The fact that he can't be refuted easily Jerry is why the LNers ignored this topic. They only respond to things that they can easily obfuscate.
Thanks for reading my post.
Since I don't have the evidence to hand you can dismiss this but still, fwiw,
no motorcycle cop went up the slope on his bike and the one cop that actually tried to, did not then head for the TSBD, that's a blantant alteration and it happens in at least two other similar statements and IIRC one was also taken by the same interviewer. So according to the feds three men atop the underpass saw the cop ride up and then {u] head for the TSBD[/u] (Winborns's statement however is a rather accurate description of what Hargis did). Also note how they descibe where Simmons saw smoke.
Robert Jackson says the exact same thing about the bike cop in much later appearances, despite only getting out of his own vehicle to follow this same cop up the knoll and had no interest in going in the TSBD where he claimed he saw another one run into.
Now this is what I don't have the most, there is a stabilized gif of the Bell film showing the men on the OP and some of them(three at least) are "clearly" waving or clapping at the limo, one of them I suspect is Simmons, a tall suspect in perhaps dungerees.
Dillard's last photo in the plaza shows both Simmons and Holland still up there a minute later, the latter having moved to his right(and now stood next to Simmons) probably to get a better view up the street.
Bowers was another one who claimed to see the bike cop ride up the grass, despite it being impossible to see from his position, to me it seems obvious he's heard it from one of the others, that is they've all had time to sit around and listen and compare stories. All these men should have been seperated and questioned on the spot. "...Anything you don't say today and later rely on(for Oswald's defence)..."
'Discussion' wouldn't be necessarily vital to any response.
On record is the workers statements along with several other spectators- lending credence- that a shot or shots came from behind the fence.
This revelation was completely ignored by the Warren Commission.
Absolutely criminal.
The railroad employees standing atop the Triple Underpass held unique physical positions as they viewed the assassination of JFK: (1) They held a High Ground viewing position, (2) Anything traveling down Elm St was heading almost Directly toward them, (JFK Limo, DPD Motorcycle Cops, JFK Motorcade, etc), and (3) They were the very 1st people to enter the parking lot behind the picket fence immediately after the JFK Limo passed underneath the Triple Underpass. These guys had the optimum viewing position Before, During, and Immediately following the shots being fired. Based on their viewing position and the Fact they corroborate what each of them saw, their Eyewitness accounts of the JFK Assassination can Not be Understated.
...where GK theorists like to put a shooter. For them, shots from the GK would come from the same direction as the TSBD, and vice versa.Still asserting that the 3 OP witnesses' hearing and vision were not functioning properly?
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
four shots were fired
the ..fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. The HSCA concluded the existence and location of this alleged fourth shot based on the later discredited Dallas Police Department Dictabelt recording analysis.
Still asserting that the 3 OP witnesses' hearing and vision were not functioning properly?
OK..whatever...like you would know this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
Is there some significance if he rode up the knoll or not? Is the proof he did not the Z film? What was blocking Bowers view Your idea that Bowers? lied about what he saw was because he talked to the others crosses the line of speculative entitlement imo
I never said Bowers lied Matt, didn't even suggest it, it's not what I think at all. Witnesses swapping stories with others before giving statements is a very bad thing for us, for factfinding.
No Bowers could not see anyone ride up the knoll on a bike from that tower, I know because I've seen pictures taken from inside it, haven't you? His view is blocked by the fence on it's own even without the foilage, he couldn't even see Hargis with his little run to the grass and back, that view of the entire section of street was blocked by the pergola. The first time he saw the parade was before the shooting even started for two brief seconds, the next as it approached Stemmons, I know this because I've studied the images of the view from inisde the tower.
I know Sam Holland's VISION wasn't obstructed and he saw the SMOKE come out from the trees....that's the same smoke that Ralph Yarborough smelled at street level. You've seen the "smoke " picture with the limo still in the picture, right ?
It wouldn't be in the Zfilm, it came later, Haygood comes in around the 30s mark, approaches the curb directly in the Atkins film soon after and around 10s later still, Couch shows the same cop on his feet a little further down the curb holding his bike up, cop then runs up the knoll on foot,
Did another cop attempt to do the same thing that Haygood failed to? That's what some have speculated in order to explain it but not this chap, there's no evidence for it.
So Bowers could not have known about any bike cop getting off and running anywhere or riding up the knoll unless others talked to him.
Some speculation ends when you have the right image, if you can't find one I'll try and find it for you, IIRC Groden took the best one, a very nice wide shot.
Witnesses sometimes take in what they hear and make it part of their own memories, this is common place and you must know it, it's best avoided and in good policing italways is when possible and the idea is far from contoversial.
The complicating factor being that, from the TP witness' perspective on the overpass, the SE corner of the TSBD is almost directly in line with the corner of the picket fence, where GK theorists like to put a shooter. For them, shots from the GK would come from the same direction as the TSBD, and vice versa.
Witnesses sometimes take in what they hear and make it part of their own memories, this is common place and you must know it, it's best avoided and in good policing italways is when possible and the idea is far from contoversial.
I know Sam Holland's vision wasn't obstructed and he saw smoke... you've seen the smoke picture with the limo... right?
What have you been smokin', Mitch?
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/dp-line.gif)
I and I ain't the ganjamon here, Tosh. Your own graphic proves what I said, namely, "from the TP witness' perspective on the overpass, the SE corner of the TSBD is almost directly in line with the corner of the picket fence, where GK theorists like to put a shooter."
I can't say I've ever seen anyone put a GK shooter very far from the corner of the fence. Have you?
Define "almost".
Yes. But even the corner of the fence is not "almost" directly in line with the SE corner of the TSBD. And certainly nowhere near the line of fire to the limo at Z313.
I know Sam Holland's VISION wasn't obstructed and he saw the SMOKE come out from the trees....that's the same smoke that Ralph Yarborough smelled at street level. You've seen the "smoke " picture with the limo still in the picture, right ?
Nonsense.
Unless of course, you can be bothered to show this "smoke picture with the limo still in the picture".
Can you?
The Nix film a few seconds after the assassination pans along the grassy knoll fence and I don't see no smoke?
JohnM
There is not picture showing smoke, as claimed by forum member Jim Brazell.
I'm sure he is mistaking a still frame from the Weigman film for a "picture".
Regardless, there is no still frame from Weigman showing smoke, either.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_snapshot20111219191957.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_bond4_Annotated.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20frames/normal_20160712-113449.JPG) |
The "puff of smoke" seen in the Weigman film is just a cluster of bright fall foliage.
As for "almost," I mean within a few degrees.
Oswald's type of rifle
the Italian Carcano is typical of modern firearms in that they produce little smoke and that dissipates in a couple of seconds.
Well that clears it up. :D
Are you sure it wasn't actually a smidgen?
Somebody better tell Sam Holland, Lee Bowers, Richard Dodd, and James Simmons that what they saw and smelled was fall foliage.
Somebody better tell Sam Holland, Lee Bowers, Richard Dodd, and James Simmons that what they saw and smelled was fall foliage.
It's just small enough an indefinite value to keep the pointlessly obtuse pointless and obtuse, apparently.
Somebody better tell Sam Holland, Lee Bowers, Richard Dodd, and James Simmons that what they saw and smelled was fall foliage.
and smelled
And this changes witnesses seeing smoke how?
In other words, when you said "For them, shots from the GK would come from the same direction as the TSBD", you didn't really actually mean "same direction".
You wanna take a stab at it? Or are you going to push it down the memory hole again?
Your question is moot. Something is either the same direction or it is not.
This question can be easily answered by noting that "human-measurable" scales regarding direction don't get any more precise than a 16 point compass rose. So direction in this case, is only accurate to within +/- 11 degrees.
If you had just said 3 degrees off or whatever, then we wouldn't be having this argument.
Further proof that your sole purpose here is to argue; nothing more.
Says the guy who spent weeks arguing over the difference between "Brennan saw the man with a gun" and Brennan saw a man with a gun".
And you believe you had no part in that argument?
You play devil's advocate, nothing more. It serves a purpose some of the time but it's worthless most of the time.
More worthless rhetoric to try to distract from the fact that you have a lousy case.
Witnesses Who Smelled "Gunpowder" in Dealey Plaza
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smell.htm
Conspiracy authors like to quote witnesses in Dealey Plaza who smelled "gunpowder" in the air at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Supposedly, they could not have smelled gunpowder from a snot from the Sniper's Nest in the Depository, so what they smelled must have been the result of a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Yet Earle V. Brown was a Dallas cop who was stationed on the railroad overpass that crossed the Stemmons Freeway. By his own estimation he was about 100 yards from the Triple Underpass. The following testimony can be found in WC volume 6, pp. 233-234:
Mr. BALL. Did you hear the shots?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. How many?
Mr. BROWN. Three.
Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?
Mr. BROWN. Well, they seemed high to me, actually; if you want, would you like me to tell you?
Mr. BALL Sure, tell it in your own words.
Mr. BROWN. Well, down in that river bottom there, there's a whole lot of pigeons this particular day, and they heard the shots before we did because I saw them flying up ? must have been 50, 75 of them.
Mr. BALL. Where was the river bottom?
Mr. BROWN. You know, actually off to the ? between us and the, this overpass you are talking about there's kind of a levee along there. It's really a grade of the railroad, is what it is; that's where they were and then I heard these shots and then I smelled this gun powder.
Mr. BALL. You did?
Mr. BROWN. It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so ? at least it smelled like it to me.
Mr. BALL. What direction did the sound seem to come from?
Mr. BROWN. It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas . . .
Mr. BALL. School Book Depository?
Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository.
The location of the Stemmons Freeway railroad overpass can be seen in the following photo:
Is it plausible that an officer could smell gunpowder from shots in Dealey Plaza from 100 yards past the Underpass in the opposite direction? And that any such smell would still be in the air two minutes after the shooting?
To make matters worse, the wind in Dealey Plaza at the time of the head shot was from the southwest. This can be clearly seen in a frame from the Muchmore film. The coats of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show a brisk wind.
The wind would thus have carried any "gunpowder" smell away from Officer Brown, who was due west or perhaps west-northwest of the Plaza.
So it seems that these reports of "smelling gunpowder" have to be explained in psychological, rather than narrow olfactory, terms. As Gary Nivaggi has suggested:
I too do not believe that there was any gunpowder smell following the shooting, but a similar "combustion by-product" odor combined with the psychological effect may have caused the confusion. Those enormous, inefficient V-8 engines in the motorcade vehicles would, under the obvious rapid or full throttle acceleration, give off some very strong exhaust fumes. Upon passing through these fumes, especially after hearing the shots, those fumes could be mistaken for gunpowder smells.
More worthless rhetoric to try to distract from the fact that you have a lousy case.
Anyone who says that the case against Oswald for the assassination of President Kennedy is "lousy" simply is not familiar with all of the evidence in the case. Oswald probably killed Kennedy and probably did it alone.
Anyone who says that the case against Oswald for the murder of J.D. Tippit is "lousy" is definitely not familiar with all of the evidence in the case. Oswald definitely killed Tippit and he definitely did it alone.
Your problem; not mine.
More worthless rhetoric to try and distract from the fact that this case is a slam dunk and Oswald would have fried.
More worthless rhetoric from PaidToTrollHereJohnny, who tells us what witnesses saw or didn't see, LN posters what they meant or didn't mean, and that everyone who disagrees with him is a liar, lemming, and stupid.
And throws his own kind under the bus in order to cover his own arse no matter what the cost.
Says the guy who spent weeks arguing over the difference between "Brennan saw the man with a gun" and Brennan saw a man with a gun".
Same direction does not mean 11 degrees off. Especially when that figure is just pulled out of nowhere. Same direction means same direction.
Do you really think your rhetoric is at all compelling? It's one thing to just declare that "Oswald probably killed Kennedy and probably did it alone." Quite another to demonstrate that it's actually true.
Says the guy who argued ad nauseum about the 'difference' between Buell saying Oswald had the bag as he went in the door and not using 'saw'
That is nitpicking and hairsplitting taken to absurd depths.
Do you really think your rhetoric is at all compelling? It's one thing to just declare that "there is a problem with the chain of custody of the evidence". Quite another to demonstrate that it's actually true.
Tom Meros: And when he walked on ahead of you could you even see the package?
Buell Frazier: No
It's been demonstrated repeatedly. Your response is to just bleat "there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt" over and over again as if your lack of doubt proves anything.
You'll never be able to show that the revolver Hill fished out of his pocket 2 hours later which was then and only then initialed by everybody at the police station (including by a guy who never supposedly even touched it to begin with) was ever at the Texas Theater in anybody's waistband.
You'll never be able to show that the partial palmprint that turned up on an index card in Washington a week later was ever on the barrel of CE 139.
Your last graphic begs a question. Why didn't the motorcade simply come down Elm Street into DP?
No turns would have been needed then.
No turns would have been needed then.
You'll never be able to show that the partial palm print was not taken from the barrel of CE 139. If you could, you would have by now.
Your last graphic begs a question. Why didn't the motorcade simply come down Elm Street into DP?
No turns would have been needed then.
You'll never be able to show that the revolver in evidence was NOT the revolver taken from Oswald while inside the theater. If you could, you would have by now.
You'll never be able to show that the partial palm print was not taken from the barrel of CE 139. If you could, you would have by now.
Thumb1:
This is where you're flat out wrong, but I don't expect you to understand.
For anyone else who cares...
At trial, the evidence, like the shell casing found by Barbara Davis (for example), would be offered into evidence. George Doughty would be called upon to identify the shell given to him by Barbara Davis as well as to identify his initials on this shell. This would surely get the shell casing admitted into evidence.
Oswald's defense lawyer, one John Iacoletti, would As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and holler that there is no chain of custody for this shell casing.
No surprise that you're moving the goal posts. You made claims about the magic revolver and the magic palmprint and then somehow that morphs into a claim about what you think a court would admit as evidence. Martin has explained that particular fallacy on multiple occasions.
Is what you think would "surely" happen at a hypothetical trial supposed to be evidence of anything?
No, a defense lawyer would put Doughty on the stand and ask him if he recovered the shell from the crime scene or if it was handed to him.
No surprise that you're moving the goal posts.
You made claims about the magic revolver and the magic palmprint and then somehow that morphs into a claim about what you think a court would admit as evidence.
Martin has explained that particular fallacy on multiple occasions.
Is what you think would "surely" happen at a hypothetical trial supposed to be evidence of anything?
No, a defense lawyer would put Doughty on the stand and ask him if he recovered the shell from the crime scene or if it was handed to him.
No moving of the goal posts required to show your mistakes. You have claimed that there is no chain of custody for either of the two Davis shells.
It's been demonstrated repeatedly. Your response is to just bleat "there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt" over and over again as if your lack of doubt proves anything.
You'll never be able to show that the revolver Hill fished out of his pocket 2 hours later which was then and only then initialed by everybody at the police station (including by a guy who never supposedly even touched it to begin with) was ever at the Texas Theater in anybody's waistband.
You'll never be able to show that the partial palmprint that turned up on an index card in Washington a week later was ever on the barrel of CE 139.
Are you saying that the two Davis shells would not be allowed into evidence?
I'm just telling you how it is. In June of '64, the FBI went to George Doughty with the four shells found at the Tippit scene. Doughty identified the Winchester-Western shell given to him by Barbara Davis and pointed out his initials on that shell.
Correct. So what?
This was the post you were responding to. No mention of any shells anywhere in there. You moved the goalposts.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
I have no idea. But you don't just get to declare that they would be. And even if they were that doesn't mean they are automatically authenticated.
Interesting. And did those initials say "DO" or "GD"?
So the obvious next question is, how do you know where that shell you supposedly initialed came from?
This was the post you were responding to. No mention of any shells anywhere in there. You moved the goalposts.
I have no idea. But you don't just get to declare that they would be. And even if they were that doesn't mean they are automatically authenticated.
Interesting. And did those initials say "DO" or "GD"?
So the obvious next question is, how do you know where that shell you supposedly initialed came from?
That certainly is not moving the goal posts. But, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel smarter.
That's right; you have no idea.
Are you saying Doughty did not identify his initials on the casing?
The next obvious question is how is the answer to your obvious question supposed to show a broken chain for the shell?
More games. I meant Elm Street could have, and should have, been used instead of Main Street.
Thanks for pointing this out with your graphic. 👍
It's textbook moving the goalposts. I mention the revolver and the partial palmprint, and you shift it to a discussion about the shells because you think you can make a better case for them (or at least one of them).
At least I'm willing to admit it. You make up a fantasy trial and come up with a fantasy claim about what would be admitted as if your fantasies have any bearing on reality.
How valid is the identification if he can't even read the letters correctly?
It's enough to show doubt that it actually came from the crime scene.
You apparently have no idea what the definition of the word "doubt" is. This is pathetic.
Just because the casing was turned over later that afternoon certainly is not enough to cast doubt on whether or not it came from the crime scene.
Unless you fire black powder guns, you would really be pushing it to see much smoke at all, regardless of positions. Top that off with the strong wind blowing and you will be able to only smell smoke downwind. Bowers smelled smoke?
That's interesting, at the time of the headshot the wind was blowing up Elm Street as seen by the billowing dresses of Mary and Jean.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/6wegfs1pn/Dumbasaboxofrocks_zpsqtcvx1r6_1.gif)
Your witnesses minus Bowers were on the overpass.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/54lhkvxsb/9fd737c1ae7c81841246649edaa86b3a.jpg)
Question: Where was your sniper?
JohnM
You made that claim -- you didn't actually substantiate it. But that's irrelevant anyway. If something's not the same, then it's not the same. Stop pretending that "close to some arbitrary measure of closeness" equals "the same".
If you had just said 3 degrees off or whatever, then we wouldn't be having this argument.
Says the guy who spent weeks arguing over the difference between "Brennan saw the man with a gun" and Brennan saw a man with a gun".
Same direction does not mean 11 degrees off. Especially when that figure is just pulled out of nowhere. Same direction means same direction.
It stands to reason that these units are determined by the minimum differences in direction that humans can easily discern on their own.
And you still haven't answered my question, since you seem not to like what I use as a benchmark for precision. I'll ask again:
Now, given the real world conditions of Dealey Plaza on Nov 11, 1963, how accurate do you think the TP witnesses audio localization capabilities were at the time?
I don't care. I'm merely pointing out that 11 degrees off is not the "same direction". Nor is 3 degrees off. Same direction means zero degrees.
What is your source for what humans can easily discern on their own? Particularly your 11 degrees claim. You still haven't answered that.
I'd keep asking you about what you think that level of precision would be, but as you say, you don't care. It's the most important underlying question to the whole kerfluffle...and you simply don't care. But you want to argue about it anyway.
As the graphic you've posted shows, the difference between the line from the overpass to the TSBD and one from the overpass to the fence corner is a very small angle, just by cursory inspection. The precise measurement of the angle is kinda beside the point; it doesn't affect the argument one way or the other. It just puts a particular number and unit to a small value. I didn't do so initially because I didn't figure that anyone would require Wopner-at-4:30-grade measurements. In fact, no one else but you seems to have needed them.
The degree of precision isn't arbitrary at all. It's based on the units that people actually use every day when determining and communicating direction where more precise mechanical means aren't available. It stands to reason that these units are determined by the minimum differences in direction that humans can easily discern on their own. One divides a circle into twelve equal sections, the other divides that circle into sixteen. If you wish to differ, that's OK, but you gotta do better than what you've managed so far.
And you still haven't answered my question, since you seem not to like what I use as a benchmark for precision. I'll ask again:
Now, given the real world conditions of Dealey Plaza on Nov 11, 1963, how accurate do you think the TP witnesses audio localization capabilities were at the time?
I answered that in reply #47 of this thread:
The question I asked is about that: how precise are human beings with direction? This question can be easily answered by noting that "human-measurable" scales regarding direction don't get any more precise than a 16 point compass rose. So direction in this case is only accurate to within +/- 11 degrees.
I really don't think it's exactly +/-11 degrees, but it's pretty close to that, otherwise we'd need (and have) more compass points than N, SW, ENE, etc. To put it another way, if you and someone else were standing at the edge of a downtown, and there was a loud, unexpected shot, would you expect your companion to say, "Wow, that came from 49 degrees East of North"? Or would he just point in the general direction as best he could?
It comes down to how precise you think that someone could be about the direction of the origin of a shot in Dealey Plaza. I'd keep asking you about what you think that level of precision would be, but as you say, you don't care. It's the most important underlying question to the whole kerfluffle...and you simply don't care. But you want to argue about it anyway.
A Modern Tale of How to Strike Out the Side
by Bill Chapman with a great big shout-out to Jack Norworth
You're just restating the claim. Is there any research that shows that humans can only distinguish 11 degrees or did you just pull that out of your rear orifice?
This is really pointless. Would it have changed your point in any way to use the more accurate phrase "nearly the same direction"? "Same" is a binary proposition. Something is either the same or it is not the same. You're exaggerating the language in order to try to make your argument more compelling. Just like you're equating the entire grassy knoll area with one corner of the retaining wall in order to make your "same" difference as small as possible. Yes, it matters.
It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the evidence if people won't even be honest and accurate about what the evidence is.
Nice story Bill. You're well on your way to replacing Walt as chief fabricator and thread hijacker.
What is your source for what humans can easily discern on their own? Particularly your 11 degrees claim. You still haven't answered that.
I don't care. I'm merely pointing out that 11 degrees off is not the "same direction". Nor is 3 degrees off. Same direction means zero degrees.
It's pointless because you "don't care" about the question that's fundamental to the problem. And you haven't really even thought through what the word "same" means. I used it in the the sense of "indistinguishable", or, as M-W says: "corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable." The trick is, "same" becomes dependent on what can be distinguished. That is why I wasted a lot of words giving you example of a measuring device accurate to +/-1 cm, and you wasted a lot of time ignoring them. It can't really distinguish between objects that differ less than 2cm in length no matter what number you think you get. In short, "Same" has fuzzy, indistinct edges. The question in this case is how fuzzy those edges are. To wit (and I'll word it a bit differently this time): given the environment of Dealey Plaza 12:30 PM on Nov 22, 1963, how accurate would anyone be at locating a sound like a gunshot? That's the question you "don't care" about, and it's central to the discussion at hand. But you still want to argue about it.
'chief fabricator'
Nah, just artistic license
'thread hijacker'
Your failure to comprehend my 'left field' analogy is your burden
And it's one, two, three strikes, yer out!
You're benched, Little Johnny I
I just disagree with you. Two things are either the same or they are not the same. What I don't care about is your convoluted justification for using the word "same" anyway.
It's pointless because we're never going to change each other's minds about that, so let it go.
I remember reading somewhere someone writing that DP is "an echo chamber from hell"...I guess that is an accurate statement as if there were a shot or shots from the GK area why were the three men at the base of the steps then running back up them TO danger and why were the SS agents in the Queen Mary looking back after the shots? I mean everyone can make a case for anything in that environment that day.