From the outside looking in...


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: From the outside looking in...  (Read 1854 times)

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7235
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2022, 09:33:49 PM »

It must not fit very well with your imagined sinister ideas…

Question....  HOW would the photographer know where the photo was taken if he didn't keep a record??

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2022, 09:33:49 PM »


Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3727
  • Skeptic
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2022, 09:39:29 PM »
Says the guy who is desperately trying to pass off his highly selective opinions as if they were facts.

Here is a fact that can not be denied; nowhere in Charles Collins' word salad is there even a slightest shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor between 12 and 12:30 and/or that he was the man the witnesses saw, believed they saw or imagined they saw.

This entire self-serving thread isn't going anywhere fast.

Soon after he arrives on the first floor, Charles Givens realizes that he left his cigarettes in his jacket on the sixth floor and so he takes the east elevator back up to the sixth floor to retrieve them. As Givens is on the sixth floor and returning to the east elevator, he sees LHO walking from the area of the southeast corner towards him. LHO is carrying a clipboard (apparently trying to make it appear like he is working). LHO again asks for Givens to close the gates to the west elevator when Givens gets to the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. What time was this?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I would say it was about 5 minutes to 12, …
In spite of the fact that this story didn't come along until months after the assassination and that it was not heard by the Warren Commissioners but was entered into the report anyway and that the FBI and the Dallas Police were not aware of it and that it did not appear in any of Givens' affidavits and that these contradictions have been pointed out several times on this forum and ***Lt Jack Revill a Dallas police detective revealed that Givens had a previous drug charge and that "Givens would change his story for money"--- that it is ignored by the Oswald did it crowd here including the completely purposeless opening post....   Collins is a Warren tale believer..everybody knows it so again what is the objective? So try going inside and looking out for a change :-\
SEE=====
***   https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg53015.html#msg53015

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2872
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2022, 11:30:45 PM »
Question....  HOW would the photographer know where the photo was taken if he didn't keep a record??


No one said they didn't keep a record. What the quote says is simply that the numbering system used by Studebaker on his map is not organized chronologically relative to the ascension of the numbers.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2022, 11:30:45 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7235
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2022, 01:40:19 AM »

It must not fit very well with your imagined sinister ideas…

My sinister ideas??....   Is lynching a man without a trial ok ??

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10115
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2022, 03:12:32 AM »
How that is relevant is unclear because someone clearly was in the SN window pointing a rifle at 12:30.

“Clearly”. LOL.

Quote
  How this logic rules Oswald out is left unsaid.

Nobody said it “rules Oswald out”, Strawman “Smith”.

But there must have been some reason BRW was less than honest about his time and whereabouts on the sixth floor that day.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2022, 03:14:33 AM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2301
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2022, 10:34:10 AM »



Quite frankly, if you think this is indicative of a specific location, then "Houston, we have a problem."   :D

Mr. Mooney: If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.

This is from the passage of Mooney's WC testimony you are responding to:

Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.


Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft away from the Sniper's Perch. They were so close to the Sniper's Perch that anyone at that location would have barely have to have moved from that spot to place the remains on top of the boxes forming the Sniper's Nest.
Your insistence that no officer was specific about the location of the lunch remains is delusional.
When Hill describes the lunch remains as being on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest [the stacks of boxes that concealed the shooter's position], he is being specific - on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest is a specific location.
When Weatherford describes the lunch remains being on top of the "barricade" he is clearly referring to the Sniper's Nest. This is a specific location.

Your dismissal of this testimonial evidence, which places the lunch remains on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest, is delusional.
Your insistence that this evidence is somehow consistent with the remains being over 30ft away, by the small trolley, is beyond delusional.
Not once have you attempted to deal with this evidence, you just stamp your foot and insist that, although all three men are absolutely specific about the remains initially being discovered on top of the Sniper's Nest, they aren't really saying that!!
This is not to mention the other 5 officers who also mention the remains being discovered in the location of the SN.

Trying to ignore the evidence is not the same as dealing with it!

Quote
This is a photo that I scanned from "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, it is labeled DP-4. I am sure there is a clearer version online, if anyone cares to look for it. This photo depicts the second aisle from the east wall. It appears that there is a row boxes extending east/west across the aisle near the windows on the south wall.




This is another scan from Gary Savage's book. It is labeled DP-5 and shows the third aisle from the east wall. It appears that the east/west row of boxes ends in the middle of the third aisle near the cart where the lunch remains were found.




No specific location was given by any of your officers. Therefore no one (including you) can say for certain specifically what they meant by their descriptions. But the above photos do indicate to me that a casual look might lead one to assume this extended row of boxes was a part of the sniper's nest shield boxes.

This attempt to suggest the officers in question might have been referring to the boxes at the end of the third aisle as part of the SN/barricade is so weak I wouldn't embarrass myself refuting it. You should feel embarrassed for suggesting it.

Quote
It is a fact that the lunch remains were found at the Sniper's Nest and not over 30 feet away at the thrid aisle.


No it is not a fact. This is your fantasy. And it is apparently based on absolutely nothing specific from any of these officers that you are apparently trying to rely upon.

If you want to believe that your fantasy is true, be my guest. However, your attempt to declare that BRW's and Studebaker's sworn testimonies are incorrect (based on your criteria) is a joke. And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated. If you want to argue your position over and over and over and over again, please do it on a different thread. But don't expect me to go around in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over and over and over again with you.

The testimonial evidence of EIGHT officers who place the remains at the SN is only a fantasy in your mind. Your approach to the evidence displays Magical Thinking.

And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated.

What do you think this forum is?
You think you can post any nonsense on this forum you want and it won't go unchallenged??
If you really think that you're dreaming.
When you posted that BRW's lunch remains were found where they were photographed by the crime lab it was always going to be challenged because it's  BS:
Just because you can't deal with evidence clearly demonstrating that it is  BS: is your problem, not mine.

And while we're at it, here's another error in your post revealing a complete lack of familiarity with the evidence:

Rowland said that the epileptic activity was going on at about the same time of his sighting of the rifle man. Rowland also said he saw the black man hanging out of a window in the east corner before he saw the rifle man in the west corner. Therefore it appears that if he actually did see a black man, it would have been ten minutes or more before the motorcade arrived.

This is what was actually said:

Mr. Specter: How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. Rowland: Another 5 minutes.
Mr. Specter: So that you observed this colored man on the window you have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade passed in front of you?
Mr. Rowland: Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time he was there.


Rowland initially saw the black man in the SN window before he saw the white man with the rifle. As he kept looking for the man with the rifle, to point out to his wife, he was aware of the man in the SN window, until approximately 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived. This disappearance of the black man from the 6th floor window roughly coincides with BRW's movements from the 6th floor to the 5th.
It is not a case, as you believe, that Rowland saw the black man before the white man with the rifle and that was it. He continued to see the man at the SN windows as he searched for the man with the rifle

And then there's this gem referring to the man in the SN window:

Rowland could have remembered incorrectly regarding which floor.

Again, familiarity with the evidence would've have avoided this needless speculation. Rowland specifically states the man at the SN window was on the same floor as the man with the rifle:

Representative Ford: And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. Rowland: The east, southeast corner.
Representative Ford: Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. Rowland: On the same floor.


He even marks the double set of windows in the south-east corner of the 6th floor with an "A":




More importantly, Rowland describes the 'configuration' of the double set of windows he marked with an "A":

Mr. Specter: As to the window which you have marked "A", that double pair of windows, which, if either or both, was open?
Mr. Rowland: The one on the eastern side was open and not all of the way it would open.
Mr. Specter: Is that the one you have marked with an arrow?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.
Mr. Specter: How much of that window was open?
Mr. Rowland: It was open about that far.
Mr. Specter: Indicating 2 1/2 feet?
Mr. Rowland: Two feet.
Mr. Specter: Two feet.
Mr. Rowland: Indicating 2 feet. It looked like the windows might open 3--two-thirds or three-fourths of the distance.
Mr. Specter: How about the other of the windows in the double-set marked "A," was that completely closed?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.


Even though the windows he marked on CE546 are both closed, Rowland remembered that on the day the eastern window was partially open and the western one was closed. The only set of windows on the day of the assassination that were in this configuration, were at the south-east corner of the 6th floor - the SN windows.

In short, taken at face value, the evidence proves BRW's lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest. They were witnessed by EIGHT law enforcement officers, three of whom specifically place the remains on top of the SN boxes. At some point, before the crime lab takes it pictures, these remains are removed to the third aisle set of windows, about 30ft away from the original discovery location.
Mooney makes it clear that someone sat in the SN window could have placed the remains on the SN without hardly moving.
At 12:15pm BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor. At this same time Arnold Rowland sees a black male in the SN windows. Rowland is specific about which set of windows he is talking about, going so far as to describe the configuration of the windows, a configuration only present in the SN windows.

So, if we accept the evidence, we have one of two scenarios around 12:15pm:

1) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - in the third aisle is BRW having his lunch [the remains of which he decides to leave on top of the SN] - sat in the SN is an unknown black man who is not an employee of the TSBD.
2) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - BRW is sat in the SN having his lunch, the half-finished remains of which he leaves on top of the SN.

Deal with the evidence rather than just stamping your foot and trying to wish it all away.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2022, 12:45:25 PM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2022, 10:34:10 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2872
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2022, 12:51:48 PM »
This is from the passage of Mooney's WC testimony you are responding to:

Senator Cooper: How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper: You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.


Mooney could hardly be any more specific - the lunch remains were about 5ft away from the Sniper's Perch. They were so close to the Sniper's Perch that anyone at that location would have barely have to have moved from that spot to place the remains on top of the boxes forming the Sniper's Nest.
Your insistence that no officer was specific about the location of the lunch remains is delusional.
When Hill describes the lunch remains as being on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest he is being specific - on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest is a specific location.
When Weatherford describes the lunch remains being on top of the "barricade" he is clearly referring to the Sniper's Nest. This is a specific location.

Your dismissal of this testimonial evidence, which places the lunch remains on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest, is delusional.
Your insistence that this evidence is somehow consistent with the remains being over 30ft away, by the small trolley, is beyond delusional.
Not once have you attempted to deal with this evidence, you just stamp your foot and insist that, although all three men are absolutely specific about the remains initially being discovered on top of the Sniper's Nest, they aren't really saying that!!
This is not to mention the other 5 officers who also mention the remains being discovered in the location of the SN.

Trying to ignore the evidence is not the same as dealing with it!

This attempt to suggest the officers in question might have been referring to the boxes at the end of the third aisle as part of the SN/barricade is so weak I wouldn't embarrass myself refuting it. You should feel embarrassed for suggesting it.

The testimonial evidence of EIGHT officers who place the remains at the SN is only a fantasy in your mind. Your approach to the evidence displays Magical Thinking.

And your attempt to derail this thread to further your silly argument is not appreciated.

What do you think this forum is?
You think you can post any nonsense on this forum you want and it won't go unchallenged??
If you really think that you're dreaming.
When you posted that BRW's lunch remains were found where they were photographed by the crime lab it was always going to be challenged because it's  BS:
Just because you can't deal with evidence clearly demonstrating that it is  BS: is your problem, not mine.

And while we're at it, here's another error in your post revealing a complete lack of familiarity with the evidence:

Rowland said that the epileptic activity was going on at about the same time of his sighting of the rifle man. Rowland also said he saw the black man hanging out of a window in the east corner before he saw the rifle man in the west corner. Therefore it appears that if he actually did see a black man, it would have been ten minutes or more before the motorcade arrived.

This is what was actually said:

Mr. Specter: How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were?
Mr. Rowland: Another 5 minutes.
Mr. Specter: So that you observed this colored man on the window you have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade passed in front of you?
Mr. Rowland: Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time he was there.


Rowland initially saw the black man in the SN window before he saw the white man with the rifle. As he kept looking for the man with the rifle, to point out to his wife, he was aware of the man in the SN window, until approximately 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived. This disappearance of the black man from the 6th floor window roughly coincides with BRW's movements from the 6th floor to the 5th.
It is not a case, as you believe, that Rowland saw the black man before the white man with the rifle and that was it. He continued to see the man at the SN windows as he searched for the man with the rifle

And then there's this gem referring to the man in the SN window:

Rowland could have remembered incorrectly regarding which floor.

Again, familiarity with the evidence would've have avoided this needless speculation. Rowland specifically states the man at the SN window was on the same floor as the man with the rifle:

Representative Ford: And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. Rowland: The east, southeast corner.
Representative Ford: Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. Rowland: On the same floor.


He even marks the double set of windows in the south-east corner of the 6th floor with an "A":




More importantly, Rowland describes the 'configuration' of the double set of windows he marked with an "A":

Mr. Specter: As to the window which you have marked "A", that double pair of windows, which, if either or both, was open?
Mr. Rowland: The one on the eastern side was open and not all of the way it would open.
Mr. Specter: Is that the one you have marked with an arrow?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.
Mr. Specter: How much of that window was open?
Mr. Rowland: It was open about that far.
Mr. Specter: Indicating 2 1/2 feet?
Mr. Rowland: Two feet.
Mr. Specter: Two feet.
Mr. Rowland: Indicating 2 feet. It looked like the windows might open 3--two-thirds or three-fourths of the distance.
Mr. Specter: How about the other of the windows in the double-set marked "A," was that completely closed?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.


Even though the windows he marked on CE546 are both closed, Rowland remembered that on the day the eastern window was partially open and the western one was closed. The only set of windows on the day of the assassination that were in this configuration, were at the south-east corner of the 6th floor - the SN windows.

In short, taken at face value, the evidence proves BRW's lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest. They were witnessed by EIGHT law enforcement officers, three of whom specifically place the remains on top of the SN boxes. At some point, before the crime lab takes it pictures, these remains are removed to the third aisle set of windows, about 30ft away from the original discovery location.
Mooney makes it clear that someone sat in the SN window could have placed the remains on the SN without hardly moving.
At 12:15pm BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor. At this same time Arnold Rowland sees a black male in the SN windows. Rowland is specific about which set of windows he is talking about, going so far as to describe the configuration of the windows, a configuration only present in the SN windows.

So, if we accept the evidence, we have one of two scenarios around 12:15pm:

1) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - in the third aisle is BRW having his lunch [the remains of which he decides to leave on top of the SN - sat in the SN is an unknown black man who is not an employee of the TSBD.
2) On the far west side of the 6th floor is a white man with a rifle - BRW is sat in the SN having his lunch, the half-finished remains of which he leaves on top of the SN.

Deal with the evidence rather than just stamping your foot and trying to wish it all away.


”This attempt to suggest the officers in question might have been referring to the boxes at the end of the third aisle as part of the SN/barricade is so weak I wouldn't embarrass myself refuting it. You should feel embarrassed for suggesting it.”

The “barricade” of stacks of boxes that form the sniper’s nest extends to the third set of windows. This can be seen in the photos. This is also shown in two DPD diagrams.

Deal with the evidence rather than just stamping your foot. You cannot wish this evidence away by childishly refusing to address it.


As far as I know, not one of the officers that you are citing have disputed the DPD photographs which show the location in the third aisle where the lunch remains are found. I have read (again) Luke Mooney’s oral history in “No More Silence” by Larry Snead. Mooney doesn’t even mention the lunch remains. Do you think Luke Mooney would remain silent about the location of the lunch remains if he were as certain as you appear to be that the real location of the lunch remains was different? Same question applies to the rest of your officers.

There isn’t even a hint of a greasy spot that can be seen on the tops of the boxes that Luke Mooney designated in the photos. If there had been a chicken bone left there, a greasy spot should be evident. As I said earlier, it is clear to me, based on his testimony, that Luke Mooney simply didn’t remember a specific location.


Your attempt to claim that your opinion is a fact is what I object to. You can have your opinion, I really, really, really, don’t care. And you can respond to the fact that the DPD crime scene investigators found and photographed the lunch remains in the third aisle with your opinion that you think “someone” {somehow, without anyone noticing) moved the lunch remains from the sniper’s nest before the crime scene investigators arrived on scene. But if you try to claim that your opinion is a fact, you are only making yourself look ridiculous.




Edit: The same goes for Arnold Rowland’s testimony. You can believe every single word of it if you want to. I really, really, really don’t care. I have stated my opinion that his same day statement appears to me to be legitimate. But I choose to discount his later additions for reasons already stated earlier in this thread. You can believe that your opinion is correct. I really, really, really, don’t care. If we all thought alike we wouldn’t have anything to discuss.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2022, 01:09:17 PM by Charles Collins »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10115
Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2022, 07:01:32 PM »
As far as I know, not one of the officers that you are citing have disputed the DPD photographs which show the location in the third aisle where the lunch remains are found.

That’s really disingenuous. I could just as easily say that not one of them confirmed the photographs. There’s no reason to think they were ever shown the photos or asked about them.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: From the outside looking in...
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2022, 07:01:32 PM »


 

Mobile View