 transmissions? Because if you can't
hear it, you can't really appreciate what Bugliosi has done.
Actually, he has done *two* things here: In his text, he cut off
quoting the 12:37 transmission before it got to the shots which came
from the "second window from the end". He implies that the sender
was only telling the dispatcher that the shots came from the TSBD
["there"]--but the sender specified a certain window. Then, in his
endnote for this passage, Bugliosi said that he heard "142" on the
tape, not "22".
dw
Bud
I have the tapes, and the means to play them now. What I am lacking
now is the interest. Seems everything that is being attributed to Hill
on the transcripts are things *Haygood* claimed to have said. I`d be
inclined to believe Bugliosi`s conclusion, that it was Haygood saying
those things. I seached the Dallas archives looking for a report by
Haygood, with no luck.
dcwi...@netscape.net
dw
>
> > Actually, he has done *two* things here: In his text, he cut off
> > quoting the 12:37 transmission before it got to the shots which came
> > was only telling the dispatcher that the shots came from the TSBD
> > endnote for this passage, Bugliosi said that he heard "142" on the
> > tape, not "22".
> > dw
>
> > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this case - some (perhaps
> > > > > > > > even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufactured.
>
> > > > > > > Yah, kooks intentionally manufacture much of the difficulties.
>
> > > > > > > > CT'ers take
> > > > > > > > it *all* in, and make judgements based on how best the evidence can be
> > > > > > > > reconciled.
>
> > > > > > > <snicker> Kooks are incapable of rationally weighing the evidence.
> > > > > > > Witnesses say where the shots came from. Physical evidence of a
> > > > > > > shooter is found at that location. Where do kook figure the shots came
> > > > > > > from. The sewer. The knoll. Anywhere but the TSBD, because that where
> > > > > > > Ozzie worked, and he said he was a patsy. Stellar work, kooks, on that
> > > > > > > "reconciling".
>
> > > > > > > > It's only CT'ers that can *explain* the contradictory evidence.
>
> > > > > > > Leprechauns!
>
> > > > > > > > LNT'ers, on the other hand, have a very simple basis on which to make their
> > > > > > > > determination as to it's accuracy - does it support the theory the WCR put out?
>
> > > > > > > You are just jealous because we have a working thesis to plug
> > > > > > > information into.
>
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Jun 27, 11:45 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > On Jun 26, 12:17 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > > > On Jun 25, 2:10 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > > > > > On Jun 24, 3:07 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
>s=2Ecom>,
>> > > > > > > > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > >On Jun 23, 6:31 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Jun 22, 5:47 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>sage re a weapon
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > spotted on the "secondfloor", Bugliosi notes, "Bre=
>wer no doubt meant
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the sixth-floor sniper's nestwindow, which would h=
>ave been at the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > southeast corner, *secondfloor down from the roof*=
> (emphasis his).
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's good for the goose.... In "Pictures of the =
>Pain" (p523),
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Richard Trask quotes from his own transcription (1=
>:11pm) of a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > transmission from Insp JH Sawyer, "On the third fl=
>oor of this book
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > company down here, we found empty rifle hulls...."=
> And Jim Bowles
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > reached the same conclusion re the "third floor" i=
>n his 1964
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > transcription (CE 705 p78). Sawyer, then, no doub=
>t, meant the *fifth
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > floor", or the third floor "down from the roof"! =
>In sum, there is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > some doubt as to what the respective officers actu=
>ally meant, altho
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > elsewhere, Sawyer is quoted as saying, "Police fou=
>nd the remains of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > fried chicken & paper on the fifth floor." (Stockt=
>on Record (AP)
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > 11/22/63 p8)
>>
> Amos Euins, saw
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > something on the "fourth" or "fifth" floor--the re=
>cording is unclear.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > (DPD radio tapes: Harkness (12:36), & the dispatch=
>er (12:46): "All
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the information we have received, 9 [Sawyer], indi=
>cates that it did
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that build=
>ing"; & Victoria
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Adams (v6p391): "the police radio... said that sho=
>ts had been fired
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > which apparently came either from thesecondfloor o=
>r the fourth floor
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >window...") Harkness testified that, altho he had =
>radioed "5th
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > floor", his witness had indicated "6th": "The exa=
>ct words of the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > witness, 'It was under the ledge', which would put=
> in on the sixth
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > floor." (v6p313 & RH p52) But Euins' "exact words=
>" remain in
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > question. In his 11/23/63 report, Deputy CL Lewis=
> wrote, about Euins,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > "Saw man on 5th floor". (v19p527) And cameraman J=
>ames Underwood
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > reported, about 1pm: "Finally, one of the officer=
>s found a small
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > colored boy who said he saw a man fire from about =
>the fourthwindowof
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the TSBD". (Trask p421) Again, we can't be certai=
>n what Underwood
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > actually meant, but the "fourthwindow" up, in the =
>depository, is the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > 5th floor.
>>
>early on about
>> > > > > > > > >> > > what floor was which in the TSBD. Good thing the pro=
>nderance of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > evidence shows whatwindowshells were found under, an=
>d whatwindow
>> > > > > > > > >> > > shots were fired from.
>into
>> > > > > > > > >> > "unanimous", omitting phrases like "2ndwindowfrom the =
>end"....
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> Yah, to get a clearer picture of what occurred, you h=
>ave to
>> > > > > > > > >> disregard all the bad information. It is that bad inform=
>ation that
>> > > > > > > > >> kooks cherish.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >"Bad information" is in the eye of the beholder. I'd say =
>"bad
>> > > > > > > > >information" would certainly include the photos of the hul=
>ls found on
>> > > > > > > > >an upper floor of the depository, since Capn Fritz picked =
>them up or
>> > > > > > > > >was handed them *before* Day & co. got there for photograp=
>hs. "Bad
>> > > > > > > > >information" would include saying that witnesses Brennan, =
>Fischer &
>> > > > > > > > >Mrs Walther saw an obvious, acrobatic suspect on the *6th*=
> floor since
>> > > > > > > > >the Weaver Polaroid & the Hughes film, taken the minute be=
>fore the
>> > > > > > > > >shooting, show only *boxes* on the 6th floor. "Bad inform=
>ation" would
>> > > > > > > > >include Reynolds testifying before the Warren Commish that=
> he last saw
>> > > > > > > > >the suspect heading for the parking lot behind the Texaco =
>station,
>> > > > > > > > >since 11/22/63 film footage shows him telling officers he =
>last the
>> > > > > > > > >suspect heading the*other* way, into the back of an old ho=
>use.
>>
>> > > > > > > > I'll add the BOH photo - which is contradicted by both the =
>autopsy, and by the
>> > > > > > > > great majority of eyewitnesses, the X-rays, which self-cont=
>radict themselves,
>> > > > > > > > the "paper bag", which had so little support, and strange p=
>roblems... CE399,
>> > > > > > > > which has been denied up and down the evidence chain (and h=
>ad no medical support
>> > > > > > > > for what it was alleged to have done), and of course, the e=
>xtant Z-film, the
>> > > > > > > > problems with which even the "defenders of the faith" refus=
>e to answer.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >LNers must deal with a lot of such bad info....
>> > > > > > > > >dw
>>
>> > > > > > > > Hitting the nail on the head, as usual!
>>
>nst the
>> > > > > > > LN position, before running up the white flag, and killfilter=
>ing most
>> > > > > > > dissenting opinion. Now he is reduced to patting fellow kooks=
> on the
>> > > > > > > back. Sad.
>>
>> > > > > > Why did Bugliosi lie about the 12:37 transmission? No one has =
>come up
>> > > > > > with anything explaining this....
>>
>and
>> > > > > that shows no transmission at 12:37...
>>
>> > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/index.htm
>>
>?> dw
>>
>> > > > See the original post on this thread. The lie is that Haygood #142
>> > > > sent the 12:37 message re thesecondwindowfrom the end. He says the
>l)
>> > > > as the author. You can hear the number twice.... The aforementioned
>> > > > post deals with the significance of this outright lie....
>>
>> > > Like I said, I don`t have the tapes, and I read the original post,
>> > > and couldn`t decipher the significance of this discrepancy. I did
>> > > notice that a transmission attributed to Hill (22) contained
>> > > information that Hargrove testified to gathering. The transmission "I
>> > > have one guy that was possibly hit by a richocet from the bullet off
>> > > the pavement and another guy who saw the President slump." was
>> > > attribute to Hill, but from what Hargrove told the WC, it was he who
>> > > was questioning those two (one of which was obviously Tague.) Seems
>> > > there is some kind of mix-up between Hill and Hargrove.
>>
>> > That's it. But it was *Hill* not Haygood (& not Hargrove) who sent
>> > all 12:37 transmissions, including the one covering Tague & apparently
>> > Brehm. "22" not "142". That's what you hear--can anyone direct Bud
>> > to an online tape of the 12:37-38 transmissions? Because if you can't
>> > hear it, you can't really appreciate what Bugliosi has done.
>>
>> I have the tapes, and the means to play them now. What I am lacking
>> now is the interest.
This is always the problem with LNT'ers... they aren't *interested* in the
primary evidence... it simply doesn't support their faith.
>> Seems everything that is being attributed to Hill
>> on the transcripts are things *Haygood* claimed to have said. I`d be
>> inclined to believe Bugliosi`s conclusion, that it was Haygood saying
>> those things. I seached the Dallas archives looking for a report by
>> Haygood, with no luck.
>>
>I'm glad someone got you connected with the tapes. Happy listening!
>dw
>>
>> > Actually, he has done *two* things here: In his text, he cut off
>> > quoting the 12:37 transmission before it got to the shots which came
>> > from the "secondwindowfrom the end". He implies that the sender
>> > was only telling the dispatcher that the shots came from the TSBD
>> > ["there"]--but the sender specified a certainwindow. Then, in his
>> > endnote for this passage, Bugliosi said that he heard "142" on the
>> > tape, not "22".
>> > dw
>>
>> > > > dw
>>
>> > > > > > > > There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this c=
>ase - some (perhaps
>> > > > > > > > even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufa=
>ctured.
>>
>> > > > > > > Yah, kooks intentionally manufacture much of the difficult=
>ies.
>>
>> > > > > > > > CT'ers take
>> > > > > > > > it *all* in, and make judgements based on how best the evid=
>ence can be
>> > > > > > > > reconciled.
>>
>> > > > > > > <snicker> Kooks are incapable of rationally weighing the e=
>vidence.
>> > > > > > > Witnesses say where the shots came from. Physical evidence of=
> a
>> > > > > > > shooter is found at that location. Where do kook figure the s=
>hots came
>> > > > > > > from. The sewer. The knoll. Anywhere but the TSBD, because th=
>at where
>> > > > > > > Ozzie worked, and he said he was a patsy. Stellar work, kooks=
>, on that
>> > > > > > > "reconciling".
>>
>> > > > > > > > It's only CT'ers that can *explain* the contradictory evide=
>nce.
>>
>> > > > > > > Leprechauns!
>>
>> > > > > > > > LNT'ers, on the other hand, have a very simple basis on whi=
>ch to make their
>> > > > > > > > determination as to it's accuracy - does it support the the=
>ory the WCR put out?
>>
>> > > > > > > You are just jealous because we have a working thesis to p=
>lug
>> > > > > > > information into.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Bud
What real difference does it make what cop said what 7 minutes
after Oz shot Kennedy? Haygood claims to have made calls attributed to
Hill. One of those calls involved talking with a person who is
obviously Tague. Tague said he was questioned by a motorcycle cop, who
is obviously Hargood. Hill said he pulled up in front of the TSBD, and
went inside. Unlikely he ever went down the street where Tahue was.
So, what we have is a mix-up of some kind, whick kooks feel compelled
to read something sinister into. I`ve looked into it as far as I was
interested, and satisfied myself that it was Haygood who made the
calls in question. It`s just another case where kooks demand that LN
explain something to their satisfaction, or they will believe stupid
shit. I am content to allow dw to believe anything he likes, and I
will point out that his beliefs are stupid when I find them such, and
the mood strikes me.
aeffects
ask Vinnie daBugliosi, THEE worlds greatest DA (prosecutor) what
testimony means.... Where do you find these guy's David Von Pein? The
summer replacements are worse this year than last year -- whass up?
Haygood claims to have made calls attributed to
> Hill. One of those calls involved talking with a person who is
> obviously Tague. Tague said he was questioned by a motorcycle cop, who
> is obviously Hargood. Hill said he pulled up in front of the TSBD, and
> went inside. Unlikely he ever went down the street where Tahue was.
> So, what we have is a mix-up of some kind, whick kooks feel compelled
> to read something sinister into. I`ve looked into it as far as I was
> interested, and satisfied myself that it was Haygood who made the
> calls in question. It`s just another case where kooks demand that LN
> explain something to their satisfaction, or they will believe stupid
> shit. I am content to allow dw ...
>
> read more »
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1183058910.1...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I`ve looked into it as far as I was interested, and satisfied myself
Bud is ANOTHER who reaches "conclusions" BEFORE gathering ALL of the facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
Are you holding out for his book to come out in comic book form?
> Where do you find these guy's David Von Pein? The
> summer replacements are worse this year than last year -- whass up?
Are you unimpressed? Take a few bong hits, play some records
backward, you`ll feel better.
Bud
<SNIP>
> > What real difference does it make what cop said what 7 minutes
> > after Oz shot Kennedy? Haygood claims to have made calls attributed to
> > Hill. One of those calls involved talking with a person who is
> > obviously Tague. Tague said he was questioned by a motorcycle cop, who
> > is obviously Hargood. Hill said he pulled up in front of the TSBD, and
> > went inside. Unlikely he ever went down the street where Tahue was.
> > So, what we have is a mix-up of some kind, whick kooks feel compelled
> > to read something sinister into.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I`ve looked into it as far as I was interested, and satisfied myself
>
> Bud is ANOTHER who reaches "conclusions" BEFORE gathering ALL of the facts.
Yah, the kook mantra "This case can never be put to rest as long as
we can think up one more question."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> that it was Haygood who made the
> > calls in question. It`s just another case where kooks demand that LN
> > explain something to their satisfaction, or they will believe stupid
> > shit. I am content to allow dw to believe anything he likes, and I
> > will point out that his beliefs are stupid when I find them such, and
> > the mood strikes me.
<SNIP>
Bud
Actually, on the transcript I provided, if you hit the little
speaker at the bottom of the colored portions, you can hear that
particular segment play.
> Happy listening!
I may, I may not. I`m only respodnding to this to address something
you said below.
> dw
> >
> > > Actually, he has done *two* things here: In his text, he cut off
> > > quoting the 12:37 transmission before it got to the shots which came
> > > from the "secondwindowfrom the end".
Is there any reason to believe shots were fired from the second
floor of the TSBD? If not, that may be way Bugliosi opted not to
include that portion.
tomnln
Your lack of Answers is the Problem.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1183064358.3...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ah! Bud here apparently finally listened to his tape of the DPD radio
logs, & he didn't like what he heard. What he heard was Patrolman
*Hill*'s call number "22", before the 12:37 transmissions. So of
course he has to say that it, well, it doesn't matter. One officer's
number is on the logs; a different officer claims that *he* sent the
messages. No big deal. This is why conspiracy theories & theorists
won't go away--because LNers refuse to address the evidence they don't
like....
dw
Haygood claims to have made calls attributed to
> Hill. One of those calls involved talking with a person who is
> obviously Tague. Tague said he was questioned by a motorcycle cop, who
> is obviously Hargood. Hill said he pulled up in front of the TSBD, and
> went inside. Unlikely he ever went down the street where Tahue was.
> So, what we have is a mix-up of some kind, whick kooks feel compelled
> to read something sinister into. I`ve looked into it as far as I was
> interested, and satisfied myself that it was Haygood who made the
> calls in question. It`s just another case where kooks demand that LN
> explain something to their satisfaction, or they will believe stupid
> shit. I am content to allow dw ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
I think you're confusing Patrolman Leonard Hill with Sgt Gerald Hill.
The last we heard from the former, he was heading down, or up, to the
depository. Sgt Hill was the one who went inside, later saw automatic
hulls at the Tippit scene (ha!), went to the movie theatre, etc.
*Patrolman* Hill was stationed near where Tague was hit, near the
underpass, & Tague also talks about Hill (Bud won't tell you this).
dw
> So, what we have is a mix-up of some kind, whick kooks feel compelled
> to read something sinister into.
Actually, it's Bugliosi who sees something *sinister* here! It was he
who quoted only a *part* of Hill's transmission (leaving out "2nd
window from the end") & lied about who sent it, saying it was "142",
when Bud now knows that it wasn't. Da Bug don't like "sinister"....
I`ve looked into it as far as I was
> interested, and satisfied myself that it was Haygood who made the
> calls in question.
What number did you hear on the tape???
It`s just another case where kooks demand that LN
> explain something to their satisfaction, or they will believe stupid
> shit.
Talk to Bugliosi--he's the one covering things up, & making oh-so-
innocent matters appear *sinister*....
I am content to allow dw ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
second *window* from the end, which would make it *fifth* floor, the
only such window open at 12:30pm. And there's reason to believe that
at least two witnesses thought shots were fired from that window: the
never-ID'd 12:37 witness, & Amos Euins....
>
> > > > He implies that the sender
> > > > was only telling the dispatcher that the shots came from the TSBD
> > > > ["there"]--but the sender specified a certainwindow. Then, in his
> > > > endnote for this passage, Bugliosi said that he heard "142" on the
> > > > tape, not "22".
> > > > dw
>
> > > > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > > There is a great deal of *contradicting* evidence in this case - some (perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > even much) of which I'm quite sure was intentionally manufactured.
>
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Our Questions aren't the Problem.
>
> Your lack of Answers is the Problem.
I`ve repeatedly told you the answer to the problems... kooks.
Bud
<SNIP>
> > > >> I have the tapes, and the means to play them now. What I am lacking
> > > >> now is the interest.
> >
> > > This is always the problem with LNT'ers... they aren't *interested* in the
> > > primary evidence... it simply doesn't support their faith.
> >
> > What real difference does it make what cop said what 7 minutes
> > after Oz shot Kennedy?
>
> Ah! Bud here apparently finally listened to his tape of the DPD radio
> logs, & he didn't like what he heard.
Not being a kook, I don`t shout out "AHA! What are they up to with
this!" every time a come across a desrepancy or some troublesome
information in the record.
> What he heard was Patrolman
> *Hill*'s call number "22", before the 12:37 transmissions. So of
> course he has to say that it, well, it doesn't matter.
I say it doesn`t matter because it really doesn`t matter. By far,
the most likely explaination is that Haygood said the things on air
that Haygood claimed to have said. That is the information you should
be trying to see if there is a way to reconcile with the tapes.
Failing that, you need to consider that maybe Haygood was next to Hill
when Hill made the transmissions, and Haygood remembered it as him
giving the information. You can see this (at least I think so) with
Benavides, claiming in his testimony that he was the one who gave the
information over the air about the Tippit shooting, when it was
actually Bowley who had. Bowley said that he took the radio off
someone who was having difficulty operating it, which was likely
Benavides. Like the picking up of Tippit`s gun, different people lay
claim to performing the same action. I don`t trouble myself a whole
lot about these things, know that "A", I don`t believe the information
needed to resolve the issue must appear in the record, and "B", I`m
not a kook who things whenever something troublesome appears, I feel
the need to start imagining all kinds of nefarious.
> One officer's
> number is on the logs; a different officer claims that *he* sent the
> messages. No big deal.
Not really, I`ve spent enough time on this, I was going to look up
Hill`s early report, see if he mentions anything about Tague, but I
think I`ve exhaused my interest. I have one question, though. What
radio was Hill using?
> This is why conspiracy theories & theorists
> won't go away--because LNers refuse to address the evidence they don't
> like....
It isn`t a question of liking or not liking it. There were early
reports that 6 or 7 people were shot in the Plaza by stray shots. Was
that good information? Should we cling to this, pretend it is good,
significant information, or just ignore it as useless for anything
other than establishing that just because something is said, that
makes it`s true and accurate. In my estimation, it`s a common sense
approcah versus a crackpot approach. You don`t dwell on troublesome
information for decades, you stare at it long enough and you can
convince yourself of all kinds of hidden meanings.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> <SNIP>
>
> > > > >> I have the tapes, and the means to play them now. What I am lacking
> > > > >> now is the interest.
>
> > > > This is always the problem with LNT'ers... they aren't *interested* in the
> > > > primary evidence... it simply doesn't support their faith.
>
> > > What real difference does it make what cop said what 7 minutes
> > > after Oz shot Kennedy?
>
> > Ah! Bud here apparently finally listened to his tape of the DPD radio
> > logs, & he didn't like what he heard.
>
> Not being a kook, I don`t shout out "AHA! What are they up to with
> this!" every time a come across a desrepancy or some troublesome
> information in the record.
No need to say "Aha!". Just say what you heard.
>
> > What he heard was Patrolman
> > *Hill*'s call number "22", before the 12:37 transmissions. So of
> > course he has to say that it, well, it doesn't matter.
>
> I say it doesn`t matter because it really doesn`t matter. By far,
> the most likely explaination is that Haygood said the things on air
> that Haygood claimed to have said.
Does not explain why Hill or Haygood said "22", & transcriber Henslee
wrote "142". Whoever it was he did not say "142". Yet, Bugliosi sez
*he* heard "142", then looked it up & found it was Haygood. But his
premise is false, therefore his conclusion must be false.... Neither
Bugliosi nor Bud heard "142". If they won't accept simple facts
available to all, how are we to believe them on *other* matters of
evidence?
dw
That is the information you should
> be trying to see if there is a way to reconcile with the tapes.
> Failing that, you need to consider that maybe Haygood was next to Hill
> when Hill made the transmissions, and Haygood remembered it as him
> giving the information.
Again, does not explain why Henslee wrote "142" & Bugliosi *heard*
"142"....
You can see this (at least I think so) with
> Benavides, claiming in his testimony that he was the one who gave the
> information over the air about the Tippit shooting, when it was
> actually Bowley who had. Bowley said that he took the radio off
> someone who was having difficulty operating it, which was likely
> Benavides.
I don't buy one word of Benavides' testimony anyway.
Like the picking up of Tippit`s gun, different people lay
> claim to performing the same action. I don`t trouble myself a whole
> lot about these things, know that "A", I don`t believe the information
> needed to resolve the issue must appear in the record, and "B", I`m
> not a kook who things whenever something troublesome appears, I feel
> the need to start imagining all kinds of nefarious.
>
> > One officer's
> > number is on the logs; a different officer claims that *he* sent the
> > messages. No big deal.
>
> Not really, I`ve spent enough time on this, I was going to look up
> Hill`s early report, see if he mentions anything about Tague
Yes, his 12:37 messages include Tague & Brehm--something about a
"ricochet" re Tague. And your evasions, above, make me suspect just a
little tiny bit that you *did* heard Hill's 12:37 report. Altho I
believe he also called in circa noon re the motorcade's progress or
something....
, but I
> think I`ve exhaused my interest.
Or at least your candor....
I have one question, though. What
> radio was Hill using?
> \
Apparently, the same one he used from the Oak Cliff library location,
where he also called in as "22"....
> > This is why conspiracy theories & theorists
> > won't go away--because LNers refuse to address the evidence they don't
> > like....
>
> It isn`t a question of liking or not liking it. There were early
> reports that 6 or 7 people were shot in the Plaza by stray shots. Was
> that good information? Should we cling to this, pretend it is good,
> significant information, or just ignore it as useless for anything
> other than establishing that just because something is said, that
> makes it`s true and accurate.
But it is both true & accurate that a witness told a policeman on the
knoll that he thought the shots came from the "second window from the
end" of an upper floor--and that this witness's ID was covered up, &
his belief (true or not) was never explained. And Bugliosi compounds
the problem by (a) not even admitting that Hill or whoever said "2nd
window", not "end window", which latter would have fitted in nicely
with the other 4 police transmissions from Dealey (which didn't
specify a window), & (b) saying the police tapes recorded "142" as
sending the 12:37 transmissions.... Score: Bugliosi: Lies--1,
Evasions--1, on the same page, same issue....
In my estimation, it`s a common sense
> approcah versus a crackpot approach. You don`t dwell on troublesome
> information for decades, you stare at it long enough and you can
> convince yourself of all kinds of hidden meanings.
>
Boy, Bugliosi was certainly troubled by this information!
>
> > dw
> > >Haygood claims to have made calls attributed to
> > > Hill. One of those calls involved talking with a person who is
> > > obviously Tague. Tague said he was questioned by a motorcycle cop, who
> > > is obviously Hargood. Hill said he pulled up in front of the TSBD, and
> > > went inside. Unlikely he ever went down the street where Tahue was.
> > > So, what we have is a mix-up of some kind, whick kooks feel compelled
> > > to read something sinister into. I`ve looked into it as far as I was
> > > interested, and satisfied myself that it was Haygood who made the
> > > calls in question. It`s just another case where kooks demand that LN
> > > explain something to their satisfaction, or they will believe stupid
> > > shit. I am content to allow dw ...
>
> > > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On Jun 29, 1:44 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > > > >> I have the tapes, and the means to play them now. What I am lacking
> > > > > >> now is the interest.
> >
> > > > > This is always the problem with LNT'ers... they aren't *interested* in the
> > > > > primary evidence... it simply doesn't support their faith.
> >
> > > > What real difference does it make what cop said what 7 minutes
> > > > after Oz shot Kennedy?
> >
> > > Ah! Bud here apparently finally listened to his tape of the DPD radio
> > > logs, & he didn't like what he heard.
> >
> > Not being a kook, I don`t shout out "AHA! What are they up to with
> > this!" every time a come across a desrepancy or some troublesome
> > information in the record.
>
> No need to say "Aha!". Just say what you heard.
It sounds like "22" to me.
> > > What he heard was Patrolman
> > > *Hill*'s call number "22", before the 12:37 transmissions. So of
> > > course he has to say that it, well, it doesn't matter.
> >
> > I say it doesn`t matter because it really doesn`t matter. By far,
> > the most likely explaination is that Haygood said the things on air
> > that Haygood claimed to have said.
>
> Does not explain why Hill or Haygood said "22", & transcriber Henslee
> wrote "142".
I wasn`t trying to explain that.
> Whoever it was he did not say "142".
Are you sure they aren`t using better equiptment, or a better
quality version of the tape?
> Yet, Bugliosi sez
> *he* heard "142", then looked it up & found it was Haygood. But his
> premise is false, therefore his conclusion must be false....
No, is conclusion can be supported by other information, Haygood`s
testimony, Tague`s corroboration of much of what Haygood did and said,
ect. Later on on the tape (1:35), the dispatcher says on channel two
"Did the motor jockey give you the information about the building?"
Seems he thougt the source was a motorcycle cop also. Hill was a
patrolman.
> Neither
> Bugliosi nor Bud heard "142". If they won't accept simple facts
> available to all, how are we to believe them on *other* matters of
> evidence?
<snicker> I didn`t offer an opinion about the cotent of that
particulat transmission up until this very post. I was offering other
information that supports the idea that it was Haygood who made those
calls.
> dw
>
> >That is the information you should
> > be trying to see if there is a way to reconcile with the tapes.
> > Failing that, you need to consider that maybe Haygood was next to Hill
> > when Hill made the transmissions, and Haygood remembered it as him
> > giving the information.
>
> Again, does not explain why Henslee wrote "142" & Bugliosi *heard*
> "142"....
Wasn`t trying to. I was trying to resolve the discrepancy by
bringing as much information to bear on it as was available.
Exploiting decrepancies, and then claiming your kook explainations are
the only answer is a weak approach.A "22" said over the radio doesn`t
trump all other information (and neither does a "code 6"). For one
thing, isn`t it possible for one call call step over another?
> You can see this (at least I think so) with
> > Benavides, claiming in his testimony that he was the one who gave the
> > information over the air about the Tippit shooting, when it was
> > actually Bowley who had. Bowley said that he took the radio off
> > someone who was having difficulty operating it, which was likely
> > Benavides.
>
> I don't buy one word of Benavides' testimony anyway.
Thats your prerogative. I think listening toi the people that were
there might give some insight into what occurred (if you view what
they relate in the proper context).
> Like the picking up of Tippit`s gun, different people lay
> > claim to performing the same action. I don`t trouble myself a whole
> > lot about these things, know that "A", I don`t believe the information
> > needed to resolve the issue must appear in the record, and "B", I`m
> > not a kook who things whenever something troublesome appears, I feel
> > the need to start imagining all kinds of nefarious.
> >
> > > One officer's
> > > number is on the logs; a different officer claims that *he* sent the
> > > messages. No big deal.
> >
> > Not really, I`ve spent enough time on this, I was going to look up
> > Hill`s early report, see if he mentions anything about Tague
>
> Yes, his 12:37 messages include Tague & Brehm--something about a
> "ricochet" re Tague.
If he claims to have made those statements. I meant his early
written police reports of his activities to his superiors, to compare
to the information reported over the air.
> And your evasions, above, make me suspect just a
> little tiny bit that you *did* heard Hill's 12:37 report.
I did listen to the tape segment covering the 12:37 call. I don`t
know that Hill made that call, other information contradicts that
conclusion.
> Altho I
> believe he also called in circa noon re the motorcade's progress or
> something....
Huh? Was he in a squad car, shadowing the motorcade?
> , but I
> > think I`ve exhaused my interest.
>
> Or at least your candor....
I looked into it to the extent of my interest. I`ve followed you,
but I don`t see where you`ve actually arrived anywhere with this
issue.. Haywood claims to have said those things over the air. Things
Tague related bolster that claim. I couldn`t find anything by LL Hill
in the Dallas police archives to break this impass. I`ve spent enough
time on it, seems a deadlocked non-issue unless more information comes
to light.
> I have one question, though. What
> > radio was Hill using?
> > \
> Apparently, the same one he used from the Oak Cliff library location,
> where he also called in as "22"....
I assume he went out there in a patrol car, and used that radio.
Have you ever seen any pictures showing a patrol car down around where
Tague was standing shortly after the assassination? I don`t think they
had handset radios at the time.
> > > This is why conspiracy theories & theorists
> > > won't go away--because LNers refuse to address the evidence they don't
> > > like....
> >
> > It isn`t a question of liking or not liking it. There were early
> > reports that 6 or 7 people were shot in the Plaza by stray shots. Was
> > that good information? Should we cling to this, pretend it is good,
> > significant information, or just ignore it as useless for anything
> > other than establishing that just because something is said, that
> > makes it`s true and accurate.
>
> But it is both true & accurate that a witness told a policeman on the
> knoll that he thought the shots came from the "second window from the
> end" of an upper floor--
No, this is conjecture, weak conjecture at that. You don`t know the
policeman got the information from a witness on the knoll..
>and that this witness's ID was covered up,
In what way have you ruled out this information was gathered from a
known witness, and garbled in transmission (misheard or misrelated by
the cop)? Why do you try so hard to reach these exraordinary
explainations?
>&
> his belief (true or not) was never explained. And Bugliosi compounds
> the problem by (a) not even admitting that Hill or whoever said "2nd
> window", not "end window", which latter would have fitted in nicely
> with the other 4 police transmissions from Dealey (which didn't
> specify a window), & (b) saying the police tapes recorded "142" as
> sending the 12:37 transmissions.... Score: Bugliosi: Lies--1,
> Evasions--1, on the same page, same issue....
>
>
> In my estimation, it`s a common sense
> > approcah versus a crackpot approach. You don`t dwell on troublesome
> > information for decades, you stare at it long enough and you can
> > convince yourself of all kinds of hidden meanings.
> >
> Boy, Bugliosi was certainly troubled by this information!
He doesn`t seem to dwell on it.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > end" of an upper floor--
>
> No, this is conjecture, weak conjecture at that. You don`t know the
> policeman got the information from a witness on the knoll..
>
> >and that this witness's ID was covered up,
>
> In what way have you ruled out this information was gathered from a
> known witness, and garbled in transmission (misheard or misrelated by
> the cop)? Why do you try so hard to reach these exraordinary
> explainations?
>
>
>
>
>
> >&
> > his belief (true or not) was never explained. And Bugliosi compounds
> > the problem by (a) not even admitting that Hill or whoever said "2nd
> > with the other 4 police transmissions from Dealey (which didn't
I answered this in great detail last night, & Google said the post was
successfully posted, but I don't see it now dammital
Bud
<snicker> I know that feeling, I`ve had it happen more than once.
Whenever I decide to rewrite and resend, I`m never as satisfied with
the second effort.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Snickers? I want at least a Three Musketeers....
Bud
If it`s any consolation, I don`t see how any real rebuttal was
possible to the killer points I made.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Yer right. However, a couple of your points spurred me to re-read
some pieces of evidence, mainly Tague's testimony, & I came across
something I'll be reporting on, probably tomorrow, under another
title, like The Identity of Hill's "Second Window" Witness. Stay
tuned with your tail to the wind....
dw