JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on July 13, 2019, 04:42:33 AM
-
'Pulp Fiction' Bruce Willis
-
Bill - your video doesn't play here in America so you must not be in the U.S. You may want to fix that - simply record with your camera the clip and then upload it somewhere. It's not hard to do. Can you do it, Bill?
But to answer this post. Sure, Bill, sure. Lee had all kinds of time to wipe down his weapon (but not pick up the shells - oops!), skip over to the other side of the floor and, taking his time, stuff the gun between the boxes. But first, he just took all the time in the world to carefully wipe it down. Then he just skipped right on down to buy himself an ice cold bottle of Coca Cola - the Real Thing (registered trademark).
Not a hair out of place. Not a drop of sweat. Nary an extra heartbeat as the cop supposedly confronts him.
Sure, Bill, sure.
-
Bill - your video doesn't play here in America so you must not be in the U.S. You may want to fix that - simply record with your camera the clip and then upload it somewhere. It's not hard to do. Can you do it, Bill?
But to answer this post. Sure, Bill, sure. Lee had all kinds of time to wipe down his weapon (but not pick up the shells - oops!), skip over to the other side of the floor and, taking his time, stuff the gun between the boxes. But first, he just took all the time in the world to carefully wipe it down. Then he just skipped right on down to buy himself an ice cold bottle of Coca Cola - the Real Thing (registered trademark).
Not a hair out of place. Not a drop of sweat. Nary an extra heartbeat as the cop supposedly confronts him.
Sure, Bill, sure.
LOL
You insult me and then expect me to run around for you because you can't find out how to get stuff to work?
I reckon Oswald expected to be captured on his way out post shots, and wouldn't want to be carrying spent shells. And picking them up would just enhance the possibility of leaving a print or two.
-
LOL
You insult me and then expect me to run around for you because you can't find out how to get stuff to work?
I reckon Oswald expected to be captured on his way out post shots, and wouldn't want to be carrying spent shells. And picking them up would just enhance the possibility of leaving a print or two.
So if he expected to be captured on the way out why bother a wipe down? Video not available here too, but seems now moot given your latest response.
-
So if he expected to be captured on the way out why bother a wipe down? Video not available here too, but seems now moot given your latest response.
Developing latent fingerprints on firearms however, has a very low probability – somewhere around five percent. That means 95% of the time you will not find any. You wouldn’t know that by watching television.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/why-we-dont-find-fingerprints-on-firearms/
Lifting latent fingerprints from guns and other firearms is often, however, very difficult. It’s hard because these firearms, especially, ones used in crimes, are often oily, extremely dirty surfaces with multiple overlapping impressions smeared by movement. The fact that the prosecution can’t present fingerprint evidence doesn’t mean their case isn’t strong. The prosecution can meet its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with direct and circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors and district attorneys, in these situations, will also normally present an expert who can explain the lack of fingerprint evidence. Obviously fingerprints can help a criminal prosecution but their existence doesn’t mean the case is a loser for the defense.
https://www.gambonelaw.com/blog/fingerprints-forensic-evidence-on-guns-and-firearms.cfm
JohnM
-
So if he expected to be captured on the way out why bother a wipe down? Video not available here too, but seems now moot given your latest response.
Did I imply that he wanted to be caught, Colin?
Expecting to be caught does not automatically mean that he wanted to be caught.
Do you think he wanted to be caught, Colin?
PS If you're on a VPN switch to a Canadian server.
-
Did I imply that he wanted to be caught, Colin?
Expecting to be caught does not automatically mean that he wanted to.
You said you reckoned he expected to be caught, as I repeated. Are you arguing with yourself here? Was he concerned with leaving prints or not, in your considered opinion?
-
You said you reckoned he expected to be caught, as I repeated. Are you arguing with yourself here? Was he concerned with leaving prints or not, in your considered opinion?
The rifle, yes
The shells, maybe, but possibly felt the chance of being accosted with them on his person would be the greater risk.
-
You insult me and then expect me to run around for you because you can't find out how to get stuff to work?
What insult?
I reckon Oswald expected to be captured on his way out post shots, and wouldn't want to be carrying spent shells. And picking them up would just enhance the possibility of leaving a print or two.
I reckon that lame excuses are lame.
-
Developing latent fingerprints on firearms however, has a very low probability – somewhere around five percent. That means 95% of the time you will not find any. You wouldn’t know that by watching television.
That's why dishonest cops sometimes have to do stuff like putting a partial palmprint on an index card and then just claim that it was lifted from the firearm.
-
What insult?
I reckon that lame excuses are lame.
Insult: Quote: 'You may want to fix that - simply record with your camera the clip and then upload it somewhere. It's not hard to do. Can you do it, Bill?'
Never mind deflecting, for once, and point out where something I posted regarding the shells being left behind is a 'lame excuse'
--------------------------------
John Iacoletti dies and arrives at the Gates of Hell
Satan appears with Lee Harvey Oswald in tow.
John exclaims 'Lee, what are you doing here?'
Oswald replies 'I killed Kennedy and Tippit'
John shouts 'No you didn't! You're LYING!
Satan and Oswald: ::) ::)
-
Insult: Quote: 'You may want to fix that - simply record with your camera the clip and then upload it somewhere. It's not hard to do. Can you do it, Bill?'
How is that an insult? it's a simple request. That's a mighty big chip on your shoulder.
Never mind deflecting for once, and point out where something I posted regarding the shells being left behind is a 'lame excuse'
Because what you "reckon" is that the shooter both wanted to and didn't want to leave evidence behind.
-
That's why dishonest cops sometimes have to do stuff like putting a partial palmprint on an index card and then just claim that it was lifted from the firearm.
Too bad the FBI analysed Day's index card and concluded that Oswald touched the rifle.
JohnM
-
John Iacoletti dies and arrives at the Gates of Hell
Satan appears with Lee Harvey Oswald in tow.
John exclaims 'Lee, my darling, what are you doing here?'
Oswald replies 'I killed Kennedy and Tippit'
John shouts 'No you didn't! You're LYING!
Lame jokes to go along with your lame excuses now?
-
Too bad the FBI analysed Day's index card and concluded that Oswald touched the rifle.
Of course they did. J Edgar said so.
-
Of course they did. J Edgar said so.
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
'How is that an insult? it's a simple request. That's a mighty big chip on your shoulder'.
>>> Bullcrap. He was being sarcastic. And every conspiracy monger on the planet is born with chips on their shoulders.
'Because what you "reckon" is that the shooter both wanted to and didn't want to leave evidence behind.'
>>> He wanted to escape but obviously didn't want to be carrying the evidence with him, Sherlock.
-
Lame jokes to go along with your lame excuses now?
Typical CTer cop-out; just call everything 'excuses'
-
>>> Bullcrap. He was being sarcastic.
And you know this how?
And every conspiracy monger on the planet is born with chips on their shoulders.
Project much?
>>> He wanted to escape but obviously didn't want to be carrying the evidence with him, Sherlock.
So this mythological creature of yours bothers to hide the rifle, but leaves shells right out in the open? Apparently just so a guy with a chip on his shoulder can make a lame excuse about it 56 years later?
-
Typical CTer cop-out; just call everything 'excuses'
No, just things that are excuses.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html)
-
"And you know this how?"
>>> 'It's not hard to do. Can you do it, Bill?'
Coming from the typically hostile CTer, that's sarcasm.
Double jeopardy since he's the one with the tech issue, not me
"Project much?"
>>> Ah, yet another cop-out Lord Haughty Jr. non-response
"So this mythological creature of yours bothers to hide the rifle, but leaves shells right out in the open? Apparently just so a guy with a chip on his shoulder can make a lame excuse about it 56 years later?"
>>> LOL. Now THAT is a lame remark! Oswald could have killed two birds with one stone by quickly wiping the shells down and just tossing them aside, thus avoiding having to hide them or carry them on his person. And tell us where Oswald has ever shown concern about leaving spent shells strewn about the scene of the crimes he was spotted at ;)
Oh, regarding your lame 'lame excuse' list are you calling Brennan a liar by any chance?
-
Coming from the typically hostile CTer, that's sarcasm.
The only one being hostile here is you, pardner.
Double jeopardy since he's the one with the tech issue, not me
It's not a "tech issue", ace. The video is blocked in the United States on copyright grounds. Not that I care, because you never post anything relevant anyway.
>>> LOL. Now THAT is a lame remark! And tell us where Oswald has ever shown concern about leaving spent shells strewn about the scene of the crimes he was spotted at ;)
LOL, indeed. You wouldn't be begging the question now, would you?
Oh, regarding your lame 'lame excuse' list are you calling Brennan a liar by any chance?
Perish the thought. I am wondering how he sees a supposed shooter taking aim for the head shot "from the belt up" though, and can somehow estimate his height.
-
Perish the thought. I am wondering how he sees a supposed shooter taking aim for the head shot "from the belt up" though, and can somehow estimate his height.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill.
How did he know the person he saw later with the rifle was the same person he saw earlier on the window sill. And how did the person even sit on the window sill with the window only open 14 inches or so?
That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up. [/b]
Brennan's first day affidavit:
"I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up."
-
How did he know the person he saw later with the rifle was the same person he saw earlier on the window sill.
Why wouldn't Brennan know that the same person was the same person? LOLOL!!!
And how did the person even sit on the window sill with the window only open 14 inches or so?
I didn't know the window was nailed in that exact position, do you have any evidence?
JohnM
-
Why wouldn't Brennan know that the same person was the same person? LOLOL!!!
Because a person crouched down behind boxes is crouched down behind boxes?
I didn't know the window was nailed in that exact position, do you have any evidence?
Did Brennan or anybody else mention anything about that window opening or closing? Maybe super-ears Norman?
-
Thumb1:
Oh, one more thing: is this the same J Edgar who said that the thing he was concerned about "is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin"?
Just checking.
-
Because a person crouched down behind boxes is crouched down behind boxes?
Did Brennan or anybody else mention anything about that window opening or closing? Maybe super-ears Norman?
Because a person crouched down behind boxes is crouched down behind boxes?
Yawn, not this schtick again. You are not the eyewitness, Brennan who was there said it was the same man as was holding the rifle.
"Mr. BELIN. Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the same man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a couple of times, first stepping up and then going back?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir."
Did Brennan or anybody else mention anything about that window opening or closing?
Up until 12:30, the sniper's nest window was just like any other and there would be no reason to pay any attention to this window 6 stories up.
Maybe super-ears Norman?
All seven commissioners went to Dallas and while on the 5th floor of the TSBD, all heard a shell fall on the floor above.
"And at one point, all seven commissioners traveled to Dallas and, among other things, stood on the fifth floor of the Book Depository Building where the three young black men were at the time of the assassination, and conducted a test wherein a cartridge shell was dropped to the floor directly above them and “all the commissioners heard a sound which they…concluded…was the sound of a shell which had fallen to the floor."
RHVB
JohnM
-
Oh, one more thing: is this the same J Edgar who said that the thing he was concerned about "is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin"?
Just checking.
What is wrong with that?
ALL the evidence leads to only Lee Harvey Oswald.
After their President was brutally gunned down on a city street in broad daylight, the public deserved to know that the murderer with the overwhelming evidence was captured and that they are all safe, Hoover was just doing his job.
JohnM
-
Yawn, not this schtick again. You are not the eyewitness, Brennan who was there said it was the same man as was holding the rifle.
"Mr. BELIN. Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the same man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a couple of times, first stepping up and then going back?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir."
Up until 12:30, the sniper's nest window was just like any other and there would be no reason to pay any attention to this window 6 stories up.
All seven commissioners went to Dallas and while on the 5th floor of the TSBD, all heard a shell fall on the floor above.
"And at one point, all seven commissioners traveled to Dallas and, among other things, stood on the fifth floor of the Book Depository Building where the three young black men were at the time of the assassination, and conducted a test wherein a cartridge shell was dropped to the floor directly above them and “all the commissioners heard a sound which they…concluded…was the sound of a shell which had fallen to the floor."
RHVB
JohnM
Not only that, Norman said that the test day was a lot noisier outside than the day of the actual event.
-
Quote from: Bill Chapman on Today at 08:42:50 AM
"Not only that, Norman said that the test day was a lot noisier outside than the day of the actual event"
I assume that excludes the 3 loud noises on the day of the actual event.
-
Not only that, Norman said that the test day was a lot noisier outside than the day of the actual event.
Too bad Norman could not tell the same story twice. First statement on 11/26, no mention of the sound of the bolt or shells. The big question is did he stick his head out of the window between the shots or didn't he? Apparently he even heard the bolt and shells when his head was outside of the window. I bet the WC members did not try that. Did the dust fall into his eyes from the ceiling or when he was looking up outside of the building?
FBI 11/26: "He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had puled his head back in from the window."
Secret Service 12/4: Now he adds the bolt and shells but not his head outside of the window. "I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.
-
I assume that excludes the 3 loud noises on the day of the actual event.
The point of the experiment was to determine if Norman could hear the bolt action and the shells hitting the floor above. The only reasons I can think of for doing an actual firing would be to see if Norman thought the sound was the same and if dust actually falls from the ceiling but after the three gunshots on the 22nd was there any dust left to fall?
JohnM
-
Too bad Norman could not tell the same story twice. First statement on 11/26, no mention of the sound of the bolt or shells. The big question is did he stick his head out of the window between the shots or didn't he? Apparently he even heard the bolt and shells when his head was outside of the window. I bet the WC members did not try that. Did the dust fall into his eyes from the ceiling or when he was looking up outside of the building?
FBI 11/26: "He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had puled his head back in from the window."
Secret Service 12/4: Now he adds the bolt and shells but not his head outside of the window. "I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.
Apparently he even heard the bolt and shells when his head was outside of the window.
How do you come to that conclusion? On the 26th when Norman was obviously inside, Norman says he heard a shot, then stuck his head out and then when he was back inside he heard another two shots, 1 +2 = 3!
The time between the first shots is believed to be about 3 seconds so Norman who was right at the window had plenty of time to have a quick look up between shots 1 and 2.
JohnM
-
The point of the experiment was to determine if Norman could hear the bolt action and the shells hitting the floor above. The only reasons I can think of for doing an actual firing would be to see if Norman thought the sound was the same and if dust actually falls from the ceiling but after the three gunshots on the 22nd was there any dust left to fall?
JohnM
Was not referring to the dust....obviously the noise of the gunfire was not there for the test.....so doubtful validity methinks.
-
How do you come to that conclusion? On the 26th when Norman was obviously inside, Norman says he heard a shot, then stuck his head out and then when he was back inside he heard another two shots, 1 +2 = 3!
The time between the first shots is believed to be about 3 seconds so Norman who was right at the window had plenty of time to have a quick look up between shots 1 and 2.
JohnM
Not until 12 days after the assassination did Norman claim he could hear the rifle cycling and the shells hitting the floor. Except how can he hear anything about the cycling of the rifle while his head is outside of the window between the shots. Yet he claimed he could hear the action worked three times. The cycle time of the carcano was 2.3 seconds.
In his first statement on 11/26, he claimed the dust was in his eyes as he looked up outside, not from the dust from the ceiling inside that was part of his second 12/4 statement, He makes additions and adjustments to his statement with each telling. It culminates with a story to the HSCA about LHO making an imaginary pistol with his fingers and making shooting noises (pew, pew) on the day of the assassination. A statement from Norman on the day of the assassination would have value, but the more time that passed the more embellished and contradictory his statements became. Other than him locating the shots from the window above, the rest of his statement should be viewed skeptically.
-
Norman (and Jarman) only eventually revealed that Williams did not go in the elevator with them to the 5th floor at their WC testimonies.
-
I assume that excludes the 3 loud noises on the day of the actual event.
Yeah, those 3 loud noises between the 3 (loud-enough) noises of the bolt operation and 3 (loud-enough) noises of the shells hitting the floor.
-
Too bad Norman could not tell the same story twice. First statement on 11/26, no mention of the sound of the bolt or shells. The big question is did he stick his head out of the window between the shots or didn't he? Apparently he even heard the bolt and shells when his head was outside of the window. I bet the WC members did not try that. Did the dust fall into his eyes from the ceiling or when he was looking up outside of the building?
FBI 11/26: "He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had puled his head back in from the window."
Secret Service 12/4: Now he adds the bolt and shells but not his head outside of the window. "I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.
Via his affidavit, Norman basically said he heard 3 shots, the bolt action, and shells dropping on the floor above. You seem to find the later testimony's more detailed description of those basics sinister in some way. Seems natural that in testimony, the Q&A would draw out more details.
-
Yeah, those 3 loud noises between the 3 (loud-enough) noises of the bolt operation and 3 (loud-enough) noises of the shells hitting the floor.
Was I too subtle or did you choose to ignore?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15387085 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15387085)
-
Via his affidavit, Norman basically said he heard 3 shots, the bolt action, and shells dropping on the floor above. You seem to find the later testimony's more detailed description of those basics sinister in some way. Seems natural that in testimony, the Q&A would draw out more details.
No, there is nothing basic about his statements.---- His first statement was his head was outside and he was looking up during the cycling of the rifle. He stuck his head outside and pulled it back all within 2.3 seconds. No mention at all about hearing the shells or the bolt action. He then changed his mind and gave a completely different accounting in the 12/4 Secret Service statement.
There is absolutely nothing that can be derived from his many statements other than he thought the shooter was above him and JFK was hit by the first shot
(WC: I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us.").
After that it was one contradictory statement after the other. The other two members of the group believed two shots caused all the wounds. BRW thought there was only two shots and Jarman thought there was a third shot after the car accelerated leaving Dealey Plaza.
-
No, there is nothing basic about his statements.---- His first statement was his head was outside and he was looking up during the cycling of the rifle. He stuck his head outside and pulled it back all within 2.3 seconds. No mention at all about hearing the shells or the bolt action. He then changed his mind and gave a completely different accounting in the 12/4 Secret Service statement.
There is absolutely nothing that can be derived from his many statements other than he thought the shooter was above him and JFK was hit by the first shot
(WC: I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us.").
After that it was one contradictory statement after the other. The other two members of the group believed two shots caused all the wounds. BRW thought there was only two shots and Jarman thought there was a third shot after the car accelerated leaving Dealey Plaza.
BR W Statemenht to the W.C.
"Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember. "
Jarman to the W.C.
"Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.
Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?
Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one. "
-
No, there is nothing basic about his statements.---- His first statement was his head was outside and he was looking up during the cycling of the rifle. He stuck his head outside and pulled it back all within 2.3 seconds. No mention at all about hearing the shells or the bolt action. He then changed his mind and gave a completely different accounting in the 12/4 Secret Service statement.
There is absolutely nothing that can be derived from his many statements other than he thought the shooter was above him and JFK was hit by the first shot
(WC: I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us.").
After that it was one contradictory statement after the other. The other two members of the group believed two shots caused all the wounds. BRW thought there was only two shots and Jarman thought there was a third shot after the car accelerated leaving Dealey Plaza.
You lot always squeal about witnesses adding details to what was stated earlier via affidavit. Do you seriously expect affidavits to be as complete as WC testimony? He gave the basics in the affidavit.... described what he heard in shorthand, if-you-will. Then later filled in other details under Q&A in testimony.
And how much more basic can he get in this affidavit?
HAROLD NORMAN AFFIDAVIT
State of Texas
County of Dallas
City of Dallas
I Harold Norman, wish to make the following statement to Special Agents William Carter and Arthur W. Blake, United States Secret Service.
I am 25 years of age, and I live at 4858 Beulah Street, Dallas, Texas. I do not have a telephone at my residence. I have been employed as an order filler at the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas for about three years.
I was acquainted with Lee Oswald during the time that he was employed at this company, but I never did get to know him well. I have spoken to him briefly to say "Hello" or in connection with my work, but I never carried on any conversations with him. He did not mix with the employees and did not appear to want to make friends with me or any of the others. I never saw him at any time other than in the building at work.
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me. We took a position in the south-east corner of the building on the fifth floor and I was looking out the window which is closest to the east end of the buuilding overlooking Elm Street.
Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me. I saw all of the people down on the street rut towards the west side of the building, so I went to that side with Williams and Jarman, and looked out the west side window. We discussed the shots, and where they had come from and decided we better go down stairs. We walked down the stairs to the first floor and did not see anyone else on the stairway as we went down. From the time of the shots until we started down-stairs was about five minutes.
I have read over the above statement and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
/s/Harold Norman
Harold Norman
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of December, 1963.
/s/William N. Carter
William N. Carter, Special Agent U.S. Secret Service
Witness: /s/Arthur W. Blake
Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service
-
BR W Statemenht to the W.C.
"Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember. "
Jarman to the W.C.
"Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.
Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?
Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one. "
Maybe BRW heard a third shot fired on th 24th but he definitely never heard a third shot on the 22nd or even the 23rd. WC and HSCA: "Media's Influence"
BRW Sheriffs Statement 11/22: "I heard 2 shots. It sounded like they came from just above us. We ran to the West side of the building. We didn't see anybody. "
FBI REPORT: November 23, 1963.
Williams heard two shots which sounded like they came from right over his head. He stated he was not hanging out the window, but did glance up and saw no one. He stated he and the other two [Norman and Jarman] then ran to the West end of the building where they looked out and they did not realize that the President had been shot.
Jarman describes the second shot as the headshot. Seems obvious that Jarman heard the second shot and the car "SPEEDED UP" then another shot afterward. I bet you are thinking the third shot was an echo or the headshot really happened after the car "SPEEDED UP"
FBI 11/24 : James Jarman
He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building.
-
You lot always squeal about witnesses adding details to what was stated earlier via affidavit. Do you seriously expect affidavits to be as complete as WC testimony? He gave the basics in the affidavit.... described what he heard in shorthand, if-you-will. Then later filled in other details under Q&A in testimony.
And how much more basic can he get in this affidavit?
HAROLD NORMAN AFFIDAVIT
State of Texas
County of Dallas
City of Dallas
I Harold Norman, wish to make the following statement to Special Agents William Carter and Arthur W. Blake, United States Secret Service.
I am 25 years of age, and I live at 4858 Beulah Street, Dallas, Texas. I do not have a telephone at my residence. I have been employed as an order filler at the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas for about three years.
I was acquainted with Lee Oswald during the time that he was employed at this company, but I never did get to know him well. I have spoken to him briefly to say "Hello" or in connection with my work, but I never carried on any conversations with him. He did not mix with the employees and did not appear to want to make friends with me or any of the others. I never saw him at any time other than in the building at work.
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me. We took a position in the south-east corner of the building on the fifth floor and I was looking out the window which is closest to the east end of the buuilding overlooking Elm Street.
Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me. I saw all of the people down on the street rut towards the west side of the building, so I went to that side with Williams and Jarman, and looked out the west side window. We discussed the shots, and where they had come from and decided we better go down stairs. We walked down the stairs to the first floor and did not see anyone else on the stairway as we went down. From the time of the shots until we started down-stairs was about five minutes.
I have read over the above statement and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
/s/Harold Norman
Harold Norman
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of December, 1963.
/s/William N. Carter
William N. Carter, Special Agent U.S. Secret Service
Witness: /s/Arthur W. Blake
Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service
The whole event didn't last 6 seconds. How much detail can be added? The problem with Norman is not adding details but changing the existing details to fit his new story. He said he stuck his head out of the window and the dust fell into his eyes outside of the window. It took 8 days to add the new details and change the existing statement. The only useful information provided by Norman was JFK being struck by the first shot. The rest is new added details that replaced old existing details.
-
The whole event didn't last 6 seconds. How much detail can be added? The problem with Norman is not adding details but changing the existing details to fit his new story. He said he stuck his head out of the window and the dust fell into his eyes outside of the window. It took 8 days to add the new details and change the existing statement. The only useful information provided by Norman was JFK being struck by the first shot. The rest is new added details that replaced old existing details.
Show us where 'new details' changed his hearing the 3 shots followed by the bolt action and expended shells hitting the floor.
-
Show us where 'new details' changed his hearing the 3 shots followed by the bolt action and expended shells hitting the floor.
Hearing the bolt action and the shells is the added new detail. Post Norman's statement from 11/22, 11/23, 11/24, or 11/25. How about explain Norman's statement on 11/26. He waits 12 days to add the story of hearing the bolt action and the shells, changes his story to accommodate the story and that is the part of his statement that you quote as factual.
-
Harold Norman statement given on 26th November to a Special Agent Benjamin O.Keutzer
Norman said, “ snip.....he and a fellow employees, James Jarmon and Bonnie Ray Williams,
were watching the Presidential Motorcade from the windows of the fifth floor of the Texas School Depository building.
He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding onto Elm Street, he heard a shot.
He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him.
He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but
could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him.
He stated that two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window.
He stated he could see people walking toward the other end of the building [I.e the West end]
He, Jarmon and Williams ran to the other end of the room and looked out of the window there.
He stated that he saw nothing and then returned to the window from which he had been previously looking.”
Not a word about any cartridges dropping on the floor above or rifle bolts being heard.
-
Hearing the bolt action and the shells is the added new detail. Post Norman's statement from 11/22, 11/23, 11/24, or 11/25. How about explain Norman's statement on 11/26. He waits 12 days to add the story of hearing the bolt action and the shells, changes his story to accommodate the story and that is the part of his statement that you quote as factual.
Jack, my recollection is that Norman did not provide a statement until the Tuesday (11/26). If you have any earlier statements could you share?
-
More brutal pedantic nitpicking. Norman confirms right from the start that the shots came from above his head. The only open window above his head is the SN. If you want to believe there is some cause to doubt his hearing the bolt being operated and shell cases hitting the floor, it doesn't make any difference if he still confirms that a rifle was fired above his head. If there were any doubt of this, witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination and fired bullet casings were found by that window. It's inexplicable how there could be much more supporting evidence of the fact that shots were fired from that window.
-
More brutal pedantic nitpicking. Norman confirms right from the start that the shots came from above his head. The only open window above his head is the SN. If you want to believe there is some cause to doubt his hearing the bolt being operated and shell cases hitting the floor, it doesn't make any difference if he still confirms that a rifle was fired above his head. If there were any doubt of this, witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination and fired bullet casings were found by that window. It's inexplicable how there could be much more supporting evidence of the fact that shots were fired from that window.
If you believe that, then prove it was Oswald who fired them, Richard.
-
If you believe that, then prove it was Oswald who fired them, Richard.
If I believe what? That a gun was fired from that window? Are saying there is any doubt of that fact as confirmed by several witnesses and the evidence? What do you think went on? Someone stuck a pipe out the window and shouted "bang" and then disbursed evidence framing Oswald before escaping the building unnoticed? Once you accept the obvious conclusion that shots were fired from that window, then the physical evidence left behind ties Oswald to the crime. His rifle is found on that floor. Fired bullet casings from his rifle are found by the window. His prints are on the SN boxes and bag. He lies about owning a rifle and carrying a large package to work that morning. He flees the scene within minutes, gets a pistol, and shoots a police officer. Again, difficult to understand how there could be much more evidence of his guilt than exists. What do you believe is lacking here? A time machine that would allow you see it for yourself?
-
If I believe what? That a gun was fired from that window? Are saying there is any doubt of that fact as confirmed by several witnesses and the evidence? What do you think went on? Someone stuck a pipe out the window and shouted "bang" and then disbursed evidence framing Oswald before escaping the building unnoticed? Once you accept the obvious conclusion that shots were fired from that window, then the physical evidence left behind ties Oswald to the crime. His rifle is found on that floor. Fired bullet casings from his rifle are found by the window. His prints are on the SN boxes and bag. He lies about owning a rifle and carrying a large package to work that morning. He flees the scene within minutes, gets a pistol, and shoots a police officer. Again, difficult to understand how there could be much more evidence of his guilt than exists. What do you believe is lacking here? A time machine that would allow you see it for yourself?
Yes a time machine would be idea, much better than your load of assumptions.
As Curry said. ""We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.""
-
Yes a time machine would be idea, much better than your load of assumptions.
As Curry said. ""We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.""
Was that the blurb on the dust jacket of his book by any chance?
-
If you believe that, then prove it was Oswald who fired them, Richard.
What Euins saw of the shooter's head kinda narrows it down to somebody with a receding hairline, apparently enough to show as a white/bald spot large enough to cause Euins to repeat that observation several times in testimony.
My point is that 'AnybodyButOswald' needs to have a similar 'do as to what was observed of the head by Euins.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MMWXdNL/oswald-bald-spot.png)
-
Mr. Chapman,
Any thoughts on why, from the time they found "Lee's Gun" to immediately before Lee Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Lee's prints never appeared on that gun, and then, and only then, after Lee was dead, they suddenly appeared? Do you find that suspicious? I mean this was the murder of the President for crying out loud, all the best and the brightest were on the case and working overtime, why didn't Lee's fingerprints appear on that sixth floor Carcano until after he was dead and laying on a slab?
My recollection is that Studebaker (he of the grand total of two months experience) used a relatively new technique that failed to raise fingerprints... after which the FBI lab used some sort of chemical analysis and succeeded in finding partials.
-
Nah, nothing wrong here, nothing at all.
While Oswald was alive:
"Our fine men in uniform, the SS, the FBI and many other government agencies have redoubled their fine efforts and were not able to find Oswald's fingerprints on that gun"
Chief Curry to press
47 hours later after Oswald was shot dead while in Police custody:
"Our fine men in uniform, the SS, the FBI and many other government agencies have redoubled their fine efforts and were able to find Oswald's fingerprints on that gun. In that 47 hours of super sleuthing, they all must have missed some tiny area to check I imagine, now no more questions, we're very busy here"
Chief Curry to press
Seems Curry didn't know a lot of things about the evidence...
Jesse Curry WC Testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
(...)
Representative FORD - What evidence did you have at that point?
Mr. CURRY - I couldn't tell you all the evidence. I think Captain Fritz can tell you better than I. Captain Fritz Just told me on Friday afternoon he said, "We have sufficient evidence to file a case on Oswald for the murder of Tippit." Later on that night, somewhere around midnight, I believe, he told me, he said, "We now have sufficient evidence to file on Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President Kennedy."
He told me he had talked it over with Henry Wade and with the assistant district attorney and they agreed we had enough evidence to file a case, and a decision was made then to file the case, which we did.
Representative FORD - At that time you had the rifle, did you not?
Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Who made the original identification of the rifle, the kind of rifle that it was?
Mr. CURRY - I don't know, sir.
Representative FORD - It was reported that the original identification was a 7.65 Mauser. Are those reports true or untrue?
Mr. CURRY - I wouldn't know, sir.
Representative FORD - You don't know?
Mr. CURRY - I don't know.
Representative FORD - Do you know when it was finally determined that it was not a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir; I don't know that.
Mr. MCCLOY - As far as I know there was no police report that it was a 7.65 rifle.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. RANKIN - Chief Curry, do you know of any police records of your police department that showed that this weapon that was purportedly involved in the assassination was a Mauser rifle?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Representative FORD - All of your records show affirmatively it was the Italian rifle?
Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir. That is correct.
Mr. MCCLOY - While we are waiting for Mr. Rankin to continue his examination, let me ask you this question, Chief.
Did you, prior to the assassination, know or hear of Oswald?
Mr. CURRY - Never.
Mr. MCCLOY - Didn't hear that he had been--there was a defector named Oswald in the city of Dallas?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir.
Mr. MCCLOY - Never heard of his name?
Mr. CURRY - We didn't have it in our files.
Representative FORD - Was there anything in your files that Lee Harvey Oswald had been involved with the Dallas police force?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir.
Representative FORD - No record whatsoever?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir.
Mr. DULLES - Was there any record of his having made a trip to the Soviet Union and returned?
Mr. CURRY - Not in our files.
Mr. DULLES - And returned to Texas?
Mr. CURRY - We didn't have anything in our files regarding Lee Harvey Oswald.
(...)
-
My recollection is that Studebaker (he of the grand total of two months experience) used a relatively new technique that failed to raise fingerprints... after which the FBI lab used some sort of chemical analysis and succeeded in finding partials.
Studebaker worked on the gun? News to me.
-
Jack, my recollection is that Norman did not provide a statement until the Tuesday (11/26). If you have any earlier statements could you share?
I have never seen a statement. I always thought that was incredible to wait for four days given his location. The same with Jarman waiting two days. You would think they had to be talking to someone.
-
More brutal pedantic nitpicking. Norman confirms right from the start that the shots came from above his head. The only open window above his head is the SN. If you want to believe there is some cause to doubt his hearing the bolt being operated and shell cases hitting the floor, it doesn't make any difference if he still confirms that a rifle was fired above his head. If there were any doubt of this, witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination and fired bullet casings were found by that window. It's inexplicable how there could be much more supporting evidence of the fact that shots were fired from that window.
The three shot scenario is a failed storyline for obvious reasons and simply quoting a witness who has a personal variation of it and demanding everyone believe it is why after 50+ years the debate continues. No one needs Norman's tortured tale to believe the shots were fired from directly above him. When he changed his statement to enhance this story the rest of his statement became questionable. What was needed from him was a description of the shots not an embellishment and alteration of his existing statement. He changes his statement and on doing so then described three evenly spaced shots which is a direct contradiction to what BRW and Jarman described.
-
Studebaker worked on the gun? News to me.
Maybe your recollection is more accurate than mine then.
-
The three shot scenario is a failed storyline for obvious reasons and simply quoting a witness who has a personal variation of it and demanding everyone believe it is why after 50+ years the debate continues. No one needs Norman's tortured tale to believe the shots were fired from directly above him. When he changed his statement to enhance this story the rest of his statement became questionable. What was needed from him was a description of the shots not an embellishment and alteration of his existing statement. He changes his statement and on doing so then described three evenly spaced shots which is a direct contradiction to what BRW and Jarman described.
'Tortured tale' huh... did you get that gem from the Bug, or maybe from Brennan's ghost writer, by any chance?
-
Maybe your recollection is more accurate than mine then.
Seems it is.
Studebaker testimony not the W.C.
"Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, sir; Lieutenant Day handled the rifle part of it. I didn't mess with the rifle at all. He took it down to the city hall and worked on it down there at the lab."
How strange it was that Studebaker, the official photographer, who according to his testimony took about 10,000 photos never photographed the paper bag in situ. He saw it :) but never photographed it. Another Keystone Kop?
-
Seems it is.
Studebaker testimony not the W.C.
"Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, sir; Lieutenant Day handled the rifle part of it. I didn't mess with the rifle at all. He took it down to the city hall and worked on it down there at the lab."
How strange it was that Studebaker, the official photographer, who according to his testimony took about 10,000 photos never photographed the paper bag in situ. He saw it :) but never photographed it. Another Keystone Kop?
He never photographed it there but it did not leave the building until 3pm. Things were moved and replaced then photographed but not the wrapper.
The evidence suggests that Oswald did not place it in the "Studebaker position".
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.40.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.40.html)
-
He never photographed it there but it did not leave the building until 3pm. Things were moved and replaced then photographed but not the wrapper.
The evidence suggests that Oswald did not place it in the "Studebaker position".
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.40.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.40.html)
Colin, they replaced the empty shells and some boxes to photograph them in their original position, but forgot :D to replace the paper bag.
-
I have never seen a statement. I always thought that was incredible to wait for four days given his location. The same with Jarman waiting two days. You would think they had to be talking to someone.
Williams provided a statement the afternoon of the assassination because Fritz instructed Senkel to round up all those who had been on the 6th floor that morning. Interestingly Norman and Frazier, who had both been on that floor, somehow avoided that trip to City Hall.
I believe Williams was interviewed again on the Saturday, Jarman also provided a brief statement on that day also. Williams was relatively new to the TSBD, having been transferred to the building just a few weeks previously. Jarman and Norman did not even know his full name. Williams had no phone at home and from memory neither did Norman. In the weekend following the assassination it is doubtful that the three men might have communicated. The likely time they compared stories before the Monday was in the hour or so between the shots and the time Williams was taken to City Hall. Jarman and Williams left the TSBD before he returned.
As some will know by now, until they testified before the WC, Jarman and Norman consistently claimed that Williams accompanied them up in the elevator to the 5th floor. However by the Saturday, Williams had already began modifying his story to accomodate a trip to the sixth floor before joining them.
-
The three shot scenario is a failed storyline for obvious reasons and simply quoting a witness who has a personal variation of it and demanding everyone believe it is why after 50+ years the debate continues. No one needs Norman's tortured tale to believe the shots were fired from directly above him. When he changed his statement to enhance this story the rest of his statement became questionable. What was needed from him was a description of the shots not an embellishment and alteration of his existing statement. He changes his statement and on doing so then described three evenly spaced shots which is a direct contradiction to what BRW and Jarman described.
Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window. Let me guess - they are all liars or in on IT. The physical evidence supports that conclusion (i.e. fired bullet casings found by that window and a rifle on the 6th floor). Just saying it isn't so does not rebut the actual evidence which is overwhelming. The rest is just ridiculous and false. What Norman confirms without any ambiguity is that the shots came from above his head. And the only window open above his head is the SN. The place where other witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle and where bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found. It's a slam dunk. Absent a time machine it's hard to understand how there could be any more evidence of the fact that shots were fired from that window.
-
Williams provided a statement the afternoon of the assassination because Fritz instructed Senkel to round up all those who had been on the 6th floor that morning. Interestingly Norman and Frazier, who had both been on that floor, somehow avoided that trip to City Hall.
I believe Williams was interviewed again on the Saturday, Jarman also provided a brief statement on that day also. Williams was relatively new to the TSBD, having been transferred to the building just a few weeks previously. Jarman and Norman did not even know his full name. Williams had no phone at home and from memory neither did Norman. In the weekend following the assassination it is doubtful that the three men might have communicated. The likely time they compared stories before the Monday was in the hour or so between the shots and the time Williams was taken to City Hall. Jarman and Williams left the TSBD before he returned.
As some will know by now, until they testified before the WC, Jarman and Norman consistently claimed that Williams accompanied them up in the elevator to the 5th floor. However by the Saturday, Williams had already began modifying his story to accomodate a trip to the sixth floor before joining them.
Immediately after the assassination Brennan identified them as the guys hanging out of the window and they identified Brennan as the guy wearing the hard hat, but I cannot remember what came of that. They were obviously talking with the police at that time. I think the Ball Belin report talked about the identifications of each being made. Must not be much there or I would think I would remember it, but I will look this evening.
-
Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window. Let me guess - they are all liars or in on IT. The physical evidence supports that conclusion (i.e. fired bullet casings found by that window and a rifle on the 6th floor). Just saying it isn't so does not rebut the actual evidence which is overwhelming. The rest is just ridiculous and false. What Norman confirms without any ambiguity is that the shots came from above his head. And the only window open above his head is the SN. The place where other witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle and where bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found. It's a slam dunk. Absent a time machine it's hard to understand how there could be any more evidence of the fact that shots were fired from that window.
The physical evidence supports it, Brennan, BRW, Jarman and whoever support it. Norman's made up story about hearing the shells and bolt action is a different issue and should not be quoted as if it were a fact.
-
The physical evidence supports it, Brennan, BRW, Jarman and whoever support it. Norman's made up story about hearing the shells and bolt action is a different issue and should not be quoted as if it were a fact.
A distinction that seemingly makes little difference in this context. If you accept that Norman's testimony along with that of others demonstrates that someone was shooting from the SN window, then it makes little difference whether Norman heard the shells/bolt action. The only issue that matters in regard to Norman's testimony is that it supports a shooter in the SN window. Regardless, I don't see how you completely discount Norman's account about hearing the bolt/shells as "made up" simply because he omitted certain details in his original statement that are included a few days later in his Dec. 4 affidavit. Although I agree that witnesses can embellish or come to believe things that are not true over time, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is making this up. And, as noted above, if you accept that he heard a shooter above his head in the SN it doesn't really matter whether he also heard the rifle being operated and shells hitting the floor. That would just be a cherry on Oswald's sundae of guilt.
-
Immediately after the assassination Brennan identified them as the guys hanging out of the window and they identified Brennan as the guy wearing the hard hat, but I cannot remember what came of that. They were obviously talking with the police at that time. I think the Ball Belin report talked about the identifications of each being made. Must not be much there or I would think I would remember it, but I will look this evening.
Brennan saw two of them on the fifth floor. Likely Jarman and Norman before Williams arrived. From memory Williams and Jarman exited the TSBD and Brennan pointed them out. From memory Norman did not try to exit with them...hence the confusion by Brennan in identifying them. A humorous effort by him in a joint session with them at the WC.
-
Brennan saw two of them on the fifth floor. Likely Jarman and Norman before Williams arrived. From memory Williams and Jarman exited the TSBD and Brennan pointed them out. From memory Norman did not try to exit with them...hence the confusion by Brennan in identifying them. A humorous effort by him in a joint session with them at the WC.
Jarman and Norman exited the TSBD and Brennan IDed them and also was able to distinguish between them and BRW. Jarman and Norman were taken back into the building by police officers after IDing Brennan by referencing his hard hat and also stating the shots came from the 6th floor. According to the Ball/Belin report, Norman was interviewed by the FBI twice on 11/22 but apparently no record of it. Later the Ball/Belin report refers to the first FBI interview of Norman as 11/26, so I am not sure. It would be hard to believe the police were well aware of them being below the SN, taking them back into the TSBD, and not talking to them in depth.
-
Jarman and Norman exited the TSBD and Brennan IDed them and also was able to distinguish between them and BRW. Jarman and Norman were taken back into the building by police officers after IDing Brennan by referencing his hard hat and also stating the shots came from the 6th floor. According to the Ball/Belin report, Norman was interviewed by the FBI twice on 11/22 but apparently no record of it. Later the Ball/Belin report refers to the first FBI interview of Norman as 11/26, so I am not sure. It would be hard to believe the police were well aware of them being below the SN, taking them back into the TSBD, and not talking to them in depth.
We do see Williams on the steps of the TSBD watching a colleague being ushered back inside. Williams does not appear to be under the same instruction. This supports your statement somewhat. I had a memory that one of them did not go outside immediately and for some reason believed that to be Norman. Will look back at his WC testimony as the likely source.
Certainly at the WC Brennan could not identify who was up there when the three were in the same room with him.
Do you have a link to the Ball/Belin report? I may have seen it but would appreciate the opportunity to read.
-
We do see Williams on the steps of the TSBD watching a colleague being ushered back inside. Williams does not appear to be under the same instruction. This supports your statement somewhat. I had a memory that one of them did not go outside immediately and for some reason believed that to be Norman. Will look back at his WC testimony as the likely source.
Certainly at the WC Brennan could not identify who was up there when the three were in the same room with him.
Do you have a link to the Ball/Belin report? I may have seen it but would appreciate the opportunity to read.
The WC statements do not necessarily reflect what was stated in the report which was dated 2/25/1964.
I would think with your interest in the 6th floor aspect of the case it would be an interesting read. I am unaware of it being online anywhere. I found it by contacting the Gerald Ford Pres Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan and having them copy it and mail it to me.
David Belin had donated his papers to Ford's Presidential library along with a lot of other papers concerning the assassination. I think what I had the library copy in total is more than 800 pages with a certain amount of duplication. I will see if I can have the witness portion copied and placed on a Zip Drive and see if I can then download it to the internet or just send it to you. I have a basic lack of computer skills so bear with me. The initial report dated 2/25/1964 gives an idea of what it was they were interested in investigating and their thoughts on the witnesses.
This is a link to the files from which I chose the files that I received. I mainly chose files from Boxes 4 and 5 but you can see there is a great deal more to be viewed.
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/guides/findingaid/belinpapers.asp#warrenftl
-
The WC statements do not necessarily reflect what was stated in the report which was dated 2/25/1964.
I would think with your interest in the 6th floor aspect of the case it would be an interesting read. I am unaware of it being online anywhere. I found it by contacting the Gerald Ford Pres Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan and having them copy it and mail it to me.
David Belin had donated his papers to Ford's Presidential library along with a lot of other papers concerning the assassination. I think what I had the library copy in total is more than 800 pages with a certain amount of duplication. I will see if I can have the witness portion copied and placed on a Zip Drive and see if I can then download it to the internet or just send it to you. I have a basic lack of computer skills so bear with me. The initial report dated 2/25/1964 gives an idea of what it was they were interested in investigating and their thoughts on the witnesses.
This is a link to the files from which I chose the files that I received. I mainly chose files from Boxes 4 and 5 but you can see there is a great deal more to be viewed.
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/guides/findingaid/belinpapers.asp#warrenftl
Much appreciated Jack......even large docs can be emailed these days. I certainly would be interested in reading.
PS....just realised they might be in scanned image format and quite large if so.
-
Jack, I just checked the testimonies. Both Jarman and Norman recall Brennan when they went outside. I found this from Williams...
Mr. BALL. When you got to the first floor, what did you see?
Mr. WILLIAMS. When we arrived to the first floor, the first thing I noticed was that the policemen had rushed in. I think some firemen came in with a water hose. And then the next thing that happened, these detectives, or maybe FBI--anyway, they stopped us all and they said, "Do you work here?" And we told them yes. And they took our name, address, and they searched everybody. And then the other fellow--I think one fellow asked whether we had been working upstairs. I think we told him yes. They got out all the fellows I think that was working on the sixth floor at the time, and they took us all down to the courthouse, I think, and we had to fill out some affidavits and things.
Mr. BALL. You made out an affidavit there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Two points, firstly Williams recollection of Senkel asking for all those who had been on the 6th floor that morning. Recall that both Norman and Frazier fell into that category but somehow avoided going to City Hall.
Secondly Williams claiming they weren’t allowed out but he was filmed on the steps and did make it outside. I believe it was this statement that led me to believe only two went outside, it appears I was mistaken.
-
Much appreciated Jack......even large docs can be emailed these days. I certainly would be interested in reading.
PS....just realised they might be in scanned image format and quite large if so.
I have a friend I will see next Tuesday. He will know how to do it. They aren't earth shattering but they give an idea of the their opinion of it all. I also think they were talking with the agents doing the interviews.
-
I have a friend I will see next Tuesday. He will know how to do it. They aren't earth shattering but they give an idea of the their opinion of it all. I also think they were talking with the agents doing the interviews.
Many thanks Jack. Your efforts are much appreciated.
-
Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window. Let me guess - they are all liars or in on IT. The physical evidence supports that conclusion (i.e. fired bullet casings found by that window and a rifle on the 6th floor). Just saying it isn't so does not rebut the actual evidence which is overwhelming. The rest is just ridiculous and false. What Norman confirms without any ambiguity is that the shots came from above his head. And the only window open above his head is the SN. The place where other witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle and where bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found. It's a slam dunk. Absent a time machine it's hard to understand how there could be any more evidence of the fact that shots were fired from that window.
Of course witnesses saw a rifle. Some of them actually describe a character holding it...not matching Oswald's appearance. Keep repeating to yourself-- "Oswald's rifle". And keep on chasing your tail ...you are good at it :D
-
I have a friend I will see next Tuesday. He will know how to do it. They aren't earth shattering but they give an idea of the their opinion of it all. I also think they were talking with the agents doing the interviews.
Bravo to you, Jack !! Action, not just Thought !! Smell that fresh air ????? Thanks+
-
Colin, I spoke to my friend and he is going to see what it takes to scan all the papers and place them on a PDF file or files so they can either be downloaded or with Duncan's permission they can be placed on the Forum's website. I guess the problem will be having a decent enough scanner to do a good job copying them. It maybe I take them to a local copy business and have them do it.
-
Colin, I spoke to my friend and he is going to see what it takes to scan all the papers and place them on a PDF file or files so they can either be downloaded or with Duncan's permission they can be placed on the Forum's website. I guess the problem will be having a decent enough scanner to do a good job copying them. It maybe I take them to a local copy business and have them do it.
Thanks Jack. Thumb1:
-
Multiple witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.
As usual, "Richard" misrepresents the evidence. Name the "multiple witnesses" who identified that specific window, and said "rifle" rather than projection or pipe thing.
-
Hahahaha! Brennan's "testimony" is a mess.
He said he saw 75-80% of the gun but doesn't remember seeing a scope. Hahaha!
He said the guys on the 5th floor were standing yet had their elbows on the sill. When the windows had a clearance of 18 inches from the floor. Hahahah!
He said the shooter was 160-170 pounds when we all know LHO was 145 pounds soaking wet. Hahahah.
Any decent defense attorney would have spun this guy around with a good redirect.
Do you really expect us to believe that this guy, who was "just there" to see the president that day, had the wherewithal to see all he claims in the few seconds the shooting sequence took place?
75-80% of the gun but it didn't have a scope. Indeed.
-
I finally had the Ball/Belin report scanned and Duncan has placed the file on the Forum's website. This is the February 25th report. I can scan the June part later but the June part was mainly the writing of the WC report and the changes being made.
It has been awhile since I had read it but it is interesting the same discussions and questions that are discussed on the forum were taking place with the WC investigators. Obviously they did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Ball-Belin%20Report.pdf
-
I finally had the Ball/Belin report scanned and Duncan has placed the file on the Forum's website. This is the February 25th report. I can scan the June part later but the June part was mainly the writing of the WC report and the changes being made.
It has been awhile since I had read it but it is interesting the same discussions and questions that are discussed on the forum were taking place with the WC investigators. Obviously they did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Ball-Belin%20Report.pdf
Thank you Jack. You are a champ. And thanks to Duncan too, your efforts are truly appreciated. Thumb1:
-
Face it, LHO was not a lone nut assassin. You have to be lost in the weeds to think otherwise. He may have been heavily involved, but not a lone nut. The LN narrative is a house of cards that only requires 1 breach of logic to topple it and it's far more likely that the JFK assassination was part of a carefully planned conspiracy than an ex-military/singleton agent/commie happened to get a job at the TSBD 3 weeks before the re-routed presidential motorcade made a sharp turn onto Elm and served up JFK on a silver platter.
You could ask Oswald's doppelganger, Thomas Arthur Vallee the same question a year before in Chicago. https://riversong.wordpress.com/jfk-assassination-plan-a/ (https://riversong.wordpress.com/jfk-assassination-plan-a/)
Face it, this was most likely a conspiracy, in which case LHO's best defense against being a LN is that he was a patsy. This conspiracy needed a patsy and LHO was the Vallee of Dallas. Sure, there was a shooter(s) up on the 6th floor but they certainly weren't relying on Oswald firing a mannlicher carcano to do the job. The MC had already been planted by that point and maybe someone took some token shots with a Mauser because shots must be heard coming from the 6th floor to set up the patsy. But Oswald himself never took any shots because he never fired the MC before, otherwise, he would have sighted in the scope and his prints would have been all over the MC like stink on a monkey.
He did not have the time to wipe down the rifle. Check and mate.
-
Face it, LHO was not a lone nut assassin. You have to be lost in the weeds to think otherwise. He may have been heavily involved, but not a lone nut. The LN narrative is a house of cards that only requires 1 breach of logic to topple it and it's far more likely that the JFK assassination was part of a carefully planned conspiracy than an ex-military/singleton agent/commie happened to get a job at the TSBD 3 weeks before the re-routed presidential motorcade made a sharp turn onto Elm and served up JFK on a silver platter.
You could ask Oswald's doppelganger, Thomas Arthur Vallee the same question a year before in Chicago. https://riversong.wordpress.com/jfk-assassination-plan-a/ (https://riversong.wordpress.com/jfk-assassination-plan-a/)
Face it, this was most likely a conspiracy, in which case LHO's best defense against being a LN is that he was a patsy. This conspiracy needed a patsy and LHO was the Vallee of Dallas. Sure, there was a shooter(s) up on the 6th floor but they certainly weren't relying on Oswald firing a mannlicher carcano to do the job. The MC had already been planted by that point and maybe someone took some token shots with a Mauser because shots must be heard coming from the 6th floor to set up the patsy. But Oswald himself never took any shots because he never fired the MC before, otherwise, he would have sighted in the scope and his prints would have been all over the MC like stink on a monkey.
He did not have the time to wipe down the rifle. Check and mate.
A quick wipe is all it takes to at least smear a print so as to render it unrecoverable
It would take only a few seconds
You can look it up
-
A quick wipe is all it takes to at least smear a print so as to render it unrecoverable
It would take only a few seconds
You can look it up
How many smeared prints did they find?
-
As usual, "Richard" misrepresents the evidence. Name the "multiple witnesses" who identified that specific window, and said "rifle" rather than projection or pipe thing.
He's tweaking your BP
I advise him to say the rifle next time
;)
-
Rhetoric and propaganda is all you guys have.
-
Rhetoric and propaganda is all you guys have.
I have something you don't: A tape measure.
-
Linnie Mae Randle saw something you didn’t: Oswald’s 27-inch bag.
-
Linnie Mae Randle saw something you didn’t: Oswald’s 27-inch bag.
Linnie Mae Randle saw something you didn’t: Oswald’s 27-inch bag
>>> Oswald's Randle's estimated 27-inch bag. Which didn't 'almost' touch the ground
And Randle had what nobody else had: A brother who drove the (alleged) killer to the eventual scene of the crime.
-
I have something you don't: A tape measure.
But it seems you can't post photo showing your experiments.
-
Linnie Mae Randle saw something you didn’t: Oswald’s 27-inch bag
>>> Oswald's Randle's estimated 27-inch bag. Which didn't 'almost' touch the ground
Oh, so now you were there when Randle had McNeely recreate what she saw?
-
But it seems you can't post photo showing your experiments.
That’s because they are just mind experiments.
-
But it seems you can't post photo showing your experiments.
Grab a tape measure
-
That’s because they are just mind experiments.
Got a tape measure yet?
-
Grab a tape measure
I already have and posted a photo to show the result. Now post yours.
-
Oh, so now you were there when Randle had McNeely recreate what she saw?
She saw a package that 'almost touched the ground'
The 34.8" measure qualifies. The 27" measure does not.
Get a tape measure and try it yourself instead of just running your mouth, CTrollJohnny...
-
I already have and posted a photo to show the result. Now post yours.
Amateur... you show no proof of the actual measurements
-
Amateur... you show no proof of the actual measurements
How do I show proof, Chappers? Don't you believe anybody? You may have a tape measure but you don't have a clue.
-
How do I show proof, Chappers? Don't you believe anybody? You may have a tape measure but you don't have a clue.
Let me get this straight: You're the one who can't figure out how to show proof-of-measurement, yet I'm the one who doesn't 'have a clue'.
You're rather dim, aren't you...
-
She saw a package that 'almost touched the ground'
The 34.8" measure qualifies. The 27" measure does not.
According to Randle, it did. Her experiment with McNeely confirmed what she saw. Your thought experiment means nothing.
-
Amateur... you show no proof of the actual measurements
Hilarious. You’ve shown nothing at all. And it wouldn’t even matter if you did. You’re not Randle.
-
Let me get this straight: You're the one who can't figure out how to show proof-of-measurement, yet I'm the one who doesn't 'have a clue'.
You're rather dim, aren't you...
Not as dim as a poster who can't post photos of his experiments. Don't tell us, Chappers, show us.
-
According to Randle, it did. Her experiment with McNeely confirmed what she saw. Your thought experiment means nothing.
Thought is definitely involved in everything I do. Randle first estimated a 36" package. Awfully close to 34.8", the only size that almost touches the ground. The 27" length I've marked on my 34.6" device comes 10" from the ground at my 6' height.
Do the math... oh, wait... you don't have a tape measure.
-
Not as dim as a poster who can't post photos of his experiments. Don't tell us, Chappers, show us.
One step at-a-time, Sparky:
I've posted a photo of the grip I'm using
None of you have posted a image of the grip that McNeely/Randle used.
-
Hilarious. You’ve shown nothing at all. And it wouldn’t even matter if you did. You’re not Randle.
Thank God. Who would want to be the sister of the poor sap who drove the alleged killer to the (eventual) scene of the crime. Oh, by the way you are not Euins, Brennan, nor Brewer.
Did Randle run up to Oswald with a tape measure? Or did she estimate the size of the bag carried by the (eventual) alleged assassin..
-
The reenactment was done "in accordance with Mrs. RANDLE's observations", sucker.
So what
-
The setup and measurements as documented in CE 2008 worked to the SAs satisfaction. Done.
BFD. So Randle okayed McNeely's handling of the package as/per her instructions. But the WC said she was mistaken, and based that conclusion on her statement that the package carried by Oswald was 'almost touching the ground'
-
How would you carry the paper bag with a disassembled rifle so that it almost touches the ground? Wouldn't you have to cup your hand and support the rifle butt? If not, SHOW US.
-
Thank God. Who would want to be the sister of the poor sap who drove the alleged killer to the (eventual) scene of the crime. Oh, by the way you are not Euins, Brennan, nor Brewer.
Did Randle run up to Oswald with a tape measure? Or did she estimate the size of the bag carried by the (eventual) alleged assassin..
Mr Chapman....Glad to see you are correctly applying the adjective 'alleged' now. :-\
-
How would you carry the paper bag with a disassembled rifle so that it almost touches the ground? Wouldn't you have to cup your hand and support the rifle butt? If not, SHOW US.
By the top down at your side
-
How would you carry the paper bag with a disassembled rifle so that it almost touches the ground? Wouldn't you have to cup your hand and support the rifle butt? If not, SHOW US.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PSV0f9EAOD4/VhHBB8UhOpI/AAAAAAAAl28/MTMU7MkDc2M/s640/Dan%2BRather.jpg)
Dan Rather demo... Looks like a giant bottle of wine huh? Yeah-- nobody would have noticed anyone walking into a building with that! :D
-
Thought is definitely involved in everything I do. Randle first estimated a 36" package.
This is just flat out wrong.
Awfully close to 34.8", the only size that almost touches the ground
You’re not Randle. Or McNeely.
. The 27" length I've marked on my 34.6" device comes 10" from the ground at my 6' height.
Why would anybody believe that you did any of this? Just on your say so?
-
I've posted a photo of the grip I'm using
Is that you in the photo holding your 34.8 inch object? Why aren’t you showing the ground?
-
Thank God. Who would want to be the sister of the poor sap who drove the alleged killer to the (eventual) scene of the crime. Oh, by the way you are not Euins, Brennan, nor Brewer.
Says the guy who pretends that he knows Euins meant receding hairline when he said bald spot.
Did Randle run up to Oswald with a tape measure? Or did she estimate the size of the bag carried by the (eventual) alleged assassin..
Are you really this dense? She had McNeely hold his object to match what she saw, and then they measured it.
-
BFD. So Randle okayed McNeely's handling of the package as/per her instructions. But the WC said she was mistaken, and based that conclusion on her statement that the package carried by Oswald was 'almost touching the ground'
When did the WC say any of that?
-
When did the WC say any of that?
WCR Chapter 4 or 5, in the section where they described the McNeely/Randle thing.
-
Says the guy who pretends that he knows Euins meant receding hairline when he said bald spot.
Are you really this dense? She had McNeely hold his object to match what she saw, and then they measured it.
Point out where I said Euins meant receding hairline instead of bald spot.
You're rather slow: Randle estimated the size, ergo my crack about her not actually using a tape measure. They measured her estimation, Clouseau. Did McNeeley hold the package in a way that almost touched the ground, by any chance? This I gotta see.
-
But the WC said she was mistaken -- DOH
So was Frazier -- LOL
The WC would dismiss anything that didn't fit their fantasy.
They dismissed it based on the fact that the 27" length could have not have almost touched the ground. Too short.
-
You're totally lost, dude, they measure the length based on the "re-enactment".
Based on nothing but estimation & memory.
-
Who said it almost touched the ground?
You need to do either get off this thread or do some research.
Running your mouth here won't get you anywhere.
-
Linnie Mae said that the bag had the top "sort of turned down".
"Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand."
Doesn't sound like Chapman's description at all, and that certainly isn't the way Dan Rather's parcel is wrapped, as shown in post 117.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PSV0f9EAOD4/VhHBB8UhOpI/AAAAAAAAl28/MTMU7MkDc2M/s640/Dan%2BRather.jpg
-
WCR Chapter 4 or 5, in the section where they described the McNeely/Randle thing.
Cool citation, Bro. They didn’t describe the “McNeely/Randle thing” in the WCR.
-
Based on nothing but estimation & memory.
But we’re supposed to prefer Chapman’s estimate based on no memory.
-
But we’re supposed to prefer Chapman’s estimate based on no memory.
Keep gaslighting, coward
Now get a tape measure and prove me wrong
-
Keep gaslighting, coward
Now get a tape measure and prove me wrong
Get a photo program and show us your experiments.
-
Keep gaslighting, coward
Now get a tape measure and prove me wrong
Pick one.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack2.jpg)
-
FYI, Mrs. Randle is dead.
By altering my post (bolding a word where I didn't) you just might have earned yourself a suspension if Duncan happens by..
And what has Randle being dead have anything to do with gas lighting?
EDIT typo
3:21am
EST
-
Pick one.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack2.jpg)
You missed one
-
Cool citation, Bro. They didn’t describe the “McNeely/Randle thing” in the WCR.
NARA
-
By alternating my post (bolding a word where I didn't) you just might have earned yourself a suspension if Duncan happens by..
:'( waaaa... he bolded a word ...whine :'(
-
You missed one
You mean the one that puts the bag 5 inches under the floor?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack4.jpg)
LHO only has 29 inches from his cupped hand to the ground to work with. Maybe he dragged it.
-
:'( waaaa... he bolded a word ...whine :'(
Don't change my posts, troll..
-
"almost touched the ground" was months later -- LOL
research, Chappers?
That changes something?
-
You mean the one that puts the bag 5 inches under the floor?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack4.jpg)
LHO only has 29 inches from his cupped hand to the ground to work with. Maybe he dragged it.
Show that together with the other ones
-
Get a photo program and show us your experiments.
Do your own (proof-of-measurement) experiments.
You have every chance to prove me wrong.
-
You mean the one that puts the bag 5 inches under the floor?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack4.jpg)
LHO only has 29 inches from his cupped hand to the ground to work with. Maybe he dragged it.
Sorry Trojan but your self serving graphic doesn't accurately reflect Randle's testimony!
(https://i.postimg.cc/65Lj3fr6/Randlebagestyta-zpspojygidi.jpg)
JohnM
-
Show that together with the other ones
WTF are you talking about? You do know how to measure the length of the bag using Oswald as a 69 inch ruler, don't you? I know Mytton certainly doesn't.
Copy the image and paste it into Paint. Measure how many pixels is 69 inches? Ans: 544 pixels.
So how many pixels is 34 inches? Ans: x / 544 = 34 / 69, x = 268 pixels @7.9 pixels/inch
How many inches are there from the top of Oswald's head to his cupped right hand? Ans:315 pixels @7.9 pixels/inch = 40 inches.
That leaves 69 - 40 = 29 inches from Oswald's cupped hand to the floor.
The disassembled rifle was 34 inches. YOU DO THE MATH! (for a change)
-
Keep gaslighting, coward
You still don’t understand what that means.
Now get a tape measure and prove me wrong
I don’t have to “prove you wrong”. You haven’t proven you right.
-
By alternating my post (bolding a word where I didn't) you just might have earned yourself a suspension if Duncan happens by..
Why would Duncan suspend somebody for that?
-
NARA
Nonsensical.
-
Do your own (proof-of-measurement) experiments.
You have every chance to prove me wrong.
LOL - Jack already has. You’ve shown nothing.
As I said eons ago in this thread, you can get whatever result you want by how you hold your arm. Linnie Mae directed McNeely to hold the package to match what she actually saw. Your biased interpretation of her description is irrelevant.
-
“Alternating”. LOL.
-
I wonder if it was 'adulterated' or 'altered' he was going for. But I in no way intend to pile on such an easy target, so...soldier on Chappers, soldier on...
-
LOL - Jack already has. You’ve shown nothing.
As I said eons ago in this thread, you can get whatever result you want by how you hold your arm. Linnie Mae directed McNeely to hold the package to match what she actually saw. Your biased interpretation of her description is irrelevant.
Jack has shown no serious proof-of-measurement
And I've shown the grip I'm using... the grip that provides, by the way, the greatest chance of the 34.8" being too long to carry by the little twerp.
Eons ago, you claimed that a 2' package could be made to almost touch the ground. Your biased interpretation of her description is irrelevant w/o you showing what arm position gets a 27" package to almost touch the ground. By the way Ninnie May Ramble — oops, I mean Linnie Mae Randle — first estimated the package to be 28.5". And disagreed with Buell about the width of the package... by about 3"
So much for estimations
-
Nonsensical.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html
EXCERPT
The Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented that the bag Oswald carried contained the assassination weapon and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag. Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
-
Why would Duncan suspend somebody for that?
If you have to ask that, you shouldn't be here
-
"Alternating" is not a concept mentioned in the forum rules (neither is"bolding").
What does gaslighting have to do with you then?
It doesn't have anything to do with me
-
You still don’t understand what that means.
I don’t have to “prove you wrong”. You haven’t proven you right.
Define 'gaslighting'
And get a tape measure
-
“Alternating”. LOL.
Says TypoSuckJohnny
-
WTF are you talking about? You do know how to measure the length of the bag using Oswald as a 69 inch ruler, don't you? I know Mytton certainly doesn't.
Copy the image and paste it into Paint. Measure how many pixels is 69 inches? Ans: 544 pixels.
So how many pixels is 34 inches? Ans: x / 544 = 34 / 69, x = 268 pixels @7.9 pixels/inch
How many inches are there from the top of Oswald's head to his cupped right hand? Ans:315 pixels @7.9 pixels/inch = 40 inches.
That leaves 69 - 40 = 29 inches from Oswald's cupped hand to the floor.
The disassembled rifle was 34 inches. YOU DO THE MATH! (for a change)
I don't trust one gd word that comes from any CTroll. Therefore I expect you to do nothing more than fudge your results.
-
Sorry Trojan but your self serving graphic doesn't accurately reflect Randle's testimony!
(https://i.postimg.cc/65Lj3fr6/Randlebagestyta-zpspojygidi.jpg)
JohnM
Mytton forgot to show that she said the top of the bag was folded down, not scrunched up as shown in his creation.
He also omitted the further testimony of Linnie Mae.
"Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.
Mr. BALL. How about the width?
Mrs. RANDLE. The width is about right.
Mr. BALL. The width is about right.
Can you stand up here and show us how he was carrying it. Using this package as an example only?
Mrs. RANDLE. What he had in there, it looked too long.
Mr. BALL. This looks too long?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. About how long would you think the package would be, just measure it right on there.
Mrs. RANDLE. I would say about like this.
Mr. BALL. You mean from here to here?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand.
Mr. BALL. This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long. "
-
Jack has shown no serious proof-of-measurement
And I've shown the grip I'm using... the grip that provides, by the way, the greatest chance of the 34.8" being too long to carry by the little twerp.
Oswald had nothing on you in the little twerp department. And I’m not sure why you think your photo of a “grip” shows a damn thing.
Eons ago, you claimed that a 2' package could be made to almost touch the ground. Your biased interpretation of her description is irrelevant w/o you showing what arm position gets a 27" package to almost touch the ground.
This whole charade is irrelevant. You’re the one with the biased interpretation of her description and what “almost touched the ground” means. Randle (oh you can mock her name now - how clever) already showed McNeely exactly what she meant. You don’t have to guess.
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html
EXCERPT
The Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented that the bag Oswald carried contained the assassination weapon and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag. Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
Is this supposed to be a description of “the McNeely/Randle thing”?
-
Wow; another CTypoSuck
“Typo”. LOL.
-
If you have to ask that, you shouldn't be here
Are you under the impression that Duncan has a rule against bolding a word in a quotation?
-
I don't trust one gd word that comes from any CTroll. Therefore I expect you to do nothing more than fudge your results.
And your “gd word” should be trusted because . . . ?
I’ll bet the other LNers are embarrassed to have you on their side.
-
I don't trust one gd word that comes from any CTroll. Therefore I expect you to do nothing more than fudge your results.
My results (and methodology) are there for you and Mytton to refute, but you guys can't and don't want to actually measure anything, instead you focus on the "grip" LHO had on the bag that supports your position (whatever that is).
If you and Mytton are going to post images of Oswald holding a bag then you better make sure you have the scale correct (including LHO's giant hand) and post the numbers, otherwise, the images are worthless.
Here's Mytton's image of LHO holding the bag and I inserted the 34" MC stock in it to correct scale.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack_MC.jpg)
Mytton has LHO gripping the end of the stock and not the folded over 4" at the top of the 38" bag. Like I said before, LHO only has 29" from his hand to the ground so he cannot carry the 38" bag like a sack lunch without it touching the ground. I assume you knew this so you and Mytton made up a funky grip (with a giant hand) that crams in the LN narrative. And I thought you were going to measure something?
-
Oswald had nothing on you in the little twerp department. And I’m not sure why you think your photo of a “grip” shows a damn thing.
This whole charade is irrelevant. You’re the one with the biased interpretation of her description and what “almost touched the ground” means. Randle (oh you can mock her name now - how clever) already showed McNeely exactly what she meant. You don’t have to guess.
You talk the talk. Now show us exactly what grip & arm position McNeely used. My grip is the one allowing for the greatest extension to the ground of the package carried by your little twerp.
No one has ever called me a little twerp, TapeMeasureLessJohnny. Keep talking the talk. Oh, by the way, did Linnie see Oswald put a package in the car? You know, the kitchen/carport thing.
And Ramblin' Linnie progressively changed the package size from 3'-big-enough-to-hold-a rifle, down to 28.5" and finally to 27"
And her bro progressively changed his drawers as he realized he would be known, for the rest of his life, as the guy who delivered (COD, as it turned out) the little twerp probable assassin to the (eventual) scene of the crime.
-
You talk the talk. Now show us exactly what grip & arm position McNeely used. My grip is the one allowing for the greatest extension to the ground of the package carried by your little twerp.
No one has ever called me a little twerp, TapeMeasureLessJohnny. Keep talking the talk. Oh, by the way, did Linnie see Oswald put a package in the car? You know, the kitchen/carport thing.
And Ramblin' Linnie progressively changed the package size from 3'-big-enough-to-hold-a rifle, down to 28.5" and finally to 27"
My tape measure is photogrammetry, which is more accurate than whatever silly experiments you're concocting. Like Mytton, I actually used Oswald's image and known height and even included the MC in my measurements. Unlike Mytton, I know what I'm doing.
You never did answer my question re how many smeared prints were on the MC. There had to be a crapload, after all, since Oswald only had time to smear all the prints. You could have eaten off that rifle it was so clean.
Yet Oswald supposedly disassembled the rifle, placed its parts in the bag (with useless scope) smuggled it into the TSBD, reassembled it, fired it at least 3 times, ditched it and the only smeared print was on the trigger. One smeared print means Oswald wasn't wearing gloves, right? Then where were all the smeared prints on the stock, barrel, scope, strap, clip, ammo and bolt? Surely Oswald didn't wipe them all off in a few seconds, as you suggest.
-
My results (and methodology) are there for you and Mytton to refute, but you guys can't and don't want to actually measure anything, instead you focus on the "grip" LHO had on the bag that supports your position (whatever that is).
If you and Mytton are going to post images of Oswald holding a bag then you better make sure you have the scale correct (including LHO's giant hand) and post the numbers, otherwise, the images are worthless.
Here's Mytton's image of LHO holding the bag and I inserted the 34" MC stock in it to correct scale.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack_MC.jpg)
Mytton has LHO gripping the end of the stock and not the folded over 4" at the top of the 38" bag. Like I said before, LHO only has 29" from his hand to the ground so he cannot carry the 38" bag like a sack lunch without it touching the ground. I assume you knew this so you and Mytton made up a funky grip (with a giant hand) that crams in the LN narrative. And I thought you were going to measure something?
Actually I've measured everything.
And I don't agree with JohnM's depiction of the grip or hand. In fact, I've never discussed anything about this particular matter at all with JohnM
-
Actually I've measured everything
Sure you have..and then you woke up.
If you had some sort of proof supporting your claims, you'd shove it down our festering CT gobs faster than a speeding magic bullet.
So where's the beef? Surely Mytton can help you post your proof.
-
Sure you have..and then you woke up.
If you had some sort of proof supporting your claims, you'd shove it down our festering CT gobs faster than a speeding magic bullet.
So where's the beef? Surely Mytton can help you post your proof.
There you go again, revealing what you'd do.
-
You never did answer my question re how many smeared prints were on the MC. There had to be a crapload, after all, since Oswald only had time to smear all the prints. You could have eaten off that rifle it was so clean.
Yet Oswald supposedly disassembled the rifle, placed its parts in the bag (with useless scope) smuggled it into the TSBD, reassembled it, fired it at least 3 times, ditched it and the only smeared print was on the trigger. One smeared print means Oswald wasn't wearing gloves, right? Then where were all the smeared prints on the stock, barrel, scope, strap, clip, ammo and bolt? Surely Oswald didn't wipe them all off in a few seconds, as you suggest.
Bump
-
You talk the talk. Now show us exactly what grip & arm position McNeely used.
How the hell should I know? But Linnie Mae knew and that’s what counts.
My grip is the one allowing for the greatest extension to the ground of the package carried by your little twerp.
Your grip is irrelevant.
No one has ever called me a little twerp, TapeMeasureLessJohnny.
But you’re really good at dishing it out, aren’t you? :'(
Keep talking the talk. Oh, by the way, did Linnie see Oswald put a package in the car? You know, the kitchen/carport thing.
Only if she could see through walls.
And Ramblin' Linnie progressively changed the package size from 3'-big-enough-to-hold-a rifle, down to 28.5" and finally to 27"
Yeah we’re still waiting for your citation of Randle ever saying 3 feet.
And her bro progressively changed his drawers as he realized he would be known, for the rest of his life, as the guy who delivered (COD, as it turned out) the little twerp probable assassin to the (eventual) scene of the crime.
Cool story bro. Did you make that up yourself?
-
Don't change my posts, troll..
No one changed your silly stupid creepy post. You're losing it big time. Try some Prozac.
-
ROFL
But the dumb ass FBI agents didn't, right?
Chapman’s measurements are the greatest measurements in the history of measurements. Nobody makes measurements like he does. I mean his measurements are yuge....really yuge.
-
ROFL
But the dumb ass FBI agents didn't, right?
Show us the grip and arm position re McNeely/Randle
-
Chapman’s measurements are the greatest measurements in the history of measurements. Nobody makes measurements like he does. I mean his measurements are yuge....really yuge.
Show us the grip and arm position re McNeely/Randle
-
"greatest extension to the ground" -- LOL
>>> Let's see you get 27" any closer to the ground with any other grip
Another "first remembrance"?
>>> They said it. Ask them.
Can you show this stated anywhere in CE 2008?
>>> See above.
-
My tape measure is photogrammetry, which is more accurate than whatever silly experiments you're concocting. Like Mytton, I actually used Oswald's image and known height and even included the MC in my measurements. Unlike Mytton, I know what I'm doing.
You never did answer my question re how many smeared prints were on the MC. There had to be a crapload, after all, since Oswald only had time to smear all the prints. You could have eaten off that rifle it was so clean.
Yet Oswald supposedly disassembled the rifle, placed its parts in the bag (with useless scope) smuggled it into the TSBD, reassembled it, fired it at least 3 times, ditched it and the only smeared print was on the trigger. One smeared print means Oswald wasn't wearing gloves, right? Then where were all the smeared prints on the stock, barrel, scope, strap, clip, ammo and bolt? Surely Oswald didn't wipe them all off in a few seconds, as you suggest.
You're dissing my re-con before seeing the result
Keep talking the talk. In the meantime, I've shown my grip.
Now, show us McNeely's
Why ask me about fingerprints
That's been R&R'd forever
Let's see you find usable prints on any murder weapon
FFS, look it up already
I heard there were a couple of smeared prints on the trigger guard
Shouldn't you know that by now?
-
Photo showing a baseball grip on a bag with the top folded down as described by Linnie Mae.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9zyddYDz/Baseball-grip.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9zyddYDz)
-
You're dissing my re-con before seeing the result
Keep talking the talk. In the meantime, I've shown my grip.
Now, show us McNeely's
Any way you slice it, Oswald only had 29 inches from his cupped hand to the ground. The stock was 34 inches. During your re-con, did the bag reach the ground with your "baseball grip"?
Why ask me about fingerprints
That's been R&R'd forever
Ahem, topic = "How to wipe down your weapon of choice real quick". Tap..tap, is this thing on?
Let's see you find usable prints on any murder weapon
FFS, look it up already
I heard there were a couple of smeared prints on the trigger guard
Shouldn't you know that by now?
Who else has to assemble their murder weapon before firing it? So where are the smeared prints all over the barrel, bolt, clip, ammo and scope? Oswald must have handled all of them while reassembling the rifle.
Maybe Walt can do an experiment with his MC (since I know you never will). Wipe the MC down completely, disassemble it, place it in a bag, remove the parts and reassemble it, put the clip in, pull the trigger 3 times and set it down. Then see how many prints were on it and how long it takes to remove them. Is this one of the experiments you are doing, which is more in line with your OP? If so then, where's the beef?
-
Photo showing a baseball grip on a bag with the top folded down as described by Linnie Mae.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9zyddYDz/Baseball-grip.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9zyddYDz)
Randle said the bag was tapered toward the top with just a bit showing
More the shape of a gun bag... he would be actually grasping the weapon, not just the bag.
My 34.6" package held straight down comes to about 3" from ground zero
Knock off 3" from my 6' and Oswald's (finally) got himself big swinging d*ck almost touching the ground
-
Randle said the bag was tapered toward the top with just a bit showing
More the shape of a gun bag... he would be actually grasping the weapon, not just the bag.
My 34.6" package held straight down comes to about 3" from ground zero
Knock off 3" from my 6' and Oswald's (finally) got himself big swinging d*" almost touching the ground
As I've said previously many times, don't tell us, Chapman, show us.
Linnie Mae Randle to the W.C.
"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.
-
As I've said previously many times, don't tell us, Chapman, show us.
Linnie Mae Randle to the W.C.
"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.
Pretty sure she said the bag seemed heavier at the bottom
Was he going to have rocks for lunch?
Plus I'm sure he wasn't a statue and could bend his arm at the elbow, and Buell said his sleeves were bulky.
-
Pretty sure she said the bag seemed heavier at the bottom
BS:
Was he going to have rocks for lunch?
Another poor attempt at humor?
Plus I'm sure he wasn't a statue and could bend his arm at the elbow, and Buell said his sleeves were bulky.
Citse for the all the above statements, please, Chapman.
-
BS:
Citse for the above statements, please, Chapman.
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
-
Mr. BallL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Aren't all heavy bags heavy towards the bottom?
Where did Buell say his sleeves were bulky?
-
Aren't all heavy bags heavy towards the bottom?
Where did Buell say his sleeves were bulky?
::)
Not the bag by itself, professor.
And neither curtain rods nor a chicken w/Apple lunch qualify as being heavy
Bulky, baggy... whatever
Not that you're nitpicking..
Gd gaslighter
-
::)
Not the bag by itself, professor.
NSS! How heavy can an empty bag be, professor?
And neither curtain rods nor a chicken w/Apple lunch qualify as being heavy
Bulky, baggy... whatever
Not that you're nitpicking..
Gd gaslighter
Not nitpicking at all. Just picking your arguments apart.
"“The replica was shortened by folding the open top down to reach the desired length. Then accordance with Mrs Randle’s observations, Special Agent MC Neely grasped the top this sack with his hand much like a right handed batter would pick up a baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs Randle’s estimate it was measured and found to be 27” long."
-
NSS! How heavy can an empty bag be, professor?
Not nitpicking at all. Just picking your arguments apart.
"“The replica was shortened by folding the open top down to reach the desired length. Then accordance with Mrs Randle’s observations, Special Agent MC Neely grasped the top this sack with his hand much like a right handed batter would pick up a baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs Randle’s estimate it was measured and found to be 27” long."
Just picking your arguments apart
>>> Well, there's some more CT bravado for you
Btw, just how wide is the gun/curtain-rod bag, anyway?
-
Just picking your arguments apart
>>> Well, there's some more CT bravado for you
Btw, just how wide is the gun/curtain-rod bag, anyway?
As you said some time ago to John Iacoletti "If you have to ask that, you shouldn't be here"
-
It’s always “nitpicking” when Chapman gets stuff wrong. So she didn’t actually say “tapered toward the top” either, right?
-
As you said some time ago to John Iacoletti "If you have to ask that, you shouldn't be here"
LOL. Do you really think that the admin means that particular rule to apply to anything other than moral standards?
Making changes in another poster's blue box is not allowed here. It's a question of morality. You still don't understand that.
Btw, I know of several claimed sizes; for instance Don Roberdeau indicated 7.7" in his drawing. The sister of the guy who delivered the probable assassin to the (eventual) scene of the crime said something around 8". Said 'bro claimed something like 5.5". And I've seen claims hovering around 9.5"
Can I at least get a hint from you... am I getting warm? Are any of the claims in the ballpark? Or are they all out in left field..
EDIT:
Added comments
8:36pm EST
-
Making changes in another poster's blue box is not allowed here. It's a question of morality. You still don't understand that.
Who said that’s not allowed here? You?
Btw, I know of several claimed sizes; for instance Don Roberdeau indicated 7.7" in his drawing, the sister of the guy who delivered the probable assassin to the (eventual) scene of the crime said something around 8". Said 'bro claimed something like 5.5". I've seen claims hovering around 9.5"
“Probable assassin”. LOL.
-
Who said that’s not allowed here? You?
“Probable assassin”. LOL.
Try changing anything directly in my blue boxes and find out, heathen.
And what are you laughing at, Chuckles? Try telling us the width of the bag.
-
There is still the matter of no fingerprints produced on the spent cartridges.. On the clip.. On any live rounds in the clip..From shells supposedly recovered at the Tippit scene..and even prints on any bullets from this .38 revolver supposedly taken from the Texas Theater & no prints were processed from Tippit's squad car.
Did the Invisible Man wipe everything down?
Review... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,154.msg2738.html#msg2738
-
Try changing anything directly in my blue boxes and find out, heathen.
Your mom’s a blue box.
And what are you laughing at, Chuckles? Try telling us the width of the bag.
There’s no rule about changing blue boxes, but there is a rule against referring to somebody by other than his or her forum user name.
The width of what bag?
-
Show us the grip and arm position re McNeely/Randle
Bill Chapman is constantly chasing his tail. This whole discussion [if you can call it that] occurred back in the Name Your Shooter thread.... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1546.msg60891.html#msg60891
For crying out loud!...Randle was lying...Frazier was lying and he still is--
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2222.msg63150.html#msg63150
...and that is all the Commission had...LIES-- There was no 'Curtain Rod' bag..Stop measuring a bag that did not exist...someone created this bag...and waved it around as the one true bag. So get back on topic for Pete's sake.
-
Bill Chapman is constantly chasing his tail. This whole discussion [if you can call it that] occurred back in the Name Your Shooter thread.... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1546.msg60891.html#msg60891
For crying out loud!...Randle was lying...Frazier was lying and he still is--
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2222.msg63150.html#msg63150
...and that is all the Commission had...LIES-- There was no 'Curtain Rod' bag..Stop measuring a bag that did not exist...someone created this bag...and waved it around as the one true bag. So get back on topic for Pete's sake.
Thumb1:
-
Thumb1:
???
You seem to be fading in the stretch...
-
Your mom’s a blue box.
There’s no rule about changing blue boxes, but there is a rule against referring to somebody by other than his or her forum user name.
The width of what bag?
>>> My mom died in 1990
>>> From the admin: "Quotes, images and /or articles from members of this forum, or from outside sources, must not be altered in a manner that is designed to deceive, and must reference the name of the who is person being quoted. Changing a persons quoted blue box words in ANY way is not allowed"
>>> The gun/lunch/curtain-rod bag
-
Bill Chapman is constantly chasing his tail. This whole discussion [if you can call it that] occurred back in the Name Your Shooter thread.... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1546.msg60891.html#msg60891
For crying out loud!...Randle was lying...Frazier was lying and he still is--
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2222.msg63150.html#msg63150
...and that is all the Commission had...LIES-- There was no 'Curtain Rod' bag..Stop measuring a bag that did not exist...someone created this bag...and waved it around as the one true bag. So get back on topic for Pete's sake.
Tell us what bag to measure, Sherlock
And tell us about Randle's Incredibly Shrinking Bag
Must have been out in the rain..
-
Tell us what bag to measure, Sherlock
Measure your own if it is indeed measurable :-\
-
Measure your own if it is indeed measurable :-\
Same as a broken-down Carcano
-
Same as a broken-down Carcano
Touche :)
-
Same as a broken-down Carcano
How wide did you say it was, Chapman?
Incidentally swear words (even shortened) are not allowed according to the forum rules. so keep your bad language to yourself.
-
How wide did you say it was, Chapman?
Incidentally swear words (even shortened) are not allowed according to the forum rules. so keep your bad language to yourself.
You still can't provide a width. That's helpful.
One of your species, Don Roberdeau, indicates a 7.7" width for the gun/lunch/curtain-rod bag.
I'll go for the 8" Randle estimated.
Or would you prefer the 5.5" (or so) Buell apparently estimated...
Regarding forum rules, the one that is most important by far is the one protecting a poster from having anything at all altered within the confines of his blue box.
That includes emphasizing words where the poster did not do so himself.
EDIT: Corrected 'hisblue' to 'his blue'
2:40pm EST
-
You still can't provide a width. That's helpful.
One of your species, Don Roberdeau, indicates a 7.7" width for the gun/lunch/curtain-rod bag.
I'll go for the 8" Randle estimated.
Or would you prefer the 5.5" (or so) Buell apparently estimated...
~*~You still can't provide a width. That's helpful~*~
It would appear from this entire exchange that the measurement that you were actually after was the girth instead? Am I reading this correctly?
-
~*~You still can't provide a width. That's helpful~*~
It would appear from this entire exchange that the measurement that you were actually after was the girth instead? Am I reading this correctly?
Tell us your bag width
-
Tell us your daiper width it's equally relevant.
Not to Oswald: The smaller the package profile, the fewer 'eyes on'. Especially Buell's. After all, who would pay attention to a bag he was told contained curtain rods.
-
a bag he was told contained curtain rods -- LOL
No supporting evidence for his claim means your width requirement is all BS.
So you don't know the width either. And there certainly is no evidence for curtain rods ever been in the package Oswald took to work that morning.
Ask Buell what Oswald told him about why he wanted to go out to Irving a day early
And what he was told when he asked Oswald about the package in the back seat the next morning
-
And the purpose of asking him questions already answered would be?
Tell us why you don't know the width of the bag
-
I wasn't in Irving that day (or any other day).
And the purpose of asking him questions already answered would be?
Tongue-in-cheek
-
Head-in-bag
CTer thumbs-up-butts
-
Does your version of 'real' research include the fact that fingerprints are easily smudged/removed by a simple wipe with a cloth?
BS. Make that one of your experiments then get back to us.
And by the way, did they find the screwdriver that Oswald must have thrown in the bag so he could re-assemble the rifle? Or did he use a dime?
And did they find the gloves he must have worn to not get any prints on the stock, bolt, barrel, scope, clip, shells and strap as he was re-assembling the rifle? Or did he take a few minutes to wipe down ALL his prints, except for his post-mortem palm print?
And how many prints did the Keystone Cops DPD leave on everything from bare-handling all the evidence, such as Fritz's prints on the 3 hulls in the SN?
"..fingerprints are easily smudged/removed by a simple wipe with a cloth" my arse. Show us or get off the pot.
-
BS. Make that one of your experiments then get back to us.
And by the way, did they find the screwdriver that Oswald must have thrown in the bag so he could re-assemble the rifle? Or did he use a dime?
And did they find the gloves he must have worn to not get any prints on the stock, bolt, barrel, scope, clip, shells and strap as he was re-assembling the rifle? Or did he take a few minutes to wipe down ALL his prints, except for his post-mortem palm print?
And how many prints did the Keystone Cops DPD leave on everything from bare-handling all the evidence, such as Fritz's prints on the 3 hulls in the SN?
"..fingerprints are easily smudged/removed by a simple wipe with a cloth" my arse. Show us or get off the pot.
You clearly need help
-
You clearly need help
I know you are but what am I? Check & mate!
-
With so many "sweltering in place" indefinitely, it seems past due the time to revisit this subject "matter". Time is likely not the only thing participants in this once busy thread now have on their hands.
"Wiping the weapon down quickly" attracted 23 pages of impressively informative chatter, in the last "go round".
-
There is still the matter of no fingerprints produced on the spent cartridges.. On the clip.. On any live rounds in the clip..From shells supposedly recovered at the Tippit scene..and even prints on any bullets from this .38 revolver supposedly taken from the Texas Theater & no prints were processed from Tippit's squad car.
Did the Invisible Man wipe everything down?
I wonder if some peoples fingers are oilier than others and so Oswald might not have been someone that easily left finger prints.
-
I wonder if some peoples fingers are oilier than others and so Oswald might not have been someone that easily left finger prints.
no prints were processed from Tippit's squad car.
I believe that Pete Barnes lifted prints from the cowl and right front fender of Tippit's squad car.....(There are photos of Barnes working that area of Tippit's car.
The prints he found were purported to be good clear prints. We can safely assume that the prints were NOT Lee Oswald's prints because it they had been they would have been enlarged to cover the the cover of LIFE magazine, just as they did with the BY photo.
-
Bill Chapman on July 17, 2019, 11:18:42 PM
Did I imply that he wanted to be caught, Colin?
You said you reckoned he expected to be caught, as I repeated. Are you arguing with yourself here? Was he concerned with leaving prints or not, in your considered opinion?
Are you arguing with yourself here?
Is that why both of him always lose?
Did I ever ask what the opening video has to do with wiping down weapons?
And if I was Bruce Willis ..I would have kept that machine pistol. Also he should have made a whew -stinky restroom face when John Trivolta came out..I thought that would have been unique.
-
The quick-wipe revisited
(In more ways than one)
'Pulp Fiction' Vince wipes bum, Butch wipes out Vince, Butch wipes out prints
-
How was the Uzi a 'weapon of choice'?-----It was the only one there.
-
How was the Uzi a 'weapon of choice'?-----It was the only one there.
Your reply speaks volumes
You're totally disconnected from reality
And you ignored the quick wipe-down
We are not amused
-
How was the Uzi a 'weapon of choice'?-----It was the only one there.
That's a MAC-10 or MAC-11, not an uzi
-
That's a MAC-10 or MAC-11, not an uzi
OK it was actually a Mac-10. Whoopispombleprofglidnoctobuns!!
These guys are so desperate for their 'gotcha' moment that they start peeing in their pants :D
BTW If one watches carefully... Bruce fails to wipe down the bottom of the barrel.
-
OK it was actually a Mac-10. Whoopispombleprofglidnoctobuns!!
These guys are so desperate for their 'gotcha' moment that they start peeing in their pants :D
BTW If one watches carefully... Bruce fails to wipe down the bottom of the barrel.
These guys are so desperate for their 'gotcha' moment that they start peeing in their pants
> Not that you're an adolescent
> BTW, Oswald failed to wipe down the top of the Carcano barrel.
> And the Travolta character was more likely to be the one peeing himself
-
These guys are so desperate for their 'gotcha' moment that they start peeing in their pants
> Not that you're an adolescent
> BTW, Oswald failed to wipe down the top of the Carcano barrel.
> And the Travolta character was more likely to be the one peeing himself
Hello...are you actually citing a fantasy "movie" to make your point? And what was in that briefcase, anyway? Royale with cheese, I say! At least is wasn't a commercial.
-
Hello...are you actually citing a fantasy "movie" to make your point? And what was in that briefcase, anyway? Royale with cheese, I say! At least is wasn't a commercial.
You lot ignore the universally-known fact that usable fingerprints are extremely hard to recover.
A simple wipe with a sleeve or a cloth can render them useless for ID purposes.
The science backs me up here. And the way I sometimes make my point involves using visuals.
It's what what artists/designers do. BTW, do you lot know what a 'storyboard' is, by any chance?
And finally, are you claiming that usable fingerprints are easy to find and hard to remove?
-
OK it was actually a Mac-10. Whoopispombleprofglidnoctobuns!!
These guys are so desperate for their 'gotcha' moment that they start peeing in their pants :D
BTW If one watches carefully... Bruce fails to wipe down the bottom of the barrel.
It's not a gotcha, just a PSA. If you're going to bring it up, Freeman, do it right.
-
The prints he found were purported to be good clear prints. We can safely assume that the prints were NOT Lee Oswald's prints because it they had been they would have been enlarged to cover the the cover of LIFE magazine, just as they did with the BY photo.
Kinda like the way they didn't find any of Oswald's prints on the lunch bag and soft drink bottle so they decided they weren't useful and discarded them.
-
Hello...are you actually citing a fantasy "movie" to make your point?
He's unnaturally fixated on movie clips.
-
You lot ignore the fact that fingerprints are extremely hard to recover
A simple wipe with a sleeve or a cloth can render them useless for ID purposes
The science backs me up here
You mean the scientific method? You can test your claims by doing an easy peasy experiment. Take a rifle (preferably the MC but a Mauser will do ;) ) then get Walt to:
1) Disassemble the rifle so it will fit into a ~34" long bag
2) If you iz a smart assassin, wipe down all the parts thoroughly
3) With gloves, place the pieces into the "clean" bag
4) With your bare hands carry the bag any way you like the same approx. distance as Oz did right up to the 6th floor of the TSBD
5) With your bare hands remove the pieces from the bag and reassemble the rifle
6) Take 3 shots in less than 10 seconds and work that bolt and hope to hell you don't lock up (don't load the clip private!)
7) Barehand the rifle <1 minute tops before ditching it (this is the control)
7b) *For your 2nd round, wipe off the prints like Oz supposedly did before dusting for prints
8 ) With gloves, take the bag and your rifle to your subterranean basement forensic lab to dust and lift the prints
9) Note the quality, quantity of the prints on both items and document all the evidence with photos
10) Wipe off the prints with your sleeve and note how long it takes it remove and/or smear the dusted prints
11) *Bonus>>>Do the same with Oz's .38 that killed Tippit. Oz left no prints on that one and the hulls either
Have a few Oz surrogates do 2 rounds each and I'll bet you get your answer. Or you can get Walt to do it. He'd never fudge the data.
BTW, how many smeared prints were found on the rifle anyway? And what about all the DPD that manhandled it? What about their prints? What would your experts say about the likelihood of having zero prints, smeared or otherwise? That would be devastating to your case, right? You would expect a reassembled rifle to be loaded with prints. The rifle should be a mess of smeared prints. So where are the damn reports? Where are all the forensics? Didn't the FBI think this kind of stuff was important? Wasn't this the assassination of the POTUS? The whole thing stinks from start to finish. Ignore it at your peril.
Good luck! :)
-
He's unnaturally fixated on movie clips.
Not that you're stalking me..
-
You mean the scientific method? You can test your claims by doing an easy peasy experiment. Take a rifle (preferably the MC but a Mauser will do ;) ) then get Walt to:
1) Disassemble the rifle so it will fit into a ~34" long bag
2) If you iz a smart assassin, wipe down all the parts thoroughly
3) With gloves, place the pieces into the "clean" bag
4) With your bare hands carry the bag any way you like the same approx. distance as Oz did right up to the 6th floor of the TSBD
5) With your bare hands remove the pieces from the bag and reassemble the rifle
6) Take 3 shots in less than 10 seconds and work that bolt and hope to hell you don't lock up (don't load the clip private!)
7) Barehand the rifle <1 minute tops before ditching it (this is the control)
7b) *For your 2nd round, wipe off the prints like Oz supposedly did before dusting for prints
8 ) With gloves, take the bag and your rifle to your subterranean basement forensic lab to dust and lift the prints
9) Note the quality, quantity of the prints on both items and document all the evidence with photos
10) Wipe off the prints with your sleeve and note how long it takes it remove and/or smear the dusted prints
11) *Bonus>>>Do the same with Oz's .38 that killed Tippit. Oz left no prints on that one and the hulls either
Have a few Oz surrogates do 2 rounds each and I'll bet you get your answer. Or you can get Walt to do it. He'd never fudge the data.
BTW, how many smeared prints were found on the rifle anyway? And what about all the DPD that manhandled it? What about their prints? What would your experts say about the likelihood of having zero prints, smeared or otherwise? That would be devastating to your case, right? You would expect a reassembled rifle to be loaded with prints. The rifle should be a mess of smeared prints. So where are the damn reports? Where are all the forensics? Didn't the FBI think this kind of stuff was important? Wasn't this the assassination of the POTUS? The whole thing stinks from start to finish. Ignore it at your peril.
Good luck! :)
Are you claiming the investigators manhandled the Carcano?
-
Are you claiming the investigators manhandled the Carcano?
Well they did. Fritz worked the bolt to eject the remaining bullet and did so without testing the bolt action for fingerprints. Plus he didn't take photos of the rifle in situ.
-
Well they did. Fritz worked the bolt to eject the remaining bullet and did so without testing the bolt action for fingerprints. Plus he didn't take photos of the rifle in situ.
Are you claiming investigators manhandled the Carcano to an extent that would leave it covered in fingerprints? Are you suggesting that latent, usable prints are easy to find and difficult to remove?
In regards Fritz, are you sure that immediately disarming (so-to-speak) any given firearm shouldn't be considered top-of-mind in any circumstance, let alone a suspected murder weapon?
-
It's not a gotcha, just a PSA. If you're going to bring it up, Freeman, do it right.
Blah blah blah--- A what? Public Service Announcement?.....It was a stupid prop from a movie. Do you have to be so condescending all of the time? Well they did. Fritz worked the bolt to eject the remaining bullet and did so without testing the bolt action for fingerprints. Plus he didn't take photos of the rifle in situ.
The bolt [most probably] would have had no useful prints. And at the time a fired cartridge shell would probably not leave detectable fingerprints. However, by his own admission...Fritz fouled up the live cartridge and what... put it in his pocket?
-
The bolt [most probably] would have had no useful prints.
Yeah but "most probably" isn't good enough for the crime of the century.