I've already responded to your hotkeyed "cant trust the witnesses" pitch.
No, you just treated us to a couple of unproven assertions, adding additional unproven claims onto your original unproven claim to try to salvage the original unproven claim.
This was a law enforcement professional who was involved in the most important case of his life.
You know that how? Please tell us what other high-profile cases Ellsworth worked on, and how important his role was in each, and then we can decide if your assertion is true. On the day of the assassination, Ellsworth was in Dealey Plaza as a civilian, as I recall. He had no official duties. He pitched in to help search the building and that was, to the best of my recollection, the extent of his involvement in this case. How does that minimal involvement make him able to have perfect recall of everything he did that day decades later? Can you explain your argument here?
If you think he suffered some kind of delusion, then that's your prerogative.
Doesn't even come close to what I said. Just another straw man argument. Do address the points I make, not the ones you wish to pretend I made, to better rebut them.
It's strange though, that you never come to this conclusion about any of the cops who don't make inconvenient statements
Wow. What's strange about it? If six witnesses say the same thing shortly after the commission of a crime, and the hard evidence recovered tells the same story, and the autopsists determine the body confirms the eyewitness account and the hard evidence, why would *anyone* question the eyewitnesses recollection? It's strange that you would think this is a good rebuttal to Ellsworth's decades-later recollection, the problems for which I already pointed out in the past, and you ignored.
Here they are again:
== QUOTE ==
I see several reasons to doubt him.
1. There's no corroboration for his recollection.
2. His recollection is from decades after the fact.
3. The contemporaneous testimony and memos put the recovered weapon on the same floor as the recovered shells.
4. Photos and films show the weapon recovered was on the sixth floor.
5. No photos and films exist of this supposed other rifle.
6. Only one weapon was removed from the Depository on the afternoon of 11/22/63 - the MC with the serial # C2766.
Why should we trust the outlier recollection? Why do you put any credibility into it, when you can't remember what you were arguing a few hours earlier?
== UNQUOTE ==
You never answered any of this.
What I found interesting is that Ellsworth's story is a perfect match for the oft repeated claim that the police actually found a Mauser a the 6th floor.
Ellsworth's claim that a rifle was recovered on the fourth or fifth floor is a perfect match for a Mauser being found on the sixth floor?
And pink unicorns look exactly like purple cows.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that they found a Mauser on the 6th floor and Oswald's rifle on the 5th.
Why? So you can introduce supposition, conjecture, and innuendo into the record and simply assume what you need to prove?
What would have happened over the weekend, if they were confronted by FBI people, enforcing the federal dictate that,
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
I already covered the Katzenbach memo in detail, showing how you were taking a few lines out of context, and ignoring Katzenbach's testimony explaining the memo, and how you were merely putting your interpretation of the memo in place of his explanation of the memo. You didn't address any of that. You ignored it. Repeating the same claims, and failing to address the rebuttal, isn't a good approach.
Are you beginning to understand why I have suggested that the most likely location for the other high powered rifle sniper, is the same floor that Oswald was on?
No. Not in the least. According to you, there weren't two rifles recovered on the sixth floor. Only one. According to the hard evidence (films and photos), the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher-Carcano. And not just any Mannlicher-Carcano.
OSWALDS!
That was determined by a panel of experts working for the HSCA.
So according to you, if we believe Ellsworth's decades-later recollection, we need to discard, at a minimum:
The testimony of J.C.Day, among numerous others.
The films taken (Tom Alyea) of the rifle in the Depository (that must be a forgery)
The evidence photos taken by J.C.Day of the weapon in place.
The document created by J.C.Day affirming the weapon recovered on the sixth floor bore the serial number of C2766.
The films and photos taken by newsmen of J.C.Day leaving the building with a Mannlicher-Carcano on the afternoon of the assassination.
All of that record was created on the afternoon of the assassination. The memo you cite from Katzenbach (and wrench a few lines out of context) wasn't written until 11/25/63 - three days later. How did the memo reach back in time and get the films and photos altered?
All that needs to be thrown out *ACCORDING TO YOU* because you choose to believe Ellsworth couldn't mis-remember a floor he was on decades after the event.
Sorry, but that's not close to being a good argument by you. It's an absurdity.
I also note with some amusement that you're again arguing for yet another sniper (at least the fourth you've argued for), this one a second one on the sixth floor of the Depository.
So two in the Depository, one in the Dal-Tex, and one in front of the President. Any others?
Those four assassins, according to you, were responsible for a minimum of five shots, and yet the vast majority of the witnesses heard only three shots (or, in the case of two people closest to the President, Clint Hill and John Connally, just two shots and the sound of the impact of the final shot on the head).
Hank
