JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Jason Thompson]

What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?

My point is that you said you had no idea what it was, ergo you had no idea what the answers to those questions were, yet you still dismissed it out of hand.

The back wound was located lower than the throat wound, so how could anyone duplicate an impossible shot?

Maybe if you bothered to actually go and check this out you would have your answer. But no, once again you dismiss it out of hand without checking because it doesn't support your argument.The back wound was ONLY located lower then the throat wound IF you assume he was sitting bolt upright at the time he was shot, which he very clearly was not. He also had his right arm propped on the side of the limo, further elevating his right shoulder.

I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.

[profmunkin]

But no, this is what we get.  A refusal to state exactly what the conspiracist thinks happened.  Cherry-picking evidence.  (I'm the one who pointed you to McAdams)

Seriously, how can I begin to open your mind to alternate possibility if you are convinced the Warren Commission is an honest representation of history?

All evidence I provided was rejected.

The way I have chosen, is to show you what evidence is actually within the Warren Commission testimonies that is highly corroborated and is completely contrary to the Warren Commission findings.  If the Warren Commission report and significant evidence discrepancies cannot be successfully arbitrated, then I am suggesting to you that there is something wrong with the conclusions of the report and a reason for doubt.

So far I have not cherry picked any issue, I have taken the most significant issues I have found that are connected with only "The Big Event" 

How can the most fundamental element in this case not be where the shots were fired from?
To that question, I viewed testimonies looking to see what the witnesses experienced that day concerning where they were, impression, shot number, sequence or rhythm and the direction of the shots. This data I have fairly reported to you.
If you choose to ignore this, you are also in effect ignoring findings discovered by the Warren Commission .

[profmunkin]

My point is that you said you had no idea what it was, ergo you had no idea what the answers to those questions were, yet you still dismissed it out of hand.

Jason to be fair, if the evidence that I present must be restricted to an official legal source, then evidence you present must meet the same criteria.

Yes, I dismissed it out of hand.
If I must present only that information discovered while a witness was under oath, you must do the same.
No TV shows, no Vincent Bugliosi books.

[Chew]

Seriously, how can I begin to open your mind to alternate possibility if you are convinced the Warren Commission is an honest representation of history?

By showing us evidence for a conspiracy, not nitpicking for anomalies.

All evidence I provided was rejected.

Not all of it. But some of it you twisted to support your theory. When you did so you were corrected but you failed to incorporate it into evidence.

The way I have chosen, is to show you what evidence is actually within the Warren Commission testimonies that is highly corroborated and is completely contrary to the Warren Commission findings.

All the while ignoring and twisting evidence that pointed to a lone gunman. You fail to acknowledge the single bullet theory has been closely duplicated several times.

  If the Warren Commission report and significant evidence discrepancies cannot be successfully arbitrated, then I am suggesting to you that there is something wrong with the conclusions of the report and a reason for doubt.

They can be arbitrated by looking at all the evidence, not just the evidence for a lone gunman or for a conspiracy, but all of it, and then weighing it fairly and objectively to arrive at the most probable scenario.

So far I have not cherry picked any issue, I have taken the most significant issues I have found that are connected with only "The Big Event" 

But you have cherry-picked evidence, and what's worse, you have twisted it to support a grassy knoll gunman, like twisting Newman's and the men on the 5th floor testimony to make them support a grassy knoll gunman or refute a gunman on the 6th floor.

How can the most fundamental element in this case not be where the shots were fired from?

Great question. Given the great disparity amongst the ear-witnesses do you think that is a valid approach to finding out where the shots came from?

How about eyewitnesses? How many saw a man shooting from the southeast corner of the 6th floor? 3?

How many saw a gunman somewhere else? None.

To that question, I viewed testimonies looking to see what the witnesses experienced that day concerning where they were, impression, shot number, sequence or rhythm and the direction of the shots. This data I have fairly reported to you.

You have not quoted one single witness who said the shot came from the TSBD. That can hardly be called 'fair'. You said you found 3 in the testimonies. But you haven't quoted them to support a lone gunman.

If you choose to ignore this, you are also in effect ignoring findings discovered by the Warren Commission .

So are you.

[profmunkin]

I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.

Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
The evidence does not support this theory.

[gillianren]

Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
The evidence does not support this theory.

The City of Dallas tends to frown on shots being fired in the middle of downtown, for some reason.  That's why they'll never replicate the shots of any murder which happened there.  However, all the relevant circumstances were duplicated.  As is stated on that website you keep quoting, complete with links.  As I said, do you really think I don't know what's on it?  Do you really think your cherry-picking from it isn't transparent?

[twik]

I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.

Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
The evidence does not support this theory.

Well, there's the root problem. Most of us believe that it DOES.

I notice you have dodged a couple of questions that would put doubt on your "theory". I put the word in quotation marks, because you have not really put forward a theory; you've nitpicked at someone else's theory.

[profmunkin]

It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.

Are you seriously proposing the inclusion of entertainment as official evidence?

Testimonies given under oath is evidence.

[profmunkin]

Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?

Absolutley, I agree, thanks for the correction
Jarmin said below and left, not below and right.

Either way you loose.

What did they do next is the question?


 

[Chew]

It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.

Are you seriously proposing the inclusion of entertainment as official evidence?

Testimonies given under oath is evidence.

It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.

[Chew]

Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?

Absolutley, I agree, thanks for the correction
Jarmin said below and left, not below and right.

Either way you loose.

I lose? Because one man said below and left, another man said above and heard shells hitting the floor and the bolt being cycled, and another said it sounded like it came from inside the building?

What did they do next is the question?

You mean why did 3 unarmed men mill around for a few minutes while a maniac with a gun was on the floor above them? What were they expected to do? Confront a man with a gun?

[profmunkin]

But you have cherry-picked evidence, and what's worse, you have twisted it to support a grassy knoll gunman, like twisting Newman's and the men on the 5th floor testimony to make them support a grassy knoll gunman or refute a gunman on the 6th floor.

Newman was in the Shaw trial, the point for Garrison bringing Newman in to testify was so he could support the location of the shots being fired from the grassy knoll. A little common sense please.

I don't have to refute a gunman on the 6th floor, the evidence does this.

Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.

Let me rephrase this please.
After the 3rd shot, Norman has a revelation when someone says "I believe someone is shooting at the President" because he now remembers "hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle" and he realizes the shots and shells and the bolt somehow go together.
He then conveys this new belief to his friends, who claim to have been oblivious, "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."

THEN - this is the best part, you will love this

Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.
Mr. BALL. You ran down to the west side of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD.Ran down to the west side? You mean you were still on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes;

Well maybe Jarmin and Williams didn't really believe Norman, what do you think?

[profmunkin]

Jason you can
The City of Dallas tends to frown on shots being fired in the middle of downtown, for some reason.  That's why they'll never replicate the shots of any murder which happened there.  However, all the relevant circumstances were duplicated.  As is stated on that website you keep quoting, complete with links.  As I said, do you really think I don't know what's on it?  Do you really think your cherry-picking from it isn't transparent?

So sorry what I meant this to mean was...
What does it matter if the shots can be duplicated if they where actually fired from the grassy knoll and not the TSBD.
You still have not proved to me how a downward angled shot can hit high on the middle back and come out from a higher position from the throat.

[profmunkin]

It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.

In what U.S. Court were the testimonies filed, so I may look them up?
Also since the witnesses could not be subpoenaed /  exradition for a mock trial, why would they go to England on their own expense Or were they paid to be there?
How can you have a court case and a trial without Oswald, he's dead right?
Did Oswald choose his defense, wait hes dead!

Thats Entertainment not evidence.

[Chew]

Newman was in the Shaw trial, the point for Garrison bringing Newman in to testify was so he could support the location of the shots being fired from the grassy knoll. A little common sense please.

I know that was Garrison's purpose but it backfired on him.

THEN - this is the best part, you will love this

Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.

By this time in Williams' testimony he had already recounted what Norman said. Now he is saying he can't remember if Jarman said the same thing. Here is his uninterrupted testimony about what the others said,

Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
Mr. BALL. You say cement fell on your head?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Cement, gravel, dirt, or something from the old building, because it shook the windows and everything. Harold was sitting next to me, and he said it came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I could tell you.
Mr. BALL. Tell us.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My exact words were, "No bull shit." And we jumped up.
Mr. BALL. Norman said what?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said it came directly over our heads. "I can even hear the shell being ejected from the gun hitting the floor." But I did not hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn't paying attention.
Mr. BALL. Norman said he could hear it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said he could hear it. He was directly under the window that Oswald shot from.
Mr. BALL. He was directly under. He told you as he got up from the window that he could hear the shells ejected from the gun?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.

Well maybe Jarmin and Williams didn't really believe Norman, what do you think?

How you can draw that conclusion based on Williams' testimony is mind-boggling.