JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jake Maxwell on January 09, 2022, 09:35:05 PM
-
It would seem that classifying any information in a “Lone Nut” assassination would be completely unnecessary...
The very fact that information is still classified... is a fairly strong suggestion that Oswald was not a “Lone Nut”... but that a larger conspiracy involving entities that have the power to classify information... are trying to protect themselves from being exposed....
-
Jefferson Morley, editor of JFKFacts.org and a former Washington Post staff writer, says that the most significant JFK files not released, are tapes of interviews the historian William Manchester conducted with Jacqueline Kennedy, the late president’s wife, and his brother Robert F. Kennedy in 1964 and 1965 - who both, according to Morley, “Said privately JFK was killed by his domestic enemies. That’s what’s on these tapes and why they are so sensitive.”
-
It would seem that classifying any information in a “Lone Nut” assassination would be completely unnecessary...
The very fact that information is still classified... is a fairly strong suggestion that Oswald was not a “Lone Nut”... but that a larger conspiracy involving entities that have the power to classify information... are trying to protect themselves from being exposed....
Mark Zaid quote:
"… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."
-
Mark Zaid quote:
"… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."
Oswald's trip to Mexico hasn't got any direct relation to the assassination. In a lone nut scenario he's just one guy who shoots the President. I haven't seen any other murder case where it was in any way relevant where the defendant was in the months prior to the crime.
Bringing up Oswald's trip to Mexico serves no apparent purpose in relation to the crime. The mere fact that they brought it up nevertheless seems to indicate that there was more going on than a single lone nut scenario.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/C84Fr51/Screen-Shot-2022-01-09-at-7-52-54-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/kBzFdgH)
-
It would seem that classifying any information in a “Lone Nut” assassination would be completely unnecessary...
The very fact that information is still classified... is a fairly strong suggestion that Oswald was not a “Lone Nut”... but that a larger conspiracy involving entities that have the power to classify information... are trying to protect themselves from being exposed....
Very silly. The CIA and FBI would have used intelligence sources in the USSR, Cuba, Mexico, and Mob to investigate nutty Oswald and Ruby. Some of those intelligence sources and their families might be endangered by disclosure of their cooperation. Of course, when these documents are all released and they provide no evidence of a conspiracy, CTers will move on to something else. The narrative will become "of course the conspirators wouldn't document their efforts to kill the President etc." And on and on for eternity. The evidence just always eluding them.
-
Oswald's trip to Mexico hasn't got any direct relation to the assassination.
Your remarks are correct to this extent. There was an "over classification" of documents after the JFK Records Act. Some things certainly should not have been named as JFK documents but they were. Those documents that contain sources and methods must be protected. There is a moral obligation to do so.
An example. Thete was a document (104-10054-10008) about a mother and son team who worked photographing the Cuban embassy (if I am remembering correctly-I didn't reread it) for the CIA. Presumably, they are now dead and their names have been released. But their names were shielded for a time and details about their situation were also held back possibly because they related to similar operations.
What does their story have to do with the assassination? Nothing, but they were in the documents that were "over classified."
-
That is known as having a "bias" outside a criminal trial context. At least you are honest about that unlike many CTers.
Says the guy with the biggest bias of them all.
-
Says the guy with the biggest bias of them all.
You don't understand the concept of bias. Bias means being prejudiced or predisposed to a particular outcome (e.g. starting with a "presumption" that Oswald is innocent). It is entirely different from looking at the evidence and coming to a neutral conclusion based upon that evidence to determine what happened. I don't have any bias toward Oswald or whether he was part of a conspiracy. Why would I care one way or the other? It is the evidence that makes that determination not me. The evidence links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit beyond doubt. There is no credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else in the commission of these crimes. Nothing more or less. You disagree so spare us breaking down every sentence and repeating the same contrarian nonsense. You clearly apply a different standard to evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining baseless "possibilities" that might lend themselves to his innocence. A double standard.
-
You don't understand the concept of bias. Bias means being prejudiced or predisposed to a particular outcome (e.g. starting with a "presumption" that Oswald is innocent). It is entirely different from looking at the evidence and coming to a neutral conclusion based upon that evidence to determine what happened. I don't have any bias toward Oswald or whether he was part of a conspiracy. Why would I care one way or the other? It is the evidence that makes that determination not me. The evidence links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit beyond doubt. There is no credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else in the commission of these crimes. Nothing more or less. You disagree so spare us breaking down every sentence and repeating the same contrarian nonsense. You clearly apply a different standard to evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining baseless "possibilities" that might lend themselves to his innocence. A double standard.
You don't understand the concept of bias.
Hilarious
Bias means being prejudiced or predisposed to a particular outcome (e.g. starting with a "presumption" that Oswald is innocent).
Or that he's guilty, which is exactly what the WC did and you do on a daily basis
It is entirely different from looking at the evidence and coming to a neutral conclusion based upon that evidence to determine what happened.
BS, there is nothing neutral about you and your conclusions. A truly neutral person would not deny or dismiss major flaws in the evidence, as you do.
I don't have any bias toward Oswald or whether he was part of a conspiracy. Why would I care one way or the other?
I'm not sure why you would care, but you most certainly do.
It is the evidence that makes that determination not me. The evidence links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit beyond doubt.
And you really actually believe this crap? The determination that the evidence is "beyond doubt" is made by you. It's your opinion.
You clearly apply a different standard to evidence of Oswald's guilt while entertaining baseless "possibilities" that might lend themselves to his innocence.
Yes I have a different standard than yours. Your bar is so low it almost touches the floor. Mine is considerably higher and requires actual evidence rather than assumptions and speculation to make a case.
-
There have been several official investigations into the assassination. All have concluded that Oswald was the assassin. I would refer you to those. The rifle is obviously the most important single piece of evidence. Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the crime. Make like Sherlock Holmes and figure it out.
Says the guy who claims he has no bias. There has been one investigation which actually developed evidence. All the others simply went over the same evidence. Did you expect a different outcome? Garbage in = Garbage out.
The rifle is obviously the most important single piece of evidence. Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the crime.
Oswald's link to the rifle is highly tentative and the link of the rifle to the crime is just as questionable. Anybody who digs a little deeper in the available evidence can not escape that conclusion.
Nobody has ever conclusively place the MC rifle found at the TSBD in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and nobody has ever conclusively placed Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy was killed. Beyond that, your case is indeed rock solid :D
-
Says the guy who claims he has no bias. There has been one investigation which actually developed evidence. All the others simply went over the same evidence. Did you expect a different outcome? Garbage in = Garbage out.
The rifle is obviously the most important single piece of evidence. Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the crime.
Oswald's link to the rifle is highly tentative and the link of the rifle to the crime is just as questionable. Anybody who digs a little deeper in the available evidence can not escape that conclusion.
Nobody has ever conclusively place the MC rifle found at the TSBD in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and nobody has ever conclusively placed Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy was killed. Beyond that, your case is indeed rock solid :D
Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime. Imagine a criminal taking measures to avoid detection at the time of his crime! Oswald's rifle is found at the scene from which a person is murdered with a rifle. Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window. Oswald has no alibi at the time the shots are fired. He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle. He flees the scene, kills a police officer in less than an hour later, and resists arrest. But we don't have a film of him pulling the trigger (which could be faked according to the contrarians) so there is doubt of his guilt! THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES. Maybe Oswald bought the rifle but gave it away to someone and then lied about buying it. It's "possible." Right? Whew.
-
Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime. Imagine a criminal taking measures to avoid detection at the time of his crime! Oswald's rifle is found at the scene from which a person is murdered with a rifle. Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window. Oswald has no alibi at the time the shots are fired. He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle. He flees the scene, kills a police officer in less than an hour later, and resists arrest. But we don't have a film of him pulling the trigger (which could be faked according to the contrarians) so there is doubt of his guilt! THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES. Maybe Oswald bought the rifle but gave it away to someone and then lied about buying it. It's "possible." Right? Whew.
Pathetic.
No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald.
This is Mr. "I'm neutral" exposing his true nature. That's all.
Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime.
Please let "Richard Smith" never ever be on a jury.
-
Pathetic.
No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald.
To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic. It is difficult to imagine how there could be any more evidence of the fact. And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy. So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald. The Alamo position of those who realize that the facts and circumstances of the case point to Oswald.
-
To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic. It is difficult to imagine how there could be any more evidence of the fact. And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy. So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald. The Alamo position of those who realize that the facts and circumstances of the case point to Oswald.
To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic.
Ok big mouth, where is all that evidence? Show us... You've been claiming there is all this "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence, but you've never shown any of it. You're like Trump who also never shows a shred of evidence for his big lie. Instead of constantly holding speeches, why don't you, for once, present the actual evidence you refer to and tell us how it conclusively links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the crime.
And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy.
Paranoid BS. Oswald either owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD or he didn't. You either have the conclusive evidence to show that or you don't. All you need to do is show the evidence that actually proves that ownership. Claiming that it is the product of a conspiracy to simply scrutinize evidence is just your way of laying the groundwork for the inevitable "you're a CT that will never be convinced" claim that will follow when your "evidence" turns out to be inconclusive and weak.
So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald.
And there it is. The "I'm not able to procude conclusive evidence that shows Oswald owned the rifle, so I won't show you anything, because you are a CT who will not accept it anyway". It is the weakest cop out of them all, but for you it's daily routine.
-
To claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" that the rifle belonged to Oswald is so far removed from reality as to defy any rational discussion of the topic.
Ok big mouth, where is all that evidence? Show us... You've been claiming there is evidence, but you've never shown any of it. You're like Trump who also never shows a shred of evidence for his big lie.
And to suggest that the evidence that does exist is somehow suspect can only be explained away as the product of a conspiracy.
Paranoid BS. Oswald either owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD or he didn't. All you need to do is show the evidence that actually proves that ownership. Claiming that it is the product of a conspiracy to scrutinize evidence is just your way of laying the groundwork for the inevitable "you're a CT" claim that will follow when your "evidence" turns out to be inconclusive and weak.
So while you are too cowardly to ever admit that you are a CTer - likely because taking any position requires something more than playing the endless contrarian - it effectively means that you are a CTer who believes evidence that derives from numerous different sources was faked both before and after the fact to frame Oswald.
There you have it. The "I'm not able to procude conclusive evidence that shows Oswald owned the rifle, so I won't show you anything, because you are a CT who will not accept it anyway". It is the weakest cop out of them all, but for you it's daily routine.
Down the rabbit hole we go! The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle has been available since 1963. It has been presented to you on this forum numerous times. I've discussed it with you numerous times. You know that evidence. It is dishonest to suggest that this evidence hasn't been shown to you. You can't claim there is "not a shred of evidence" that links Oswald to the rifle. There is plenty of evidence. Either the evidence links Oswald to this rifle or it is faked as the product of a conspiracy to frame him for the crime. You can't have it every possible way when these are mutually exclusive concepts. It isn't a lack of evidence of Oswald's ownership of a rifle that you are suggesting but that the evidence is suspect. The evidence conclusively links Oswald to the rifle if it is genuine. That evidence comes from a multitude of different sources. Much of this evidence existed prior to the assassination. Thus, if it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime, it was done as a product of a conspiracy to kill JFK. If you are a proponent of this interpretation of events, then you are a CTer whether you are willing to admit it or not. Why not come out of the closet and be honest for once?
-
Down the rabbit hole we go! The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle has been available since 1963. It has been presented to you on this forum numerous times. I've discussed it with you numerous times. You know that evidence. It is dishonest to suggest that this evidence hasn't been shown to you. You can't claim there is "not a shred of evidence" that links Oswald to the rifle. There is plenty of evidence. Either the evidence links Oswald to this rifle or it is faked as the product of a conspiracy to frame him for the crime. You can't have it every possible way when these are mutually exclusive concepts. It isn't a lack of evidence of Oswald's ownership of a rifle that you are suggesting but that the evidence is suspect. The evidence conclusively links Oswald to the rifle if it is genuine. That evidence comes from a multitude of different sources. Much of this evidence existed prior to the assassination. Thus, if it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime, it was done as a product of a conspiracy to kill JFK. If you are a proponent of this interpretation of events, then you are a CTer whether you are willing to admit it or not. Why not come out of the closet and be honest for once?
The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle has been available since 1963. It has been presented to you on this forum numerous times.
Evasion!
I've discussed it with you numerous times.
No you haven't. You never discuss anything. You just hold speeches and dismiss anything you don't like.
You know that evidence.
Yes I do. That's why I know your claims are nothing more than hot air.
It is dishonest to suggest that this evidence hasn't been shown to you.
No. Of course the evidence has been shown to me. That's how I got to know what the evidence was. But you have never ever shown me anything in support of your bogus claims.
You can't claim there is "not a shred of evidence" that links Oswald to the rifle. There is plenty of evidence.
Of course I can claim that. And as long as you don't prove me wrong and just keep saying "there's plenty of evidence" but not show it, I will continue to make that claim.
Either the evidence links Oswald to this rifle or it is faked as the product of a conspiracy to frame him for the crime.
Evidence doesn't have to be faked to frame somebody for a crime. Manipulated will do the trick as well!
You can't have it every possible way when these are mutually exclusive concepts.
And you can't just pick the option you like and disregard the rest. But I don't want to "have it every possible way". I want to have it the right way.
It isn't a lack of evidence of Oswald's ownership of a rifle that you are suggesting but that the evidence is suspect. The evidence conclusively links Oswald to the rifle if it is genuine. That evidence comes from a multitude of different sources. Much of this evidence existed prior to the assassination. Thus, if it was faked to frame Oswald for the crime, it was done as a product of a conspiracy to kill JFK. If you are a proponent of this interpretation of events, then you are a CTer whether you are willing to admit it or not. Why not come out of the closet and be honest for once?
Bla bla bla... If Oswald was indeed framed, there is indeed only one other possibility and that's a conspiracy. Unlike you, I don't care either way. If Oswald did it by himself, then so be it. And if there was a conspiracy, so be it. You desperately don't want to consider the possibility of a conspiracy, which is why you "Mr. I'm neutral", need Oswald to be the lone nut. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less. I just want to find out if the evidence against Oswald holds up under scrutiny.
That's why you are so desperate to color me a CT, because you know that the case against Oswald is an extremely weak circumstantial one that no way comes close to being beyond any doubt. That's also the reason why you just keep saying there's all this compelling evidence by never show it. Your song and dance act is fooling nobody. The weakness of your claims is exposed every time you claim there is conclusive evidence and then not show it. Which is just about all the time....
You have no right to even use the word honesty, because you clearly don't know what it means.
-
Pathetic.
No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald.
This is Mr. "I'm neutral" exposing his true nature. That's all.
Please let Martin be on the jury if I ever commit a crime.
Please let "Richard Smith" never ever be on a jury.
"No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald."
The rifle found on the 6th floor was matched to the shells found laying by the window and the bullet and bullet fragments found in the hospital and limo to the exclusion of all other rifles. Howard Brennan saw the rifle being discharged from that very window during the assassination. LHO told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down, resulting in the second floor encounter, to see what all the commotion was all about.
-
"No matter how often you refer to the rifle as Oswald's rifle, you've got not a shred of evidence of that being true. You also haven't got a shred of evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and you can't even prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day or that it belonged to Oswald."
The rifle found on the 6th floor was matched to the shells found laying by the window and the bullet and bullet fragments found in the hospital and limo to the exclusion of all other rifles. Howard Brennan saw the rifle being discharged from that very window during the assassination. LHO told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down, resulting in the second floor encounter, to see what all the commotion was all about.
So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.
Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.
I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS
-
So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.
Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.
I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS
How about this? Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor. I can't think of anything lacking from the evidence but maybe you know something that others do not. What reasonable evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle should we have that we do not have? Or are you suggesting that it is simply impossible to prove this to you?
-
How about this? Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor. I can't think of anything lacking from the evidence but maybe you know something that others do not. What reasonable evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle should we have that we do not have? Or are you suggesting that it is simply impossible to prove this to you?
Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor.
Well. let's start with this; (1) show the original of Waldman 07 [the only document that links the MC rifle found at the TSBD to the Hidell order, with a handwritten serial number] and not just a photocopy and (2) name one person who actually saw Oswald with that particular rifle, or any other rifle for that matter, after April 1963.
I can't think of anything lacking from the evidence
Of course you can't. Your bar is so low that a couple of photocopies, three photos, the opinion of a FBI handwriting expert and a massive assumption are enough for you.
What reasonable evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle should we have that we do not have?
All that you have is the assumption that the rifle found at the TSBD was owned by Oswald. What you don't have is a shred of evidence to even show that Oswald had (let alone owned) any rifle during the eight months prior to the assassination.
-
So gullible. Nothing about this is anyway near conclusive.
Yes there were three shells found on the 6th floor, but how do they prove that the rifle was fired that day?
Bullet fragments allegedly found in the hospital and the limo can not be matched to a rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles and they never were. And whatever Brennan claims to have seen and whatever Oswald told Holmes (or not) is in no way proof that a particular rifle was fired.
I don't know where you get your information from, but it might be a good idea to find a different source, because what you have written is BS
Martin Weideman:
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"
I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.
Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?
The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.
-
Martin Weideman:
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"
I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.
Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?
The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.
Yes, you stand corrected about the claim that there was any kind of match, let alone to the exclusion of all other rifles. It just didn't happen. At best they could have matched the shells to the rifle, but that's it.
Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?
What in the world are you babbling about?
The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel.
That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The rifle found at the TSBD was examined by the FBI lab in Washington within 24 hours after the crime. They found nothing, not even a trace of a print.
Then, about a week later, Lt Day suddenly produced an evidence card allegedly containing Oswald's palmprint, which he claimed he had taken of the rifle on 11/22/63 and then kept it, without mentioning it to anyone for a whole week.
The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.
And how do you know that the rifle found on the 6th floor was in fact the one used to assassinate JFK?
Bullets or bullet fragments can not be matched to any weapon and despite your claim they never were. Shells can be matched, but the fact that Fritz compromised the crime scene by picking up shells and then throwing them back, means that if the rifle was planted so could the shells be.
Now, before you get this wrong; I am not claiming that the rifle and shells were planted. I am merely saying that it is possible that they were, which, by itself, makes it impossible to claim with any kind of certainty that the rifle was actually used in the assassination.
-
Martin Weideman:
"prove that the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was actually fired that day"
I thought everyone knew this about the rifle, shell casings, bullet and bullet fragments. I did not know anyone did not. That they were matched to the exclusion of all other rifles by the forensic experts. I stand corrected.
Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?
The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel. The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.
You are dealing with a person who doesn't want to be convinced of an obvious fact supported by the evidence. As you note, the shell casings came from Oswald's rifle. They were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window. His rifle is found on that floor. He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination. Instead he flees the scene, is involved in another murder less than an hour later, resists arrest and tries to kill more police officers when approached at the Texas Theatre, and lies to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle. It is laughable for anyone to suggest the evidence against Oswald is lacking in any respect. Martin just goes endlessly round and round down the same rabbit holes.
-
Explain to us what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the 6th floor.
Well. let's start with this; (1) show the original of Waldman 07 [the only document that links the MC rifle found at the TSBD to the Hidell order, with a handwritten serial number] and not just a photocopy and (2) name one person who actually saw Oswald with that particular rifle, or any other rifle for that matter, after April 1963.
Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity? Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records. Was he part of the conspiracy? That is weak rabbit hole nonsense even from you. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic. What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination. There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK.
-
The b/y photos by themselves prove Oswald owned and possessed the murder weapon found at the scene of the crime. This is 58 year old documented evidence. The conspiracy crowd can no longer dispute this evidence, yet they try. Why? No idea.
-
You are dealing with a person who doesn't want to be convinced of an obvious fact supported by the evidence. As you note, the shell casings came from Oswald's rifle. They were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's prints are on the boxes by that window. His rifle is found on that floor. He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination. Instead he flees the scene, is involved in another murder less than an hour later, resists arrest and tries to kill more police officers when approached at the Texas Theatre, and lies to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle. It is laughable for anyone to suggest the evidence against Oswald is lacking in any respect. Martin just goes endlessly round and round down the same rabbit holes.
Bla bla bla... When are you going to stop reciting your superficial take on the evidence and become a bit more curious?
Wait... I forgot for a second that I am talking to Richard "Mr. Neutral" Smith. Forget I asked.....
Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity? Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records. Was he part of the conspiracy? That is weak rabbit hole nonsense even from you. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic. What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination. There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK.
Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity?
Why am I not surprised you are asking such a pathetically stupid question.
Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records.
No. Waldman confirmed that the document was an internal Klein's document, but he never saw the original of this particular document. All he did and could do, some 6 months after the assassination, was that the "order blank" form was a document used. What he could not do is confirm that the handwritten content of the document was authentic.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic.
BS.. If photocopies are deemed to be authentic, why does the FBI have a special questioned documents department? Or are you merely saying that only this photocopy is authentic? And if you are, on what do you base that opinion?
What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD.
It tells us no such thing.
Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.
Are those the ones Fritz picked up, or the ones he threw down in the sniper's nest?
There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK.
There most certainly isn't any doubt about the fact that you are (or at least pretend to be) a gullible fool.
Btw you asked me to explain what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy me of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
I gave you two examples. As expected you dismissed out of hand the first one (no surprise there) but you completely ignore the second one. Why is that?
The b/y photos by themselves prove Oswald owned and possessed the murder weapon found at the scene of the crime. This is 58 year old documented evidence. The conspiracy crowd can no longer dispute this evidence, yet they try. Why? No idea.
Paul, you really disappoint me. The BY photos do not prove ownership of any rifle, let alone a rifle found at the crime scene.
I was once photographed holding a rifle, which belonged to a friend. By your "logic" I would now be the owner of that rifle, right? Well, if that's the case, what if I let myself be photographed next to an expensive car, does that car become my property?
If the answers to both my questions is "no", then please explain why the answer would be "yes" in Oswald's case?
-
And you actually believe yours is a cogent response knowing the totality of the evidence against Oswald. This is why after 58 years you conspiracy folks have no case for conspiracy. You’re never honest about the known evidence. So, who owns the rifle being held by Oswald in the b/y photos?
-
And you actually believe yours is a cogent response knowing the totality of the evidence against Oswald. This is why after 58 years you conspiracy folks have no case for conspiracy. You’re never honest about the known evidence. So, who owns the rifle being held by Oswald in the b/y photos?
So, you don't want to answer my question? Why not... It's straight forward one!
So, who owns the rifle being held by Oswald in the b/y photos?
I have no idea and neither do you. You can only assume Oswald owned the rifle, but the photos themselves do not tell you that in any way shape or form.
If you disagree, then please tell me how you can conclude ownership of that rifle by looking at a photo?
Because that's what you said, right?
The b/y photos by themselves prove Oswald owned and possessed the murder weapon found at the scene of the crime. This is 58 year old documented evidence. The conspiracy crowd can no longer dispute this evidence, yet they try. Why? No idea.
-
Bla bla bla... When are you going to stop reciting your superficial take on the evidence and become a bit more curious?
Wait... I forgot for a second that I am talking to Richard "Mr. Neutral" Smith. Forget I asked.....
Why does a photocopy of the document cast any doubt on its authenticity?
Why am I not surprised you are asking such a pathetically stupid question.
Waldman himself confirmed it came from Klein's records.
No. Waldman confirmed that the document was an internal Klein's document, but he never saw the original of this particular document. All he did and could do, some 6 months after the assassination, was that the "order blank" form was a document used. What he could not do is confirm that the handwritten content of the document was authentic.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this document is authentic.
BS.. If photocopies are deemed to be authentic, why does the FBI have a special questioned documents department? Or are you merely saying that only this photocopy is authentic? And if you are, on what do you base that opinion?
What it tells us is that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to Oswald and the serial number confirms that it is the same rifle found at TSBD.
It tells us no such thing.
Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.
Are those the ones Fritz picked up, or the ones he threw down in the sniper's nest?
There is no doubt that this rifle belonged to Oswald and that it was used to assassinate JFK.
There most certainly isn't any doubt about the fact that you are (or at least pretend to be) a gullible fool.
Btw you asked me to explain what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy me of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
I gave you two examples. As expected you dismissed out of hand the first one (no surprise there) but you completely ignore the second one. Why is that?
Paul, you really disappoint me. The BY photos do not prove ownership of any rifle, let alone a rifle found at the crime scene.
I was once photographed holding a rifle, which belonged to a friend. By your "logic" I would now be the owner of that rifle, right? Well, if that's the case, what if I let myself be photographed next to an expensive car, does that car become my property?
If the answers to both my questions is "no", then please explain why the answer would be "yes" in Oswald's case?
You can tell Martin is starting to panic when he resorts to personal insults. No answer for why a photocopy casts any doubt on its authenticity under the circumstances. We know how the Klein's documents were discovered. That process allowed for no opportunity for fabrication. The FBI discovered by 10PM that Klein's had handled this rifle. They got Waldman to accompany them to his Chicago office where the records were kept. Mitchell Scibor, the general operating manager, searched Klein's records. Around midnight they confirm this is a rifle they handled. They continue to search their own microfilm records until about 4AM when Scibor finds the documents that confirm this rifle was ordered by someone named "Hidell" and sent to a Dallas PO Box. How would any conspirator fake these documents and insert them into Klein's microfilm records before midnight on Nov. 22? Waldman is present when the search of these records is undertaken. His employee finds them. Unless these are fake, it confirms that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to LHO. We also know that fired bullet casings from this rifle are found at the crime scene. This specific rifle is left at the crime scene. It is not linked to anyone else. Only Oswald. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to conclude what happened. Unfortunately, we are dealing with Inspector Clouseau.
-
You can tell Martin is starting to panic when he resorts to personal insults. No answer for why a photocopy casts any doubt on its authenticity under the circumstances. We know how the Klein's documents were discovered. That process allowed for no opportunity for fabrication. The FBI discovered by 10PM that Klein's had handled this rifle. They got Waldman to accompany them to his Chicago office where the records were kept. Mitchell Scibor, the general operating manager, searched Klein's records. Around midnight they confirm this is a rifle they handled. They continue to search their own microfilm records until about 4AM when Scibor finds the documents that confirm this rifle was ordered by someone named "Hidell" and sent to a Dallas PO Box. How would any conspirator fake these documents and insert them into Klein's microfilm records before midnight on Nov. 22? Waldman is present when the search of these records is undertaken. His employee finds them. Unless these are fake, it confirms that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to LHO. We also know that fired bullet casings from this rifle are found at the crime scene. This specific rifle is left at the crime scene. It is not linked to anyone else. Only Oswald. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to conclude what happened. Unfortunately, we are dealing with Inspector Clouseau.
You can tell Martin is starting to panic when he resorts to personal insults.
:D
No answer for why a photocopy casts any doubt on its authenticity under the circumstances.
That's an easy one. A photocopy is far easier to manipulate than an original. Btw can I pick up your car tomorrow with a photocopied document of sale carrying your signature?
We know how the Klein's documents were discovered. That process allowed for no opportunity for fabrication.
That's probably true, but they did not need such an opportunity. The agents took the microfilm and it wasn't until May 20th 1964 that Waldman and Scibor saw a copy of Waldman 7 again. Six months is a long time to remember every little detail on a form.
The FBI discovered by 10PM that Klein's had handled this rifle. They got Waldman to accompany them to his Chicago office where the records were kept. Mitchell Scibor, the general operating manager, searched Klein's records. Around midnight they confirm this is a rifle they handled. They continue to search their own microfilm records until about 4AM when Scibor finds the documents that confirm this rifle was ordered by someone named "Hidell" and sent to a Dallas PO Box.
Of course they found those documents, but if you read Scibor's testimony carefully, you will notice that what he found on 11/22/63 was a Klein's "order blank" form with a handwritten serial and control number on it. There is no mention of Hidell's name being on that particular form. What is amazing is that Belin asked Scibor if he had any supervision or control over the people making the entries of the serial and control numbers;
Mr. SCIBOR. Those are notations strictly for the receiving department. I have the men back there keep these in rotation so that I can always fill--in the same rotation as they come out of.
Mr. BELIN. And did you do any of that writing at all?
Mr. SCIBOR. No.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not these serial numbers are assigned by people under your supervision?
Mr. SCIBOR. Repeat that.
Mr. BELIN. Well, do you have any supervision or control over the people making the entries on the serial numbers and your control numbers?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
and when he said "Yes", Belin did not ask any further about who those men were. Instead he cut off his line of questioning and started asking Scibor about his background. It's a classic lawyer trick when they get an answer they dont expect or want to hear.
How would any conspirator fake these documents and insert them into Klein's microfilm records before midnight on Nov. 22? Waldman is present when the search of these records is undertaken.
Already answered.
Unless these are fake, it confirms that a specific rifle was sent to the PO Box belonging to LHO.
What are fake? The documents found by Scibor on 11/22/63 or the copies presented to him and Waldman on 05/20/64? Did you ever learn that the best lie is the one that stays as close to the truth as possible?
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to conclude what happened. Unfortunately, we are dealing with Inspector Clouseau.
You can tell Martin Richard is starting to panic when he resorts to personal insults.
-
Of course they found those documents, but if you read Scibor's testimony carefully, you will notice that what he found on 11/22/63 was a Klein's "order blank" form with a handwritten serial and control number on it. There is no mention of Hidell's name being on that particular form. What is amazing is that Belin asked Scibor if he had any supervision or control over the people making the entries of the serial and control numbers;
Mr. SCIBOR. Those are notations strictly for the receiving department. I have the men back there keep these in rotation so that I can always fill--in the same rotation as they come out of.
Mr. BELIN. And did you do any of that writing at all?
Mr. SCIBOR. No.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not these serial numbers are assigned by people under your supervision?
Mr. SCIBOR. Repeat that.
Mr. BELIN. Well, do you have any supervision or control over the people making the entries on the serial numbers and your control numbers?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
The excerpt quoted from Scibor's testimony is referring to Waldman exhibit 4 (part of the shipment record of the Carcanos received from Crescent Firearms), not Waldman exhibit 7 (the Klein's "order blank"). If we properly quote Scibor's testimony, we get this:
Mr. BELIN. I notice the date and the notations in the upper lefthand corner, RR-1243; underneath that, the date 2-22-63. Do you know what that has reference to?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes; the "RR" stands for receiving record No. 1243, and that merchandise was booked or actually received by our receiving-department on 2-22-63.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show from whom it was received?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes; Crescent Firearms.
Mr. BELIN. And underneath the "Crescent Firearms," what does it say?
Mr. SCIBOR. Italian Carcano T38, 6.5 Italian caliber rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Now, there are some notations in the upper righthand corner, what does that have reference to?
Mr. SCIBOR. Those are notations strictly for the receiving department. I have the men back there keep these in rotation so that I can always fill--in the same rotation as they come out of.
Mr. BELIN. And did you do any of that writing at all?
Mr. SCIBOR. No.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not these serial numbers are assigned by people under your supervision?
Mr. SCIBOR. Repeat that.
Mr. BELIN. Well, do you have any supervision or control over the people making the entries on the serial numbers and your control numbers?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
The "RR-1243" and "2-22-63" are found on Waldman 4, but not Waldman 7.
-
The excerpt quoted from Scibor's testimony is referring to Waldman exhibit 4 (part of the shipment record of the Carcanos received from Crescent Firearms), not Waldman exhibit 7 (the Klein's "order blank"). If we properly quote Scibor's testimony, we get this:
Mr. BELIN. I notice the date and the notations in the upper lefthand corner, RR-1243; underneath that, the date 2-22-63. Do you know what that has reference to?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes; the "RR" stands for receiving record No. 1243, and that merchandise was booked or actually received by our receiving-department on 2-22-63.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show from whom it was received?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes; Crescent Firearms.
Mr. BELIN. And underneath the "Crescent Firearms," what does it say?
Mr. SCIBOR. Italian Carcano T38, 6.5 Italian caliber rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Now, there are some notations in the upper righthand corner, what does that have reference to?
Mr. SCIBOR. Those are notations strictly for the receiving department. I have the men back there keep these in rotation so that I can always fill--in the same rotation as they come out of.
Mr. BELIN. And did you do any of that writing at all?
Mr. SCIBOR. No.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not these serial numbers are assigned by people under your supervision?
Mr. SCIBOR. Repeat that.
Mr. BELIN. Well, do you have any supervision or control over the people making the entries on the serial numbers and your control numbers?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
The "RR-1243" and "2-22-63" are found on Waldman 4, but not Waldman 7.
And where is the Hidell reference?
-
And where is the Hidell reference?
You don't know?
-
Yes, you stand corrected about the claim that there was any kind of match, let alone to the exclusion of all other rifles. It just didn't happen. At best they could have matched the shells to the rifle, but that's it.
Do you believe the assassination took place earlier and was just staged to look like it took place on the 22nd?
What in the world are you babbling about?
The rifle found on the 6th floor was found to have had LHO's palm print on the barrel.
That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The rifle found at the TSBD was examined by the FBI lab in Washington within 24 hours after the crime. They found nothing, not even a trace of a print.
Then, about a week later, Lt Day suddenly produced an evidence card allegedly containing Oswald's palmprint, which he claimed he had taken of the rifle on 11/22/63 and then kept it, without mentioning it to anyone for a whole week.
The rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.
And how do you know that the rifle found on the 6th floor was in fact the one used to assassinate JFK?
Bullets or bullet fragments can not be matched to any weapon and despite your claim they never were. Shells can be matched, but the fact that Fritz compromised the crime scene by picking up shells and then throwing them back, means that if the rifle was planted so could the shells be.
Now, before you get this wrong; I am not claiming that the rifle and shells were planted. I am merely saying that it is possible that they were, which, by itself, makes it impossible to claim with any kind of certainty that the rifle was actually used in the assassination.
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others". LHO's palm print was found on the barrel of the rifle discovered on the 6th floor. LHO's prints were found on the bag discovered in the SN. LHO's prints were on the boxes used to make the rifle rest. LHO's PO Box was used as the delivery point for the rifle. The alias used to purchase the rifle was on an indentity card in his possession when arrested. LHO was known to possess this rifle and had already attempted to murder another individual earlier. LHO has no alibi during the assassination and also told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down to the second floor after the assassination.
Your answer to all this information is just you don't know but you don't think so. It is kind of like the Adams and Styles nonsense where you unwittingly and unknowingly produced a WC statement from Officer Barnett that proved Adams and Styles did not leave as quickly as they thought, and you were just wrong about all of it.
-
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others". LHO's palm print was found on the barrel of the rifle discovered on the 6th floor. LHO's prints were found on the bag discovered in the SN. LHO's prints were on the boxes used to make the rifle rest. LHO's PO Box was used as the delivery point for the rifle. The alias used to purchase the rifle was on an indentity card in his possession when arrested. LHO was known to possess this rifle and had already attempted to murder another individual earlier. LHO has no alibi during the assassination and also told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down to the second floor after the assassination.
Your answer to all this information is just you don't know but you don't think so. It is kind of like the Adams and Styles nonsense where you unwittingly and unknowingly produced a WC statement from Officer Barnett that proved Adams and Styles did not leave as quickly as they thought, and you were just wrong about all of it.
It is kind of like the Adams and Styles nonsense where you unwittingly and unknowingly produced a WC statement from Officer Barnett that proved Adams and Styles did not leave as quickly as they thought, and you were just wrong about all of it.
Hey fool, when I am wrong about something, I admit and accept it. I misread the date on one document, which was only a minor part of the story. So, what? The remainder of the story still stands to this date. What do you call somebody who dismisses an entire story out of hand just because one minor detail was wrong?.....
As for the remainder of your post, you sound like every other LN who parrots BS without questioning any of it.
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others".
No ballistic expert from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry ever identified the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others". But feel free to prove me wong, by providing one report, just one, in which that claim is made.
LHO's palm print was found on the barrel of the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.
Repeating a bogus claim doesn't make it magically come true.
LHO's prints were found on the bag discovered in the SN. LHO's prints were on the boxes used to make the rifle rest. LHO's PO Box was used as the delivery point for the rifle. The alias used to purchase the rifle was on an indentity card in his possession when arrested. LHO was known to possess this rifle and had already attempted to murder another individual earlier. LHO has no alibi during the assassination and also told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down to the second floor after the assassination.
I'm not going to bother to reply to the rest of these superficial claims as there would be no point. You will just repeat the same crap next time around anyway. The propensity for a rush to judgment as you display here is beyond belief.
-
It is kind of like the Adams and Styles nonsense where you unwittingly and unknowingly produced a WC statement from Officer Barnett that proved Adams and Styles did not leave as quickly as they thought, and you were just wrong about all of it.
Hey fool, when I am wrong about something, I admit and accept it. I misread the date on one document, which was only a minor part of the story. So, what? The remainder of the story still stands to this date. What do you call somebody who dismisses an entire story out of hand just because one minor detail was wrong?.....
As for the remainder of your post, you sound like every other LN who parrots BS without questioning any of it.
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others".
No ballistic expert from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry ever identified the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others". But feel free to prove me wong, by providing one report, just one, in which that claim is made.
LHO's palm print was found on the barrel of the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.
Repeating a bogus claim doesn't make it magically come true.
LHO's prints were found on the bag discovered in the SN. LHO's prints were on the boxes used to make the rifle rest. LHO's PO Box was used as the delivery point for the rifle. The alias used to purchase the rifle was on an indentity card in his possession when arrested. LHO was known to possess this rifle and had already attempted to murder another individual earlier. LHO has no alibi during the assassination and also told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down to the second floor after the assassination.
I'm not going to bother to reply to the rest of these superficial claims as there would be no point. You will just repeat the same crap next time around anyway. The propensity for a rush to judgment as you display here is beyond belief.
You have never admitted to anything and you are not admitting now. This posted nonsense has nothing to do with Officer Barnett's actions. Report? There was Barnett's testimony about his actions and movements post shots and his actions were completely contrary to your belief in Adams and Styles early departure from their office. The best part was you posted it and you did not realize that fact. Now it is to be seen if you admit you were wrong about the rifle.
______________________________________________
The rifle found on the 6th floor was fired from the 6th floor window and caused all the wounds.
There is so little actual physical evidence of the assassination. There is a bullet, bullet fragments, shells, and a rifle. How could anyone know so little about them yet be constantly posting like you are an expert?
Frazier stating the bullet and bullet fragments, beyond any doubt, came from the rifle found on the 6th floor. The HSCA firearms experts agreed. I thought everyone knew this.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
-------------------
Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
_________________________________________________
Merely stating your opinion that these facts are false is meaningless. They are all exhibits published in the WC Report.
-
You have never admitted to anything and you are not admitting now. This posted nonsense has nothing to do with Officer Barnett's actions. Report? There was Barnett's testimony about his actions and movements post shots and his actions were completely contrary to your belief in Adams and Styles early departure from their office. The best part was you posted it and you did not realize that fact. Now it is to be seen if you admit you were wrong about the rifle.
______________________________________________
The rifle found on the 6th floor was fired from the 6th floor window and caused all the wounds.
There is so little actual physical evidence of the assassination. There is a bullet, bullet fragments, shells, and a rifle. How could anyone know so little about them yet be constantly posting like you are an expert?
Frazier stating the bullet and bullet fragments, beyond any doubt, came from the rifle found on the 6th floor. The HSCA firearms experts agreed. I thought everyone knew this.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
-------------------
Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
_________________________________________________
Merely stating your opinion that these facts are false is meaningless. They are all exhibits published in the WC Report.
You have never admitted to anything and you are not admitting now. This posted nonsense has nothing to do with Officer Barnett's actions. Report? There was Barnett's testimony about his actions and movements post shots and his actions were completely contrary to your belief in Adams and Styles early departure from their office. The best part was you posted it and you did not realize that fact. Now it is to be seen if you admit you were wrong about the rifle.
Barnett's testimony about his actions did in no way prove that Adams and Styles did not leave the 4th floor immediately after the shots. I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Merely stating your opinion that these facts are false is meaningless. They are all exhibits published in the WC Report.
I'm not going to say they are false, although the inclusion of them in the WC report most certainly doesn't automatically make them facts. What you show me here is the opinion of an FBI expert who claims that in his opinion CE399 and bullet fragment CE 567 were shot through the same barrel.
Much can be said about the evidentiary problems associated with CE399 and CE567, but that's for another day.
You claimed that "numerous experts" identified the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others".
To which I replied;
No ballistic expert from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry ever identified the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others". But feel free to prove me wong, by providing one report, just one, in which that claim is made.
Now please point me to where in his testimony Frazier makes that claim.
-
The rifle found on the 6th floor was fired from the 6th floor window and caused all the wounds.
BS:
How do you know what rifle caused the wounds? How do you know that either CE399 or CE567 went through Kennedy or Connally?
-
No need to prove ownership of any damn rifle
At the end of the day, 10th & Patton is the epicentre, the ground-zero if you will, of the entire assassination
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Jb4zLST/SPACE-eyeballs.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
No need to prove ownership of any damn rifle
At the end of the day, 10th & Patton is the epicentre, the ground-zero if you will, of the entire assassination
Oh boy, somebody forgot to put the garbage out.
-
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others".
Martin has already explained why this claim is BS:
LHO's palm print was found on the barrel of the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.
Correction: a partial palmprint that was identified as coming from Oswald was found on an index card that arrived in Washington a week later.
LHO's prints were found on the bag discovered in the SN.
A "bag" that doesn't appear in the "place it was discovered" in any crime scene photographs, and nobody agrees on exactly where it was found, when it was found, who found it, or how it was folded. Oh yeah, and there is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside it.
LHO's prints were on the boxes used to make the rifle rest.
LHO's job was literally taking books out of boxes.
LHO's PO Box was used as the delivery point for the rifle.
Evidence of "delivery"?
The alias used to purchase the rifle was on an indentity card in his possession when arrested.
The "identity card" that isn't mentioned in any interview or report prior to the Klein's order turning up?
LHO was known to possess this rifle
"Known" how?
and had already attempted to murder another individual earlier.
You mean with the steel-jacketed 30 caliber bullet the police found at the Walker scene?
LHO has no alibi during the assassination
Neither did at least 5 other people in the TSBD alone. But Oswald mentioned seeing Norman and Jarman walk through the first floor, and lo and behold, they actually were there just a few minutes before the assassination.
and also told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down to the second floor after the assassination.
Right. Holmes is a fount of specific information:
"But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke."
-
Oh boy, somebody forgot to put the garbage out.
He was not only out, he was out-and-about starting a little after 12:30pm; took a brief break to exchange a few niceties with Officer Tippit; mumbled & fumbled his way down Patton to Jefferson; had police sirens remind him that he needed tennis shoes for his kid; then decided to go out to the movies and shoot more cops.
Now he's out of our hair, but still on CTer walls & PJs
-
It is kind of like the Adams and Styles nonsense where you unwittingly and unknowingly produced a WC statement from Officer Barnett that proved Adams and Styles did not leave as quickly as they thought, and you were just wrong about all of it.
Hey fool, when I am wrong about something, I admit and accept it. I misread the date on one document, which was only a minor part of the story. So, what? The remainder of the story still stands to this date. What do you call somebody who dismisses an entire story out of hand just because one minor detail was wrong?.....
As for the remainder of your post, you sound like every other LN who parrots BS without questioning any of it.
Numerous ballistics experts from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry identify the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others".
No ballistic expert from both the FBI and HSCA inquiry ever identified the rifle found on the 6th floor as being the weapon that had been fired during the assassination to "the exclusion of all others". But feel free to prove me wong, by providing one report, just one, in which that claim is made.
LHO's palm print was found on the barrel of the rifle discovered on the 6th floor.
Repeating a bogus claim doesn't make it magically come true.
LHO's prints were found on the bag discovered in the SN. LHO's prints were on the boxes used to make the rifle rest. LHO's PO Box was used as the delivery point for the rifle. The alias used to purchase the rifle was on an indentity card in his possession when arrested. LHO was known to possess this rifle and had already attempted to murder another individual earlier. LHO has no alibi during the assassination and also told Postal Inspector Holmes he came down to the second floor after the assassination.
I'm not going to bother to reply to the rest of these superficial claims as there would be no point. You will just repeat the same crap next time around anyway. The propensity for a rush to judgment as you display here is beyond belief.
Really kind of pathetic even by your standards.
So much for admitting when you are wrong. Apparently you think the bullet and fragments can be reused and then fired from a different rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Undeniable. Same for the HSCA. If you aren't certain how they match bullets to weapons watch any cop show. Pretty basic. Like a fingerprint.
-------------------------------------
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven because you posted Officer Barnett's testimony.
-
Really kind of pathetic even by your standards.
So much for admitting when you are wrong. Apparently you think the bullet and fragments can be reused and then fired from a different rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Undeniable. Same for the HSCA. If you aren't certain how they match bullets to weapons watch any cop show. Pretty basic. Like a fingerprint.
-------------------------------------
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven because you posted Officer Barnett's testimony.
Apparently you think the bullet and fragments can be reused and then fired from a different rifle.
No, only a very confused mind would think something like that. Oh wait... you thought about it. :D
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Undeniable. Same for the HSCA. If you aren't certain how they match bullets to weapons watch any cop show. Pretty basic. Like a fingerprint.
Is cop shows where you get your information from? Because that would explain an awful lot.
Now, tell me please where Frazier or whoever you are thinking about in the HSCA, says when the bullets were fired by that rifle?
Before you jump to conclusions, you really need to consider this;
1) There is no chain of custody for the bullet now in evidence as CE399. Nobody who handled the bullet Tomlinson found before the item got to the FBI lab in Washington was able to identify CE399 as the bullet they had handled. Even worse, Mr. Wright, the man who recieved the bullet from Tomlinson is on record as saying that CE399 does not resemble the bullet he handled.
2) There also is no chain of custody for the bullet fragments that allegedly came from the limo. FBI expert Frazier went down to the Secret Service garage to inspect the car and when he got there he was given some bullet fragments that had allegedly been found in the limo by two men who contaminated the crime scene by allegedly going through the car before the FBI experts arrived. That's why none of the fragments show up in any in situ photograph.
And let's not forget General Walker. When he saw the bullet the HSCA presented as the one that was allegedly recovered from his home he denied it completely. He even went through the trouble of writing to the HSCA several times and when they did not respond he instructed his lawyer to get in touch with them. The HSCA ignored his denials.
You see a pattern emerging here?
Now, why don't you go back to those cop shows and try to figure out what evidentiary problems could be the result of such amateur like shenanigans and get back to me when you have a reasonable explanation for the obvious fact that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 looks very much like a bullet fired into cotton wool or a water tank.
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven because you posted Officer Barnett's testimony.
Utter BS. Why don't you write this a hundred more times or so. Who knows, perhaps it suddenly comes true.
Let me make this suggestion to you. If Adams and Styles did not get down the stairs within 60 seconds after the shots, wouldn't they have encountered Truly and Baker (as Dororthy Garner did) on the fourth floor?
-
Apparently you think the bullet and fragments can be reused and then fired from a different rifle.
No, only a very confused mind would think something like that. Oh wait... you thought about it. :D
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Undeniable. Same for the HSCA. If you aren't certain how they match bullets to weapons watch any cop show. Pretty basic. Like a fingerprint.
Is cop shows where you get your information from? Because that would explain an awful lot.
Now, tell me please where Frazier or whoever you are thinking about in the HSCA, says when the bullets were fired by that rifle?
Before you jump to conclusions, you really need to consider this;
1) There is no chain of custody for the bullet now in evidence as CE399. Nobody who handled the bullet Tomlinson found before the item got to the FBI lab in Washington was able to identify CE399 as the bullet they had handled. Even worse, Mr. Wright, the man who recieved the bullet from Tomlinson is on record as saying that CE399 does not resemble the bullet he handled.
2) There also is no chain of custody for the bullet fragments that allegedly came from the limo. FBI expert Frazier went down to the Secret Service garage to inspect the car and when he got there he was given some bullet fragments that had allegedly been found in the limo by two men who contaminated the crime scene by allegedly going through the car before the FBI experts arrived. That's why none of the fragments show up in any in situ photograph.
And let's not forget General Walker. When he saw the bullet the HSCA presented as the one that was allegedly recovered from his home he denied it completely. He even went through the trouble of writing to the HSCA several times and when they did not respond he instructed his lawyer to get in touch with them. The HSCA ignored his denials.
You see a pattern emerging here?
Now, why don't you go back to those cop shows and try to figure out what evidentiary problems could be the result of such amateur like shenanigans and get back to me when you have a reasonable explanation for the obvious fact that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 looks very much like a bullet fired into cotton wool or a water tank.
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven because you posted Officer Barnett's testimony.
Utter BS. Why don't you write this a hundred more times or so. Who knows, perhaps it suddenly comes true.
Let me make this suggestion to you. If Adams and Styles did not get down the stairs within 60 seconds after the shots, wouldn't they have encountered Truly and Baker (as Dororthy Garner did) on the fourth floor?
Remember while reading this nonsense that Martin refuses to admit that he is a CTer. The evidence is just all faked. He doesn't have to explain why. It just is. Take his word for it.
-
Remember while reading this nonsense that Martin refuses to admit that he is a CTer. The evidence is just all faked. He doesn't have to explain why. It just is. Take his word for it.
Get help. Your obsession with me is getting completely out of control.
It is not my problem if you don't understand (and you clearly don't) why a chain of custody is important. I don't have claim the evidence is faked and I did not claim it was in my last post. Instead I ask straightforward questions which you will never be able to answer in a hunderd years.
You and your ilk have to prove the evidence is authentic. The mere fact that you only assume it is exposes you as a fool who is incapable of rational and reasonable thought processes.
-
Really kind of pathetic even by your standards.
So much for admitting when you are wrong. Apparently you think the bullet and fragments can be reused and then fired from a different rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
How do you know that fragment was "fired during the assassination"?
Undeniable. Same for the HSCA. If you aren't certain how they match bullets to weapons watch any cop show. Pretty basic. Like a fingerprint.
If you mean it similarly involves bias, subjectivity, and differing standards, then yes. Particularly when the fragments were so mangled that Robert Frazier had to line up the markings in his "mind" because they didn't line up under the microscope.
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven because you posted Officer Barnett's testimony.
You have a weird definition of "proof".
-
Remember while reading this nonsense that Martin refuses to admit that he is a CTer. The evidence is just all faked. He doesn't have to explain why. It just is. Take his word for it.
Martin didn't say "the evidence is all faked", Strawman "Smith".
-
Then don't watch the cop shows. Actual knowledge of the subject you are posting about does not seem to be an obstacle for you. The cop show reference was an attempt to help you. Obviously you have very little understanding of ballistic analysis techniques and how it is used to match bullets to firearms.
Both the HSCA firearms experts along with the WC firearms experts matched the bullet and fragments to the LHO rifle found on the 6th floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The fragments chain of custody is not in question. CE 267 and CE 269 are matched to LHO's rifle found on the 6th floor by DPD. The rifle found on the 6th floor is the rifle used to assassinate JFK.
Mr. FRAZIER - That was found by the Secret Service upon their examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first arrived from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, to a liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in the laboratory at 11:50 p,m., on November 22, 1963.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there another fragment, was there any other fragment found in the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Alongside the right side of the front seat, Commission Exhibit No. 569, which is the base portion of the jacket of a bullet was found, and handled in identical manner to the Exhibit 567.
-------------------------------------------
If you don't believe Officer Barnett's statement you should not have posted it or are you in the habit of posting whatever. Along with Harkness and Sawyer's time stamps, it completely ended the Adams and Styles early departure timeline and why they never encountered LHO coming down or Baker and Truly going up the stairs.
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for at least the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven by Officer Barnett's testimony about watching the rear of the building. By the way thanks for posting his statement, it was really helpful with understanding their movements.
-
Then don't watch the cop shows. Actual knowledge of the subject you are posting about does not seem to be an obstacle for you. The cop show reference was an attempt to help you. Obviously you have very little understanding of ballistic analysis techniques and how it is used to match bullets to firearms.
Both the HSCA firearms experts along with the WC firearms experts matched the bullet and fragments to the LHO rifle found on the 6th floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, a pathetic appeal to authority by an arrogant patronizing ignoramus who can't even begin to grasp the significance of my question let alone answer it. It doesn't get any better than that.
Why do most, if not all, LNs display such an amazing level of ignorance?
The fragments chain of custody is not in question. CE 267 and CE 269 are matched to LHO's rifle found on the 6th floor by DPD. The rifle found on the 6th floor is the rifle used to assassinate JFK.
Mr. FRAZIER - That was found by the Secret Service upon their examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first arrived from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, to a liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in the laboratory at 11:50 p,m., on November 22, 1963.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there another fragment, was there any other fragment found in the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Alongside the right side of the front seat, Commission Exhibit No. 569, which is the base portion of the jacket of a bullet was found, and handled in identical manner to the Exhibit 567.
-------------------------------------------
The fragments chain of custody is not in question.
You cleary do not have the knowledge of rules of evidence to make such an hilarious claim. Frazier just told the WC that the crime scene (which the limo was) had been contaminated and it seems they couldn't care less. Wow!
If you don't believe Officer Barnett's statement you should not have posted it or are you in the habit of posting whatever. Along with Harkness and Sawyer's time stamps, it completely ended the Adams and Styles early departure timeline and why they never encountered LHO coming down or Baker and Truly going up the stairs.
Styles and Adams never emerged out the back of the building for at least the first 3 minutes after the shots were fired. This is proven by Officer Barnett's testimony about watching the rear of the building. By the way thanks for posting his statement, it was really helpful with understanding their movements.
More BS. Who said I don't believe Barnett's statement? I'm not sure what you actually think his statement means, but it does, in no way, whatsoever prove that Adams and Styles did not leave the TSBD within around 60 seconds after the last shot. In fact, we know from the Stroud letter that Dorothy Garner said the girls had gone down the stairs before she [Garner] saw Baker and Truly come up. That alone is sufficient to conclude that they left the 4th floor before Baker and Truly even got to the stairs on the 1st floor.
This is proven by Officer Barnett's testimony about watching the rear of the building.
What testimony would that be? Barnett was watching the fire escape on Houston and only briefly went to the back, where he saw some officers. He wasn't watching the rear of the building and most certainly did not get to the point on Houston where he could observe the back of the building until several minutes after the shots. It's all in his testimony. Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem? Or maybe both?
-
Wow, a pathetic appeal to authority by an arrogant patronizing ignoramus who can't even begin to grasp the significance of my question let alone answer it. It doesn't get any better than that.
Why do most, if not all, LNs display such an amazing level of ignorance?
The fragments chain of custody is not in question.
You cleary do not have the knowledge of rules of evidence to make such an hilarious claim. Frazier just told the WC that the crime scene (which the limo was) had been contaminated and it seems they couldn't care less. Wow!
More BS. Who said I don't believe Barnett's statement? I'm not sure what you actually think his statement means, but it does, in no way, whatsoever prove that Adams and Styles did not leave the TSBD within around 60 seconds after the last shot. In fact, we know from the Stroud letter that Dorothy Garner said the girls had gone down the stairs before she [Garner] saw Baker and Truly come up. That alone is sufficient to conclude that they left the 4th floor before Baker and Truly even got to the stairs on the 1st floor.
This is proven by Officer Barnett's testimony about watching the rear of the building.
What testimony would that be? Barnett was watching the fire escape on Houston and only briefly went to the back, where he saw some officers. He wasn't watching the rear of the building and most certainly did not get to the point on Houston where he could observe the back of the building until several minutes after the shots. It's all in his testimony. Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem? Or maybe both?
You are treated in a manner reflecting the manner with which you represent yourself on this forum. 100% pompous bluster with zero knowledge. It would not be possible to not talk down to you.
---------
It appears you are all talk and no action. I guess you won't admit you were wrong so I will help you. You could not be more wrong.
Officer Barnett stayed at the back of the building for three minutes.
DPD Officer Welcome Barnett: Barnett was on foot patrol at the corner of Elm and Houston, directly in front of the TSBD main entrance. At about 12:20 PM he looked up at the windows of the TSBD and saw nothing unusual. At 12:30 PM he heard shots, and he says that he suspected that the shots came from the top of the TSBD, and that the shooter would run down the fire escape, so he ran up Houston street to the back of the TSBD, and carefully watched the back door and the fire escape for signs of anybody climbing down. About three minutes later, Sergeant Howard ordered him to the front of the building to get its name; so, he did.
No mention of seeing anyone emerge out of the back of the TSBD.
-------------------------
The fragments were matched to the rifle independently by three different FBI Experts.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir
------------------------------
There is no problem with the evidence and how it was gathered.
Frazier examined the car that had been under continual Secret Service guard.
Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.
-------------------------
LHO's rifle which had been discovered on the 6th floor was independently matched to the bullet fragments by no less than three different FBI experts. Is this where you finally admit you were wrong?
-
You are treated in a manner reflecting the manner with which you represent yourself on this forum. 100% pompous bluster with zero knowledge. It would not be possible to not talk down to you.
---------
It appears you are all talk and no action. I guess you won't admit you were wrong so I will help you. You could not be more wrong.
Officer Barnett stayed at the back of the building for three minutes.
DPD Officer Welcome Barnett: Barnett was on foot patrol at the corner of Elm and Houston, directly in front of the TSBD main entrance. At about 12:20 PM he looked up at the windows of the TSBD and saw nothing unusual. At 12:30 PM he heard shots, and he says that he suspected that the shots came from the top of the TSBD, and that the shooter would run down the fire escape, so he ran up Houston street to the back of the TSBD, and carefully watched the back door and the fire escape for signs of anybody climbing down. About three minutes later, Sergeant Howard ordered him to the front of the building to get its name; so, he did.
No mention of seeing anyone emerge out of the back of the TSBD.
-------------------------
I don't know where you got this quote from (if it is indeed a quote and you didn't make it up yourself) but it isn't from his WC testimony. Better check that before you embarrass yourself any further.
I'll do you one better. Here's the relevant part of his testimony;
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do when you concluded that the shots were coming from that building?
Mr. BARNETT - I ran to the back of the building.
Mr. LIEBELER - Ran down Houston Street?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - There is a door in the back of the Texas School Book Depository. Does it face on Houston or around the corner?
Mr. BARNETT - It is around the corner from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you go in the building?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir; I didn't get close to it, because I was watching for a fire escape. If the man was on top, he would have to come down, and I was looking for a fire escape, and I didn't pay much attention to the door. I was still watching the top of the building, and so far as I could see, the fire escape on the east side was the only escape down.
Mr. LIEBELER - Since you surmised that the shots had come from the building, you looked up and you didn't see any windows open. You thought they had been fired from the top of the building?
Mr. BARNETT - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - So you ran around here on Houston Street immediately to the east of the Texas School Book Depository Building and watched the fire escape?
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody coming off the fire escape up there, or any movement on top of the building?
Mr. BARNETT - Not a thing.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do after you went around behind the building?
Mr. BARNETT - I went looked behind the building and I saw officers searching the railroad cars. I looked around in front towards the front of the building and I saw officers going west.
Mr. LIEBELER - Going west down the little street there in front of the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes; but there was no sign they were going into the building or watching the building, so I decided I was the only one watching the building. So since this was the only fire escape and there were officers down here watching the this back door, I returned back around to the front to watch the front of the building and the fire escape. Then I decided maybe I had been wrong, so I saw the officers down here searching.
Initially, Barnett didn't get any further, on Houston, than about 20 foot from the front corner of the building, where he was when the motorcade passed by. Only later did he go to the back of the building but by then other officers were already there.
Barnett also did not stay at the back of the building for 3 minutes. He testified that he was at the location marked "9" on CE 354 when he heard the shots.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm
He then ran about 20 foot down Houston and watched the fire escape. On some point he went to the back of the building (still staying on Houston) and saw cops there, so he ran back up Houston to his original location ("9"). From there he ran along the street in front of the TSBD towards to railway yard. He then returned to the location marked "8" on the map. He estimated that all of that took him 2 1/2 minutes, which means that he could not have been at the back of the building for more than a few seconds.
And this part of the testimony shows conclusively that either Barnett's time estimate is wrong or he couldn't have done his run between 12:30 and 12:33, because the front door of the TSBD wasn't sealed off until after 12:36.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think it was as quickly as 2 1/2 minutes from the time the last shot was fired until the time you got to the front door? Do you think it was that quick?
Mr. BARNETT - I believe it was 2 1/2 minute probably from the time I ran from the back to the front. That was probably 2 1/2 minutes. Then it took me 20 or 30 seconds more before I got to the front there.
Mr. LIEBELER - So you recollection is that it was fairly short order that you got to the front door?
Mr. BARNETT - Three minutes at the most.
Mr. LIEBELER - Now who was the one sergeant who instructed you to post yourself there at the door, or was it somebody else?
Mr. BARNETT - Sergeant Howard.
Mr. LIEBELER - You remained there at the door for how long?
Mr. BARNETT - Until 3 o'clock. Close to 11:30 to 3 - close to 12:30 to 3.
And finally, to debunk your misrepresentation completely, Barnett did not carefully watch the back door, as you claim. He actually testified that he didn't pay much attention to the door, so even if he was there within a minute of the shots (which he wasn't) it is still possible that he didn't see anybody coming out of the back door simply because he wasn't looking.
I see you still have no explanation for Dorothy Garner saying the girls went down the stairs before Baker and Truly came up. Now, there's a surprise.... :D
The fragments were matched to the rifle independently by three different FBI Experts.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir
------------------------------
You still don't get it. Pfff... Oh well, I can't fix stupid
There is no problem with the evidence and how it was gathered.
Frazier examined the car that had been under continual Secret Service guard.
Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.
-------------------------
Yes, Frazier examined the car after others had already been through it. Frazier did not find the fragments, you were talking about earlier, himself. They were given to him. Only in your fairyland is that not an evidentiary problem.
LHO's rifle which had been discovered on the 6th floor was independently matched to the bullet fragments by no less than three different FBI experts. Is this where you finally admit you were wrong?
There's nothing to admit. You jump to conclusions, misrepresent the evidence and make assumptions. You do all that, but you can't answer a simple question;
Where did Frazier or any other expert say when the bullets were fired by that rifle?
Perhaps if you watch some more cops shows you might find an answer.
-
Below is from a CNBC article dated 10/28/2017.
Why were intelligence officials so persistent 54 years after the assassination?
I’m not sure they were trying to protect individuals by keeping records classified... but perhaps protect the integrity of their own government agency...
It is a real puzzle...
"It was a showdown 25 years in the making: With the world itching to finally get a look at classified Kennedy assassination files, and the deadline for their release just hours away, intelligence officials were still angling for a way to keep their secrets. President Donald Trump, the one man able to block the release, did not appreciate their persistence. He did not intend to make this easy.
Like much else surrounding investigations of the 1963 killing of President John F. Kennedy, Thursday’s release of 2,800 records from the JFK files was anything but smooth. It came together only at the last minute, with White House lawyers still fielding late-arriving requests for additional redactions in the morning and an irritated Trump continuing to resist signing off on the request, according to an account by two White House officials. They spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions."
-
Officer Barnett stayed at the back of the building for three minutes. Barnett was on foot patrol at the corner of Elm and Houston, directly in front of the TSBD main entrance. At about 12:20 PM he looked up at the windows of the TSBD and saw nothing unusual. At 12:30 PM he heard shots, and he says that he suspected that the shots came from the top of the TSBD, and that the shooter would run down the fire escape, so he ran up Houston street to the back of the TSBD, and carefully watched the back door and the fire escape for signs of anybody climbing down. About three minutes later, Sergeant Howard ordered him to the front of the building to get its name; so, he did. No mention of seeing anyone emerge out of the back of the TSBD.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6LkZE7c3DyEXKGSHepCmMvwgls98Id4D8yA&usqp=CAU) About three minutes later, Sergeant Howard ordered him to the front of the building to get its name; so, he did.
Where is that? As Martin mentions...I fail to see this in any testimony. Besides, why would Barnett need to go back to the front to identify a building he was stationed at in the first place and that every cop in town knew the name of anyway? Three minutes wouldn't have been enough time to see much of anything. The whole world could have seen someone coming down the fire escape [see picture]--However there was a scuttle hole from the roof down to the seventh floor for easy access. Not many knew this fact.
As originally built----
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EdhWAdSPMIE/WWD8FaszajI/AAAAAAABMT4/ccr4f-EzhmUBYImm-y_zWhnYgUADN4E-QCLcBGAs/s1600/Southern-Rock-Island-Plow-Company-Building-Dallas-Texas.jpg)
-
The reason to classify information for so many years( 75 )was for all of us to die within that period and at a certain point in time , those of us would either be to old or already dead !!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
No---Here is the relevant part of Barnett's statement, Maybe you would have no problem standing there for the 3 minutes with your neck and knees locked transfixed on a ladder oblivious to the world around you. Unbelievable it is even suggested that he would do this.
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
Barnett's statement proves Adams and Styles never left the 4th floor as early as they thought. The police timestamps prove when they reached the back of the TSBD. Definitely after the three minutes Barnett was there.
----------------------------------------------
No----MW: "And this part of the testimony shows conclusively that either Barnett's time estimate is wrong or he couldn't have done his run between 12:30 and 12:33, because the front door of the TSBD wasn't sealed off until after 12:36."
The front door was sealed at 12:37. The bac was sealed at 12:36.
----------------------------
No----MW: "And finally, to debunk your misrepresentation completely, Barnett did not carefully watch the back door, as you claim. He actually testified that he didn't pay much attention to the door, so even if he was there within a minute of the shots (which he wasn't) it is still possible that he didn't see anybody coming out of the back door simply because he wasn't looking"
Yeah, OK, sure it makes perfect sense. He stood there transfixed on the ladder why the world swirled around him. He said he could see the door and officers to the west. Don't add your opinion to the narrative.
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
Just like the 27" description of CE142 that CT's cling to, Buell Frazier made the exact same statement but it is completely ignored. According to your interpretations, it looks like you are stating LHO carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
----------------------------
The statements of Adams and Styles make Garner's after the fact recollection irrelevant.
---------------------------
No ----MW: "Yes, Frazier examined the car after others had already been through it. Frazier did not find the fragments, you were talking about earlier, himself. They were given to him. Only in your fairyland is that not an evidentiary problem."
Yeah, OK, sure why not, makes perfect sense. Frazier went to the car and examined it looking for bullet fragments after the fragments had already been given to him.
Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
-
No---Here is the relevant part of Barnett's statement, Maybe you would have no problem standing there for the 3 minutes with your neck and knees locked transfixed on a ladder oblivious to the world around you. Unbelievable it is even suggested that he would do this.
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
Barnett's statement proves Adams and Styles never left the 4th floor as early as they thought. The police timestamps prove when they reached the back of the TSBD. Definitely after the three minutes Barnett was there.
----------------------------------------------
What in the world are you babbling about? When Barnett is standing on Houston he can't see around the corner of the building. You clearly have a reading comprehension problem, because that cherry-picked quote proves absolution nothing. In fact, Barnett himself testified that he hardly paid any attention to the back door.
No----MW: "And this part of the testimony shows conclusively that either Barnett's time estimate is wrong or he couldn't have done his run between 12:30 and 12:33, because the front door of the TSBD wasn't sealed off until after 12:36."
The front door was sealed at 12:37. The bac was sealed at 12:36.
----------------------------
Do you think before you write? You say "No" as if that means something and then proceed to confirm exactly what I said. The front of the TSBD wasn't sealed off untill after 12:36. You do understand that 12:37 is later than 12:36, right?
Btw, Styles and Adams are photographed at the front entrance of the building around the time the started to blocked off the front entrance. Now, as they had to go round the building to get there, how did they manage that if the were still on the 4th floor some 3 minutes after the shots, as you foolishly claimed? Me asking this is probably a waste of time, because you have so far been unable to answer any of my questions.
No----MW: "And finally, to debunk your misrepresentation completely, Barnett did not carefully watch the back door, as you claim. He actually testified that he didn't pay much attention to the door, so even if he was there within a minute of the shots (which he wasn't) it is still possible that he didn't see anybody coming out of the back door simply because he wasn't looking"
Yeah, OK, sure it makes perfect sense. He stood there transfixed on the ladder why the world swirled around him. He said he could see the door and officers to the west. Don't add your opinion to the narrative.
That's an hilarious comment when in fact it's you who is adding a wrong opinion to the narrative, simply because you don't believe or want to understand Barnett's testimony, where he said he was focused on the fire escape. I merely showed you what he actually said in his testimony and he did not say anywhere that he could see the back door. of the TSBD. That's why you can't show his testimony and why you are only making baseless claims. He could not see the door, because it was around the corner. All he did was briefly run to the back of the building, while still on Houston, and after seeing other officers he ran back.
Mr. LIEBELER - There is a door in the back of the Texas School Book Depository. Does it face on Houston or around the corner?
Mr. BARNETT - It is around the corner from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you go in the building?
Mr. BARNETT - No, sir; I didn't get close to it, because I was watching for a fire escape.
And the only "officers to the west" he saw were running west from Houston down the street in front of the TSBD!
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do after you went around behind the building?
Mr. BARNETT - I went looked behind the building and I saw officers searching the railroad cars. I looked around in front towards the front of the building and I saw officers going west.
Mr. LIEBELER - Going west down the little street there in front of the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes; but there was no sign they were going into the building or watching the building, so I decided I was the only one watching the building. So since this was the only fire escape and there were officers down here watching the this back door, I returned back around to the front to watch the front of the building and the fire escape. Then I decided maybe I had been wrong, so I saw the officers down here searching.
Btw, I don't really care if you understand this or not, but the mere fact that he saw officers at the back of the building should tell you that he wasn't there within a minute or so after the shots, because at that time there were no officers there at all. That's why Styles and Adams could leave the loading dock and run to the railway next to the TSBD annex, which is where they did encounter a cop.
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
Just like the 27" description of CE142 that CT's cling to, Buell Frazier made the exact same statement but it is completely ignored. According to your interpretations, it looks like you are stating LHO carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
----------------------------
More incoherent babble! Might I suggest to get in touch with your old school and ask for your money back.
The statements of Adams and Styles make Garner's after the fact recollection irrelevant.
---------------------------
I'll just have to take your word for that, right? :D
No ----MW: "Yes, Frazier examined the car after others had already been through it. Frazier did not find the fragments, you were talking about earlier, himself. They were given to him. Only in your fairyland is that not an evidentiary problem."
Yeah, OK, sure why not, makes perfect sense. Frazier went to the car and examined it looking for bullet fragments after the fragments had already been given to him.
Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
Oh boy.... Whether it makes sense to you or not, it is exactly what happened. Frazier himself tells you so in his testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you personally find any other fragments in the President's car during the course of your examination?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, where, according to information provided to you then, was the fragment designated Commission Exhibit 567 found?
Mr. FRAZIER - That was found by the Secret Service upon their examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first arrived from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, to a liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in the laboratory at 11:50 p,m., on November 22, 1963.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there another fragment, was there any other fragment found in the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Alongside the right side of the front seat, Commission Exhibit No. 569, which is the base portion of the jacket of a bullet was found, and handled in identical manner to the Exhibit 567.
Now try to pay attention.
Frazier received two fragments (CE567 and CE569) at his lab from FBI agent Bartlett at 11:50 pm on 11/22/63. Barlett had received those fragments from Secret Service Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, who claimed they had been found when the car was searched.
Frazier then went down to the Secret Service garage, where the limo was, and conducted a examination of the limo himself.
Mr. DULLES - When was this examination made?
Mr. FRAZIER - Between 2 and 4:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.
Mr. DULLES - That was about 10 hours, 12 hours after the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; 14 to 16 hours.
Mr. DULLES - Fourteen to sixteen hours.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES - May I ask, do you know in whose custody the automobile was prior to your examination from the time it was shipped on the airplane?
Mr. FRAZIER - When I arrived there were two Secret Service men present but I do not recall their names. They were introduced to me, and they were there during the entire examination but I don't recall their actual names. The car was under guard in the Secret Service garage in Washington, D.C. Other than that I do not know.
Mr. DULLES - Was this a joint examination by you and by the Secret Service or was the examination made by the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; by the FBI at the request of the Secret Service who had already examined the interior of the car for personal effects and other items.
During his examination, Frazier found three small fragments (CE 840)
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0433b.htm
You've got egg on your face, Nessan.
-
The reason to classify information for so many years( 75 )was for all of us to die within that period and at a certain point in time , those of us would either be to old or already dead !!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a drama queen. ::)
Tom Samoluk, the former Deputy Director of the Assassination Records
Review Board, says at this point, the secrecy sounding the JFK investigation
is unnecessary.
“Most records, the vast majority of records, the records that the Review
Board did not release in the mid ’90s, need to be released now,” Samoluk
said in an interview on CBSN Boston.
“Not that the assassination can be solved. I can tell you that the Review Board,
the staff, we looked at all of these records. There’s no smoking gun if you will.
However, they do put together the assassination chronology more completely.”
-- Boston CBS
Don't worry. Be happy. :)
-
No---- Barnett said he could see the back of the building. He was obviously was aware of the door because he mentions the door. The door is part of the back of the building.
---------------------------------
No--- 12:36 is not 12:37
----------------------------
No----You are mistaking Frazier personally examining the car at 2:30 with The FBI and Secret Service also examining it earlier. It doesn't matter who gathered the samples. The chain of custody is preserved. Frazier is not personally responsible to be present for every piece of evidence that is gathered. That would be a ridiculous expectation.
Mr. DULLES - Was this a joint examination by you and by the Secret Service or was the examination made by the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; by the FBI at the request of the Secret Service who had already examined the interior of the car for personal effects and other items.
-------------------------------------------
The bullet and fragments were identified as having been fired from LHO's rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD
Mr. FRAZIER - It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
-
No---- Barnett said he could see the back of the building. He was obviously was aware of the door because he mentions the door. The door is part of the back of the building.
---------------------------------
Your arguments are getting more desperate with every post you write. Yes the door is part of the back of the building and yes Barnett was aware of it, but as he clearly says in his testimony, it's around the corner
Mr. LIEBELER - There is a door in the back of the Texas School Book Depository. Does it face on Houston or around the corner?
Mr. BARNETT - It is around the corner from Houston Street.
But Barnett stayed on Houston;
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up.
Do you really think Barnett could see around the corner of the building, from Houston?
No--- 12:36 is not 12:37
----------------------------
Where did I say it was?
No----You are mistaking Frazier personally examining the car at 2:30 with The FBI and Secret Service also examining it earlier. It doesn't matter who gathered the samples. The chain of custody is preserved. Frazier is not personally responsible to be present for every piece of evidence that is gathered. That would be a ridiculous expectation.
Mr. DULLES - Was this a joint examination by you and by the Secret Service or was the examination made by the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; by the FBI at the request of the Secret Service who had already examined the interior of the car for personal effects and other items.
-------------------------------------------
I'm not mistaking anything and of course it matters who gathered the evidence! It's beyond belief that you can be so naive.
The FBI is an investigative body. The Secret Service and the White House aren't. The people who searched the limo, before Frazier could do a forensic investigation of what was effectively a crime scene, had no business there. All they did was contaminate the crime scene and destroyed the chain of custody by not documenting where the two fragments were found. A defense lawyer would have a field day with this kind of incompentence.
Nobody is saying that Frazier needed to be present for every piece of evidence that is gathered. That would indeed be a ridiculous expectation. That's why the chain of custody rules exist. The main purpose is to authenticate evidence and eliminate possible doubts about misconduct by law enforcement officers. So, no matter how often you say that there was no problem with the chain of evidence, there cleary was, because we have no way of knowing where those two fragments actually came from. You can assume all you want that the men who searched the limo found the fragments there, but that doesn't make it automatically true.
The bullet and fragments were identified as having been fired from LHO's rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD
Mr. FRAZIER - It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
So, I repeat my question; Where does Frazier say when the bullets were fired by that rifle?
-
...redacted or edited... or removed...
-
But Barnett stayed on Houston;
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up.
Barnett means he went 20 feet pass the back of the building. Not 20 feet pass the front of the building.
-
Barnett means he went 20 feet pass the back of the building. Not 20 feet pass the front of the building.
Yeah right.... and he was still looking up at the the fire escape of the TSBD which was roughly halfway on Houston. :D
The TSBD building is a 100 by 100 foot square. So, if Barnett only ran 20 foot, he didn't even come close to the back of the building.
And nobody said he was running 20 feet in front of the building.
Might I suggest you read his actual testimony before posting.
Not that it matters much, because nothing that Barnett says in his testimony proves that Styles and Adams left the 4th floor later, as foolishly claimed by Jack Nessan.
-
Yeah right.... and he was still looking up at the the fire escape of the TSBD which was roughly halfway on Houston. :D
The TSBD building is a 100 by 100 foot square. So, if Barnett only ran 20 foot, he didn't even come close to the back of the building.
And nobody said he was running 20 feet in front of the building.
Isn't "20 feet pass the front of the building" what you meant by: "He then ran about 20 foot down Houston and watched the fire escape."
Might I suggest you read his actual testimony before posting.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do when you concluded that the shots were coming from that building?
Mr. BARNETT - I ran to the back of the building.
Mr. LIEBELER - Ran down Houston Street?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
You seem to interpret that as "Barnett didn't get any further, on Houston, than about 20 foot from the front corner of the building".
Not that it matters much, because nothing that Barnett says in his testimony proves that Styles and Adams left the 4th floor later, as foolishly claimed by Jack Nessan.
Styles said it more like minutes than seconds, and that the pair first went to the passenger elevator. BTW, if Adams and Styles literally exited the building before Truly and Baker made it to the back stairs, it means the ladies simply used the stairs before Oswald could have been on them.
-
Your arguments are getting more desperate with every post you write. Yes the door is part of the back of the building and yes Barnett was aware of it, but as he clearly says in his testimony, it's around the corner
Mr. LIEBELER - There is a door in the back of the Texas School Book Depository. Does it face on Houston or around the corner?
Mr. BARNETT - It is around the corner from Houston Street.
But Barnett stayed on Houston;
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up.
Do you really think Barnett could see around the corner of the building, from Houston?
Where did I say it was?
I'm not mistaking anything and of course it matters who gathered the evidence! It's beyond belief that you can be so naive.
The FBI is an investigative body. The Secret Service and the White House aren't. The people who searched the limo, before Frazier could do a forensic investigation of what was effectively a crime scene, had no business there. All they did was contaminate the crime scene and destroyed the chain of custody by not documenting where the two fragments were found. A defense lawyer would have a field day with this kind of incompentence.
Nobody is saying that Frazier needed to be present for every piece of evidence that is gathered. That would indeed be a ridiculous expectation. That's why the chain of custody rules exist. The main purpose is to authenticate evidence and eliminate possible doubts about misconduct by law enforcement officers. So, no matter how often you say that there was no problem with the chain of evidence, there cleary was, because we have no way of knowing where those two fragments actually came from. You can assume all you want that the men who searched the limo found the fragments there, but that doesn't make it automatically true.
So, I repeat my question; Where does Frazier say when the bullets were fired by that rifle?
No---He most definitely could see what he said he could see which he said he could see the back door.
Barnett also traversed the back of the building and looked south along the West side of the building.
----------------------------------
No---12:36 is not 12:37
Still trying to use your own times in your own personalized timeline.
--------------------
No it does not matter. The amount of training required to pick up a piece of lead and hand it to an FBI Agent must be incredible.
Remember this is 1963 not 2022. The science of criminology was rudimentary at best with blood tests, fingerprints, and ballistic matches. Once again watch the old cop shows if there is a question about how it all worked.
The crime scene was the blood and gore of JFK's wounds. The FBI also picked up lead fragments. They definitely were present in the car and also in his brain and also in the windshield. Were you maybe thinking the rest of the bullet fragments were vaporized by aliens? Are all things possible in conspiracy land?
The Chain of custody is intact. The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of all other firearms. Howard Bennan saw the rifle being fired during the assassination.
---------------------
All through his testimony. That is what Frazier means when he matches them. Are you still thinking JFK was killed earlier and the Dallas Motorcade was an elaborate ruse to hide that fact. A believer in the Zapruder Film was a fake?
-
Isn't "20 feet pass the front of the building" what you meant by: "He then ran about 20 foot down Houston and watched the fire escape."
Isn't what I said clear enough for you? Barnett was standing on the corner of Houston and Elm as the motorcade passed by. When he heard the shots he ran 20 foor past the building in the direction of the back of the building, and thus stopping where roughly the fire escape was situated.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you do when you concluded that the shots were coming from that building?
Mr. BARNETT - I ran to the back of the building.
Mr. LIEBELER - Ran down Houston Street?
Mr. BARNETT - Yes, sir.
Mr. BARNETT - I went 20 foot past the building still on Houston, looking up. I could see the whole back of the building and also the east side of the building.
You seem to interpret that as "Barnett didn't get any further, on Houston, than about 20 foot from the front corner of the building".
That's exactly what I mean, because the fire escape was on the Houston side of the building. There would be no point for him to pass the building all together by some 20 foot and then look at the fire escape. He said he ran 20 foot past the building and the building is 100 foot long, so how far do you think he got? From that position he could watch not only the fire escape but also both sides of the street, which means that he could also see somebody coming onto Houston from behind the TSBD.
Styles said it more like minutes than seconds, and that the pair first went to the passenger elevator. BTW, if Adams and Styles literally exited the building before Truly and Baker made it to the back stairs, it means the ladies simply used the stairs before Oswald could have been on them.
Styles said many different things over time.
What I have been saying all along is that Adams and Styles must have gone down before Truly and Baker made it to the stairs on the first floor. There is no other explanation, if you consider all the available evidence. And Oswald or anybody else could indeed have been behind them, at least in theory. In the reconstruction I made a while back, that's exactly the conclusion I came to. Which is also why I don't understand that the WC left Adams (as the only witness) out of the reconstruction and tried to discredit her with an obvious misinterpretation of where she saw Shelley and Lovelady.
Adams wasn't the WC's problem. Dorothy Garner was! She followed the girls out of the office and heard them going down the wooden stairs. She then saw Truly and Baker come up. This means she would have seen anbody coming down from higher up running down the stairs, which she didn't. Garner's testimony would have destroyed the WC theory, which is why Rankin buried the Stroud letter.
-
No---He most definitely could see what he said he could see which he said he could see the back door.
Barnett also traversed the back of the building and looked south along the West side of the building.
----------------------------------
You can try to twist this thing as much as you like, but you will never get around the fact that Barnett said in his testimony that he didn't pay attention to the back door.
No---12:36 is not 12:37
Still trying to use your own times in your own personalized timeline.
--------------------
I asked you where I said that 12:36 is 12:37? Why are you having so much difficulty answering even a simple question?
No it does not matter. The amount of training required to pick up a piece of lead and hand it to an FBI Agent must be incredible.
Remember this is 1963 not 2022. The science of criminology was rudimentary at best with blood tests, fingerprints, and ballistic matches. Once again watch the old cop shows if there is a question about how it all worked.
The old cop shows? Do you really believe that cop shows have anything in common with reality? You can't be serious... :D
It's BS in any case because if criminology was rudimentary, why did you make such a big deal about ballistics earlier? And why did some DPD officers mark some pieces of evidence, if not to preserve the chain of custody? Were they just having a bit of fun scratching their initials on evidence? And why did the FBI check the rifle for fingerprints if they didn't have the ability to match them?
Do you ever think before you write?
The crime scene was the blood and gore of JFK's wounds. The FBI also picked up lead fragments. They definitely were present in the car and also in his brain and also in the windshield. Were you maybe thinking the rest of the bullet fragments were vaporized by aliens? Are all things possible in conspiracy land?
The crime scene was the entire limo. The FBI only picked up three small fragments which they found under the jumpseat and which were no good for testing (CE 840).
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0433b.htm
The two larger ones, which Frazier lined up in his mind, were allegedly taken from the car by the Secret Service, who had no business going through the car before a forensic investigation.
The Chain of custody is intact. The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of all other firearms. Howard Bennan saw the rifle being fired during the assassination.
---------------------
More BS.
The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of all other firearms.
A meaningless comment unless you can prove when the rifle was fired. There is more evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is not the bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland hospital than there is that it was!
Howard Bennan saw the rifle being fired during the assassination.
Don't those old cop shows learn you to choose your words more carefully? Brennan saw a rifle being fired. He never identified the MC that was found in the TSBD.
All through his testimony. That is what Frazier means when he matches them. Are you still thinking JFK was killed earlier and the Dallas Motorcade was an elaborate ruse to hide that fact. A believer in the Zapruder Film was a fake?
What do you mean with "are you still thinking JFK was killed earlier..... ". I have never thought that. What I do think is that there is no conclusive evidence that he was killed with the MC rifle they found in the 6th floor.
-
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
This would mean Buell Frazier, twice making an identical statement in his description of the bag carried by LHO into the TSBD, means it could easily have contained the rifle used to kill JFK.
Actually, this is incidental information. Based on the time stamps provided by Harkness and Sawyer, Adams and Styles in their statements already proved they never left the 4th floor before 12:35. The fact they weren't seen by Barnett exiting the rear of the TSBD in the three minutes he was in position there only serves to reinforce that fact.
---------------------------
No difficulty at all, no need to make up your own timelines with your own times. "After 12:36" means anytime after 12:36:00. That is not the same as 12:37 Which is what Det. Sawyer stated.
-----------------------------
Putting their initials on the fragments would make their training way more difficult.
You still don't seem to understand matching the fragments to the rifle. It is only a suggestion to watch the old cop shows to help you understand what took place. Don't watch them if you don't want to.
-------------------------------------
The trajectory Analysis lines up with the 6th floor as does the witnesses stating where the shots were fired from. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with that conclusion. With the existing evidence then you must believe a different shooter, also armed with a different carcano, assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of th TSBD. It is known he did not escape by way of the fire escape or down the stairs or the elevator. Nor was any unknown person seen in the TSBD before the assassination.
In this alternate assassination scenario, what happened to the assassin and where did he go? The shell casings discovered by the window were matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all others. The same as the bullet and fragments.
-
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
This would mean Buell Frazier, twice making an identical statement in his description of the bag carried by LHO into the TSBD, means it could easily have contained the rifle used to kill JFK.
Only in your imagination is this a rational comparison. You can speculate all you want, but Frazier ("it fitted between the cup of his hand and his armpit") and Randle ("he held the bag at the top and carried it next to his leg without it reaching the ground") gave multiple descriptions which indicate that the package couldn't have been long enough to conceal the 34" wooden stock of the rifle.
You're grasping at straws.
Actually, this is incidental information. Based on the time stamps provided by Harkness and Sawyer, Adams and Styles in their statements already proved they never left the 4th floor before 12:35. The fact they weren't seen by Barnett exiting the rear of the TSBD in the three minutes he was in position there only serves to reinforce that fact.
As I said earlier, you can keep repeating the same old BS as much as you like, it doesn't become true or believable. Styles was photographed at the front of the TSBD and entered the building through the front entrance before it was sealed off. By your own account the front entrance was sealed off at 12:37, right? So, how do you figure both women managed to be at the front of the building at around 12:36 when they, as you foolishly claim, were still on the 4th floor at 12:35?
---------------------------
No difficulty at all, no need to make up your own timelines with your own times. "After 12:36" means anytime after 12:36:00. That is not the same as 12:37 Which is what Det. Sawyer stated.
-----------------------------
Pathetic. "After 12:36" includes 12:37. Is this really the level at which you want to argue?
Putting their initials on the fragments would make their training way more difficult.
Hilarious. Care to explain this beauty?
You still don't seem to understand matching the fragments to the rifle. It is only a suggestion to watch the old cop shows to help you understand what took place. Don't watch them if you don't want to.
-------------------------------------
Oh I perfectly understand matching the fragments to the rifle. In this case, this is what Frazier said about the fragments.
Mr. FRAZIER - The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
The trajectory Analysis lines up with the 6th floor as does the witnesses stating where the shots were fired from. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with that conclusion.
The trajectory Analysis lines up with the 6th floor
And where did you get this information? I've been to Dealey Plaza and if you look up from roughly the spot where the limo was towards the TSBD it becomes pretty obvious that the shots could just as easily have come from the Dal-Tex building.
The trajectory analysis pressumes a particular position of the limo and the President at the time the shots were fired. However, there is massive disagreement when the shots were fired exactly, which makes a credible analysis nearly impossible.
But as we are talking about trajectory analysis and you seem to love cop shows so much, have a look at these scenes from the movie "the International";
Who knows, you might even learn something.
With the existing evidence then you must believe a different shooter, also armed with a different carcano, assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of th TSBD.
And why must I believe that? Strawman?
It is known he did not escape by way of the fire escape or down the stairs or the elevator. Nor was any unknown person seen in the TSBD before the assassination.
In this alternate assassination scenario, what happened to the assassin and where did he go? The shell casings discovered by the window were matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all others. The same as the bullet and fragments.
Why are you asking me to speculate? One thing I'm pretty sure about by now is that nobody came down the stairs from the 6th floor within 90 seconds of the shots, because the women on the 4th floor, especially Dorothy Garner, would have seen him.
Even if the shell casings, the bullet and the fragments all matched the MC rifle found at the TSBD, it is meaningless when you can't show that particular rifle was fired that day or that Oswald fired it.
-
That is what Barnett stated. He ran 20 feet past the back of the building and could see the back of the building. Definitely not what you are portraying. Adams and Styles or anyone else, never emerged from the back of the building in the three minutes Barnett was observing it, that is why he never noticed anything.
No--- Frazier stated he did not pay attention. This is incredibly hypocritical to provide your opinion as to the difference between Buel Frazier and Barnett.
Though you are exactly right about Linnie May Randel, she described a longer bag- -three feet long. The fingerprints discovered on the bag match her description of how the bag was being carrried. This is a good point about the difference between her description and Buell's.
-------------------
The HSCA and FBI Ballistic Experts all arrived at the same conclusion. Matched to the rifle.
---------------------------
Mr Canning, Staff Engineer for the Space Projects Division of NASA Ames Research Center, explained trajectory analysis durring the HSCA Investigation. Feel free to dissect his testimony and point out its flaws. Make sure you don't use facts and not your own opinion or speculation.
Basically a 5 to 13 foot radius centering on the 6th floor window.
----------------------------
What weapon shot JFK if not a carcano and how did he escape? Or is this the reason for the Dal Tex story. I was unaware anybody even believed that anymore. Where from the Dal Tex could a shot have been fired? Are you the architect of theory about a shot that went through the open windows of the 6th floor of the TSBD?
-------------------
I did learn something. You have zero understanding of ballistic or trajectory analysis. The Columbo wannabe detective easily determined there was two shooters. Trajectory analysis would have determined the guy killed in the room was not the guy who shot him. Which is what the detective immediately figured out. The bullet that killed the man would not have been matched to the rifle in the dead guys room. The shells would not have been matched to the rifle of the dead shooter. They forgot to account for the shell in the chamber and planted the extra shells in the middle of the room instead of by the window
-------------------
You speculate and offer your opinion constantly with either tortured or invented information as the basis. Don't be shy now. Garner is proof a memory recorded 6 months after the fact is suspect at best. Her statement is in direct conflict with the the statements of Adams and Styles. That is why the WC basically ignored it. To their credit they recorded it anyway despite the fact it is so easily proven to be false.
-
That is what Barnett stated. He ran 20 feet past the back of the building and could see the back of the building. Definitely not what you are portraying. Adams and Styles or anyone else, never emerged from the back of the building in the three minutes Barnett was observing it, that is why he never noticed anything.
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. I am not going to argue this point anymore. It's like talking to a machine.
No--- Frazier stated he did not pay attention. This is incredibly hypocritical to provide your opinion as to the difference between Buel Frazier and Barnett.
Though you are exactly right about Linnie May Randel, she described a longer bag- -three feet long. The fingerprints discovered on the bag match her description of how the bag was being carrried. This is a good point about the difference between her description and Buell's.
-------------------
Where did Randle describe a longer bag? You are making up stories to fit the narrative you like.
The HSCA and FBI Ballistic Experts all arrived at the same conclusion. Matched to the rifle.
---------------------------
Sure, they did. And where did they say when the rifle was fired? That's the question you keep on evading.
Mr Canning, Staff Engineer for the Space Projects Division of NASA Ames Research Center, explained trajectory analysis durring the HSCA Investigation. Feel free to dissect his testimony and point out its flaws. Make sure you don't use facts and not your own opinion or speculation.
Basically a 5 to 13 foot radius centering on the 6th floor window.
----------------------------
Mr. GOLDSMITH. And what basic information is necessary to determine a trajectory?
Mr. CANNING. We must first identify where the two points are in space so that we can then construct that line.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What specific information, in addition to this map, did you need to determine the trajectory of these bullets?
Mr. CANNING. We needed first and foremost an accurate identification of the inshoot and outshoot wounds and their exact locations.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did you need any information about the location of the limousine?
Mr. CANNING. We needed to know the location of the limousine, and we needed to know the location of the people in the limousine, and, in two cases we needed to know the actual angular orientation of the people in the limousine.
Which means the entire analysis was based on guesses. Unless of course you can show me conclusive evidence about the exact location of the car, the people in it and their angular orientation.
What weapon shot JFK if not a carcano and how did he escape? Or is this the reason for the Dal Tex story. I was unaware anybody even believed that anymore. Where from the Dal Tex could a shot have been fired? Are you the architect of theory about a shot that went through the open windows of the 6th floor of the TSBD?
-------------------
I do not know if the Carcano was used to kill JFK and neither do you. All you can do is assume it was.
I haven't heard the theory about a shot that went through the open windows of the 6th floor of the TSBD. Who came up with such an absurd notion?
I did learn something. You have zero understanding of ballistic or trajectory analysis. The Columbo wannabe detective easily determined there was two shooters. Trajectory analysis would have determined the guy killed in the room was not the guy who shot him. Which is what the detective immediately figured out. The bullet that killed the man would not have been matched to the rifle in the dead guys room. The shells would not have been matched to the rifle of the dead shooter. They forgot to account for the shell in the chamber and planted the extra shells in the middle of the room instead of by the window
-------------------
Well, apparently you did not learn the right thing, because in the movie the shots went through a pilar providing a perfect trajectory to see where the shots came from. The lesson you failed to learn is that in the JFK case there is no such fixed point from where to start an analysis from. All Canning could do was guess.
The bullet that killed the man would not have been matched to the rifle in the dead guys room. The shells would not have been matched to the rifle of the dead shooter. They forgot to account for the shell in the chamber and planted the extra shells in the middle of the room instead of by the window
Oh boy. It was a movie, fool. All it did was show you how something like that could work. Not only did you miss that point completely, but instead you start arguing about the details in the movie..... Really? :D
You speculate and offer your opinion constantly with either tortured or invented information as the basis. Don't be shy now. Garner is proof a memory recorded 6 months after the fact is suspect at best. Her statement is in direct conflict with the the statements of Adams and Styles. That is why the WC basically ignored it. To their credit they recorded it anyway despite the fact it is so easily proven to be false.
Sorry but I can't deal with so much stupidity. Garner said exactly the same thing as Adams. She confirmed to Martha Stroud that Adams and Styles left the 4th floor before Truly and Baker came up, but I get it; you desperately need the "Oswald on the stairs" to stay alive so you accuse a simple office worker, like Garner, of lying to the Office of a United States Attorney.
And, irony oh irony, you accuse me of speculation and offering my opinion with invented information as basis. You really are some piece of work and most certainly no longer interesting enough for me to waste anymore time on.
-
Sorry but I can't deal with so much stupidity. Garner said exactly the same thing as Adams. She confirmed to Martha Stroud that Adams and Styles left the 4th floor before Truly and Baker came up, but I get it; you desperately need the "Oswald on the stairs" to stay alive so you accuse a simple office worker, like Garner, of lying to the Office of a United States Attorney.
Here's part of the Stroud letter:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Mr. Bellin [sic] was questioning Miss Adams whether or not she saw anyone
as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams supervisor,
stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs, she (Miss Garner)
saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up."
No where does this letter state that Garner saw anyone go down the stairs or come up the stairs. It could be Garner merely assumed both that Adams went down the stairs and that Truly and the policeman then came up.
Truly and Baker were back on the fourth floor a minute or so before 12:37 because Baker spoke to Inspector Sawyer, and Sawyer estimates he was back on the first floor by 12:37.
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it
couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left,
got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you
heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BAKER - As we descended, somewhere around--we were still talking
and I was still looking over the building.
Mr. BELIN - As the elevator was moving?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; downward.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on
one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.
Garner could have seen Truly with Baker in the stopped elevator and figured they had used the elevator to "come up" to the fourth floor and not the stairs previously. That might be why Garner thought they missed meeting Adams on the stairs, because they were using the elevator.
From a post in 2011 by Sean Murphy ( Link (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/W7McW4aaYMc/m/rmbO883N__wJ) ):
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her
some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard
of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me:
that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention
of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."
Probably a minute passed before they even left the window. Styles said they ran to the passenger elevator and waited awhile before heading for the stairs. So crossing the fourth floor about 12:33 would allow them to miss meeting Truly and Baker on the stairs; Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor about 12:34 (where Lovelady is supposedly encountered). Meanwhile Truly and Baker arrive by elevator on the fourth floor about 12:35. Thus Garner could have seen Adams go by and two minutes later noticed Truly.
-
Here's part of the Stroud letter:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Mr. Bellin [sic] was questioning Miss Adams whether or not she saw anyone
as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams supervisor,
stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs, she (Miss Garner)
saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up."
No where does this letter state that Garner saw anyone go down the stairs or come up the stairs. It could be Garner merely assumed both that Adams went down the stairs and that Truly and the policeman then came up.
True, she doesn't say that but she told Barry Ernest that she heard them on the noisy stairs.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/another_witness.htm
Barry Ernest wrote;
The focus of my call to her, of course, was Victoria Adams, whether Mrs. Garner was indeed in a position to have seen Baker and Truly or anyone else on the back stairs, and who she had made the comment to that appeared in the Stroud document.
"I was at the window with Elsie Dorman, Victoria Adams, and Sandra Styles," she said.
Did Miss Adams and Miss Styles leave the window right away, I asked her.
"The girls did," she responded. "I remember them being there and the next thing I knew, they were gone."
They had left "very quickly…within a matter of moments," she added.
What did Mrs. Garner do after that?
"There was this warehouse or storage area behind our office, out by the freight elevators and the rear stairway, and I went out there."
Her move to that area clearly put her into a position where she could have observed activity on the back stairs as well as on the elevators. But how fast had she arrived there?
Mrs. Garner said she immediately went to this area, following "shortly after…right behind" Miss Adams and Miss Styles. She
couldn't remember exactly why she went out there, other than to say, "probably to get something." Mrs. Garner said she did not actually see "the girls" enter the stairway, though, arriving on the fourth-floor landing seconds after. When I asked how she knew they had gone down, Mrs. Garner said, "I remember hearing them, after they started down. I remember the stairs were very noisy."
Were the freight elevators in operation during this time?
"I don't recall that," she answered. "They were very noisy too!"
Mrs. Garner said she remained at that spot and was alone for a moment before "several came out back from the office to look out those windows there."
Truly and Baker were back on the fourth floor a minute or so before 12:37 because Baker spoke to Inspector Sawyer, and Sawyer estimates he was back on the first floor by 12:37.
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it
couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left,
got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you
heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BAKER - As we descended, somewhere around--we were still talking
and I was still looking over the building.
Mr. BELIN - As the elevator was moving?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; downward.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on
one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.
Stroud could have seen Truly with Baker in the stopped elevator and figured they had used the elevator to "come up" to the fourth floor and not the stairs previously. That might be why Stroud thought they missed meeting Adams on the stairs, because they were using the elevator.
Nice bit of speculation, for which, of course there is not a shred of evidence.
From a post in 2011 by Sean Murphy ( Link (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/W7McW4aaYMc/m/rmbO883N__wJ) ):
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her
some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard
of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me:
that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention
of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."
Probably a minute passed before they even left the window. Styles said they ran to the passenger elevator and waited awhile before heading for the stairs. So crossing the fourth floor about 12:33 would allow them to miss meeting Truly and Baker on the stairs; Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor about 12:34 (where Lovelady is supposedly encountered). Meanwhile Truly and Baker arrive by elevator on the fourth floor about 12:35. Thus Stroud could have seen Adams go by and two minutes later noticed Truly.
Styles has changed her story several times and apparently she did not tell Barry Ernest the same thing, as this is what Ernest says about that;
Mrs. Garner was providing two key pieces of evidence: one that corroborated Victoria Adams regarding how quickly she and Sandra Styles left the window and moved to the back staircase, and a second that corroborated the Stroud document by putting Mrs. Garner at a location on the fourth floor where she could have observed activity on the stairs immediately after the shooting.
Like Sandra Styles, who also verified Miss Adams' timing of the descent in my personal interview with her, Dorothy Garner had been ignored by the Warren Commission.
With all this 'could have been' speculation going on, there is one major question that needs to be answered but never is.
Styles was photographed standing with a group of women near the front entrance of the TSBD, before she went back inside the building through the front door, which at that time was not yet sealed off. As the front entrance was being locked down at 12:37, how in the world could Styles have been there if she and Adams were still on the 4th floor at 12:35?
In her testimony, Adams told us that she and Styles ran down the stairs, left the building through the back door at the loading dock, running around the loading dock towards the railway yard. There a policeman stopped them and told them to return to the building, which they did by walking towards the front entrance. And all this is supposed to have happened in 2 minutes? Really?
One thing is a clear as the light of day. If Adams and Styles were on the stairs shortly after the shots, then the "Oswald came running down the stairs" theory is possibly flawed or outright wrong. An honest investigation would have wanted to find out what actually happened. Instead the WC simply decided to ignore Adams by not calling her (as the only one of the witnesses) to assist in the reconstruction and by trying to discredit her with one line in her testimony. And Rankin did one better and buried the Stroud letter. These actions by the WC alone tell me beyond doubt that the WC understood that Adams was telling the truth and the women did leave the 4th floor directly after the last shot.
-
There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.
Frazier stated he did not pay attention.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
--------------------------------
Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.
Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------
The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------
No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.
The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.
I guess this is Good Bye Martin.
-
There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.
That's a quote from the Bookhout FD 302. An internal FBI document that Randle never saw, read or signed. To let that prevail over her sworn testimony is only exposing the level of your desperation. Keep on cherry picking.....
Btw, if Randle did say what Bookhout reports she said, she must have been lying under oath, right? So, are you calling her a liar?
Frazier stated he did not pay attention.
So what? So did Barnett, yet here you are claiming that, despite the fact that he himself said he was focused on the fire escape, he nevertheless would have seen the two women leaving the same back door that he wasn't paying attention to.
Pathetic!
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
--------------------------------
Fool, this is exactly why the package couldn't have been 34" long and contain the wooden stock of a rifle. Oswald's legs were not 34" long.
Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.
Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------
This level of stupidity is truly amazing. Canning is saying exactly what I said. He guessed the position of the President's neck wound and the Governor's wound, based on the unproven assumption that one bullet caused both wounds. Canning actually tells us that it was "our interpretation of the data" and "within a reasonable error of one another". In other words, he is assuming and guessing!
The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------
Another one of your meaningless comments :D
No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.
Just how silly can you get? Victoria Adams' WC testimony, where she details her movements, was also several months after the event. After the assassination she only gave two short statements to the FBI and one (allegedly) to Jim Lavelle.
You really need to stop making up your own reality and face the simple fact that so far you have still not been able to say when, according to you, the two women left the 4th floor. The reason why you can't or won't do that is a simple one; there is only one sequence of events that fits all the witness statements and known facts. When you change one part of the sequence, none of it will fit. You either understand this and that's why you don't answer my question or you don't know it because you lack the basic ability to process information.
The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.
Yes indeed. And Styles could walk inside without a problem, because the front door was not yet sealed, and Victoria Adams was stopped because by then the entrance was sealed. She was only let back in after it was established she worked in the building.
Miss ADAMS - It said second floor. So then I decided maybe I had better go back into the building, and going up the stairs---
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Still no explanation for how Styles could be photographed in front of the front entrance of the TSBD at around 12:36 when, according to you, she was still on the 4th floor a minute earlier? Now, why is that no surprise to me?
I guess this is Good Bye Martin.
Indeed... I know a lost cause when I see one. There is no point in arguing with somebody like you, who can never present a complete, well documented and thought through point that justifies the "conclusion" you are proposing.
You just keep on living in your fantasy world where you can make up stuff and misrepresent evidence as much as you like. Sweet dreams....
-
Barnett, really, you actually think like this? This is so odd that you would think somebody has to stare at something to see it and they cannot be aware of things in their peripheral vision. Especially given he was hoping to catch someone fleeing the building. I bet riding in car with you is a real treat. You must be like a horse with blinders.
No idea what you are talking about. Oswald was not carrying his leg,he was carrying a 40 inch rifle by holding it by the barrel located in the folded over end of the bag. The bag was 42 inches long. Same dimension stated by Randle. You do not have to carry it by the tip of the barrel.
Harold Weisberg ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "
Are you able to understand what Weisberg stated? Seems you are full of questions and no answers. Most thoughts go right by you.
It would be about right if held it by the barrel. You should not measure everyone's intelligence by the severe limits of your own. LHO was a little sharper than that. The guy was wanting to get his gun to the TSBD undetected, and he did.
---------------------------------------------------
Are you not able to understand Canning's testimony? It appears the first sentence has completely stumped you. Read the rest it is very informative. Of course, nothing can match your two movie clips. They were a classic example of how a simple mind views a complicated issue.
-------------------------------------
You are making a huge assumption and bigger mistake. Nobody stated Styles was not stopped at the door. All she had to do was tell the officers, as Adams did, that she worked in the building, and she would be let in. Were you thinking they were strip searching and finger printing people to get in.
----------------------------------
Is this good bye this time? Thanks for the concern over my sleeping well. I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35, Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.
-
Barnett, really, you actually think like this? This is so odd that you would think somebody has to stare at something to see it and they cannot be aware of things in their peripheral vision. Especially given he was hoping to catch someone fleeing the building. I bet riding in car with you is a real treat. You must be like a horse with blinders.
No idea what you are talking about. Oswald was not carrying his leg,he was carrying a 40 inch rifle by holding it by the barrel located in the folded over end of the bag. The bag was 42 inches long. Same dimension stated by Randle. You do not have to carry it by the tip of the barrel.
Harold Weisberg ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "
Are you able to understand what Weisberg stated? Seems you are full of questions and no answers. Most thoughts go right by you.
It would be about right if held it by the barrel. You should not measure everyone's intelligence by the severe limits of your own. LHO was a little sharper than that. The guy was wanting to get his gun to the TSBD undetected, and he did.
---------------------------------------------------
Are you not able to understand Canning's testimony? It appears the first sentence has completely stumped you. Read the rest it is very informative. Of course, nothing can match your two movie clips. They were a classic example of how a simple mind views a complicated issue.
-------------------------------------
You are making a huge assumption and bigger mistake. Nobody stated Styles was not stopped at the door. All she had to do was tell the officers, as Adams did, that she worked in the building, and she would be let in. Were you thinking they were strip searching and finger printing people to get in.
----------------------------------
Is this good bye this time? Thanks for the concern over my sleeping well. I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35, Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.
Oh yes it's goodbye.
You may not understand this, but, like a chain is just as strong as it's weakest link, the outcome of a conversation is always determined by the lack of education and knowledge of the weakest person. I can try to convey a message as much as I like, but if the recipient lacks the ability to understand what he is told, the inevitable outcome will always be a demonstration of total ignorance. Having said that, every fool on the planet thinks he's the most intelligent person and has the most intelligent answers. A wise man, on the other hand, would always consider it possible that somebody else is wiser.
So, I bow to your inferior cop show based "expertise" and gullibility. Ignorance clearly is bliss!
-
Oh yes it's goodbye.
You may not understand this, but, like a chain is just as strong as it's weakest link, the outcome of a conversation is always determined by the lack of education and knowledge of the weakest person. I can try to convey a message as much as I like, but if the recipient lacks the ability to understand what he is told, the inevitable outcome will always be a demonstration of total ignorance. Having said that, every fool on the planet thinks he's the most intelligent person and has the most intelligent answers. A wise man, on the other hand, would always consider it possible that somebody else is wiser.
So you understand what Jack Nessan has been saying. Finally!!
-
So you understand what Jack Nessan has been saying. Finally!!
What else can be expected from the weakest link? :D
No, you and Jack Nessan simply don't understand what I have been saying.
I'm asking questions that neither of you can even begin to answer. Why is that?
-
Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.
- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody. Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?
-
Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.
- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody. Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?
He already told us! He knows
I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35, Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles.
He just can't explain in a credible way how he knows nor can he back up his so-called "knowledge" with verifiable evidence or even sound reasoning. He can't even explain how he "knows" nor can he answer any reasonable question, so don't expect any answers soon. But he "knows". Now isn't that just amazing?
It looks like you're just going to have to accept the word of somebody who is gullible enough to believe without questioning what he is being told and then claims he "knows".
-
There were only two shots fired that day. That is the answer to the JFK Assassination. The WC and the HSCA both allude to it in their conclusions stating the media heavily influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. That information completely changes the perception of the assassination. Single Bullet Theory is the only answer. A large amount of eyewitness testimony verifies it.
Fritz retained one shell to be used in the search for the source of the ammunition. The casing was later sent to the FBI.
WC Conclusion: "It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired"
---------------
HSCA: "'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
-
Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.
- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody. Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?
All good questions, John. Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.
Feel free to elaborate on who really did the murder and with what weapon. I know what was determined and agree with it. If you have better analysis by all means share it so I can change my opinion.
If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.
---------------------
Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not? What is to be believed is he had parameters on how he was doing it? Martin's problem is he ignorantly referenced Barnett without realizing what Barnett stated.
Barnett would have seen A & S emerge, especially given Garner's statement she was at her desk during the assassination and then that they don't leave until sometime after she goes to the window.
Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly . If they were behind Oswald they would have been witnesses to the encounter or encountered Baker and Truly on the stairs. Garner states she saw Baker and Truly after their departure.
------------------------
Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.
Randle: "I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
Colin noted the Carcano could not be disassembled, or it would have fallen out. I think he is right.
What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.
---------------------------------
Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.
-
All good questions, John. Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.
Feel free to elaborate on who really did the murder and with what weapon. I know what was determined and agree with it. If you have better analysis by all means share it so I can change my opinion.
If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.
---------------------
Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not? What is to be believed is he had parameters on how he was doing it? Martin's problem is he ignorantly referenced Barnett without realizing what Barnett stated.
Barnett would have seen A & S emerge, especially given Garner's statement she was at her desk during the assassination and then that they don't leave until sometime after she goes to the window.
Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly . If they were behind Oswald they would have been witnesses to the encounter or encountered Baker and Truly on the stairs. Garner states she saw Baker and Truly after their departure.
------------------------
Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.
Randle: "I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
Colin noted the Carcano could not be disassembled, or it would have fallen out. I think he is right.
What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.
---------------------------------
Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.
The same song and dance routine as before.
Let's go through John's question one by one;
- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
No answer. Just evasion.
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
No direct answer, just some vague BS comments about Dorothy Garner, which basically confirms what we already knew; that the girls went downstairs before she saw Truly and Baker come up.
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
No direct answer. Just some ramblings about Randle seeing Oswald carrying the package next to his body and holding it at the top, which seemed to be folded, and not touching the ground. Unless Oswald had legs that were larger than 35" a 34,8" package would have touched to ground! Nessan doesn't even understand that Randle's description destroys his argument completely!
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
No answer
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
No answer
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
No answer He can't justify it
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody. Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
No comment or reply Likely because he hasn't seen a cop show yet where chain of custody was an issue.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?
Because he simply doesn't understand it.
Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants.
He said it himself and he still doesn't understand it. He goes on to say;
At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.
Yet only a few posts ago he said;
I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35, Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.
How Canning can be "spot on with his analysis" when that analysis is the result of "his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants" and does not result "a perfect pin point line" is yet another question Jack Nessan will likely never answer.
-
Martin Weidmann: "Oh yes it's goodbye."
I thought you weren't going to waste any more time on me. Among many other things you are not a man of your word. Not an admirable trait but not surprising.
Good bye again Martin.
-
Kellerman's "flurry of shots" evolved during his testimony into the second shot was the headshot. Zapruder thought there was only two shots.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling,
---------------------------
You mentioned Gov Connally. He thought he was hit by a shot he never heard. He describes being struck by the first as did Nellie and Jackie.
Governor CONNALLY
.....I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----
Mrs. CONNALLY. -----------------------------------As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot…..
-----------------------------
Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling……… And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed………. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him…….. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember. And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two.
-
Martin Weidmann: "Oh yes it's goodbye."
I thought you weren't going to waste any more time on me. Among many other things you are not a man of your word. Not an admirable trait but not surprising.
Good bye again Martin.
I thought you weren't going to waste any more time on me.
It isn't the first time that you were wrong. You do understand that whatever you think is far removed from my word, right?
I said goodbye to you in one particular conversation at your own request;
I guess this is Good Bye Martin.
and I did so when it became clear to all you had left to offer were the same BS debunked arguments over and over again.
It seems you are the one who is not very good at keeping his word!
I will respond to any piece of crap you produce on the forum whenever I like. Deal with it!
-
All good questions, John. Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.
Providing an "answer" that you cannot support with reliable evidence is storytelling. Your story doesn't just automatically win by default.
If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.
Why, when you cannot do that with regard to Oswald? It's your claim -- you support it.
Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not?
I believe he said fire escape. But you can't just assume that he could see the back of the building during any possible time that either A&S or an assassin was exiting the building. We don't know when or how the assassin left.
Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly .
Talk about a circular argument. That's the whole point. Garner would have seen Oswald if he came down during the time frame that he needed to have come down -- if he was up there in the first place. So would Adams and Styles. None of them saw or heard anybody.
Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.
That tells us exactly nothing about how long the package was.
What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.
Are you calling Frazier a liar? Interesting. Then you don't get to use anything else he said about curtain rods, or lunch, or anything else.
Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.
It's called making the evidence fit the narrative.