No Shots Fired From The TSBD

This thread has been transferred from the Webs forum, to escape the huge amount oftext you can look at the original post here: 
http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc%20forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13229572-no-shots-fired-from-tsbd.html
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



We have no photographic or film evidence of any shots from the Sixth floor window.
We have Robert MacNeil saying the men inside were unusually calm considering the excitement outside.
We have film and photos of the employees entering the TSBD. No worries, No cares, but that it was later claimed to be the TSBD that the lone gunman took aim from.
What you wont find is anyone from inside running out and yelling that a killer is shooting from in the building.
No strangers was the reply from all employees in answering had they seen any strangers in the building. Yet a building across the street did have strangers inside. The Dal-Tex building.
One man gave an alias. Jim Braden, the other was Larry Florer. The DPD listed them as being on 4th floor of TSBD. A mistake or an attempt to locate them in a building later associated with the shooting.

Given all that has been discovered about the snipers nest, the evidence, the film and photos, the building with suspicious characters was the Daltex building not the TSBD.
Review of first accounts and statements show none claiming the TSBD as the origin.
Later on statements and claims would fall into line with the official account.
The bystanders outside would have interesting stories of gun men or a colored man or rifle barrel protruding...what none claim is actually seeing the gun fire. The dance some will get themselves into trying to claim having seen the rifle yet no shot come from it is comical. The films show no rifle let alone a shot emanating from the SixFloorWindow. Yet this is the history we are told to swallow? Oh not so fast.
This is the start of the Fact, that NO SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE TSBD!

Let's Begin:

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104


I mentioned in another thread about Bob Jackson, Euins, and Brennan were the Warren Commissions go to guys for saying shots came from the Texas School book depository.  I do not agree.

Robert Hill "Bob" Jackson deliberately provided false statements that he had seen the shooter actually firing the weapon from the Snipers Nest window. DPD Sgt. W.G. Jennings' report: "Bob Jackson... is reported to have seen the rifle and the man that fired the shots as the shots were fired." (v19p517)

When taken to task he folded and later would claim only seeing the rifle drawn back in slowly. Not seeing it fired. Not seeing a shooter.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.

Interestingly the same description Brennan would claim of the rifle being drawn back in slowly.
He gets Dillard etc to go along. Even though Dillard snapped two photos he did not capture a weapon or shooter. He took two general shots with two cameras facing the TSBD as that was the way they were facing driving down Houston.
Bob did not take photos of the scene or building.
Bob had two cameras also, one was loaded and camera ready.
Bob would make excuses and change the story he gave. No film, it was too quick to take a picture, wrong lens, and he's a bad press photographer.
I don't buy any of those excuses.
Yet here is a press photographer saying he is witnessing the shooting, knows its a rifle, knows the window, saw the shooter and so he does what? He takes zero photographs of the building. Doesn't even try! Doesn't stay in the area to capture what would usually turn into a standoff or capture of a suspect. Does he tell or flag a cop down, like the motorcycle cops near him, cops on the corner...nope.  He just rides on past.
If he knows there is a shooter how does he know if it is a security measure, (secret service) or an assassin? He would not, he might assume it was a assassin. But then that makes his inactions even more telling, as he doesn't even exit the car with the other three when they get to the corner. I do believe he is covering for his short comings.

Jackson doesn't take a single image of the TSBD either.  Not even now at the corner when his wide angle lens excuse would be a non starter. So was HALF a rifle protruding from a window? No! That is a silly mans claim.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your estimate of how many inches of the rifle that you observed?

Mr. JACKSON - I saw the barrel and about half - well, I did not see a telescopic sight, but I did see part of the stock, so I guess maybe 8 or 10 inches of the stock maybe. I did see part of the stock, I did not see the sight.

Mr. SPECTER - Eight or ten inches of the stock, and how much of the barrel would you estimate?

Mr. JACKSON - I guess possibly a foot.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see anyone's hands on the rifle?

Mr. JACKSON - No, sir.

So here we have Jackson seeing about twelve inches of barrel on a gun that only has a few inches of barrel showing.
With half the rifle out the window he suposedly does not see a hand on the weapon. Compare this to Euins.
I guess he didn't get the memo about the book box being used as a rest. Jackson would have LHO leaning over those and practiacally sticking his head out the window, past the casing to be able to have that much gun shown. Ridiculous is too kind a word for Jackson's claims.

Mr. SPECTER - Has there been any variation in your recollection or impressions about your observations on these occasions?
Mr. JACKSON - Not to my knowledge. The other times were not as thorough as this.

Suborn perjury much Mr. Specter?
Again Bob said what to whom?
DPD Sgt. W.G. Jennings' report: "Bob Jackson... is reported to have seen the rifle and the man that fired the shots as the shots were fired."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0268a.htm

And did they talk amonst themselves and share details?Representative Ford - Have you ever talked with any others in the car?
Mr. JACKSON - I have never sat down and talked with them about the events, no, sir. I have seen them, of course, several times but I have never discussed it with them.
Representative Ford - You never discussed what you said or what they said?

Mr. JACKSON - No, sir. I guess the one man I have discussed it more with than anybody else was Tom Dillard, the chief photographer for the Dallas News, and we recalled to each other the scene but we really never went into any detail or as to what each one of us said either.

Wow he back tracked on not talking to the others, to saying the one he talked with more than the others is Dillard, in the space of a sentence.
Bob you should stick to snapping pictures, you'd never make it as a witness in murder trial. He'd be locked up by any judge worth his robe.


Now how about famous Amos Euins,

We can read his first day statement and see what he says he saw.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif

I am presently going to school at Franklin D. Roosevelt high School and am

in the 9th grade. I got out of school this morning to see the President of

the United States when he came to Dallas. I was standing on the corner of

Elm and Houston street. From where I was standing I could look across the

street and see a large red brick building. I saw the President turn the

corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched

the car on down the street and about the time the car got back near the

black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I

looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun

and I saw him shoot twice. He then stepped back behind some boxes. I could

tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he

was shooting. I just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the

trigger housing. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just

saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this

man before.

 



WC Testimony

Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head,

because he had his head something like this.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.

Mr. EUINS. I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could

see was the spot and his hand.

Interesting how Euins and Jackson destroy each others claims.


Total fabrication. No man, no spot, no hand. Thusly no description despite the clear view of a 'bald spot'

Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?

Mr. EUINS. I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a

reflection, shaded.

Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a

white man?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he

had a bald--

Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in

his head.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir.

More ridiculous claims by Euins.
Of course in his first day statement he said the shooter was a white male. Yet says he meant it was a white spot, the bald spot was white.
Yet the bald spot was on a colored fellow now, or shaded. Not sure colored folks would agree with the colored boy. Usually a white spot is attached to a white persons scalp. And vice versa.
What color was the hand? Shaded even though its sticking out? Please. He blabbed to Underwood and Kent Biffle the man was colored.
Yet Euins claims seeing the rifle, hand and spot firing two shots. No clothing, no person, just a white bald spot and five digits. Boy I'd like to see the composite drawing of that suspect....
STAN HELP US OUT HERE!!!

So Euins change his story regarding the race of the supposed shooter.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was

wearing?

Mr. EUINS: No, sir.

Not much help in adding to the disembodied hand and bald spot is he?

Mr. UNDERWOOD.

"It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his

name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean

out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the

officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that

time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving

and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and

he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a

colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes,

sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was

what I thought his name was Eunice."

Biffle heard the same description, colored.

Underwood continues,

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir; the last two. Now, the first was just a loud explosion but it sounded like a giant firecracker or something had gone off. By the time the third shot was fired, the car I was in stopped almost through the intersection in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and I leaped out of the car before the car stopped. Bob Jackson from the Herald said he thought he saw a rifle in the window and I looked where he pointed and I saw nothing. Below the window he was pointing at, I saw two colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were coming from.

Mr. BALL. What words did you hear Bob Jackson say?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I don't know that I can remember exactly except I did hear him say words to the effect that "I saw a rifle" and I looked at that instant and I saw nothing myself. If he saw a rifle, I did not.


Even though Jackson said the rifle was slowly drawn back in, it doesn't square with what Underwood described, if the withdrawl was slow.

How about Dillard?

Mr. BALL - Did you see anything in the windows?

Mr. DILLARD - No.

Mr. BALL - Did you see a rifle barrel?

Mr. DILLARD - No.


Kind leaves Jackson as a Lone Nut.
Here we have all the others in the car facing the same way, watching the same window and yet they are not seeing what Bob claimed. They even had photographs to disprove Bob. So Bob had to modify his later claims.

Mal Couch had this to say,

Mr. COUCH - Nothing unusual between the shots. Uh - as I say, the first shot, I had no particular impression; but the second shot, I remember turning - several of us turning - and looking ahead of us. It was unusual for a motorcycle to backfire that close together, it seemed like. And after the third shot, Bob Jackson who was as I recall, on my right, yelled something like, "Look up in the window! There's the rifle!" And I remember glancing up to a window on the far right, which at the time impressed me as the sixth or seventh floor. And seeing about a foot of a rifle being - the barrel brought into the window. I saw no one in the window - just a quick 1-second glance at the barrel.

Thus none of the press photographers "saw the rifle" fire.

I would have asked to describe the rifle, was the barrel silver, black, gun blued? We get a counselor not worth snot in Belin and don't know what was seen or if it was really seen. Under cross Couch and the bunch would have been pressed for such details and when those details did or didn't match we would likely know how and where they had colluded their stories.

Mr. BELIN - Do you remember whether or not that window at which you saw the rifle, you say, being withdrawn - first of all, could you tell it was a rifle?

Mr. COUCH - Yes, I'd say you could. Uh - if a person was just standing on the - as much as I saw, if the factors that did happen, did not happen, you might not say that it was a rifle. In other words, if you just saw an object being pulled back into a window, you might not think anything of it. But with the excitement intense right after that third shot and what Bob yelled, my impression was that it was a rifle.

Here we have it in a nut shell, Bob Jackson cried wolf, and Mal was duped to think he saw a "rifle"

--
 
“Is everything a conspiracy? No. Only the important stuff.” Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition
 
PM is THE litmus test of intellectual integrity for researching this case.
Those who fall back on the fuxxy picture defense are not of a caliber to understand the ins-and-outs of this case. ~ Terry Martin
 


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

 

 

Howard Leslie Brennan.

 

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure his self that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I am confused here, the way this shows. But I believe this is the sixth floor, the way those windows are built there right at the present. I am confused whether this is the same window.

 

Brennan although confused said he Saw a shooter in an open window? Half open, fully open?

 

Brennan testified that "the suspect not only leaned out the window, but he "sat sideways on the window sill" (WC Volume 3 page 144)

 

Tough to do with a barely open window wouldn't you say? This does not match the SN window.

 

Mr. BRENNAN. I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window sill leaning out. (I strongly suspect he is describing the colored group of boys on 5th floor)

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up. (Aren't your hips at belt level???)

 

Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?

Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.(How does everyone know how much of the gun they thought they saw unless they were shown or saw the whole gun or MC later and confligrated this into their memories, plus if you can see half or 85% then you should be able to describe the scope and how the shooter was working the action and reaquiring the sight through the scope...this did not happen folks!!)

 

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?

Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

 

Here Brennan clears up his sighting of a rifle being fired, he says he DID NOT SEE IT FIRE! That is a 180* about face on seeing the "rifle" fire.

 

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Now, I wonder if you would take on Exhibit 482, if you can kind of mark the way the rifle was at the time you saw it.

Here is a red pencil. If you could put on Exhibit 482 the direction that you saw the rifle pointing, sir.

Mr. BRENNAN. I would say more at this angle. Maybe not as far out as this.

Exhibit 482 below with "rifle" shown as line below arrow, notice the book box 'gun rest' is oddly placed






Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not any part of the rifle was protruding out of the window?

Mr. BRENNAN. On a straight view like that it looked like it was.

But as I have told investigating officers prior, a person would have to be at an angle to tell how much was protruding out of the window. It did look

at that time that as much was protruding out of the window as there was in the window.

 

How would Brennan know that? He would need to see the whole rifle to be able to make this specious claim? And yet no scope observed?

Scope was lacking from those whom claimed to see a rifle, a rifle was later brought out of the TSBD with a scope.

 

Again no one truthfully said they saw the "rifle" or any gun fire from the TSBD.

 

What did Inspector Sawyer say about shots from the building?

Please watch the short video interview with him at the TSBD on 11/22.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrPhED9YhlE

 

No shots were associated with the TSBD, rifle and man is the way Sawyer describes what these witnesses told him.

 

 

Rather telling is the Commissions use of Mrs Cabell

 

Mayor and Mrs. Earle Cabell rode in the motorcade immediately behind the Vice-Presidential follow-up car.28 Mrs. Cabell was seated in the back seat behind the driver and was facing U.S. Representative Ray Roberts on her right as the car made the turn at Elm and Houston. In this position Mrs. Cabell "was actually facing" the seven-story Depository when the first shot rang out.29 She "jerked" her head up immediately and saw a "projection" in the first group of windows on a floor which she described both as the sixth floor and the top floor.30 According to Mrs. Cabell, the object was "rather long looking," but she was unable to determine whether it was a mechanical object or a person's arm.31 She turned away from the window to tell her husband that the noise was a shot, and "just as I got the words out ... the second two shots rang out." 32 Mrs. Cabell did not look at the sixth-floor window when the second and third shots were fired.33

An arm, a broom, a mop, a wooden window strip are all long, do not have a scope and do not fire bullets, just like the object seen in a window (open fully) and none claim to see it fire any projectiles.

 

James N. Crawford and Mary Ann Mitchell, two deputy district clerks for Dallas County, watched the motorcade at the southeast corner of Elm and Houston. After the President's car turned the corner, Crawford heard a loud report which he thought was backfire coming from the direction of the Triple Underpass.34 He heard a second shot seconds later, followed quickly by a third. At the third shot, he looked up and saw a "movement" in the far east corner of the sixth floor of the Depository, the only open window on that floor.Witness gives no confirmation of a rifle being fired from the building. Only "movement" in a window, no withdrawl of a rifle, simply motion.

 

That concludes the Commissions case for proving a rifle was fired from the TSBD via eye witness testimony, films, and photos.

The Warren Commission failed to prove their contentions and claims that a rifle with a scope fired from the Sixth Floor far eastern window.

 

Cheers, Ed!

 

 

 

--
 
“Is everything a conspiracy? No. Only the important stuff.” Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition
 
PM is THE litmus test of intellectual integrity for researching this case.
Those who fall back on the fuxxy picture defense are not of a caliber to understand the ins-and-outs of this case. ~ Terry Martin
 



Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

Good stuff, Ed! I knew a bit about Brennan but not so much about the others. I once read a rumor that Brennan stole Euins version he had overheard and ran with it. He must have got shit scared pretty quickly when he was asked to do the lineup. The WC had to bring him back to dispel another certain rumor that he had told some fellows from an NBC affiliate that he had initially thought the shots had come from where the railways were.


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Thank you Paul. 
These are the Warren Reports best witnesses to gunfire coming from the TSBD.
Pretty shabby lot. Guess every cop, sheriff and law man within a block was too busy waving at the parade to notice the things Brennan, Euins and Co. "see"...leave it to the amatures.

Too funny about Brennan's double-header with the WC to correct him.
You can't have your star playing for the other team now can you. 

That Star was a dunce as he later recounted,

Since we expected the President to pass by at 12:30, this was normally the time I would have been at lunch. I was the only one in the group who had decided to see the President. After finishing my coffee, I got back to work as quickly as possible and the minutes seemed to fly. I began to feel excitement and I knew that one day it would be something I could tell my grandchildren.

As I finished welding one particular piece, I glanced at my watch and noticed it was just 11:30, time to quit for lunch. I put away my equipment carefully, expecting to get back to it in about an hour. I walked in front of the Texas Book Depository and crossed the street on my way to the cafeteria located at Main and Record Streets. I knew that if I left to eat now I’d beat the noon crowds and still have a chance to see the President. When I reached the cafeteria, I looked through the window to see that there was almost no line at all.

The cashier rang up my total and gave me my change. She said, “I wish I could leave here soon enough to see the President as he goes by. But with the crowd that’s going to be in I’ll miss the whole thing!” I felt sorry for her and said, “Well, you might get trampled in the crowd!” I picked up my tray and looked until I found a window seat where I could view the scene that was beginning to unfold on the sidewalk. The always busy downtown was becoming alive with movement. People were coming out of buildings and rushing to their destinations. A long line had formed in the cafeteria where I had gone through only a couple of minutes earlier.

Another thing I noticed as I looked out the window was that some people had begun standing at the curb in anticipation of the coming President. It was still more than thirty minutes before he was scheduled to pass, but the jostling for position had started. It was a pleasant, well-dressed crowd from the hundreds of offices in the surrounding area. I realized that the same thing was happening all along the parade route and I had better decide what I was going to do in order to be able to see. Although I’m not short, neither could I see over some six-footer, so I tried to figure out where I could get a good view.

I remembered that the Presidential motorcade would be turning off Houston onto Elm, and that there was a wall about four feet high in Dealy [sic] Plaza that would give me an excellent view. If I could get a seat on the wall, I’d have a panoramic view of the whole area. I finished my lunch and walked out of the cafeteria to be greeted by a bright sun that had come out just in time for the parade. I thought, “That’s a good sign!” I looked at my watch which indicated 12:18. By now I could hear as well as sense the excitement in the air. The sidewalks were lined to capacity.


Had the motorcade been on time, 12:10, Howard Brennan would have seen the last press bus go by... what a maroon.


Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915




Above: Charles Brehm (after first misidentifying him for Brennan, thx Paul) doing a phoner!



Below: Howard Brennan sitting on the eldge (yup the guy from the Village People......)






--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
 


Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Ed, I agree with your contention that there were feasibly (love that word) no shots fired from the TSBD.


If I was going to frame a patsy that worked in the building I most certainly would not want a real shooter to be inside gumming up the planting of the evidence and the framing of the mark. That would just be stooopid.


As far as the patsy being out front...? Hell, intimidation and threats do wonderful things in sharpening witnesses' memories. But putting a real shooter in the building? No, far too risky. While people were chasing shadows in the TSBD, the shooters could quite safely get away from their various snipers' nests... that or just flip open their Secret Service credentials.



--
"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham
August 12, 2015 at 8:48 AM



Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

I've always thought so too Terry, at least no shots from the sixth floor anyways. Somebody had to have been setting up the snipers nest and planting the goodies at around 12.30. Surely this was not done while someone took pot shots at JFK from that very same window.

Ed has presented a very persuasive case for there being no shots fired from the TSBD IMO

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915




From Richard Sprague's What The Photographs Show


Below Hughes close-ups, yeah where on earth is that barrel that is supposedly sticking out.......














--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




August 12, 2015 at 9:31 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

From Robin Unger's site

Credit: mark Ulrik

Large scan, open in new tab



--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Weaver polaroid from Robin Unger's site

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/index.php?cat=3



--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




August 12, 2015 at 10:04 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Barto at August 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM

From Robin Unger's site

Credit: mark Ulrik

Large scan, open in new tab



This photo, certainly provides a stark reminder of how vulnerable Kennedy really was on this trip. Look at all those open windows on the upper floors.

But maybe that was the plan, open all or most of the windows on the upper levels so the TSBD would become the immediate target of suspicion after the shots were fired.
August 12, 2015 at 10:08 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Oswald at the Window by Dave Ratcliffe

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




August 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

The Feeble Individual

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/D%20Letter/Item%2071.pdf


A piece largely on Rowland and the WC's attempt to discredit him.



Also check out the bottom of page 2!

*TSBD employees who were not questioned under oath by the Commission include, alphabetienlly:

Haddon Spurgeon Aiken; Gloria Calverly; Cthus Virgil Campbell, vice president of TSBD; Jack

Charles Cason, president of TSBD; Avery Davis; Betty Dragoo; Joe Farl Jarman (brother of James?);

Carl Edward Jones; Spaulden Earnest Jones; Herbert Lester Janker; Roy Eduard Lewis; Sarah

Stanton; Sandra Styles; Lloyd R. Viles; Lee Watley; Otis N. Williams. (Underlined names reported

to be in key locations from which they could and should have witnessed the assassination.)


Quite a list of people not 'used'


--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




August 12, 2015 at 12:41 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

Barto at August 12, 2015 at 7:57 AM



Above: Howard Brennan doing a phoner!




Barto I think the first photo is of Charles Brehm.

August 12, 2015 at 3:53 PM

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Thanks for pointing that out Paul, my bad.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




August 12, 2015 at 4:39 PM
Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

From the other photo it appears to me that Brennan is checking out the motorcade and not looking up at the TSBD. By my estimation Z147 is about 2.5 seconds away from the first shot.

Below: Howard Brennan sitting on the ledge (yup the guy from the Village People......)


August 12, 2015 at 4:56 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Thanks Bart!
Agreed Paul, Brennan never appears to look up.

From the text and photos presented here we have demonstrated the Warren Commissions case for a Sixth Floor shooter was without merit.

Reopen The Kennedy Case, because justice is never too late.
August 12, 2015 at 8:18 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

John Mooney
Member
Posts: 48

The physical evidence of the Connally body wounds also rule out TSBD.
August 13, 2015 at 3:33 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

John Mooney at August 13, 2015 at 3:33 AM

The physical evidence of the John Connally body wounds also rule out TSBD.

I've thought that for a long time too
August 13, 2015 at 5:37 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

No shots came out of the TSBD IMO. The rifle and shells was a diversion with the arrow pointing at Oswald. Having a shooter in the TSBD would be madness. What if someone spots them? The plan will fall to pieces. The shots came from somewhere else. Fuck knows where. My guess is a TSBD employee brought in the rifle and shells. Again, fuck knows who

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Paul Francisco Paso at August 13, 2015 at 5:58 AM

No shots came out of the TSBD IMO. The rifle and shells was a diversion with the arrow pointing at Oswald. Having a shooter in the TSBD would be madness. What if someone spots them? The plan will fall to pieces. The shots came from somewhere else. Fuck knows where. My guess is a TSBD employee brought in the rifle and shells. Again, fuck knows who.

We may not know WHO but we have an idea where to start looking.

Either the couple of fellows who came in late (Shelley, Frazier - from the Where's Your Rider thread) and the one who came in early, Dougherty (Daugherty or whatever spelling).

They would be most likely to not be noticed so much because 1) - no one else was there yet, or 2) - everyone there would be busy at their jobs and not see anything... well, all except for that lazy good-for-nothing Givens, huh?
--
"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham

August 13, 2015 at 8:59 AM
Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.

August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM
Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM
In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.
The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.
There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.


Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,
you just had to open them there can of worms.
I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material
August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide?

The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of.

Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind
August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.



Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,


you just had to open them there can of worms.


I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Ideally, the Dictabelt tapes should be digitised and re-analysed - not only the segment covering Dealey Plaza and the ride to Parkland but the tapes covering later transmissions related to Tippit and the subsequent chase for his killer. Is there evidence of editing in these segments? However, the broad conclusion would be the same - to a very high degee of probability there was a gunman behind the picket fence and a significant likelihood three gunmen fired on November 22nd.

A genuine re-analysis would require the original tests in Dealey Plaza to be carried out more thoroughly and I'm not sure this is a practical proposition. There is also the issue of whether any new buildings constructed since 1963 would render further examination problematical.

Unlike eyewitness accounts and even discussions related to medical evidence and the autopsy, the acoustics study removes the elements of objectivity and ambiguous phraseology. Arguments related to bullet trajectories should be almost entirely objective, although we have seen attempts to 'place' Kennedy and Connally in positions within the limousine that militate in favour of the SBT. We have also, unfortunately, endured Dale Myers's bogus animations being given publicity in TV documentaries.

Acoustics is a hard science. It relies on basic mathematical and physical principles and does not allow for 'wiggle room', although results are couched in terms of probability.

Remember that a second team of experts drafted in to examine the results of the first group reached similar conclusions.

August 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM
Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide?


The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of.


Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

I've never really understood the argument that a sniper would need a spotter in Dealey Plaza. A sniper would know exactly where his target was going to be and presumably practiced aiming at numerous vehicles beforehand.

The Kennedy assassination has never struck me as the ultra-sophisticated operation portrayed by some. The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

To anyone who didn't have help from the inside, or who hadn't actually worked there, the TSBD was a nightmare in terms of escape.

Just my view, but once the MC rifle was discovered I doubt very much whether DPD were remotely interested in searching every box or container let alone tear up the floorboards. Jack Dougherty had considerable latitude between 12.00 and 12.45 to do whatever was necessary, although the 'floor-laying' team may have built the sniper's nest.

Admittedly, this is largely conjecture. But so too is much related to what actually happened in the TSBD shortly before and after the assassination.


August 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide?


The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of.


Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

I've never really understood the argument that a sniper would need a spotter in Dealey Plaza. A sniper would know exactly where his target was going to be and presumably practiced aiming at numerous vehicles beforehand.

The Kennedy assassination has never struck me as the ultra-sophisticated operation portrayed by some. The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

To anyone who didn't have help from the inside, or who hadn't actually worked there, the TSBD was a nightmare in terms of escape.

Just my view, but once the MC rifle was discovered I doubt very much whether DPD were remotely interested in searching every box or container let alone tear up the floorboards. Jack Dougherty had considerable latitude between 12.00 and 12.45 to do whatever was necessary, although the 'floor-laying' team may have built the sniper's nest.

Admittedly, this is largely conjecture. But so too is much related to what actually happened in the TSBD shortly before and after the assassination.

Same question, notwithstanding there need not be a team, but for the life of me can't imagine a lone person taking pot shots from the window on the sixth....where's the rifle which fired those shots. Hidden, is that what we think.
The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

You're buying into those sightings then?
You might consider re reading the thread.
Like everything else in this case I'm not ready to accept any longer any of the stuff we've been fed as fact or even halfway true.
Of course this is only my opinion. It matters not.

August 13, 2015 at 4:34 PM
Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.



Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,


you just had to open them there can of worms.


I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Ideally, the Dictabelt tapes should be digitised and re-analysed - not only the segment covering Dealey Plaza and the ride to Parkland but the tapes covering later transmissions related to Tippit and the subsequent chase for his killer. Is there evidence of editing in these segments? However, the broad conclusion would be the same - to a very high degee of probability there was a gunman behind the picket fence and a significant likelihood three gunmen fired on November 22nd.

A genuine re-analysis would require the original tests in Dealey Plaza to be carried out more thoroughly and I'm not sure this is a practical proposition. There is also the issue of whether any new buildings constructed since 1963 would render further examination problematical.

Unlike eyewitness accounts and even discussions related to medical evidence and the autopsy, the acoustics study removes the elements of objectivity and ambiguous phraseology. Arguments related to bullet trajectories should be almost entirely objective, although we have seen attempts to 'place' Kennedy and Connally in positions within the limousine that militate in favour of the SBT. We have also, unfortunately, endured Dale Myers's bogus animations being given publicity in TV documentaries.


Acoustics is a hard science. It relies on basic mathematical and physical principles and does not allow for 'wiggle room', although results are couched in terms of probability.

Remember that a second team of experts drafted in to examine the results of the first group reached similar conclusions.




Not wishing to be objectionable, but Redfern can you supply a link to those conclusions, I am under the impression they were different, and could not agree, my failing memory maybe to blame but just to be sure....

My understanding is the two reports couldn't agree on the source mic to begin with, and then there was disagreement on other crucial points.

Again my apologies if I have this all wrong


cheers mate
August 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Paul Francisco Paso
Administrator
Posts: 729

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide?


The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of.


Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

I've never really understood the argument that a sniper would need a spotter in Dealey Plaza. A sniper would know exactly where his target was going to be and presumably practiced aiming at numerous vehicles beforehand.

The Kennedy assassination has never struck me as the ultra-sophisticated operation portrayed by some. The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

To anyone who didn't have help from the inside, or who hadn't actually worked there, the TSBD was a nightmare in terms of escape.

Just my view, but once the MC rifle was discovered I doubt very much whether DPD were remotely interested in searching every box or container let alone tear up the floorboards. Jack Dougherty had considerable latitude between 12.00 and 12.45 to do whatever was necessary, although the 'floor-laying' team may have built the sniper's nest.

Admittedly, this is largely conjecture. But so too is much related to what actually happened in the TSBD shortly before and after the assassination.


I think it was more sophisticated than it was crude. Snipers are meant to be hiding. The worst place for a sniper to hide that day was the 6th floor of the TSBD where the patsy was suppose be. Whoever those witnesses may have seen on the 6th floor were maybe probably planting the rifle and the shells. Someone had to do it just before they shot the President.

I am with Mick on the dictabelt stuff but I understand the technical stuff less. I doubt they can get that much information about the acoustics of Dealey Plaza as they claim from a shiity old source like a dictabelt recording. Didn't Edison invent the dictabelt 100 years ago?

August 13, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.



Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,


you just had to open them there can of worms.


I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Ideally, the Dictabelt tapes should be digitised and re-analysed - not only the segment covering Dealey Plaza and the ride to Parkland but the tapes covering later transmissions related to Tippit and the subsequent chase for his killer. Is there evidence of editing in these segments? However, the broad conclusion would be the same - to a very high degee of probability there was a gunman behind the picket fence and a significant likelihood three gunmen fired on November 22nd.

A genuine re-analysis would require the original tests in Dealey Plaza to be carried out more thoroughly and I'm not sure this is a practical proposition. There is also the issue of whether any new buildings constructed since 1963 would render further examination problematical.

Unlike eyewitness accounts and even discussions related to medical evidence and the autopsy, the acoustics study removes the elements of objectivity and ambiguous phraseology. Arguments related to bullet trajectories should be almost entirely objective, although we have seen attempts to 'place' Kennedy and Connally in positions within the limousine that militate in favour of the SBT. We have also, unfortunately, endured Dale Myers's bogus animations being given publicity in TV documentaries.


Acoustics is a hard science. It relies on basic mathematical and physical principles and does not allow for 'wiggle room', although results are couched in terms of probability.

Remember that a second team of experts drafted in to examine the results of the first group reached similar conclusions.




Not wishing to be objectionable, but Redfern can you supply a link to those conclusions, I am under the impression they were different, and could not agree, my failing memory maybe to blame but just to be sure....

My understanding is the two reports couldn't agree on the source mic to begin with, and then there was disagreement on other crucial points.

Again my apologies if I have this all wrong


cheers mate

The acoustics reports carried out for the HSCA are contained in this volume:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961


Testimonies given at the HSCA are probably easier for lay people to understand.

James Barger:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscabarg.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscabar2.htm

Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasay:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscashot.htm



August 14, 2015 at 12:21 AM

Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

If we don't accept the acoustics evidence, then we are left with a conundrum.

It is difficult to prove in absolute terms whether a shot was fired from a certain location even if witnesses observed a man with a rifle and heard gunfire from that approximate location. It strikes me as impossible to prove that a shot was not fired from that location.

Apart from Jackson, Euins and Brennan, other witnesses spoke of a man on the upper floors of the TSBD with a rifle - Rowland 15 minutes beforehand towards the SW windows on the 6th floor and Carolyn Walther in a SE window shortly before the shots, although she specified (I believe mistakenly) a different floor. Witnesses in the jail appear to have seen a gunman too, although they were never interviewed by DPD or the FBI.

Numerous witnesses saw a figure wearing a light-coloured shirt in the SE window very shortly before the shots rang out with film evidence supporting these sightings. Noticeably, film footage of Prayer Man shows two men looking in the general direction of the upper floors of the TSBD.

If it is argued that firing a shot from the upper floors of the TSBD would attract attention, then surely walking around with a rifle or briefly pointing it out the window would also attract attention. But do we dispense with evidence from seemingly reliable witnesses which is relatively consistent because it doesn't fit our preferred solution? This is exactly what lone nut advocates do time after time.


Most contributors to these pages accept that there was at least one shot from the 'grassy knoll'. (I believe there were two, with one being the 'Rosemary Willis shot'.) No rifle was discovered in the vicinity, even although there was much less time and space available to hide any.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no witness statements officially or unoifficially identifying locations other than the TSBD or the picket fence area as the sources of gunfire.

Returning to the acoustics evidence, it is strange that in its own way this seems to have suffered a similar response to the arguments surrounding Prayer Man. It is perplexing that the one serious scientific study carried out on the assassination which proved a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt has been allowed to be fade into the background.


As for the significance of the risk of a sniper attracting attention? I believe this shows confidence that Oswald would quickly be identified as the suspect and Truly's 'he's an employee' excuse a rehearsed response rather than an off-the-cuff improvisation.


August 14, 2015 at 1:54 AM Edit Delete Flag Quote & Reply

Lee Farley
Administrator
Posts: 921

This thread is becoming one of the reasons why I believe the medical, ballistics and acoustic evidence is the biggest quagmire in the whole assassination research field. It's so fucked up that no-one will ever agree. It is why I hold my head in my hands every time I see Pat Speer and Nail Varnish Varnell go at it at the EF over the back wound or I see yet another fucking thread about bullets and impact points from Bumfuck Bob. Utter shite.


Hope you don't think I'm trying to stifle discussion here but if I've seen one acoustics/ballistics discussion lead nowhere I've seen 5000. The dictabelt analysis is yet another area of the assassination where contradictions and confusion has been (purposely IMO) weaved into and around it. Unfortunately, I'm not intelligent enough to understand it and have, in the past, relied upon others to decipher it for me. I have to admit, I'm still none the wiser.

On the subject of assassins "practicing on moving cars" there is a report available that makes claims from a pretty reputable Dallas couple that their car was shot at in Dealey Plaza either the day before or a couple of days before 11/22.

August 14, 2015 at 4:21 AM
Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Thanks Redfern for the link and the reply.

And thanks too Lee Farley, for reminding us not to get bogged down in old tired stuff/shite. Its so very true. Goes nowhere fast!

August 14, 2015 at 4:56 AM
Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

In response to Redfern

If we don't accept the acoustics evidence, then we are left with a conundrum.
Whether we do or don't accept it IMO matters not, we are left with a conundrum either way. So in the end we go round and round until we're all dizzy.
It is difficult to prove in absolute terms whether a shot was fired from a certain location even if witnesses observed a man with a rifle and heard gunfire from that approximate location. It strikes me as impossible to prove that a shot was not fired from that location.

And the point is? The thread seems to show that eyewitnesses can be unreliable, embelish their accounts and even lie. Surely all we are doing here is showing that it's possible that no shots were fired from the TSBD. the fact that the Warren report says 3 shots came from the 6th floor window doesn't make it so.

Apart from Jackson, Euins and Brennan, other witnesses spoke of a man on the upper floors of the TSBD with a rifle - Rowland 15 minutes beforehand towards the SW windows on the 6th floor and Carolyn Walther in a SE window shortly before the shots, although she specified (I believe mistakenly) a different floor. Witnesses in the jail appear to have seen a gunman too, although they were never interviewed by DPD or the FBI.

Who are the "other witnesses" who spoke of a man on the upper floors with a rifle. Name them!
Witnesses who appear to have seen a gunman is very different to somebody seeing a rifle protruding from the 6th floor window

Numerous witnesses saw a figure wearing a light-colored shirt in the SE window very shortly before the shots rang out with film evidence supporting these sightings. Noticeably, film footage of Prayer Man shows two men looking in the general direction of the upper floors of the TSBD.

Again this is not proof of anything

If it is argued that firing a shot from the upper floors of the TSBD would attract attention, then surely walking around with a rifle or briefly pointing it out the window would also attract attention. But do we dispense with evidence from seemingly reliable witnesses which is relatively consistent because it doesn't fit our preferred solution? This is exactly what lone nut advocates do time after time.

I agree If I were to argue for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD then I would also agree it could attract attention. As someone on this thread has mentioned before now, for all we know it could have been a broom stick handle which was poked through the window or anything else for that matter or nothing at all.

We are not dispensing evidence! We are scrutinizing the veracity of it.

As Ed has clearly shown, most of the eyewitnesses to a rifle barrel or a shot fired have displayed a propensity to fabricated and embellish their accounts after the fact

Most contributors to these pages accept that there was at least one shot from the 'grassy knoll'. (I believe there were two, with one being the 'Rosemary Willis shot'.) No rifle was discovered in the vicinity, even although there was much less time and space available to hide any.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no witness statements officially or unoifficially identifying locations other than the TSBD or the picket fence area as the sources of gunfire.
None that we have ever been informed about.
Returning to the acoustics evidence, it is strange that in its own way this seems to have suffered a similar response to the arguments surrounding Prayer Man. It is perplexing that the one serious scientific study carried out on the assassination which proved a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt has been allowed to be fade into the background.
Please don't return to it. It saddens me greatly to think near on 40 years later the two analysis studies of that tin foil belt lend so much weight to a conclusion by a Government body, only to be left open to endless ridicule for the next 1000 years IMO. It should be left alone, we have better fights to fight me thinks!

As for the significance of the risk of a sniper attracting attention? I believe this shows confidence that Oswald would quickly be identified as the suspect and Truly's 'he's an employee' excuse a rehearsed response rather than an off-the-cuff improvisation.
I can only repeat what others have said and its speculative and only an opinion, but it would seem on the surface a terrible place for a sniper, not only because of the escape route but it would seem an impractical spot for a shot as well. IMO
Just my two cents worth mate nothing more!

August 14, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Interesting reading Mick and Redfern. My thought on one point is that if the SN was planned with no shooter, then as a staged scene they needed an abort capacity. If the shooting, (assuming it originating from elsewhere) does not occur, then do not wave a gun out the window, do not scatter shells about, do not stack the last few boxes. Just leave it as an innocent area where books are stored. If the first shot does sound, count the shots heard, leave the right number of shells, show the gun out the window etc.

August 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

I follow the logic Jake, and I can certainly understand what you're saying. But I'm not convinced the framers of Lee cared less about an abort plan. If that means things were left there I don't think it mattered.

August 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM
Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Mick Purdy at August 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM

I follow the logic Jake, and I can certainly understand what you're saying. But I'm not convinced the framers of Lee cared less about an abort plan. If that means things were left there I don't think it mattered.

You could be right and I'll leave it at that. I'll end up going around in those circles again, not with you mind you, just chasing my own scenarios from one to the next. That's why I like PM. It's a picture. It's him or it isn't. (I think it is).

August 14, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Don't worry too much mate, all I ever seem to do is go in circles.
I agree the picture of PM is a lot easier in many ways.

August 14, 2015 at 1:12 PM
Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

It is hard to fathom the hostility on this thread to the acoustics study and the view that shots were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Should the two teams of experts have concluded that only three shots were fired from the TSBD at intervals allowing for the operation of a bolt-action rifle, you can be certain this would have been pounced on as the final, definitive proof that the Warren conclusions were vindicated. It didn’t quite work out that way, though, but for some reason there seems to be a desire to throw the wheat out with the chaff. In essence, the study confirmed what people standing in Dealey Plaza 15 years previously felt they had experienced – as far as witness accounts of ‘grassy knoll’ shooters were concerned, evidence that was routinely trashed as some form of mass delusion.

My background has involved ploughing through many academic papers so the acoustics analysis isn't particularly difficult for me, although I can appreciate that people who aren't scientists might find it perplexing.

There might be some justification in scrutinising the testimony of Euins, Brennan and Jackson, but the former two at least quickly reported their sightings of a sniper. Brennan’s clothing description corroborated that of others – yet another factor ruling out Oswald as the sniper.

The MC rifle and shells could obviously have been placed anywhere on the upper floors of the TSBD in order to frame Oswald. However, we know that a pile of boxes was constructed near the easternmost window to form a ‘sniper’s lair’. If the general aim was to assassinate Kennedy and create the impression shots were fired from this window where is the conceptual difficulty in believing that shots were indeed fired at Kennedy from that window? So what if this tallies with the Warren Commission? Its overriding concern lay in ‘proving’ Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots.

If there was a large degree of risk in being detected, that applies equally if not more so to shooters in the car-park. Yet we know that all escaped, which is the proof of the pudding as far as conspirators were concerned. While it seems clear to some later researchers that there had to be inside help as far as the TSBD shooter was concerned, this angle was largely overlooked for years.

The acoustics analysis did not preclude the possibility of shots being fired from other locations in Dealey Plaza. It could only deal with waveforms which were identified as being the strongest candidates representing gunfire. I believe several more (probably suppressed) shots were fired from the rear.

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Redfern,
didn't the JD commission its own study after the HSCA wound up which negated the findings produced for the HSCA? Maybe I'm confusing issues, or talking at cross-purposes...

I'm just one of the Dregs of Society from South Bunyip Valley Heights 

In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once
inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their
address they eventually live in the metropolis. Quentin Crisp

http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker

They put Johnny and Bobby in the ground 
Then the place was run by shucks and clowns
Motherfuckers are still thick on the ground 
Coz there’s a new God – There’s a new God in town.
Steve Schwartz & the Strap-Ons



Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Acoustic tests aside, seems the shots coming from the TSBD was a late arrival, guesses by some, and perhaps suggested at by others, influenced by whispers in the crowd.
You would think Lem Johns would have taken out the shooter.
He jumped fromthe car behind LBJ.
He ran forward, directly in front of Knoll (or so he says) towards VP car with LBJ.
Was left by speeding away cars in the street.
Hears third shot.
Gets a ride to Parkland.... WTH? Some great work by the invisible man. Although some newsmen say he ran to the knoll too. 


Thomas Johns's Original Report


(Johns was in the Vice Presidential follow up car)

The motorcade had passed through the downtown section of Dallas, and at approximately 12:35 p.m., CST, I heard two "shots," not knowing whether they were firecrackers, backfire, or gun shots. These two shots were approximately two or three seconds apart, and at this time we were on a slight downhill curve to the right. On the right-hand side of the motorcade from the street, a grassy area sloped upward to a small 2 or 3-foot concrete wall with sidewalk area. When the shots sounded, I was looking to the right and saw a man standing and then being thrown or hit to the ground, and this together with the shots made the situation appear dangerous to me. I estimate that the motorcade was going approximately 12 to 14 miles per hour at this time, and I jumped from the security car and started running for the Vice President's car. I felt that if there was danger due to the slow speed of the motorcade, I would be of more assistance and in a more proper location with the Vice President's car. Before I reached the Vice President's car a third shot had sounded and the entire motorcade then picked up speed and I was left on the street at this point. I obtained a ride with White House movie men and joined the Vice President and ASAIC Youngblood at the Parkland Hospital


I have spent the time to go over and add to, my comments all through it .


https://www.dropbox.com/s/79xmw3ze3m71fld/tsbdWitness.docx?dl=0

I have only one credible witness left on that list for a TSBD shooter.

No not Allman as he seems to be piling on...

"Allman looked up at the book depository. He thought he could see a rifle barrel protruding from a window. He headed for the grassy knoll and then changed his mind, thinking, "I've got to get to a phone."

He ran up the book depository steps, passing a man at the entrance. The stranger was thin, with dark hair and circles under his eyes. Allman asked where he could find a phone.

The man jerked his thumb back toward the building as he left and said, "In there."

Later, Allman learned the stranger's name: Lee Harvey Oswald."

Allman has Bob Jackson'itis and thinks he has seen a rifle barrel out the TSBD window.


Allman, 79, owner of a marketing and real estate firm, wonders sometimes: If he had looked up sooner and seen Oswald in the sixth floor window, would he later have recognized the assassin in the doorway of the book depository? Might that have helped police catch Oswald before he fled to Oak Cliff and fatally shot Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit?

And every so often, the dreams come.

In them, he meets the thin stranger in the doorway again. When he wakes, he knows the man was Oswald. In the dream he has a suspicion but can't place the man's face. And, always, before he can remember, the thin stranger disappears.

Much like the thin rifle story your peddling disappears under scrutiny huh Pierce
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3378-001.gif

or


"I will never forget that first look," said Pierce Allman.

On that fateful day in Dallas, Allman, a young newsman, came to a corner of Elm Street directly across from the Texas School Book Depository, to see the young first couple.

“They turned the corner and (closes his eyes) boom!” he recalled.

Allman looked up at the red brick building.

“There were three guys in the fifth floor window,” he said. “And they were literally hanging out of the window and looking up and pointing up. And I thought, 'I need to get to a phone and call.' So I ran down the sidewalk and up the steps and into the doorway of the depository building.”

It was there he had a chance encounter.

“There was a guy standing in the doorway,” remembered Allman, “and I said, ‘Where's the phone?’ And he jerked his thumb and said, ‘In there!' And I said, ‘Thank you.’”

Seriously Allman needs to reign it in a bit but okey dokey whatev Pierce. Wait where was the rifle Pierce??? 

If anything we should question Pierce's consensus that shots had been fired from the TSBD, and then that was the logical place shots came from, of course after he first foolishly ran up the knoll to look behind the fence. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE     
(video also has the DPD saying it was Japanese rifle, see 'jap rilfe traded')

Pierce says FROM WHICH UPPER WINDOW IS NOT KNOWN as he is on the phone and says two witnesses are being brought in the TSBD. later we see Euins and Brennan get into Sawyers car...

Geez PIerce shouldn't you say which window YOU say YOU saw a rifle???


Terry Ford actually backs up PM being LHO. note which side the man whom Allman asked was on...

"...running back toward the Texas School Book Depository. He followed Allman into

the building, walking on his right side. Remembers Allman turning to his

left to ask a white male the location of a telephone."


Wow I didn't know Bob Jackson was fooled too?!?!?!?!
Pierce Allman: "..And Bob Jackson from the Times-Herald was running behind me. And why we went up there, I don't know, except there was just sort of a movement up there."


Too funny, perhaps they exchanged rifle stories behind the fence!!!! Hey Bob what window did you see that rifle in???





[table class="smallText" style="width%;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"][tr]
August 16, 2015 at 4:14 PM
Flag Quote & Reply




Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

If anything we should question Pierce's consensus that shots had been fired from the TSBD, and then that was the logical place shots came from, of course after he first foolishly ran up the knoll to look behind the fence. 

 

This is analogous to driving down the road, seeing smoke billow out from under the hood of your car, pulling over, then checking your trunk first.


Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

This is analogous to driving down the road, seeing smoke billow out from under the hood of your car, pulling over, then checking your trunk first.

You do know Stan you are quite Brilliant.


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Absolutely perfect analogy, in fact they ran to the trunk with a fire extinguisher.


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Martin was my last hope for a solid witness.

Although he ran towards the knoll area with everyone he first said it seemed like the TSBD was the general location shots came from.
He ran though to the knoll area and spoke with a man he thinks was Secret Service, that man told him the shots came from the TSBD thus putting into Martin's mind that was the source....another one down. I have no one left to claim with authority that the TSBD is where shots originated.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=79
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=80&tab=page

Martin may have actually seen LHO in a cab, that or Crafard.

Somehow LIFE magazine knew Martin was in Dealey Plaza and taking films, as they called before he could get home...erie
The UPI guy must have taken his name down and 'reported' him


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Gary:

And did you have any idea where the shooting was coming from?

Buell:

The… the sound to me at that time, it sounded like it was

coming… coming from above.

Gary:

And… so, in other words, in the building?

Buell:

Well, I was standing on the steps. It was somewhere… it sounded

like it was coming from a building very… above. The one in which I was standing on the Here he nearly gives us a clue like he did in his first day statements that the shots sounded as if they came from across the street, ie. the Dal-tex or County Records Building (CRB)

steps because if you go to that intersection there at Houston and Elm, there’s buildings of

a certain height in every… and… on three corners. And I don’t… I do not know if the

same effect of buildings like that present kind of like an echo effect. The… the only

thing I can say was that I realized that it… that it was gunfire, but to be specific of which Here he is saying he did not think it was from his building but one of the others at the intersection as that is how it sounded.

building it was coming from other than it sounded like it come from above where I was

standing, I can’t… I can’t be more specific than that. And… and it sounded like it come

from above of where we were… we were standing. Again he says Above. not in the building or from the building which he was standing in the entryway of...simply above him.


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

In a court of law BWF had this to say,

Q: Mr. Frazier, did you make any determination at that time from the noises that you have just reported as to what location they came from?

A: They appeared to me to come from down towards the triple underpass.


Funny how a threat of jail time changes a persons memory.


Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

Greg at August 16, 2015 at 3:40 PM

Redfern,

didn't the JD commission its own study after the HSCA wound up which negated the findings produced for the HSCA? Maybe I'm confusing issues, or talking at cross-purposes...

Greg,

'Claim to have negated' is nearer the mark. The NRC (National Research Council) group argued that the presence of certain 'simulcasts' (that is, dialogue and sounds contained on both Channels 1 and 2 of DPD radio transmissions) indicated that the gunfire sounds occurred too late to have represented the assassination. Down the years, these arguments have persisted.

Don Thomas has had a tough battle insisting that other dialogue on the tape shows that the gunfire occurred precisely during the interval that would be expected. The situation is complicated by the fact that we cannot be absolutely sure of the provenance of the tapes being used and exactly why the 'simulcasts' occurred when they did (the technology at the time was relatively crude).

If the sounds on the tape were not gunfire but spurious 'noise' signals we'd expect the relevant proof to follow very quickly. Yet there has been no satisfactory critique of the work carried out by the HSCA groups that would show this. We are asked to believe that the close similarities between the waveforms on the tape, those found in Dealey Plaza by experiment and computer acoustical simulations is purely coincidental.

Yet, the microphones picking up the gunfire sounds corresponded to those that would be obtained by a vehicle travelling along the dogleg turn from Houston to Elm Street on Dealey Plaza at 11mph. The sounds themselves correspond very closely with the timing and reactions we see on the Zapruder film and the shooting sequence described by many bystanders (including the two later shots spaced very close together). The odds against these factors alone occurring purely by chance are extremely long. So confident was one of the initial groups in its results that it was prepared to identify the calibre of weapon used in the 'grassy knoll' shot.

I am convinced they nailed it.

At one point I entertained the possibility that shots came from a window other than the 'sniper's nest' - maybe even one on the 5th. However, the Weiss and Aschekenasy study was so accurate it seems to have pinned down the location.


Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Just came across this while researching about Richard E Sprague at the HSCA and the time he was there with Richard A. Sprague and just before Blakey waltzed in, it kind of jumps out 

One day in November 1976, Bob Cutler, Chris Sharrett and I put on an all day presentation of the photographic evidence for the entire staff. Follow up presentations were made in July 1977 shortly before Blakey's arrival to the JFK sub-committee of the HSCA and for various staff people working for the committee members plus invited observers from the House and Senate. Emphasis was placed on the hard, solid evidence of the sixth floor window photographs that prove no one fired any shots from that point on November 22, 1963. All JFK staff people seemed convinced that Oswald fired no shots and was set up as a patsy. They seemed to believe that an intelligence-style conspiracy had existed and that the CIA and FBI may have been involved in the murder, and certainly were involved in the coverup.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/blakey.html

--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
 


Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

From Howard Roffman's Presumed Guilty
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

Howard Brennan was the Commission's star witness among those present in the plaza during the assassination. His testimony is cited in many instances, including passages to establish the source of the shots and the identity of the "assassin." Brennan was the only person other than Euins who claimed to have seen a gun fired from the Depository window (R63). Yet, in spite of Brennan's testimony that he saw the sixth-floor gunman take aim and fire a last shot, there is reason to believe that the man Brennan saw never discharged a firearm. Brennan was asked the vital questions that Euins was spared.
 

Mr. McCloy: Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?

Mr. Brennan: No.

Mr. McCloy: Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?

Mr. Brennan: No . . .

Mr. McCloy: Yes. But you saw him aim?

Mr. Brennan: Yes.

Mr. McCloy: Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?

Mr. Brennan: No.

Mr. McCloy: But you heard the last shot?

Mr. Brennan: The report; yes, sir. (3H154)

If Brennan looked up at the window as he said, his testimony would strongly indicate that he saw a man aim a gun without firing it. When the Carcano is fired, it emits a small amount of smoke (26H811) and manifests a recoil (3H451), as do most rifles. That Brennan failed to see such things upon observing the rifle and hearing a shot is cogent evidence that the rifle Brennan saw did not fire the shot.

Thus, the Commission's evidence -- taken at face value -- indicates only that a gunman was present at the sixth-floor window, not an assassin. This distinction is an important one. A mere gunman (one armed with a gun) cannot be accused of murder; an assassin is one who has committed murder. A gunman present at the sixth-floor window could have served as a decoy to divert attention from real shooters at other vantage points.[8] While we cannot know surely just what the man in the sixth-floor window was doing, it is vital to note that evidence is entirely lacking that this gunman was, in fact, an assassin.

To the Commission, the gunman was the assassin, no questions asked. The limitations of the evidence could not be respected when the conclusions were prefabricated. By arbitrarily calling a gunman the "assassin," the Commission, in effect, made the charge of murder through circumstances, without substantiation.

As was discussed in chapter 1, the Commission had no witness identification of the "assassin" worthy of credence. Of the few who observed the gunman, only Brennan made any sort of identification, saying both that Lee Harvey Oswald was the gunman and that he merely resembled the gunman. The Commission rejected Brennan's "positive identification" of Oswald, expressed its confidence that the man Brennan saw at least looked like Oswald, and evaluated Brennan as an "accurate observer" (R145).

Many critics have challenged the Report's evaluation of Brennan as "accurate."[9] Evidence that I have recently discovered indicates that Brennan was not even an "observer," let alone an accurate one.

One of the main indications of Brennan's inaccuracy is his description of the gunman's position. Brennan contended that in the six-to-eight-minute-period prior to the motorcade's arrival, he saw a man "leave and return to the window `a couple of times.'" After hearing the first shot, he glanced up at this Depository window and saw this man taking deliberate aim with a rifle (R144). The Report immediately begins apologizing for Brennan:

Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting or kneeling. . . . It is understandable, however, for Brennan to have believed that the man with the rifle was standing. . . . Since the window ledges in the Depository building are lower than in most buildings [one foot high], a person squatting or kneeling exposes more of his body than would normally be the case. From the street, this creates the impression that the person is standing. (R144-45)

The Report's explanation is vitiated by the fact that Brennan claimed to have seen the gunman standing and sitting. "At one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill," swore Brennan. "That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up" (3H144). Thus, Brennan should have known the difference between a man standing and sitting at the window, despite the low window sill. Had the gunman been standing, he would have been aiming his rifle through a double thickness of glass, only his legs visible to witness Brennan. Had he assumed a sitting position -- on the sill or on nearby boxes -- he would have had to bend his head down below his knees to fire the rifle out the window (see photographs taken from inside the window, at 22H484-85).

From November 22 until the time of his Commission testimony, Brennan said he was looking at the sixth floor at the time of the last shot. His November 22 affidavit states this explicitly (24H203) and it can be inferred from his later interviews. In observing the Depository, Brennan contended that he stopped looking at the President's car immediately after the first shot (3H143-44). Obviously, then, he could not have seen the impact of the fatal bullet on the President's head, which came late, probably last, in the sequence of shots. However, Brennan's observations were suddenly augmented when he was interviewed by CBS News in August 1964 for a coast-to-coast broadcast. As was aired on September 27, 1964, Brennan told CBS "The President's head just exploded."[10] Unless Brennan lied to either CBS or the federal and local authorities, it must now be believed that he saw the sixth-floor gunman fire the last shot, then turned his head faster than the speeding bullet to have seen the impact of that bullet on the President's head, then turned back toward the window with equal alacrity so as to have seen the gunman slowly withdraw his weapon and marvel at his apparent success. Unless, of course, Brennan had eyes in the back of his head -- which is far more credible than any aspect of his "witness account."

Brennan's identification of Oswald as the man he saw (or said he saw?) in the sixth-floor window weighed heavily in the Commission's "evaluation" of the "evidence." As was discussed in chapter 1, the Commission first rejected Brennan's positive identification in discussing the evidence, and subsequently accepted it in drawing the conclusion that Oswald was at the window. Without Brennan, there would have been not even the slightest suggestion in any of the evidence that Oswald was at the window during the shots. No one else even made a pretense of being able to identify the sixth-floor gunman.

On November 22, 1963, Brennan was unable to identify Oswald as the man he saw in the window, but picked Oswald as the person in a police line-up who bore the closest resemblance to the gunman. Months later, when he appeared before the Commission, Brennan said he could have made a positive identification at the November 22 lineup,

but did not do so because he felt that the assassination was "a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe." (R145)

The Report continued that, because Brennan had originally failed to make a positive identification, the Commission did "not base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire the rifle." Through the Report, the Commission expressed its confidence that "Brennan saw a man in the window who closely resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, and that Brennan believes the man he saw was in fact . . . Oswald" (R146).

The Commission accepted Brennan's observations and assurances without question. However, the excuse Brennan offered for not originally making a positive identification was falsely and deliberately contrived, as the evidence reveals. As Brennan is quoted, he felt that he had been the only eyewitness and feared for his family's security should his identity become known. Contrary to this sworn statement, Brennan immediately knew of at least one other witness who had seen the sixth-floor gunman. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels spoke with Brennan in Dealey Plaza within twenty minutes after the shooting, at which time he asked Brennan "if he had seen anyone else, and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by the name of Euins" (7H349). Sorrels testified that Brennan also expressed his willingness to identify the gunman. On the afternoon of the assassination, before he attended the line-up, Brennan filed an affidavit with the police (3H145; 7H349) in which he again made it known that he could identify the man if he were to see him once more (24H203). This contradicts Brennan's testimony that he could have identified Oswald on November 22 but declined to do so for fear of its becoming known.

Thus, Brennan originally indicated a willingness to identify the gunman, saw Oswald in a line-up and declined to make a positive identification, and subsequently admitted lying to the police by saying that he could have made the identification but was afraid to.

However, even Brennan's identification of Oswald as the man who most closely resembled the gunman is invalid, since prior to the line-up, Brennan twice viewed Oswald's picture on television (3H148). Brennan again contradicted himself in speaking of the effect that seeing Oswald's picture had on his later identification of Oswald.

On December 17, 1963, Brennan spoke with an FBI Agent to whom he confided "that he can now say that he is sure that LEE HARVEY OSWALD was the person he saw in the window." At this time, Brennan began offering his many excuses for not having originally made a positive identification. One of these

was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of OSWALD on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said he felt that since he had seen OSWALD on television before picking OSWALD out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification of OSWALD at that time. (CD5:15)

On January 7, 1964, Brennan's "clouded identification" was further lessened, for he told another FBI Agent that seeing Oswald's picture on television "of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle" (24H406). Finally, on March 24, Brennan could no longer tell just what seeing Oswald prior to the line-up had done. On this date, Brennan testified before the Commission:

Mr. Belin: What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the other?

Mr. Brennan: That is something I do not know. (3H148)

As his earlier interviews demonstrate, Brennan "knew" but was not saying. It seems obvious that seeing Oswald's picture on television prior to the line-up not only would have "clouded" and "not helped" the identification, but would also have prejudiced it.

The best that can be said of Howard Brennan is that he provided a dishonest account that warrants not the slightest credence. He contradicted himself on many crucial points to such a degree that it is hard to believe that his untruths were unintentional. He was warmly welcomed by the unquestioning Commission as he constantly changed his story in support of the theory that Oswald was guilty. This man, so fearful of exposure as to "lie" to the police and possibly hinder justice, consented to talk with CBS News for a coast-to-coast broadcast before the Warren Report was released,[11] and allowed himself to be photographed for the October 2, 1964, issue of Life magazine, where he was called by Commissioner Ford "the most important witness to appear before the Warren Commission."[12] His identification of Oswald, incredible as it was through each of his different versions of it, was worthless, if for no other reason than that he saw Oswald on television prior to the police line-up.

Through twenty pages of repetitious testimony, Howard Brennan rambled on about the man he saw and who he looked like, interjecting apologies, and inaccurately marking various pictures. The Commission could not get enough of Brennan's words, for he spoke the official language: "Oswald did it." Yet, when Brennan offered one meaningful and determinative fact, he was suddenly shown the door. Commission Counsel David Belin had been showing Brennan some of Oswald's clothing when Brennan interjected:

Mr. Brennan: And that was another thing that I called their [the police's] attention to at the lineup.

Mr. Belin: What do you mean by that?

Mr. Brennan: That he [Oswald] was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.

Mr. Belin: You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?

Mr. Brennan: Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.

Mr. Belin: All right.

Mr. Brennan: I don't know whether you have that in the record or not. I am sure you do.

Mr. Dulles: Any further questions? I guess there are no more questions, Mr. Belin.

Mr. Belin: Well, sir, we want to thank you for your cooperation with the Commission.

Mr. Dulles: Thank you very much for coming here. (3H161)

The Commission had no witness-identification-by-appearance that placed Oswald in the window at the time of the shots. No one, including Brennan, could identify the sixth-floor gunman. However, Brennan's statement that the gunman wore clothes different from those that Oswald wore on that day might indicate the presence of someone other than Oswald in the window.

If there is anything consistent in the testimonies of those who observed a man on the sixth floor, it is the clothing descriptions. Rowland recalled that the man wore "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue . . . open at the collar . . . unbuttoned about halfway" with a "regular T-shirt, a polo shirt" underneath (2H171). Brennan described light-colored, possibly khaki clothes (3H145). Ronald Fisher and Bob Edwards described an "open-neck . . . sport shirt or a T-shirt . . . light in color; probably white" (6H194), and a "light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" (6H203), respectively. Mrs. Carolyn Walther saw a gunman "wearing a white shirt" (24H522).

In each case, these witnesses have described a shirt completely different from that worn by Oswald on November 22. That day Oswald wore a long-sleeved rust-brown shirt open at the neck with a polo shirt underneath. At least two witnesses described such attire on Oswald before he went to his rooming house within a half hour after the shots (see 2H250; 3H257), and a third provided a similar but less-complete description (R159). From the time of his arrest until sometime after midnight that Friday, Oswald was still wearing this shirt, as is shown in many widely printed photographs.[13] Although it seems likely that he wore the same shirt all day long, Oswald told police he changed his shirt during a stop at his rooming house at 1:00 P.M. that afternoon, having originally been wearing a red long-sleeved buttondown (see R605, 613, 622, 626). However, Oswald did not possess a shirt of this description (see CEs 150-64).

The Commission never sought to determine if Oswald had worn the same shirt continually that day or if he had changed prior to his arrest. Apparently it was not going to risk the implications of Brennan's testimony that the clothing worn by Oswald in the line-up (Oswald wore the rust-brown shirt during the line-ups on November 22 [7H127-29, 169-70]) differed from that of the sixth-floor gunman. Indeed, when shown the shirt in question, CE 150, Brennan said the gunman's shirt was lighter (3H161).

The testimony of Marrion Baker, a police officer who encountered Oswald right after the shots, is somewhat illuminating on this point. When Baker later saw Oswald in the homicide office at police headquarters, "he looked like he did not have the same [clothes] on" (3H263). However, the reason for Baker's confusion (and Baker was not nearly so positive about the disparity as was Brennan) was that the shirt Oswald wore when seen in the Depository was "a little bit darker" than the one he had on at the police station (3H257; emphasis added).

The crux of the matter is whether Oswald was wearing his rust-brown shirt all day November 22, or if he changed into it subsequent to the assassination. While there is testimony indicating that he wore the same shirt all along, the nature of the existing evidence does not permit a positive determination. Had Oswald been wearing CE 150 at the time of the shots, it would seem that he was not the sixth-floor gunman, who wore a white or very light shirt, probably short sleeved. While it can be argued that Oswald may have appeared at the window in only his white polo shirt, he was seen within 90 seconds after the shots wearing the brown shirt.[14] As will be discussed in the next chapter, there was not enough time, had Oswald been at the window, for him to have put on his shirt within the 90-second limit.

The Commission had no evidence in any form that Oswald was at the sixth-floor window during the shots; its only reliable evidence placed Oswald on the first floor shortly before this time. The Commission concluded that Oswald was at this window because it wanted, indeed needed, to have him there. To do this, it put false meaning into the meaningless -- the fingerprint evidence and Givens's story -- and believed the incredible -- Brennan's testimony. Through its General Counsel, it suppressed the exculpatory evidence, and claimed to know of no evidence placing Oswald in a location other than the sixth floor when its only evidence did exactly that. The conclusion that Oswald was at the window is simply without foundation. It demands only the presumption of Oswald's guilt for acceptance. It cannot stand under the weight of the evidence.



--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
 


Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Jake at August 14, 2015 at 1:05 PM

Mick Purdy at August 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM

 I follow the logic Jake, and I can certainly understand what you're saying. But I'm not convinced the framers of Lee cared less about an abort plan. If that means things were left there I don't think it mattered. 

You could be right and I'll leave it at that. I'll end up going around in those circles again, not with you mind you, just chasing my own scenarios from one to the next. That's why I like PM. It's a picture. It's him or it isn't. (I think it is).

Redfern has brought up a salient point.
And Jake has just answered.
With this thread it was easy for anyone to show or see through another medium, pictures and films, the evidence for what I said with text and their own words.
As Mick said embellished eyewitnesses.
If the acoustics could be backed up by another medium I would be its biggest geek.
Lee is basically saying like radio carbon dating, its only good to a point.
If the acoustic science would Reopen The Kennedy Case again I'd be its biggest geek.
Perhaps you Redfern are the acoustical einstein that will prove us wrong. I welcome new evidence being rubbed in my mug.
Although I often use it against said rubber.   Nothing hostile towards you my friend your not the enemy.

Listen we just smashed all the public liars and arsenholers whom have press badges and piled on Lee Harvey Oswald by claiming they saw only a rifle (no man) so they could inject themselves and get promoted, etc.
This thread demolished the whole notion that shots were fired from the Sixth Floor Museums shrine.
We trashed the thought that Oswald was there firing a weapon out that window.

I pity Bob Jackson and the whole lot of reporters whom have gained my mistrust.
Forget the government, Never trust the government but when the folks you turn to for the facts and honest reporting do this...pity pity pity

Thank you ROKCers!


Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Bakers WC testimony. Seems he might not have been so certain of where those shots came from.

Of course with some prompting from Belin he quickly decides it must have been the TSBD.

Mr. BELIN - All right. When you heard the first shot or the first noise, what did you do and what did you see?

Mr. BAKER - Well, to me, it sounded high and I immediately kind of looked up, and I had a feeling that it came from the building, either right in front of me or of the one across to the right of it.

Mr. BELIN - What would the building right in front of you be?

Mr. BAKER - It would be this Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN - That would be the building located on what corner of Houston and Elm?

Mr. BAKER - That would be the northwest corner.

Mr. BELIN - All right. And you thought it was either from that building or the building located where?

Mr. BAKER - On the northeast corner.

Now did Baker have his gun drawn as he approached the steps out front or did that happen inside the building?


RevPink89
Member
Posts: 25

Redfern, I give you a couple of cheers from my peanut gallery. I think the acoustical evidence you have outlined is fascinating stuff, too.

But, I just gotta put it out there that when you mention the Zapruder film, my heart sinks.

The Zapruder film has, at best, been severly tampered with. Quite likely, a composite rendering of footage from a number of cameras. You don't have to be an expert to see it. I won't jump on my Zapruder box, but after having studied the matter at some length, I put it down and then some time ago I saw a good treatment of the received Nix film (of course, also tampered with) and the limo stop or "California roll" is just glaring at you. Of course, that just gets the laundry list of all the problems with the Zapruder film running back through my mind. So anytime I hear or read "Zapruder" in connection with substantive research...well, my prob. Good Luck. I say keep running with it and I hope some members around here with expertise can help you out.


Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Redfern, I want you to know I hear what you are saying and you are not the enemy. You may well be the person to help all of us understand the acoustical evidence used in this case. My issue is not so much with the science behind the conclusions but that it is disputed by way of secondary findings. I'm with Ed and some of the others, I just don't like accepting this as given when part of the original finings have been somewhat "negated" I would love someone to revisit the study and using todays technology have another crack at it.....who knows.



I think your post to Greg, is appropriate and is in line as to why the acoustical evidence hasn't crashed through as it might have. And I'm sure this has been helped along with a healthy dose of LNer propaganda too.

 
Greg at August 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM

Redfern,

didn't the JD commission its own study after the HSCA wound up which negated the findings produced for the HSCA? Maybe I'm confusing issues, or talking at cross-purposes...

Greg,

'Claim to have negated' is nearer the mark. The NRC (National Research Council) group argued that the presence of certain 'simulcasts' (that is, dialogue and sounds contained on both Channels 1 and 2 of DPD radio transmissions) indicated that the gunfire sounds occurred too late to have represented the assassination. Down the years, these arguments have persisted.

Don Thomas has had a tough battle insisting that other dialogue on the tape shows that the gunfire occurred precisely during the interval that would be expected. The situation is complicated by the fact that we cannot be absolutely sure of the provenance of the tapes being used and exactly why the 'simulcasts' occurred when they did (the technology at the time was relatively crude).



Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915







--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
 

Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

RevPink89 at August 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM

Redfern, I give you a couple of cheers from my peanut gallery. I think the acoustical evidence you have outlined is fascinating stuff, too.
But, I just gotta put it out there that when you mention the Zapruder film, my heart sinks.
The Zapruder film has, at best, been severly tampered with. Quite likely, a composite rendering of footage from a number of cameras. You don't have to be an expert to see it. I won't jump on my Zapruder box, but after having studied the matter at some length, I put it down and then some time ago I saw a good treatment of the received Nix film (of course, also tampered with) and the limo stop or "California roll" is just glaring at you. Of course, that just gets the laundry list of all the problems with the Zapruder film running back through my mind. So anytime I hear or read "Zapruder" in connection with substantive research...well, my prob. Good Luck. I say keep running with it and I hope some members around here with expertise can help you out.

I've never really followed the logic behind the claims that the Zapruder film was altered.

If it had been, we'd have to assume it was with the aim of showing a shooting sequence along the lines claimed by Warren. However, the reaction of most who see it is that it shows that the fatal shot came from the front-right. Even to lay people, the damage caused does not seem consistent with what they'd expect from standard military ammunition.

Closer inspection of the film contradicts the SBT too, since Connally clearly suffers his major wound several seconds after Kennedy is seen to react. The 'lapel flip' does not coincide with where the bullet struck and Connally shows no signs of trauma at this stage. 

The only possibility I'd entertain was that the wound in the rear of Kennedy's head was blacked out, but even this seems very dubious - it can arguably be discerned later in the film.

If it was genuinely thought that the film would disprove allegations of a conspiracy, surely it would have been publicly released in some format long before 1975.

Viewed closely, the Nix film displays the so-called 'blow-out' at the rear of Kennedy's skull.



Casting my mind back, the broadcast of the Zapruder film by Geraldo Rivera was arguably the key factor in hardening opinion in the US against the Warren verdict. 


Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Meanwhile WB Barmett to Jesse Curry


--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald


Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6w5MtDqRs

Two news photographers in the motorcade, Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch, saw a rifle barrel being withdrawn from a window on an upper floor of the TSBD. At the time of the shooting, their vehicle was on Houston Street, about halfway between Main Street and Elm Street, with the TSBD directly in front of them.

--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald
 

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Bob Jackson and the barrel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9anAfGft6U

[tr id="tr267145061" style=]
--
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU
Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/
Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Beyond what we needed Bart! You continue to outdo yourself, if that is physically possible.
W.E. Barnett sinks it.

Bob Jackson is telling stories or a liar take your pick, Mal is playing along or piling on.

Please add Bob Jackson to the PM book mailing list.
I hope its the last thing that he reads.


September 9, 2015 at 11:20 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Bart's post of the Barnett statement is high on the credibility scale. He's standing quite close to the TSBD and is well attuned to the importance of the status of the windows. Prior to the motorcade, he notes they were all closed due to the rain. Then he checks them again when shots are firing. Nobody. Nothing. Must be up on the roof says he. That is very convincing that there was nothing coming out of the window. If the gun barrel itself didn't catch his eye, the muzzle fire would have. Not to mention hearing the report at the same time. Nothing to see there.
September 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Beowulf
Member
Posts: 179 Here's a link to Officer Barnett's WC testimony. http://grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/jfk_assassination/dallas_police/plaza_1.htm He says he checked the TSBD windows at 11 and they were all closed. My suspicion is that Barnett was ordered to check if the windows were all closed, but didn't actually follow through (between the Book Depositary itself and its multiple publisher tenants he'd basically have to go floor to floor to close them himself). That windows were left open on the 4th, 5th and 6th floors was a major security lapse. That Barnett is covering his ass here seems more likely than Barnett taking it upon himself (that without orders to do so) to confirm windows were closed at 11 but in the 90 minutes prior to the shooting multiple windows were opened on three floors. Incidentally, are there are any photos showing if 2nd floor windows towards the southwest corner were closed? This was the Southwestern Publishing suite which was locked and where Geneva Hone heard a woman talking on the on the phone but who wouldn't open the door to let Mrs. Hine to watch the parade. In the photos I've seen, the trees block any view of these windows. The trees would likewise block a sniper's view but a concealed 2nd floor window would make a handy place for a decoy to toss out a firecracker (witnesses testified that the "first shot" sounded like a firecracker, which would be a more likely source of the reported smoke and gunpowder smell on the street than 6th floor gunshots).
--


September 9, 2015 at 12:55 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Funny Truly stated that no one approached him about any security measures.....




--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915



Weisberg on Couch


and




Couch says the FBI erred in preparing his statement in saying he said there were 10 seconds between the shots. Couch said he had to time hie films to short periods and 10 seconds - "that's a long time". He says there 1s 5 seconds at the longest. Estimating the angle of the rifle when im saw it, he says, "Approximately a 450 degrees angle westward."


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Pictures%20Dealey%20Plaza/Item%20115.pdf




Let's just speculate here

Perhaps the barrel was stuck out for a brief moment just to draw the attention, perhaps fire one shot as Jack D. said he had heard and him being on the 5th fl., just like Arnold Rowland's observation of the guy w the rifle standing there at 12:15, sightings purely to draw attention. No muzzle flash, no recoil only sightings.......
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 9, 2015 at 4:59 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Andy A.
Member
Posts: 56

I think that someone was 'putting on a show' on the 6'th floor, possibly involving a rifle barrel or pipe being stuck out the window for a few seconds. This would be a diversionary tactic as the real shots most likely came from the upper floors/roof of the Dal-Tex. The bullet trajectories would be very similar to ones from the 'snipers nest'. Witnesses who saw the 'show' on the 6'th floor would mentally associate them with the noise of shots from the same general vicinity.



We do see Brennan looking up in the first Allen photo and Euins can be seen pointing towards towards the TSBD in Bell. Clearly something was going on up there. Besides witnesses on the ground and the dubious damage to the Hughes film, several prisoners on the upper floors of the County Jail supposedly saw two guys in the 'snipers nest' fiddling with a rifle scope.



Cowboy Man & the other guy looking up in Darnell/Couch are extremely hinky. If someone has a high-res copy of the Allen photo with CM standing on the TSBD steps, please tell me if you think he has a distinct chin-cleft. If so, I think that's possibly young Guillermo Novo, doing his best to draw attention to the 6'th floor.



If shots were fired from the TSBD, I might suggest they came from the western side of the building - out of the view of the majority of bystanders and close to the elevators. If this is the case, it might explain what some claim is damage to Moorman-3 in the area showing the west side of the TSBD and the missing (?) Moorman-4 photo. Or is this just Fetzer stuff?



Re: Jackson

If he saw a barrel as claimed, then he has the worst instincts in the history of photo-journalism. He should've jumped out of the car as soon as it slowed down, called in for backup and more film and glued himself to the TSBD. He had a historic scoop, but bails for Parkland? Ridiculous. At bare minimum he should've told a cop on the scene what he saw.



It pains me that this guy won a pulitzer for his pic of Ruby shooting Oswald. Maybe that was the 'carrot'? Talk about the rifle barrel & we'll make you a star. Stand here, wait for the car-honk, then take your photo.



If only poor Jack Beers had waited a few milliseconds. The pulitzer should've been his.
September 9, 2015 at 6:09 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Where would we be without Harold Weisberg's archive....it just keeps on giving!!!

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Pictures%20Dealey%20Plaza/Item%20112.pdf

Even the Feds can see bugger all than just boxes in Hughes.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 10, 2015 at 4:12 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

This 17 min talk by David Wrone is pretty frigging good, he explains it nicely and one of his ending conclusions is......

''no shots were fired from the depository''

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4210331/david-wrone-fairy-tale-dallas

Do watch, anomaly after anomaly.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915









James Jarman's HSCA testimony. from Richard Gilbride's collection
http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

H&L CD
























--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 24, 2015 at 5:21 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Those are some weird witnesses. None saw the same thing.

Try this on for size
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/.../W%20Disk/Witnesses/Item%2027.pdf

After the long list of NO ONE seeing a rifle fire, the moron Bethell says this,

"What convinces me more than anything that someone was probably shooting from the.

TSBD is the combined testimony of Jackson, Couch, Underwood, and Dillard. They all heard

Jackson exclaim "There is the gun", Couch saw it being withdrawn, and ,Dillard took a

picture as soon as he could although he was too late. If their story was made up at a

later date to fit the official version, then there is no explanation of why he

took the picture."

So it takes all four press agents combined to make a credible story, and yet no picture of any rifle or shooter in that window.
Plus the fact that a photographer takes a photo of the general area in front of him (the way he was facing) means very little. His job was to take photos. What else was he to do upon hearing a shot ahead of him? He sure as hell didn't capture anything in that photo and all other witnesses whom looked up say he is wrong. Hughes alone mocks these four and their 'story' which was likely made up with all due respect to the moron Tom Bethell.
Tom tries to salvage himself with the last paragraph where he says probably a rifle was "AIMED" out the window.
Gee Tom a few sentences ago you were convinced by four liars that a rifle fired from the SFW. What happened? Did you wise up or realize wool was meeting eyes?

What sells Tom? A picture of the assassin or of a building? They were trying to inject themselves into the mix and make a buck. Fuck Couch, Dillard, Underwood and especially the worst one Jackson.
They are buffoons and history is going to bury them.

Wait and see. Stay tuned
September 26, 2015 at 3:46 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Ed Ledoux at September 26, 2015 at 3:46 AM

Those are some weird witnesses. None saw the same thing.

Try this on for size
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/.../W%20Disk/Witnesses/Item%2027.pdf

After the long list of NO ONE seeing a rifle fire, the moron Bethell says this,

"What convinces me more than anything that someone was probably shooting from the.

TSBD is the combined testimony of Jackson, Couch, Underwood, and Dillard. They all heard

Jackson exclaim "There is the gun", Couch saw it being withdrawn, and ,Dillard took a

picture as soon as he could although he was too late. If their story was made up at a

later date to fit the official version, then there is no explanation of why he

took the picture."

So it takes all four press agents combined to make a credible story, and yet no picture of any rifle or shooter in that window.
Plus the fact that a photographer takes a photo of the general area in front of him (the way he was facing) means very little. His job was to take photos. What else was he to do upon hearing a shot ahead of him? He sure as hell didn't capture anything in that photo and all other witnesses whom looked up say he is wrong. Hughes alone mocks these four and their 'story' which was likely made up with all due respect to the moron Tom Bethell.
Tom tries to salvage himself with the last paragraph where he says probably a rifle was "AIMED" out the window.
Gee Tom a few sentences ago you were convinced by four liars that a rifle fired from the SFW. What happened? Did you wise up or realize wool was meeting eyes?

What sells Tom? A picture of the assassin or of a building? They were trying to inject themselves into the mix and make a buck. Fuck Couch, Dillard, Underwood and especially the worst one Jackson.
They are buffoons and history is going to bury them.

Wait and see. Stay tuned

Agreed. after reading throught this, it becomes clear they told porky's and inserted themselves into the official theater. Shame on them.

They were charged with delivering the facts of a tragic event and failed miserably in their duties.
September 26, 2015 at 6:39 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

X-actly Mr. Purdy!
Four reporters making up a story which we know to be false.
Guess it'll be a long wait for them to prove their statements. (they should retract them)
Photographic and film evidence demonstrates that they were less than truthful.
Reject the injectors.
But like the Federal Government and the WC they leave their ass hanging in the wind for eternity.
I laugh at their bare arsed assertions.
Mick someone should let them know no one believes them anymore...and sole supporter Gary Mack is dead.
Poor bastards don't realize the jig is up.

September 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

It's time!


Is that headline too overstated or just an over used slogan.....it seems to fit
September 26, 2015 at 8:51 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

If Oswald was on the first floor, who was on the sixth floor?



I know of no proof that a shot came from the sixth floor.



Harold Weisberg interviewed by Barry Earnest in 1999

https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/interview/
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 29, 2015 at 2:53 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ray Mitcham
Member
Posts: 44

Barto at September 29, 2015 at 2:53 AM

If Oswald was on the first floor, who was on the sixth floor?



I know of no proof that a shot came from the sixth floor.



Harold Weisberg interviewed by Barry Earnest in 1999

https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/interview/

Barto. I agree that no shots came from the sixth floor. However, could the person there have been the spotter or co-ordinator of the cross fire?


The man seen on the third or fourth floor, originally, by Baker and Shelley?
September 29, 2015 at 6:45 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Ray about this we could speculate till the cows come home, and honestly Duncan MacRae's forums are more suited for that, no disrespect to you intended.

It is still an enigma since no one saw any strangers and the Truly/Baker and Oswald meeting is a fugezi and whatever the first meet on the 3rd/4th fl entailed (and that meet DID happen) again we have no further details.

Maybe after Prayer Man some more docs come out and tell us more detail.......who knows.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




September 29, 2015 at 6:59 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

Barto at September 29, 2015 at 6:59 AM

Ray about this we could speculate till the cows come home, and honestly Duncan MacRae's forums are more suited for that, no disrespect to you intended.

It is still an enigma since no one saw any strangers and the Truly/Baker and Oswald meeting is a fugezi and whatever the first meet on the 3rd/4th fl entailed (and that meet DID happen) again we have no further details.

Maybe after Prayer Man some more docs come out and tell us more detail.......who knows.

How about there were no genuine strangers but someone who was indeed a blue-collar TSBD worker and could also decouple himself from the assassination by claiming he wasn't present on November 22nd?

Both the Kaiser brothers fall into this category. In fact, Freddie was identified as Oswald when he applied for a job at a car-lot.

Would any of the office workers on the lower floors notice anything amiss with the presence of either?

Of course, those working under Shelley would become aware of any cover story but not immediately and they would hardly be likely to spill the beans after Oswald copped the blame.

This ticks a couple of boxes for me - the relative insouciance of the 6th floor figure, the difficulty of an escape for someone who didn't know the building inside out and the proximity of the sniper (yes, I still think he was) to Eddie Piper - I find it hard to accept that a stranger posing as a Secret Service agent would want company at that particular juncture.
September 29, 2015 at 2:34 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Brian Castle
Member
Posts: 97

Barto at September 29, 2015 at 6:59 AM

Ray about this we could speculate till the cows come home, and honestly Duncan MacRae's forums are more suited for that, no disrespect to you intended.

It is still an enigma since no one saw any strangers and the Truly/Baker and Oswald meeting is a fugezi and whatever the first meet on the 3rd/4th fl entailed (and that meet DID happen) again we have no further details.

Maybe after Prayer Man some more docs come out and tell us more detail.......who knows.

Well, let's play out the tree of possibilites on that one, it's important to understand what's possible and what's not.


Regardless of whether there were any actual shots fired from the TSBD, it seems evident that there was at least one person on the 6th floor, and probably more than one. (As seen by Richard Randolph Carr who said he was wearing a "brown jacket" and the other who said it was a "brown shirt" or a "tan shirt"). And therefore all the classic problems of "the escape" are still there. How could the person or people have gotten away in under 90 seconds, considering Dougherty was right there, and the women on the 4th floor, and etc etc. So it seems to me, that the Carr story, more so than even the description of the second person, is important because it details the time frame for the escape of this person.


This is one of the things that's always bothered me about the alleged 6th floor shooter, the escape time is too short. If as the evidence seems to indicate Marrion Baker was there on the first floor of the TSBD "within seconds", then we can sort of build a tree of possibilities, and the Carr story gives us an estimated time frame we can work with. So, in what follows, I'll use the word "shooter" with the understanding that it's the person or people who were seen on the 6th floor, regardless of whether he or they fired any actual shots.


So okay, first and most obvious is that the shooter escaped the same way Carr's story seems to indicate. Ran our the back of the TSBD, circled around to some kind of escape vehicle, etc.


However, there are a number of stories including the supposed "rearrangement" of the boxes some minutes after the shooting, and also Roger Craig's story about the man running down the hill from the TSBD and into the station wagon, that would seem to indicate that it's possible the shooter(s) "waited", they hung around for some time, and if that's the case....


Let's consider. Let's stipulate the shooter(s) hung around - or maybe at least one of them did - and in that case, it seems to me there were enough people milling around that someone would have seen something. So that means the shooter was somehow "recognizable", he fit in - either he was an employee (as suggested by the 3rd/4th floor Marrion Baker story), or he was perhaps a cop or some other uniformed or ID'd person that someone might have thought "belonged there" somehow.


After Marrion Baker though, there were other cops, and other uniformed and ID's personnel who entered the building. James Powell was among them, for instance. And, the rifle wasn't found till quite a while later, which means there was a considerable amount of time during which there were a lot of people milling around and an outsider would probably have had difficulty telling them apart.


Otherwise, the shooter would have left through the back of the TSBD by the loading dock (the front entrance being full of cops and such), and there were people back there too, for instance one of the negro employees was back by the dock for a while, I forget if it was Givens or Bonnie Ray Williams but one of them had circled around the building and re-entered through the back.


There is the picture of the black men at the window and the eyewitness accounts of them pointing straight up towards the roof of the TSBD, just after the pigeons flew away. It seems there must have been some kind of noise from up there somewhere. It would be the same thing that caused people to run towards the knoll, right? Some gestalt as to where they thought the shot(s) came from, or some such thing. "Enough" people saw someone on the 6th floor, but there was no way they could have communicated with each other in real time, so everyone "else" that ran towards the TSBD had no idea these others had seen anything, all they "heard" was "shots".


Frankly, I'm more interested in the concept of the escape, rather than the question of the shots. The Carr story is one of two that provides us with a real clue, the other being Roger Craig's. Two eyewitnesses (plus the prisoners) say they saw two people on the 6th floor, and Carr's escape person accounts for one of them, and Craig's escape person accounts for the other. Brown-suit-man is claimed to have been fiddling with the scope (presumably the same one that needed shimming, if you believe that), whereas the person dressed in light clothing is apparently the one that shows up in the film, standing right at the window - and this person is almost definitely "not Oswald", he's got a fat butt and he's about 20 pounds heavier than Oswald and considerably taller. But he does appear to be wearing white-to-light clothing, as per Brennan and all the other eyewitnesses. And, Oswald isn't Brown-Suit-man either, since he doesn't have a hat and doesn't wear horn rimmed glasses. It seems then, that neither one of the two people on the 6th floor were Oswald.... which just doubles and confounds the mystery.


The final branch on the tree, involves these two people working together, so for instance, one was the shooter and the other was the spotter. The shooter perhaps was Brown-Suit-man, which explains why he leaves first, he tosses the weapon to the spotter who then cleans up and throws down whatever he has to throw down, and then leaves the scene later and separately. Rings true, doesn't it? And, if the spooter were an employee, that person might be able to hang around "a little" longer, and leave "a little" less obtrusively, perhaps.


But... the moment I step back and look at this tree we've just built, the first thing that leaps out at me is that every single branch involves a stupendous amount of risk, and is highly susceptible to random events. The scene isn't as well controlled ("apparently") as I might like an intelligence operation to be. Unless we start talking about the planting of witnesses and such, then we're in a whole different ball park... and... as far as I've gone in my thinking about what seems reasonable and likely, is the coercion of witness testimony by entities like the FBI. It doesn't make much sense to me that even military intelligence could "plant a witness" ahead of time, not when the level of uncertainty is so high. It would make a great deal more sense to try to control the actual events on the ground, that way whoever sees them can report the truth as they saw it, and they'll pass a polygraph and so on.


The second thing of immediate notice is that no one reports anything. If there were an oddball individual running around who wasn't supposed to be there, someone would have said something. But no one says anything, not Dougherty who was on the 5th floor, not the women who were on the 4th floor, .... If there really was a hit team on the 6th floor, then it makes sense the shooter would have left "immediately", just tossed the weapon to the spotter and skedaddled. And, apparently if this person left at this particular time, he didn't take the elevator but took the back stairs instead, which would have put him on the ground well before either the women or Marrion Baker (he would have "just missed" Marrion Baker, by a matter of a few seconds maybe). Which leaves only the person who fit in (had to, to stay there that long), up on the 6th floor.


So, if you accept the witness testimony and the time frames therein, it would seem to indicate that Brown-Suit-Man is the shooter and the other person is the spotter (and throw-down artist) who stayed behind. Even this, though, would be a brazan plan. The idea that "even an employee" could stay behind in the Depository for any length of time, is very risky. And if I start thinking about risk mitigation, I quickly realize that the only way to really accomplish that is to start controlling the people. And it would probably be relatively easy to control a black ex-felon, and perhaps relatively easy to control the portion of the senior management that's "already on board", however it would be next to impossible to control a random set of employees in a minimum-wage operation where half the workers are temporary contractors who are being paid daily and paid by the hour. These are the types of jobs you get at Labor Ready and stuff like that, they're not exactly high skill positions, how hard can it be to read a list and fill an order? You have to be able to read, and you have to be able to concentrate, and that's it, nothing more is required. Therefore it seems to me that any control of the immediate environment would have had necessarily to be direct and crude and in-your-face to be effective. And there's no evidence for that, that I can find.... until the cops arrive at the scene.
October 1, 2015 at 2:51 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Redfern
Member
Posts: 60

Carr's story is not universally believed, even by CTs:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13705



Duke Lane also discovered that he seems to have lied about his US Army service.


Would Dougherty be likely to say anything if he was part of the plot?

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

There were five of us in the car. When we heard the first shot, the President had already turned the corner. We had not made the corner yet. Then we heard two more shots.



As far as I know, three shots were all I heard. I just instinctively looked that way. First, somebody joked about it being a firecracker.



Then, since I was facing the building where the shots were coming from, I just glanced up and saw two colored men in a window straining to look at a window up above them.



As I looked up to the window above, I saw a rifle being pulled back in the window. It might have been resting on the window sill. I didn't see a man, I didn't even see if it had a scope on it.



It was the second floor down from the top of the building and it was the end window facing Elm Street, the corner window. The President's car was about halfway between Houston Street and the underpass. We were beginning to turn the corner. He [the gunman] had about President's car at a 45-degree angle from the building to the President’s car.



I looked to my left and I could see both cars speeding off, the President's car and the car behind him carrying the vice president. Then I could see a colored family covering up their child on the grass. A policeman was down on his knee. I couldn't tell if he were hit. I thought the child was dead or something. Then the Negro parents picked up the boy and ran.



[Jackson's reference to the second floor from the top where he saw the rifle apparently refers to the 6th floor of the 7-story building [judging from photographs]. At the time, most accounts were referring to the fifth floor as where the rifle was found. AP , 3:40 p.m. CST. Dallas -- eyewitness account [Bob Jackson] of assassination by a Dallas Times Herald photographer riding in a car close behind the presidential car.


https://www.google.com/url?q=http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%2520Materials/Warren%2520Commission-Subject/Witnesses.doc&sa=U&ei=Pvc8VfLxBJHLaJrkgMgD&ved=0CA4QFjAEOAo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG6xzX23v0-lfdITWiRNDsA7lTXJg


--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

7[1[64 Dallas - Mrs. Cabell [wife of former Dallas mayor Earle Cabell] ... earlier revealed that she saw the rifle of the assassin extending from a window of the Texas School Book Depository building.



She said she heard the first shot and then looked up, seeing the rifle immediately. The Cabells were in the fourth automobile behind the President's convertible.



"I never saw a person or even a person's hand on the rifle," Mrs. Cabell said. AP, 618 p.m. CST



7[2[64 Dallas - ... Mrs. Cabell said the Warren Commission knew about this, but had not requested that she give a statement to its investigators. [Story on Wade, who said "about a dozen" witnesses reported having seen a rifle in the window, and speculated this was why the Commission had not questioned Mrs. Cabell.] AP, 1031 p.m. pcs



7[2[64 Dallas - "I don't think the Warren Commission has any doubts about the place where the shots came from," Wade said. "We had a number of people - about a dozen, I recall - who said they saw the gun in the window of the Depository building.



"Some of them said they could see a man holding the gun. I know officers showed them pictures to determine whether they could identify Oswald." AP, 1031 p.m. CST





--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Brian Castle
Member
Posts: 97

James Worrell is the only one I could find who says he saw a little muzzle flash and some smoke.


"

Senator COOPER - You stated that, I believe, you looked up after you had heard the first report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - You looked up and saw the barrel of a rifle, and then the rifle fired. What made you know that it fired?

Mr. WORRELL - Pardon?

Senator COOPER - How did you know it was fired when you were looking at it?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I saw what you might call a little flame and smoke.

Senator COOPER - You saw something that came out of the barrel?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - Were you looking at it when you heard the third report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, looking at it, turning around and started to run.

Senator COOPER - Did you see anything then?

Mr. WORRELL - Same thing, a little flash of fire and then smoke. I didn't see it on the fourth one.

Senator COOPER - Did you only look at the car in which the President was riding one time when you saw him slump?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. "


http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm
October 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Brian Castle at October 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM

James Worrell is the only one I could find who says he saw a little muzzle flash and some smoke.


"

Senator COOPER - You stated that, I believe, you looked up after you had heard the first report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - You looked up and saw the barrel of a rifle, and then the rifle fired. What made you know that it fired?

Mr. WORRELL - Pardon?

Senator COOPER - How did you know it was fired when you were looking at it?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I saw what you might call a little flame and smoke.

Senator COOPER - You saw something that came out of the barrel?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - Were you looking at it when you heard the third report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, looking at it, turning around and started to run.

Senator COOPER - Did you see anything then?

Mr. WORRELL - Same thing, a little flash of fire and then smoke. I didn't see it on the fourth one.

Senator COOPER - Did you only look at the car in which the President was riding one time when you saw him slump?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. "


http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Wow, he saw a little flame and smoke, did he?


in broad daylight this man claims to have seen a little flame......



and and this is believed?


wow!
October 2, 2015 at 3:22 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915









--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 2, 2015 at 3:37 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

6 days after the Big Event, James 'Jimmy' Darnell of WBAP was interviewed.

In this FBI report by SA Gemberling there is absolutely no mention of any sighting of anything or anyone in the windows of the TSBD

So the guy who sits next t Couch and Bob Jackson makes no mention of Jackson exclaiming about the rifle, shoots almost the same footage as Couch, getting out of the car and running down Elm, whereas the barrel was just withdrawn inside the building, sure, this all makes perfect sense.





_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 3, 2015 at 5:11 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Just throwing this out there.

Ed has made a case for no shots fired in at the TSBD, a persuasive argument IMO.

i maybe dead wrong here, but if Baker is the first cop to leap off his motor bike and run to the front steps of the TSBD enter that building with gun drawn, and as far as I can tell he is the only law enforcement officer to make such a move at that moment, it is safe to assume he wasn't entering seeking a better vantage point to view the event from. What troubles me a little is if I'm reading this correct is Baker is virtually the only officer who enters the building almost immediately after the head shot. Am I wrong to feel a little suspicious of Marion Baker, I know many here offer him a pass, somethings gnawing away at me here.


if we are correct for no shots fired then of course Bakers run has to be looked at closely.



October 5, 2015 at 6:22 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Andrej Stancak
Member
Posts: 103

Firecracker ... The first shot sounded like a firecracker, many witnesses reported. What if, as this promising thread suggests, there were no shooters at all in TSBD, only a remote controlled firing mechanisms which has just produced a sound like a firecracker. It did not need to be on the 6th floor even. One such explosion would suffice. No shooters - no escapes necessary, only the patsy honed by few confidents. No risk at all, just focus on our patsy, please. This one loud sound could be the one which Jack Dougherty heard and which caused him run down the stairs. Too weird?
October 5, 2015 at 6:47 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Andrej Stancak
Member
Posts: 103

If three shots were supposed to be fired in a closed space (except of few half-open windows), the smell of gunpowder was supposed to be notified, especially by those getting to the 6th floor first. I do not remember anyone reporting the smell of gunpowder in TSBD, while several people reported such smell in open plane (e.g., sen. Yarborough). Why no one wondered about no smell of gunpowder?
October 5, 2015 at 7:16 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Baker was drawn to the building because of the pigeons he saw fly off due to the noise of the gunshots. He thought the shooter may have been on the roof. He had no idea the shooter was at any windows on any of the floors.


Some people have claimed that IF the shot had been fired from the sixth floor, it would not have disturbed the pigeons on the roof.


No witnesses, not even Baker. Therefore, no one was shooting from the building.


--

"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham




October 5, 2015 at 8:44 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

It isn't any of that that really surpsies me, what surprises me is that while Baker is convinced that the shooter is in the TSBD he makes no report to anyone else "hey get in here, back me up" nope they go thru the railroad yard for 15 minutes.........perhaps I see to much in a rambo style search by him and Truly 50+ years after.

But tell me then there were no such procedures in place at all, that is the question to ask.

Why not call for backup, any backup
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 6, 2015 at 1:47 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Andrej Stancak
Member
Posts: 103

Barto, I think, and I can easily be mistaken as I read much less than you guys, that Baker decided to check the TSBD because he saw the pigeons flying away from the roof of TBD during shooting, and reckoned the shooting could have come from the roof of TSBD. Therefore, he was interested to get to the 7th floor and to the roof. They really got there with Truly, spent some five minutes checking, and descended without checking systematically each floor. From the perspective of his primary goal (checking the roof), the building was clear and he did not have any need to call for help.

I think Ed & co may be after something very important. There may have been no real shooting from TSBD, perhaps only a masquarade to 1) divert the attention from other buildings (Daltex in the first place) to allow real assassins to escape, 2) to frame the patsy.

The masquarade taking place between 12.00 and 12.30 may even have involved Lee Harvey Oswald who unknowingly helped to stage a scene or pose there. We know he was the PM, standing in the lobby around 12.30, eating his lunch and going outside to see the excitement. However, we do not know too much about his movements from 12.00 to 12.30. How long does it take to eat a sandwich and an apple. Yet, he had his lunch as late as 12.30. So, he was evidently not consuming his lunch before (12.30-12.29) as there would be no food left for 12.30. I think it was again Sean Murphy who pointed out that Oswald being PM does not guarantee his complete innocence. He is innocent from shooting the President. However, he might have been decieved to help to stage some scene on the 6th floor thinking he is a real subversive and that he helps a good cause, and realising, already as PM, that it all was not just staged, that it was for real.


October 6, 2015 at 2:24 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Brian Castle
Member
Posts: 97

Mick Purdy at October 2, 2015 at 3:22 AM

Brian Castle at October 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM

James Worrell is the only one I could find who says he saw a little muzzle flash and some smoke.


"

Senator COOPER - You stated that, I believe, you looked up after you had heard the first report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - You looked up and saw the barrel of a rifle, and then the rifle fired. What made you know that it fired?

Mr. WORRELL - Pardon?

Senator COOPER - How did you know it was fired when you were looking at it?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I saw what you might call a little flame and smoke.

Senator COOPER - You saw something that came out of the barrel?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - Were you looking at it when you heard the third report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, looking at it, turning around and started to run.

Senator COOPER - Did you see anything then?

Mr. WORRELL - Same thing, a little flash of fire and then smoke. I didn't see it on the fourth one.

Senator COOPER - Did you only look at the car in which the President was riding one time when you saw him slump?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. "


http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Wow, he saw a little flame and smoke, did he?


in broad daylight this man claims to have seen a little flame......



and and this is believed?


wow!

Who said anything about belief? lol


I only said it was the only "claim" I could find.


One person, that's all. That was my point.


And, to your point, yes that person could easily be mistaken. As you know the human mind can even "create" muzzle flashes when none are there.


However it is somewhat curious, this report. The man is stating "four shots" with what seems like a modicum of certainty. Anyway...


"Someone" was up there, right? Even if the whole thing was staged, there was still a person up there and some eyewitnesses say two people.


It smells to me like Baker realized he'd screwed up, that he probably let the shooter go (on Mr. Truly's word). So, he was looking at a situation where he might forever go down in the history books as the guy who let Kennedy's shooter go. His name would be mud, and his childrens' for generations. But then someone gave him a way out. Seems we know very little about either man's activities (Truly or Baker) in the days following the assassination.
October 6, 2015 at 2:46 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Terry Martin at October 5, 2015 at 8:44 PM

Baker was drawn to the building because of the pigeons he saw fly off due to the noise of the gunshots. He thought the shooter may have been on the roof. He had no idea the shooter was at any windows on any of the floors.


Some people have claimed that IF the shot had been fired from the sixth floor, it would not have disturbed the pigeons on the roof.


No witnesses, not even Baker. Therefore, no one was shooting from the building.


I agree Terry, and as far as we can tell Baker calls for no back up, he wants to get this bad boy all on his lonesome.

Pigeons on the roof , possible shooter on the roof top all his own story........am I right?


October 6, 2015 at 3:40 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Barto at October 6, 2015 at 1:47 AM

It isn't any of that that really surpsies me, what surprises me is that while Baker is convinced that the shooter is in the TSBD he makes no report to anyone else "hey get in here, back me up" nope they go thru the railroad yard for 15 minutes.........perhaps I see to much in a rambo style search by him and Truly 50+ years after.

But tell me then there were no such procedures in place at all, that is the question to ask.

Why not call for backup, any backup

Absolutely correct Bart.


why have I become suspicious of Marion all of a sudden, my gut is telling me something here
October 6, 2015 at 3:43 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Brian Castle at October 6, 2015 at 2:46 AM

Mick Purdy at October 2, 2015 at 3:22 AM

Brian Castle at October 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM

James Worrell is the only one I could find who says he saw a little muzzle flash and some smoke.


"

Senator COOPER - You stated that, I believe, you looked up after you had heard the first report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - You looked up and saw the barrel of a rifle, and then the rifle fired. What made you know that it fired?

Mr. WORRELL - Pardon?

Senator COOPER - How did you know it was fired when you were looking at it?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I saw what you might call a little flame and smoke.

Senator COOPER - You saw something that came out of the barrel?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - Were you looking at it when you heard the third report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, looking at it, turning around and started to run.

Senator COOPER - Did you see anything then?

Mr. WORRELL - Same thing, a little flash of fire and then smoke. I didn't see it on the fourth one.

Senator COOPER - Did you only look at the car in which the President was riding one time when you saw him slump?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. "


http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Wow, he saw a little flame and smoke, did he?


in broad daylight this man claims to have seen a little flame......



and and this is believed?


wow!

Who said anything about belief? lol


I only said it was the only "claim" I could find.


One person, that's all. That was my point.


And, to your point, yes that person could easily be mistaken. As you know the human mind can even "create" muzzle flashes when none are there.


However it is somewhat curious, this report. The man is stating "four shots" with what seems like a modicum of certainty. Anyway...


"Someone" was up there, right? Even if the whole thing was staged, there was still a person up there and some eyewitnesses say two people.


It smells to me like Baker realized he'd screwed up, that he probably let the shooter go (on Mr. Truly's word). So, he was looking at a situation where he might forever go down in the history books as the guy who let Kennedy's shooter go. His name would be mud, and his childrens' for generations. But then someone gave him a way out. Seems we know very little about either man's activities (Truly or Baker) in the days following the assassination.

Brian, you'll have to forgive my Aussie sense of humour.....my sarcasm.

it was not directed at you or your post.

just having a laugh at the WC impotence with regards to the ability to cross examine.

so pleas don't think I was having a crack, I most definitely was not
October 6, 2015 at 3:48 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Andrej Stancak at October 6, 2015 at 2:24 AM

Barto, I think, and I can easily be mistaken as I read much less than you guys, that Baker decided to check the TSBD because he saw the pigeons flying away from the roof of TBD during shooting, and reckoned the shooting could have come from the roof of TSBD. Therefore, he was interested to get to the 7th floor and to the roof. They really got there with Truly, spent some five minutes checking, and descended without checking systematically each floor. From the perspective of his primary goal (checking the roof), the building was clear and he did not have any need to call for help.

I think Ed & co may be after something very important. There may have been no real shooting from TSBD, perhaps only a masquarade to 1) divert the attention from other buildings (Daltex in the first place) to allow real assassins to escape, 2) to frame the patsy.

The masquarade taking place between 12.00 and 12.30 may even have involved Lee Harvey Oswald who unknowingly helped to stage a scene or pose there. We know he was the PM, standing in the lobby around 12.30, eating his lunch and going outside to see the excitement. However, we do not know too much about his movements from 12.00 to 12.30. How long does it take to eat a sandwich and an apple. Yet, he had his lunch as late as 12.30. So, he was evidently not consuming his lunch before (12.30-12.29) as there would be no food left for 12.30. I think it was again Sean Murphy who pointed out that Oswald being PM does not guarantee his complete innocence. He is innocent from shooting the President. However, he might have been decieved to help to stage some scene on the 6th floor thinking he is a real subversive and that he helps a good cause, and realising, already as PM, that it all was not just staged, that it was for real.



Baker and Truly stayed in the lobby for ages. There are several pointers for that from Geneva Hine, Vicky Adams, Sandra Styles, Bill Shelly, James Jarman and most importantly Marrion Baker himself. Who bolloxed his testimony and his statements to such an extend that there is very serious doubt about his story. Plus the lack of backup call for how long exactly?

And the back had 4 exit points, according to Shelly anyone could have gotten out of there, but if Baker stayed down all that time then they could have secured both stairways and elevators untill the rest arrived, but no they go on a so called rambo mission......


Whether there is no shots, one shot or perhaps even two doesn't really matter, you will end up in bunched jacket land and so forth.

Again that detail is a massive diversion to which this whole forum can argue till, again, the cows come home.


Bottom line of investigation should be where the fuck was Lee Harvey Oswald when the big event took place, anything else is window dressing.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




October 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Brian Castle
Member
Posts: 97

Mick Purdy at October 6, 2015 at 3:48 AM

Brian Castle at October 6, 2015 at 2:46 AM

Mick Purdy at October 2, 2015 at 3:22 AM

Brian Castle at October 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM

James Worrell is the only one I could find who says he saw a little muzzle flash and some smoke.


"

Senator COOPER - You stated that, I believe, you looked up after you had heard the first report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - You looked up and saw the barrel of a rifle, and then the rifle fired. What made you know that it fired?

Mr. WORRELL - Pardon?

Senator COOPER - How did you know it was fired when you were looking at it?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I saw what you might call a little flame and smoke.

Senator COOPER - You saw something that came out of the barrel?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - Were you looking at it when you heard the third report?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, looking at it, turning around and started to run.

Senator COOPER - Did you see anything then?

Mr. WORRELL - Same thing, a little flash of fire and then smoke. I didn't see it on the fourth one.

Senator COOPER - Did you only look at the car in which the President was riding one time when you saw him slump?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. "


http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Wow, he saw a little flame and smoke, did he?


in broad daylight this man claims to have seen a little flame......



and and this is believed?


wow!

Who said anything about belief? lol


I only said it was the only "claim" I could find.


One person, that's all. That was my point.


And, to your point, yes that person could easily be mistaken. As you know the human mind can even "create" muzzle flashes when none are there.


However it is somewhat curious, this report. The man is stating "four shots" with what seems like a modicum of certainty. Anyway...


"Someone" was up there, right? Even if the whole thing was staged, there was still a person up there and some eyewitnesses say two people.


It smells to me like Baker realized he'd screwed up, that he probably let the shooter go (on Mr. Truly's word). So, he was looking at a situation where he might forever go down in the history books as the guy who let Kennedy's shooter go. His name would be mud, and his childrens' for generations. But then someone gave him a way out. Seems we know very little about either man's activities (Truly or Baker) in the days following the assassination.

Brian, you'll have to forgive my Aussie sense of humour.....my sarcasm.

it was not directed at you or your post.

just having a laugh at the WC impotence with regards to the ability to cross examine.

so pleas don't think I was having a crack, I most definitely was not

No worries, mate! Feel free to take a jab any time, I need the checks and balances. lol - I have the same issues with "belief" as everyone else, especially with this JFK case, which is one of the few where one actually has to consider the reality of planted witnesses.
October 7, 2015 at 1:01 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Terry Martin at October 5, 2015 at 8:44 PM

Baker was drawn to the building because of the pigeons he saw fly off due to the noise of the gunshots. He thought the shooter may have been on the roof. He had no idea the shooter was at any windows on any of the floors.


Some people have claimed that IF the shot had been fired from the sixth floor, it would not have disturbed the pigeons on the roof.


No witnesses, not even Baker. Therefore, no one was shooting from the building.


Terry is right but if you look at the spread sheet I posted a witness said the pigeons were not on the roof but on the ground and flew up from behind the building (from Bakers view).

Earle Brown is one who saw the pigeons and smelled gunpowder,

6H234

22H600



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 over pass 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?

233



Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository.

Mr. BALL. Did you see any pigeons flying around the building?

Mr. BROWN. I Just don't recall that; no, sir.

Mr. BALL. Which way did you look when you heard the sound?

Mr. BROWN. When I first heard that sound I looked up toward that building because actually it seemed to come from there.

Mr. BALL. Where was it you saw the pigeons rise?

Mr. BROWN. They must have been down there feeding at that time because they just seemed to all take off.

Mr. BALL. Where were they from where you were standing?

Mr. BROWN. From where I was standing they would be about half way between - no, they would be up more toward that other overpass, what they call the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL. The triple underpass?

Mr. BROWN. Yea.

Mr. BALL. You were about 100 yards from the triple underpass?

Mr. BROWN. Approximately; yes.




Thus no shooting from the sixth floor caused a roof sitting pigeon to action, but shot/s near the 'river bottom' or triple underpass did, per Earle.
Thus ground level noise caused flock to flight.


October 7, 2015 at 6:00 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Bob Jackson according to Richard E Sprague






_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Yeah I would not trust Bob Jackson on this.
We know he is full of it. Did not see a rifle but injects himself into the mix.
He has Brian Williams disease or O'Reilly of the mouth.
Sprauge was right to want him under oath!!!

What an outstanding thread!!
We are breaking new ground here.

Now as for timing and someone being able to get to the third or fourth floor landing after TWO shots from the SFW or upper floor/roof, I say that would be possible. The third shot coming from the GK would be conspiratorial so not allowable, but this would be covered for by the false Baker start time. Pretty slick 'work' by Warren Commission and FBI on the recreation timing to try and incriminate an dead innocent man.

Noticed Mal Couch sought the lords help after the assassination. Prayer Man to the rescue.


November 14, 2015 at 7:29 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Mr. BELIN. Would that have been in the middle of Houston Street?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. In what direction were you facing?

Mr. RACKLEY. Facing south.

Mr. BELIN. All right, did you see the motorcade at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. What did you see?

Mr. RACKLEY. I didn't practically see anything.

Mr. BELIN. Did you hear any sounds at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes. Heard the sounds of the parade.

Mr. BELIN. Did you hear the sounds that sounded like firecrackers or shots at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Didn't hear that?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. About how far would you have been from the northeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository when you were standing there?

Mr. RACKLEY. I would say right at a block.

Mr. BELIN. About a block. Do you have any idea about how many feet that is?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir; I don't

Mr. BELIN. Were you just standing there, or were you walking?

Mr. RACKLEY. I was just standing there.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything happen at all there?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anyone in the parade?

Mr. RACKLEY. The only thing - I told the guy, he was down there, the only thing that I saw that looked suspicious to me, there was something like a hundred pigeons flew up like you shot into them, and I noticed that, but I never heard no shots.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them fly from?

Mr. RACKLEY. From over the top of the building.

Mr. BELIN. Which building? The School Book Depository or over on the other side?

Mr. RACKLEY. The Trinity Building.

Mr. BELIN. Which building did they fly off of?

Mr. RACKLEY. I wasn't looking. I just seen they all flew together.

Mr. BELIN. Did it look like they were flying up from both buildings?

Mr. RACKLEY. Both buildings.

Mr. BELIN. You don't know about when this took place?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. BELIN. About what time was it that you were looking that way, do you remember, offhand?

Mr. RACKLEY. No; but it was just at the time that the parade was nearing there, I know that.



Rackley is saying the pigeons flew up over the buildings, not from the top of the building.

This backs up other witness whom saw pigeons fly up from the ground over the buildings.

Shots from the knoll area spooked the birds, not anything from the buildings themselves.

“I was looking up there and I saw those pigeons

flying around there” [3 H 247–248]). But earlier in his testimony he said (perhaps

loosely) that he saw the “pigeons began to fly up to the top of the building” (3 H 246),

suggesting the pigeons were not originally on the roof. And elsewhere in his testimony

he says, “I noticed those pigeons start to fly up there” (3 H 267). But does this mean

they were flying “up there” when he first saw them, or that they flew from a lower

position up to the top of the building? But, of course, if the pigeons were not originally

on the roof, where were they? Although Baker is “pretty sure” the pigeons came

from the Book Depository Building located on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston,

he said they could have come from the building “on the northeast corner [Dal-

Tex Building]” (3 H 246). However, the fact that Baker entered the Book Depository

Building and proceeded to the roof of the building is evidence that it was his impression

the pigeons came from the Depository, not from the Dal-Tex Building. At the

London trial, when I asked Baker if he saw “any activity of pigeons” at the time he

heard the shots, he clarified one point, saying, “Yes, sir, I did. I saw a huge number of

pigeons flying from the top of this here [pointing to the Book Depository Building on

a diagram],” but added, “And some were also coming from the building across the

street.”* “And this was concurrent with the sound of the shots?”† “Yes.” (Testimony

of Marrion Baker, Transcript of On Trial, July 23, 1986, pp.169–170)

What precisely happened cannot be nailed down any further by reference to the

Warren Commission testimony of George Rackley, a Dealey Plaza witness who said

he noticed something that “looked suspicious” to him—“a hundred pigeons flew

up like you shot into them.” Question: “Where did you see them fly from?” Rackley:

“From over the top of the building.” Question: “Which building? The School

Book Depository or over on the other side?” Rackley: “The Trinity Building.” (The

Dal-Tex Building was previously known as the Trinity Warehouse Building.) In an

inappropriate, leading question, particularly in view of the fact that Rackley had

already answered the question, Warren Commission counsel David Belin asked,

“Did it look like they were flying up from both buildings?” “Both buildings,” Rackley

replied.‡ (6 H 275)

Dallas Police officer Earle V. Brown adds to the confusion with his Warren Commission

testimony that from his position on top of the railroad overpass above the

Stemmons Freeway he saw pigeons “all take off ” around the time of the shots.

Question: “Where was it you saw the pigeons rise?” Brown: “From where I was

standing they would be about halfway between—no, they would be up more toward that other overpass,

what they call the triple underpass.” (6 H 234)

Whether Brown was referring to the same pigeons referred to by Baker and Rackley, or other

pigeons, is not known. What is known is that conspiracy theorists, who routinely

reject incontrovertible evidence in the assassination, have accepted a point supportive

of Oswald’s guilt that, from the evidence, could never be classified as incontrovertible.





†If the pigeons had been on the roof of the Book Depository Building, where? The stronger inference is

they were on the northwest corner of the building, not the southeast corner where Oswald was. Baker said he

saw a shack on the roof of the northeast corner of the building (photographs show it was actually the northwest

corner) where “pigeons had been roosting there for some time,” and saw pigeon droppings (3 H 260).

‡However, in an FBI interview a month earlier, Rackley was unequivocal and said he saw “a large flock of

pigeons take off from the roof of the Texas School Book Depository Building” (FBI Record 124-10028-10387,

Interview of George W. Rackley Sr. on March 9, 1964, p.4).



NO SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE TSBD!
November 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

When I made the turn onto Houston on the left side, we had caught up with the cars in front of us, and I had stopped right by the side of the entrance to the old jail, which is about midway between Main and Elm Streets on Houston. I heard one very clear shot. Evidently I must have felt like it was coming from straight ahead because at that instant I was looking down, and when I heard the shot, threw my head up and it appeared that about 5,000 pigeons flew out from behind that building (the Texas School Book Depository) straight ahead. In fact, I thought to myself, “Somebody’s shooting at the pigeons!” But I could see the limousine off to my left on Elm and saw Mrs. Kennedy crawling on the back of the car. I had a good idea that somebody had been shot at but didn’t know which one. ~ H. B. McLain, Solo Motorcycle Officer Dallas Police Department



November 21, 2015 at 7:30 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104




Wanna try that with the window open six to seven inches?




November 24, 2015 at 4:18 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Solely the reason it is a glass cage these days as they don't want every visitor going NFW, it cannot be done.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




November 24, 2015 at 5:05 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104

Burns said ONE shot was heard and it was from the West, behind her as she walked East in the third floor hallway.

Mr. BALL. You heard how many shots?

Miss BURNS. One.

Mr. BALL. Just one?

Miss BURNS. It must have been the last one because I didn't hear any more.

Mr BALL. Did you have any idea where it was coming from?

Miss BURNS. Well, it just sounded as though it was back of me. You see, I was going towards Houston Street. I was facing east and it sounded to me as it came toward my back.

Mr. BALL. You were in the building?

Miss BURNS. Yes; I was in the building.

Mr. BALL. Walking down the hall?

Miss BURNS. Walking down the hall going towards Allyn and Bacon.


The knoll and railyard was to her rear (West)

She does not ever say the shot was from within the TSBD, because NO SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE TSBD!

Mr. BALL. Did you hear anybody running down the stairs at any time?

Miss BURNS. Yes, but I didn't know

Mr. BALL. When?

Miss BURNS. It was after that; I went to the restroom.

Mr. BALL. How long after?

Miss BURNS. I imagine maybe it was 25 minutes. I imagine it was the policeman or somebody; of course, I don't know who it was.

Did Doris use the second floor restrooms? Or the Fourth floor lav?


December 28, 2015 at 9:31 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

   Ed Ledoux at November 24, 2015 at 4:18 AM

   Wanna try that with the window open six to seven inches?





You know Ed you're right and it really is that simple...........................

We could bang on about the detail for years, but that recreation pic is a crock and they must have known that.


The angle of the dangles all wrong.

It beggars belief actually, here is a pic which seems to prove the shot could not have come from that window, and I'm reasonably confident that no shots came from any other windows in that building either. So if no shots were fired from the TSBD, and this recreation pic seems a pretty powerful pictorial display of that point, then there ain't no 6th floor shooter. Period end of story.

I hear crickets chirping again..........................................!


January 1, 2016 at 1:02 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Why the Hughes film shows absolutely nothing when it comes to seeing the shooter or a barrel.

http://www.prayer-man.com/the-6th-floor-window-in-the-robert-hughes-film/
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




January 13, 2016 at 11:35 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Andy A.
Member
Posts: 56

If anything incriminating to the official story was ever in the Hughes film, it was excised before the public ever saw it.


The cuts in the Hughes film (easily observed when scrolling through individual frames) include but are not limited to:


- Baker reacting to the first audible shot (must've looked up quickly) as he passes the County Jail. This syncs perfectly with the excised frames in Zapruder where JFK momentarily stops waving and is during the period when any shots from the 'snipers nest' would be blocked by the tree.*

- possible glint from a radio from mysterious guy on Huston St. who is clearly talking into his hand before & after JFK passes

- possible movement at west-end of picket fence

- another possible glint from a radio of the young DCM with the rolled up jacket & cap out front of the TSBD (interesting to follow this guy from Huston/Main to the picket fence to the TSBD whilst monitoring his jacket & back pocket. Extremely hinky & missed by everybody.)


When considered in conjunction with splices in all the other relevant Dealey Plaza footage, a pretty coherent 'negative template' emerges.


Also, Euins told Underwood he saw a 'colored' man in the window. Anything subsequent to that is bullshit released under extreme duress.



* As per the timing & internal logic of Dale Myers' own film synchronization study fer fucksakes. (Though he doesn't mention this particular correlation of film splices). I wouldn't trust Myers to tell me the weather - and reject at least 40% of his study - but his synchronization of frames where the camera cars can be seen in both Zapruder & Hughes seems fairly sound from my own limited re-checking. Even if he's off by a dozen frames, that's less than a second in real time.)
January 13, 2016 at 6:32 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

   Andy A. at January 13, 2016 at 6:32 PM

   If anything incriminating to the official story was ever in the Hughes film, it was excised before the public ever saw it.


   The cuts in the Hughes film (easily observed when scrolling through individual frames) include but are not limited to:


   - Baker reacting to the first audible shot (must've looked up quickly) as he passes the County Jail. This syncs perfectly with the excised frames in Zapruder where JFK momentarily stops waving and is during the period when any shots from the 'snipers nest' would be blocked by the tree.*

   - possible glint from a radio from mysterious guy on Huston St. who is clearly talking into his hand before & after JFK passes

   - possible movement at west-end of picket fence

   - another possible glint from a radio of the young DCM with the rolled up jacket & cap out front of the TSBD (interesting to follow this guy from Huston/Main to the picket fence to the TSBD whilst monitoring his jacket & back pocket. Extremely hinky & missed by everybody.)


   When considered in conjunction with splices in all the other relevant Dealey Plaza footage, a pretty coherent 'negative template' emerges.


   Also, Euins told Underwood he saw a 'colored' man in the window. Anything subsequent to that is bullshit released under extreme duress.



   * As per the timing & internal logic of Dale Myers' own film synchronization study fer fucksakes. (Though he doesn't mention this particular correlation of film splices). I wouldn't trust Myers to tell me the weather - and reject at least 40% of his study - but his synchronization of frames where the camera cars can be seen in both Zapruder & Hughes seems fairly sound from my own limited re-checking. Even if he's off by a dozen frames, that's less than a second in real time.)

Andy,


you get my vote
January 14, 2016 at 6:54 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915






_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Did you hear anything hunny?






_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




April 2, 2016 at 10:45 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Just want to write about the ejecta that we can see in Z and Nix films where the white piece of skull is seen to fly up and forward, mostly upward, or at least outward from the axis of the bullet or bullets. This is such an odd angle for matter to be propelled out of his head. When you look at the high speed films of rifle bullets going through things the ejecta is on axis more or less directly forward and to the rear of the passing bullet. Given a front and/or a rear shot, what imparts energy upon that skull piece to rocket it upward and so far off of the axis of energy of the flying bullet? I know if a soft lead bullet hits a hardened steel plate then all the bullet fragments fly out in a disc plane perpendicular to the bullet's flight axis; the energy is translated to these new axes after the collision with the steel. That is the kind of energy the skull fragment appears to have had imparted to it. The only thing I can think of that could do that is two bullets from opposite directions almost at once. Not that the bullets necessarily need to physically collide in his head, but that they are both imparting on axis energy to brain and skull that causes the ejecta itself to have an on-axis or at least oblique axis collision from two opposite directions that results in the outward translation of the energy, which propells it in off axes directions, like an explosion from a point souce inside the head would do. (as from a "flurry" of bullets, which is a reference to Kellerman's statement).
April 23, 2016 at 6:11 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Jake,


All I'll say is  - Bang,...............Bang Bang!  

I do think you maybe correct.
April 23, 2016 at 9:01 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1104 Good find Bart. Ladies were both hard of hearing.... or... No Shots Fired From TSBD folks.
April 26, 2016 at 10:47 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

   Barto at April 2, 2016 at 10:45 AM

   Did you hear anything hunny?


Thanks for sharing Barto - amazing that a person up on the third floor South side of the TSBD - at the window looking out, would not hear shots from above coming from inside the building. Amazing.
--

"If you torture the statements, affidavits and the evidence long enough,

it will confess to anything you'd like"

May 6, 2016 at 10:56 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

There ought to be a list of people inside the tsbd and where the shots came from, and I bet you a pattern will emerge.
--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




May 7, 2016 at 1:13 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Tuscalosa News Nov 23 1963





_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald




May 17, 2016 at 4:23 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Geoffrey Campbell
Member
Posts: 1

Have you considered the testimony of Mrs. Reid that Oswald was in her office on the 2'nd floor of the Book Depository at the time when the shots were heard? (Primary reference: "Absolute Proof" by Robert Groden) It seems that Groden is a reputable researcher on JFK, so I thought I would ask you,Sir.
May 23, 2016 at 11:49 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Groden made a mistake with that, Reid was outside with Truly and Campbell as per her affidavit and testimony.


--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Have you considered the testimony of Mrs. Reid that Oswald was in her office on the 2'nd floor of the Book Depository at the time when the shots were heard? (Primary reference: "Absolute Proof" by Robert Groden) It seems that Groden is a reputable researcher on JFK, so I thought I would ask you,Sir.




Review:

Absolute Proof, by Robert Groden



Reviewed by Jim DiEugenio



Posted April 13, 2014



For at least the last 3-4 years Groden has trumpeted a new witness who he says gives Oswald an absolutely airtight alibi. This reviewer actually heard the author talk about this person at the COPA Conference in Dallas three years ago. He again discusses this witness in Chapter 2 of Absolute Proof. Here, he calls this witness Geraldine Reid.




He begins his discussion by saying that Mrs. Robert Reid, who the Warren Commission interviewed, was named Delores Reid. He then says there was a second Mrs. Reid who also worked on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository and her name was Geraldine Reid. (Groden, p. 20)

It is important to detail from his book the importance that Groden gives Geraldine Reid. He writes that the Commission "avoided mentioning this Mrs. Reid like the plague." Why? Because she was flown to Washington and interrogated by the Commission but her testimony "was so devastating to their preconceived conclusions of Oswald's guilt that they buried all references to her." (ibid)


Referring to an interview he did with her, Groden writes, "I was threatened to keep my mouth shut, or else." He then says that the Commission tried to keep Geraldine a secret and concealed the fact there were actually two Mrs. Reids. He then quotes more fully from his interview with the second Mrs. Reid which took place before she passed away relatively recently.




There were some unusual circumstances to the interview Groden did with this woman. For instance, no tapes were permitted, and Groden was not allowed to refer to her testimony before she passed away. Reid told Groden that about one minute before the shots rang out, Oswald walked into the office on the second floor across from the snack room. He needed some change for the soda machine. He went to Geraldine and gave her a dollar and asked her for change. At that moment they both heard the sound of gunshots. But, oddly, neither of them said anything about the sounds. She continued giving him change and he walked toward the snack room. She concluded her story with, "That's the last time I saw him until he passed by me a few minutes later as he was leaving the building." (Groden, p. 21) By this time she had learned what happened and told him that Kennedy had been shot.



Groden then says he was introduced to Geraldine Reid and her story by a man names David Thiess, a former investigator for the Office of Naval Intelligence. Thiess told him he knew she had been interviewed by the Commission and they had suppressed her story and wiped her out of the record. But further, he had seen the concealed documents about her. Both Reid and Theiss died, Theiss as Absolute Proof was going to press. (ibid)



After the book was published, Richard Gilbride talked about the Geraldine Reid story at Greg Parker's fine forum, Reopen Kennedy Case. As the reader can see by reading this fascinating review of the facts, it appears that, to begin with, Groden got some of the details wrong. There was no Delores Reid working in the Depository Building. The Mrs. Robert Reid Groden refers to was first named Geraldean (at times spelled Jeraldean). And she passed away in 1973. So it turns out that there was no Geraldine Reid also, at least with his exact spelling.



What appears to have happened is that in an FBI report made on November 24th, a Mrs. Sanders talked about Geraldean Reid but the FBI agent incorrectly spelled it as "Geraldine". But the giveaway is that Sanders gave the agents the phone number of Mrs. Geraldine/Jeraldean Reid, a key point Groden apparently missed. So they were talking about the same person. Obviously, if this was the only Geraldean/Geraldine Reid at the Depository, and she died in 1973, then this could not be the person that Groden talked to several years ago, and who died relatively recently.



What appears to have happened here is that Mr. Theiss, who conveniently died right before the book came out, somehow concocted a hoax to play on the research community. This is a problem that has plagued the community since 1964. And Groden did not do the proper follow-up to prevent himself from falling for the phony "Geraldine Reid" playlet. We owe thanks to Greg Parker and the frequenters of his forum for correcting the record on this issue.


Source: http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/groden_book.html


--

"If you torture the statements, affidavits and the evidence long enough,

it will confess to anything you'd like"

May 24, 2016 at 2:15 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

from everything I have read, the snipers nest was not set up to have a realistic chance of killing JFK. IMO it was not even set up in a way that could have plausibly suggested a successful sniper's nest once it was examined in detail. I find it hard to believe (unless it was a panicked last minute improvisation) that it was intended to ever represent the nest of a successful sniper. If you want a successful sniper's nest or event wanted to falsely convey the impression of one, you would put a good quality weapon in a better position in another window. Surely the conspirators budget would have stretched to a decent plausible rifle. So IMO there could have been shots from the nest but there could never have been any serious intention of killing JFK from it.


May 24, 2016 at 11:24 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Greg
Site Owner
Posts: 2049

Alan, the title (and consensus) of this thread is that no shots came from the sniper's nest.


IMO, we have been lulled into believing that the plot was mapped out by some all-powerful group who meticulously planned every detail to the nth degree, but that is just not the case.


One quick example: for a long long time it has been suspected that the "epileptic" seizure was faked and timed to distract and/or keep the ambulence busy. I fell into that category - especially after looking into the background of Jerry Belknap a little and connecting dots - something I'm good at, but wary of at the same time, unless I've got a strong enough evidence set to back it.


But I changed my mind after looking again at his statement to the FBI and investigating the claims that he made in that. Without going into detail, his story panned out from all angles, including medical.


I believe the plotters knew that the Dallas Police would get on board and enact a frame. They just had to point at Oswald and yell "Commie".


But as I've said before., if something happened that made Oswald completely unusable as the patsy, one thing that they DID plan on was having back-up patsies. Here that could be Buell, Molina, or just about any of the African-American workers in the building.


Once the notion of an all-powerful Oz behind the curtian is ditched, it is much easier to understand what happened. We no longer have to make sense of how inperfect evidence fits into a perfect frame.
--

I'm just one of the Dregs of Society from South Bunyip Valley Heights


In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once

inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their

address they eventually live in the metropolis. Quentin Crisp


http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker


They put Johnny and Bobby in the ground

Then the place was run by shucks and clowns

Motherfuckers are still thick on the ground

Coz there’s a new God – There’s a new God in town.

Steve Schwartz & the Strap-Ons


May 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Greg at May 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Alan, the title (and consensus) of this thread is that no shots came from the sniper's nest.


IMO, we have been lulled into believing that the plot was mapped out by some all-powerful group who meticulously planned every detail to the nth degree, but that is just not the case.


One quick example: for a long long time it has been suspected that the "epileptic" seizure was faked and timed to distract and/or keep the ambulence busy. I fell into that category - especially after looking into the background of Jerry Belknap a little and connecting dots - something I'm good at, but wary of at the same time, unless I've got a strong enough evidence set to back it.


But I changed my mind after looking again at his statement to the FBI and investigating the claims that he made in that. Without going into detail, his story panned out from all angles, including medical.


I believe the plotters knew that the Dallas Police would get on board and enact a frame. They just had to point at Oswald and yell "Commie".


But as I've said before., if something happened that made Oswald completely unusable as the patsy, one thing that they DID plan on was having back-up patsies. Here that could be Buell, Molina, or just about any of the African-American workers in the building.


Once the notion of an all-powerful Oz behind the curtian is ditched, it is much easier to understand what happened. We no longer have to make sense of how inperfect evidence fits into a perfect frame.

Too true Greg,


An ordinary garden variety wife and mother living in the suburb of Irving pointed her finger squarely at Lee Oswald to devastating effect.
--

"If you torture the statements, affidavits and the evidence long enough,

it will confess to anything you'd like"

May 24, 2016 at 6:20 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

Is there a thread about where the shots did come from? I suppose I would start by simply asking - which windows or other positions had a really good view of the tight turn?
May 28, 2016 at 6:42 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

I tried to put my lack of expertise to good use to give a sort of novice instinctive view of the likely assassination snipers positions . I used google street view to do the motorcade. I didnt really know where buildings other than the TSBD was. I tried to imagine if I was part of an assassination plan where I would place myself. My impression was that the best location to shoot JFK sitting on the right side of the car in the tight turn would be from perhaps the 2nd, 3rd or 4th floor (depending on who you really wanted to make sure you miss) of the building that I have just found out is the Dal-Tex (I had read about it but actually thought it was a different building).

My clear impression then is that the next window of opportunity to hit JFK sititng on the right of the car was clearly the elevated knoll area and adjacent. I was amazed at how much smaller scale and very close this position is to where the car was. Following that there is the overpass.

Not exactly amazing stuff or revololutionary but it is my greenhorn view of what seemed rational. So if I had to conclude I would say the best shooters locatoins where the Dal-Tex for an earlier shot around the sharp turn and then the Knoll/overpass area. There dont seem to me to be a lot of positions in other directions where the relatively flat land and the intervening crowds wouldnt be a major problem for a shooter. There is a bit of elevated ground next to the knoll just before the car would have reached the knoll area. I am not sure what it is called.

Just a thought but could a shooter have been up a tree posing as security and firing with a silencer?
May 28, 2016 at 7:29 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

another thing that strikes me is, even if the trees were not a problem, the traditional snipers nest seems an incredibly steep angle for a shooter to choose take advantage of the slowest and nearest moment as the car turns left into Houston presenting a view of Kennedy on the right of the car. That alone would make an unbiased person looking at this blind with no backstory or names question this position. Then there are the trees. A shot mid turn from a not-too-high-up window in the Dal-Tex would have seemed a much better idea.

Another thing that strikes me about the Dal-Tex position is that it appears to retain a good line of sight unblocked by trees long after the turn - perhaps the whole way to the underpass. it seems a very very likely choice to me for one crossfire position. In fact I am stunned at the fantastic view it gets of Houston as far as the underpass. You would have to be mad not to think it was a great location for a sniper.

Another thing that struck me about the general area is that it would not have been difficult to ensure it was very difficult for a sniper to set up an assassin's next. There are not that many options with clear views, elevated positions to get above the crowd/other car passangers without going long distance. So the fact that the very limited positions were not neutralised is clear evidence of a deliberate stand down.
May 28, 2016 at 7:57 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

Been looking at Altgens 6 of the Dal-Tex building. Looking at that photo it looks to me like a position on floor 2 (UK 1st floor, US 2nd floor. Aussi??) at the central window as seen on the photo would be perfect for a shot at JFK on the right of the car from the rear (to avoid hitting Jackie) as it straightened into Houston. I read that Greer took the corner clumsily and wide and that would have changed the angle considerably. Perhaps that was the shot that was problematic.

Talking of the photo, there is a lot that is odd in that very position in the Dal-Tex. An open window, something almost human-like in it. Above the open part of the window there is a tangle of fire escape parts in front of the upper part of the same widow. A light object casts a solid black shadow. Blending into one side of the shadow is what looks like a puff of black smoke with a light dot in the lower part of it. A straight thin line seems to come from it and there is another straight line parallel with this on the edge of the shadow. It looks weirdly like cartoon bullet paths LOL.

Was this photo out before it could be tampered with?
May 28, 2016 at 5:13 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

Weirdly digging around about the Dal-Tex building and Altgens I see the Duncan Mc guy you all love so much comes up a lot in old posts. Its odd because his posts go back many years and if you look at what I think was a very interesting initial interest of his about the men in and around the 2nd floor window of that builidng and the fire escape it seems he was kind of stonewalled by researchers at the time - almost like he had found something that the gatekeepers didnt want pointed out. However, like a few other researchers you almost get the impression he was 'turned' at some point and went over to the dark side somewhere after initially being genuine and even pointing out some uncomfortable stuff for the conspiracy deniars. Certainly that is a very clear impression I get.
May 29, 2016 at 7:21 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Dunc probably figured out there was no money on this side... it's all waiting on the dark side.
May 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

It was an interesting dabble to use street viewer and look at the photographic evidence. Nothing I found proves anything but I would absolutely say that the snipers nest in the TSBD is not a rational position to choose even without the detailed evidence of the rubbish rifle, bad sights, akward window type, trees in the way etc. The Dal-Tex and that perhaps that Records Building opposite just seem far better options and there were a number of open windows and vantage points. Personally the Dal-Tex just jumps out at me as having a tremendous view from the turn onwards. I understand the Altgens photo a lot better now having seen the dark skinned guy on the fire escape much more clearly and the guy at the 2nd floor window with the suggestion of another guy behind him. That could be a shooter team but it could equally be innoccent. What is clearly not innocent is the fact many people were allowed to be in locations like that during the montorcade. That is utter madness unless its deliberate. I suppose without definitive photographic proof of a shooter it will remain speculation but it was worth a dabble. I now am a little bit more clued in to the realistric possibilities.


One question for those with a better grip on this stuff than me - the TBSD snipers nest looks a very very bad choice for the shots that took place. However, could it have been a better one for a potshot that never took place looking down Elm before the turn?
May 29, 2016 at 8:16 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Alan
Member
Posts: 37

Arggg - I realise I have reversed the names of Houston and Elm in my above posts so please read them that way. Sorry.


A random thought struck me there. Could there be a reason why the rifle in the TSBD had what look like misaligned sight. I read that it was misaligned in the sense that it fired slightly high. Is there any chance this could have been deliberate? Firing slightly on the high side when picking a centre of head shot from the front could have been a precaution for a front shot looking down Houston from that position. Although it would have increased the chance of a miss, it would have reduced the chance of hitting the people sitting in front of JFK. Now this shot clearly didnt happen and indeed no shots might have come from the TSBD. That doesnt mean it wasnt considered an option or even set up as an option to cover a 'long shot' possibility that a good head shot presented itself before the turn into Elm.


From photos I have seen the nest is set up to make it look like it was aimed at Elm not Houston. However that would be easy to adjust to give that false impression. I went on google earth and hovered as low on the aerial photograph as possible without going into streetview so I could get an impression of the TSBD position and the only sense I could make of even considering that as an option is its view down Houston.

So what do you think? TSBD nest set up on the offchance of a head shot down Houston before or at the turn from the front presenting itself. A slightly high aligned scope to reduce chance of a headshot hitting passangers in front? Shot not didnt present itself so not taken? Then the nest altered to make it look like it was set up for a Elm shot?

This 85 page witness list when boiled down to its bone has no support for a TSBD shot or shooter!

my comments in red

https://docs.com/ed-ledoux/2018/tsbdwitnesses


Cheers!!!
ED

Can anyone post a pic or film of pigeons and the TSBD from 11/22/63

Good luck, Ed

Jim Bishop in The Day Kennedy Was Shot repeats the "pigeons circling the TSBD while the DPD was searching the rooftop and building..." malarkey
Kari Lee says these are brain washing phrases like slumped and ducked, meant to produce a false mental image.

Richard E Sprague on Mae Brussel's show
At 5:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeYfzUzZLA0

Over 500 pictures and multiple film cameras and not a single pigeon....

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Can anyone post a pic or film of pigeons and the TSBD from 11/22/63

Good luck, Ed

Pigeons in Brooklyn is as close as I can get. Will that do?

Hmmm.

From George Rackley's testimony


Mr. BELIN. Did you see anyone in the parade?
Mr. RACKLEY. The only thing - I told the guy, he was down there, the only thing that I saw that looked suspicious to me, there was something like a hundred pigeons flew up like you shot into them, and I noticed that, but I never heard no shots.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them fly from?
Mr. RACKLEY. From over the top of the building.
Mr. BELIN. Which building? The School Book Depository or over on the other side?
Mr. RACKLEY. The Trinity Building.
Mr. BELIN. Which building did they fly off of?
Mr. RACKLEY. I wasn't looking. I just seen they all flew together.
Mr. BELIN. Did it look like they were flying up from both buildings?
Mr. RACKLEY. Both buildings.
--------
He pretty clearly nominates the Trinity Building but takes the hint from Belin and changes to both.

Interesting tale of a BB rifle being used to scare pigeons off a roof in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95672&search=pigeons#relPageId=127&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95672&search=pigeons#relPageId=128&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95672&search=pigeons#relPageId=129&tab=page

Amazing stuff Greg.
A dead boy, an hearst or ambulance, a rifle with a scope that changes to a BB gun without optics, yet a raised area of the bb gun.. 
Still no pigeon pics or film though.
The practice shots from earlier in the week must have uprooted the roost. 
Rackley seeing the pigeons fly is an earlier account, same with others I have shown saw them but not flying around, simply from the ground away from the Plaza.
There was no reason for Baker to go onto the TSBD.
Other than his need to take the "High Ground" overlooking the Knoll and Railroad yard/parking lot.
More likely to observe the get away vehicle and relay that to officers running to that area.
The pigeons circling is another report/reporter adding in details which like a rifle in the window etc turn out to be false.
As a psychological tool the pigeons circling is perfect.

The raised area on a pellet rifle being confused with a scope is hilarious as it gets from the files of the FBI.

Seriously this pigeon crap is what we were told was the event directly after the first shot.
Turns out to be before... robs Baker of his excuse to enter that building. Impugns Baker's fairy tale about birds and shots. 
Par for the Warren Commission course of course.

As I thought about these omission commission loyers and the claim there was no conspiracy involving Oswald.,,,

This is a trick.


Pick out an innocent man like Lee and absolutely there will be no conspiracy as Lee had nothing to with the shooting.

No one talked to those prisoners, the ones right across from the SFW... thx Bart.
Shows they had no interest as no one saw anything close to a rifle fire from the TSBD.

Ed. Ledoux wrote:No one talked to those prisoners, the ones right across from the SFW... thx Bart.
Shows they had no interest as no one saw anything close to a rifle fire from the TSBD.

Perhaps my memory is in error, but I seem to remember reading a FBI interview(s) with a prisoner or two in the John Armstrong research collection.