Cars in a parking lot don't equate to a gunman behind the fence. There is no hard evidence of a gunman anywhere on the GK.
Lee Bowers testified under oath that he did not see a gunman behind the fence and never recanted that testimony.
Reportedly? Everything the CTs come up with is always reportedly. Nothing on the record.
There is nothing suspicious about cars doing a recon in the parking lot if that is what they were doing. In 1992, George H. W. Bush was campaigning by train and the train was scheduled to pass by my home golf course. Our fifth hole was right alongside the tracks and we saw both a helicopter and an inspection car doing a recon over the tracks. A little while later, the helicopter made a second pass. It was about an hour later when we were on the back nine that we saw the train going past our course. Doing a recon along a presidential route is due diligence.
When someone disagrees with one of your claims, they are not ignoring your arguments.
A flash of light could be nothing more than sun reflecting off the chrome or glass of a passing vehicle. If a shot had been fired from GK, Bowers would not have seen the muzzle flash because the gun would have been pointing in the opposite direction. It's rather far fetched to think Bowers would see a muzzle flash but not the shooter that fired the gun.
OH WOW! Not only do you have an imaginary gunman, you've given him an accomplice as well.
It's always fun to see the excuses CTs come up with for why they have no real evidence of a second shooter.
Gee, why would anyone doubt Ed Hoffman. He only waited until 1967 to tell it and then changed it several times. I didn't think even you were gullible enough to take Ed Hoffman seriously.
I encourage people to read all about Ed Hoffman. They should get a good laugh from it.
As long as you have brought up Charles Whitman, it should be pointed out that his best recorded shooting in the USMC was only two points higher the Oswald's, yet he managed to shoot 45 people from a much higher elevation and far greater distances than Oswald shot JFK from. He killed 17 people that day although two were his wife and mother earlier in the day and a few more as he got to the observation deck. I believe 11 of his kills were from his elevated position.
You continue to refer to the smoke as gun smoke even though you have never established what the smoke was.
They heard shots which they THOUGHT came from the GK. Other people heard those same shots and said it sounded like they came from the TSBD. Those people were corroborated by physical evidence and eyewitnesses. No corroboration for those who though the shots came from the GK.
Junk science.
One deployed his men to the railroad yard and one to the overpass. Both were guessing.
You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area.
Of course they would want to seal off the area until they were able to determine where the shots had come from. That doesn't mean they knew where the shots had come from.
He was in close proximity to the headshot.
Zapruder didn't categorically state any such thing. He had an impression the shots came from behind him. He was wrong.
Are you bothered at all by the fact the earwitnesses said all the shots they heard came from the GK but your cherished acoustic evidence only identified one shot from the GK?
This is a mix of your usual evasion, omission, and confusion, coupled with some downright silly stuff. I'm only going to bother answering some of the points.
How would Newman's being in "close proximity" to the headshot have caused Newman to hear a bullet whiz by him
from behind? Newman was 15 feet from the limo at Z313 and
the limo was to his left front. So do tell me how a bullet traveling from the sixth-floor window and hitting JFK's head 15 feet away to Newman's left front would have caused him to hear a bullet whiz by him
from behind. You realize that Newman was so certain that gunfire was coming from behind him that he dropped down to the ground, right?
Oh, yes, Zapruder most certainly did categorically tell the SS that the gunman was positioned behind him. He expressed no qualification or uncertainty whatsoever, nor did he say that this was merely his "impression." He only started to waffle about the gunman's location later on.
So three cars doing an obvious recon in the parking lot behind the knoll in the 25 minutes leading up to the shooting, after the area had been sealed off by police, and with one of the drivers talking into a microphone -- nah, that's not suspicious at all, huh? Yeah, okay. You'll never admit anything if it contradicts the lone-gunman myth.
Show me where in Lee Bowers' WC testimony he said he did not see a gunman behind the fence. Give me the page number. His testimony is in 6 H 284-289. Where does he say he didn't see a gunman behind the fence?
BTW, do you know who Walter Rischel and James Sterling were? They were friends of Lee Bowers. Sterling gave a statement to New Orleans DA investigator Gary Sanders that Bowers told him that after the shots were fired, he saw two men running from behind the fence, that they ran up to a car, threw something in the trunk, jumped in the car, and drove off. Rischel stated in a filmed interview that Bowers did not tell the WC everything he saw. Also, Bowers' wife told journalist Penn Jones, on the record, that Bowers was warned "not to talk."
Of course you denounce Ed Hoffman, but we both know you have not read any of the research that supports Hoffman's account and veracity. This is typical of your blind bias and automatic and uninformed rejection of any and all evidence that you don't like.
Your comments about Charles Whitman's rifle skills and your attempt to infer from them that Oswald could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat are truly hilarious, not to mention discrediting.
If I could read minds, I would genuinely be curious to know how you rationalize in your own mind the fact (1) that none of the WC's three Master-rated riflemen even came close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up and were shooting at stationary target boards, and (2) that out of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test, all of whom were experienced riflemen and six of whom were experts, only one of them (one of the experts) seemingly duplicated the supposed shooting feat and only because the test counted as "hits" shots that landed well outside the target area that Oswald allegedly hit (the test actually tripled the size of the target area).
Yes, there most certainly is hard evidence of a gunman on the grassy knoll: the HSCA's scientific acoustical identification of a shot fired from the knoll, the puff of smoke visible in the Wiegman film near the same area where six witnesses said they saw gun smoke, the optical-density measurements that prove the skull x-rays indicate missing occipital bone, the identification by several medical experts of an entry wound in the right temple on the skull x-rays, mortician Tom Robinson's description of a small wound in the right temple (he examined it and filled it with wax to keep it from leaking), the Harper fragment, and the powerful spraying of blood and brain matter backward onto the two left-riding patrolmen and the follow-up car.
Are you bothered at all by the fact the earwitnesses said all the shots they heard came from the GK but your cherished acoustic evidence only identified one shot from the GK?
One, a number of the witnesses who said they heard gunfire from the grassy knoll also said they heard gunfire from the TSBD as well.
Two, the powerful sound-wave reverberations from the knoll's pergola alone could have easily caused some witnesses to believe that two or three shots were fired from the knoll.
Finally, I have yet to see you deal with the fact that even after introducing two brazen errors into their recalculation of the probability of the grassy knoll shot, the NRC/NAS panel was still only able to reduce the probability to 77.7%. No one denies the panel's two severe errors, and subsequent research has shown that the probability of the grassy knoll shot is actually virtually 100% (vs. the Weiss-Aschkenasy calculation of "95% or higher").
When statistics experts describe a probability of 77.7%, they use such terms as "likely" and "probable," whereas they describe a probability of 60% as "moderately likely" and "moderately probable." A probability of 77.7% is only 2.3 percentage points from qualifying as "highly likely" in a probability perception scale (
https://waf.cs.illinois.edu/visualizations/Perception-of-Probability-Words/).
A "95%" probability is considered to mean "almost certain." Legal sources note that a 95% probability is often estimated by judges and legal experts to match the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt," as Dr. Weiss noted in his HSCA testimony. And, again, subsequent research has found that the grassy knoll shot's probability is actually virtually 100%, like 98% and above.
Recent Posts
....or all those election denying Republicans that win; then take their seat without ever questioning their own result.