Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Why classify information?  (Read 12705 times)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #72 on: January 24, 2022, 07:29:55 PM »
Advertisement
Sorry but I can't deal with so much stupidity. Garner said exactly the same thing as Adams. She confirmed to Martha Stroud that Adams and Styles left the 4th floor before Truly and Baker came up, but I get it; you desperately need the "Oswald on the stairs" to stay alive so you accuse a simple office worker, like Garner, of lying to the Office of a United States Attorney.

Here's part of the Stroud letter:

    "Mr. Bellin [sic] was questioning Miss Adams whether or not she saw anyone
     as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams supervisor,
     stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs, she (Miss Garner)
     saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up."

No where does this letter state that Garner saw anyone go down the stairs or come up the stairs. It could be Garner merely assumed both that Adams went down the stairs and that Truly and the policeman then came up.

Truly and Baker were back on the fourth floor a minute or so before 12:37 because Baker spoke to Inspector Sawyer, and Sawyer estimates he was back on the first floor by 12:37.

     Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it
          couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left,
          got up and back down.
     Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you
          heard the call at 12:34?
     Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.

     Mr. BAKER - As we descended, somewhere around--we were still talking
     and I was still looking over the building.
     Mr. BELIN - As the elevator was moving?
     Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; downward.
     Mr. BELIN - All right.
     Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on
          one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.

Garner could have seen Truly with Baker in the stopped elevator and figured they had used the elevator to "come up" to the fourth floor and not the stairs previously. That might be why Garner thought they missed meeting Adams on the stairs, because they were using the elevator.

From a post in 2011 by Sean Murphy ( Link ):

    "Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her
     some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard
     of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me:
     that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
     as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention
     of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."

Probably a minute passed before they even left the window. Styles said they ran to the passenger elevator and waited awhile before heading for the stairs. So crossing the fourth floor about 12:33 would allow them to miss meeting Truly and Baker on the stairs; Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor about 12:34 (where Lovelady is supposedly encountered). Meanwhile Truly and Baker arrive by elevator on the fourth floor about 12:35. Thus Garner could have seen Adams go by and two minutes later noticed Truly.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2022, 10:11:23 PM by Jerry Organ »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #72 on: January 24, 2022, 07:29:55 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #73 on: January 24, 2022, 09:08:41 PM »
Here's part of the Stroud letter:

    "Mr. Bellin [sic] was questioning Miss Adams whether or not she saw anyone
     as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams supervisor,
     stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs, she (Miss Garner)
     saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up."

No where does this letter state that Garner saw anyone go down the stairs or come up the stairs. It could be Garner merely assumed both that Adams went down the stairs and that Truly and the policeman then came up.

True, she doesn't say that but she told Barry Ernest that she heard them on the noisy stairs.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/another_witness.htm

Barry Ernest wrote;

The focus of my call to her, of course, was Victoria Adams, whether Mrs. Garner was indeed in a position to have seen Baker and Truly or anyone else on the back stairs, and who she had made the comment to that appeared in the Stroud document.

     "I was at the window with Elsie Dorman, Victoria Adams, and Sandra Styles," she said.

     Did Miss Adams and Miss Styles leave the window right away, I asked her.

     "The girls did," she responded.  "I remember them being there and the next thing I knew, they were gone."

    They had left "very quickly…within a matter of moments," she added.

     What did Mrs. Garner do after that?

     "There was this warehouse or storage area behind our office, out by the freight elevators and the rear stairway, and I went out there."

     Her move to that area clearly put her into a position where she could have observed activity on the back stairs as well as on the elevators.  But how fast had she arrived there?

     Mrs. Garner said she immediately went to this area, following "shortly after…right behind" Miss Adams and Miss Styles.   She

couldn't remember exactly why she went out there, other than to say, "probably to get something."  Mrs. Garner said she did not actually see "the girls" enter the stairway, though, arriving on the fourth-floor landing seconds after.  When I asked how she knew they had gone down, Mrs. Garner said, "I remember hearing them, after they started down.  I remember the stairs were very noisy."

     Were the freight elevators in operation during this time?

     "I don't recall that," she answered.  "They were very noisy too!"

     Mrs. Garner said she remained at that spot and was alone for a moment before "several came out back from the office to look out those windows there."

Quote
Truly and Baker were back on the fourth floor a minute or so before 12:37 because Baker spoke to Inspector Sawyer, and Sawyer estimates he was back on the first floor by 12:37.

     Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it
          couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left,
          got up and back down.
     Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you
          heard the call at 12:34?
     Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.

     Mr. BAKER - As we descended, somewhere around--we were still talking
     and I was still looking over the building.
     Mr. BELIN - As the elevator was moving?
     Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; downward.
     Mr. BELIN - All right.
     Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on
          one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.

Stroud could have seen Truly with Baker in the stopped elevator and figured they had used the elevator to "come up" to the fourth floor and not the stairs previously. That might be why Stroud thought they missed meeting Adams on the stairs, because they were using the elevator.

Nice bit of speculation, for which, of course there is not a shred of evidence.

Quote
From a post in 2011 by Sean Murphy ( Link ):

    "Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her
     some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard
     of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me:
     that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
     as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention
     of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."

Probably a minute passed before they even left the window. Styles said they ran to the passenger elevator and waited awhile before heading for the stairs. So crossing the fourth floor about 12:33 would allow them to miss meeting Truly and Baker on the stairs; Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor about 12:34 (where Lovelady is supposedly encountered). Meanwhile Truly and Baker arrive by elevator on the fourth floor about 12:35. Thus Stroud could have seen Adams go by and two minutes later noticed Truly.

Styles has changed her story several times and apparently she did not tell Barry Ernest the same thing, as this is what Ernest says about that;

Mrs. Garner was providing two key pieces of evidence: one that corroborated Victoria Adams regarding how quickly she and Sandra Styles left the window and moved to the back staircase, and a second that corroborated the Stroud document by putting Mrs. Garner at a location on the fourth floor where she could have observed activity on the stairs immediately after the shooting.

     Like Sandra Styles, who also verified Miss Adams' timing of the descent in my personal interview with her, Dorothy Garner had been ignored by the Warren Commission.

With all this 'could have been' speculation going on, there is one major question that needs to be answered but never is.

Styles was photographed standing with a group of women near the front entrance of the TSBD, before she went back inside the building through the front door, which at that time was not yet sealed off. As the front entrance was being locked down at 12:37, how in the world could Styles have been there if she and Adams were still on the 4th floor at 12:35?

In her testimony, Adams told us that she and Styles ran down the stairs, left the building through the back door at the loading dock, running around the loading dock towards the railway yard. There a policeman stopped them and told them to return to the building, which they did by walking towards the front entrance. And all this is supposed to have happened in 2 minutes? Really?

One thing is a clear as the light of day. If Adams and Styles were on the stairs shortly after the shots, then the "Oswald came running down the stairs" theory is possibly flawed or outright wrong. An honest investigation would have wanted to find out what actually happened. Instead the WC simply decided to ignore Adams by not calling her (as the only one of the witnesses) to assist in the reconstruction and by trying to discredit her with one line in her testimony. And Rankin did one better and buried the Stroud letter. These actions by the WC alone tell me beyond doubt that the WC understood that Adams was telling the truth and the women did leave the 4th floor directly after the last shot.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2022, 12:42:37 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2022, 04:50:01 PM »
There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.

Frazier stated he did not pay attention.

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

--------------------------------

Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.

Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------

The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------

No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.

The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.

I guess this is Good Bye Martin.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2022, 04:50:01 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2022, 06:56:53 PM »
There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.


That's a quote from the Bookhout FD 302. An internal FBI document that Randle never saw, read or signed. To let that prevail over her sworn testimony is only exposing the level of your desperation. Keep on cherry picking.....

Btw, if Randle did say what Bookhout reports she said, she must have been lying under oath, right? So, are you calling her a liar?

Quote
Frazier stated he did not pay attention.

So what? So did Barnett, yet here you are claiming that, despite the fact that he himself said he was focused on the fire escape, he nevertheless would have seen the two women leaving the same back door that he wasn't paying attention to.

Pathetic!

Quote
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

--------------------------------

Fool, this is exactly why the package couldn't have been 34" long and contain the wooden stock of a rifle. Oswald's legs were not 34" long.

Quote
Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.

Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------

This level of stupidity is truly amazing. Canning is saying exactly what I said. He guessed the position of the President's neck wound and the Governor's wound, based on the unproven assumption that one bullet caused both wounds. Canning actually tells us that it was "our interpretation of the data" and "within a reasonable error of one another". In other words, he is assuming and guessing!

Quote
The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------

Another one of your meaningless comments  :D

Quote
No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.

Just how silly can you get? Victoria Adams' WC testimony, where she details her movements, was also several months after the event. After the assassination she only gave two short statements to the FBI and one (allegedly) to Jim Lavelle.

You really need to stop making up your own reality and face the simple fact that so far you have still not been able to say when, according to you, the two women left the 4th floor. The reason why you can't or won't do that is a simple one; there is only one sequence of events that fits all the witness statements and known facts. When you change one part of the sequence, none of it will fit. You either understand this and that's why you don't answer my question or you don't know it because you lack the basic ability to process information.

Quote
The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.

Yes indeed. And Styles could walk inside without a problem, because the front door was not yet sealed, and Victoria Adams was stopped because by then the entrance was sealed. She was only let back in after it was established she worked in the building.

Miss ADAMS - It said second floor. So then I decided maybe I had better go back into the building, and going up the stairs---
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.

Still no explanation for how Styles could be photographed in front of the front entrance of the TSBD at around 12:36 when, according to you, she was still on the 4th floor a minute earlier? Now, why is that no surprise to me?

Quote
I guess this is Good Bye Martin.

Indeed... I know a lost cause when I see one. There is no point in arguing with somebody like you, who can never present a complete, well documented and thought through point that justifies the "conclusion" you are proposing.

You just keep on living in your fantasy world where you can make up stuff and misrepresent evidence as much as you like. Sweet dreams....
« Last Edit: January 26, 2022, 12:26:28 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2022, 04:13:02 PM »
Barnett, really, you actually think like this?  This is so odd that you would think somebody has to stare at something to see it and they cannot be aware of things in their peripheral vision. Especially given he was hoping to catch someone fleeing the building. I bet riding in car with you is a real treat. You must be like a horse with blinders.

No idea what you are talking about. Oswald was not carrying his leg,he was carrying a 40 inch rifle by holding it by the barrel located in the folded over end of the bag. The bag was 42 inches long. Same dimension stated by Randle. You do not have to carry it by the tip of the barrel.

Harold Weisberg  ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "

Are you able to understand what Weisberg stated? Seems you are full of questions and no answers. Most thoughts go right by you.

It would be about right if held it by the barrel. You should not measure everyone's intelligence by the severe limits of your own. LHO was a little sharper than that. The guy was wanting to get his gun to the TSBD undetected, and he did.

---------------------------------------------------

Are you not able to understand Canning's testimony? It appears the first sentence has completely stumped you. Read the rest it is very informative. Of course, nothing can match your two movie clips. They were a classic example of how a simple mind views a complicated issue.

-------------------------------------

You are making a huge assumption and bigger mistake. Nobody stated Styles was not stopped at the door. All she had to do was tell the officers, as Adams did, that she worked in the building, and she would be let in. Were you thinking they were strip searching and finger printing people to get in.

----------------------------------

Is this good bye this time?  Thanks for the concern over my sleeping well. I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2022, 04:13:02 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2022, 04:37:54 PM »
Barnett, really, you actually think like this?  This is so odd that you would think somebody has to stare at something to see it and they cannot be aware of things in their peripheral vision. Especially given he was hoping to catch someone fleeing the building. I bet riding in car with you is a real treat. You must be like a horse with blinders.

No idea what you are talking about. Oswald was not carrying his leg,he was carrying a 40 inch rifle by holding it by the barrel located in the folded over end of the bag. The bag was 42 inches long. Same dimension stated by Randle. You do not have to carry it by the tip of the barrel.

Harold Weisberg  ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "

Are you able to understand what Weisberg stated? Seems you are full of questions and no answers. Most thoughts go right by you.

It would be about right if held it by the barrel. You should not measure everyone's intelligence by the severe limits of your own. LHO was a little sharper than that. The guy was wanting to get his gun to the TSBD undetected, and he did.

---------------------------------------------------

Are you not able to understand Canning's testimony? It appears the first sentence has completely stumped you. Read the rest it is very informative. Of course, nothing can match your two movie clips. They were a classic example of how a simple mind views a complicated issue.

-------------------------------------

You are making a huge assumption and bigger mistake. Nobody stated Styles was not stopped at the door. All she had to do was tell the officers, as Adams did, that she worked in the building, and she would be let in. Were you thinking they were strip searching and finger printing people to get in.

----------------------------------

Is this good bye this time?  Thanks for the concern over my sleeping well. I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.

Oh yes it's goodbye.
You may not understand this, but, like a chain is just as strong as it's weakest link, the outcome of a conversation is always determined by the lack of education and knowledge of the weakest person. I can try to convey a message as much as I like, but if the recipient lacks the ability to understand what he is told, the inevitable outcome will always be a demonstration of total ignorance. Having said that, every fool on the planet thinks he's the most intelligent person and has the most intelligent answers. A wise man, on the other hand, would always consider it possible that somebody else is wiser.

So, I bow to your inferior cop show based "expertise" and gullibility. Ignorance clearly is bliss!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 12:28:58 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2022, 12:34:01 AM »
Oh yes it's goodbye.
You may not understand this, but, like a chain is just as strong as it's weakest link, the outcome of a conversation is always determined by the lack of education and knowledge of the weakest person. I can try to convey a message as much as I like, but if the recipient lacks the ability to understand what he is told, the inevitable outcome will always be a demonstration of total ignorance. Having said that, every fool on the planet thinks he's the most intelligent person and has the most intelligent answers. A wise man, on the other hand, would always consider it possible that somebody else is wiser.

So you understand what Jack Nessan has been saying. Finally!!

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2022, 12:34:01 AM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2022, 12:36:48 AM »
So you understand what Jack Nessan has been saying. Finally!!

What else can be expected from the weakest link?   :D

No, you and Jack Nessan simply don't understand what I have been saying.

I'm asking questions that neither of you can even begin to answer. Why is that?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 02:07:43 AM by Martin Weidmann »