JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

You are now making speculations when you say "I dare say clips got removed millions of times from MCs"... your posts up to this point had merit. You have fallen into an abyss where you demand facts from others yet you put forward opinions.

Negative. The weapon in question was mass-produced for wartime use. It was used in the second World War, and prior. If it had a major defect, that would have been engineered out in the early testing.

When I say "damage", I refer to distortion of the clip; in order for the clip to be jammed in the M/C, it had to have damage, it is the only way it can be jammed. If you care to put forth another way the clip can be jammed without any evidence of altering the clip... then I will listen.

Negative, you keep saying that, but you've offered no evidence that is the case ("in order for the clip to be jammed in the M/C, it had to have damage, it is the only way it can be jammed.")

The evidence in the record consists of three things concerning the clip to date:
1. Photos like the one I cited showing the clip stuck in the rifle as it was removed from the Depository;
2. A memorandum for the record which I cited which shows the markings on the clip that was removed from the rifle executed from J.C.Day back at the crime lab on the afternoon of the assassination;
3. Photos of the clip (and of course, the actual clip in the archives) showing no visible damage; but bearing the same markings as the memo by J.C.Day.

That establishes the clip does not need to be to be distorted or damaged to get stuck, unless you are alleging substitution of an undamaged clip for the damaged one.

As for citations... you offer none, yet you get on a high horse and demand one out of me. Do you need a citation for your toast being removed without damage? No, you don't and there is no such citation for the clip or a rock busting out a window. You have reduced your defenseless position to rubble.

You are the one without citations; you keep offering your opinion about what the clip's condition needs to be; but the evidence I cited (along with the photos you cited of an undamaged clip - thanks for that, btw); show your opinion of the clip's condition is meaningless.

I never made a claim about anyone substituting clips, yet that does bring to the forefront that there is no receipt for the clip. Clips were sold separately and one of the foundations of tracing the rifle back to Oswald was the chain of receipts which allowed the Commission to come up with the chain of custody.

Where is the receipt for the clip? Maybe if you start with this question, it could add substance to your stance.

You say if I produce a receipt for the clip, it would add substance to my argument, but there is no substance to your argument. None.

Let me explain.

Firstly, without a substitution for the clip, you have no argument, for the clip in the record is undamaged, which, without the substitution, disproves your claim that a stuck clip MUST be damaged. By alleging that, you are alleging a substitution. It follows from your own claim and the state of the evidence. But of course, you have no evidence of that substitution.
But either
1. your claim is accurate and a substitution occurred, or
2. your claim is false and no substitution occurred.
The current state of the evidence indicates the latter. But by alleging the stuck clip MUST be a damage clip, you are arguing the undamaged clip in evidence is a substitute clip. One that the police just happened to have lying around and decided to use to frame the patsy. That follows from your allegation. I trust you understand this.

And remember, the rifle fired the bullets found in the limo, and the clip was in the rifle when it was removed from the Depository.

Now some more background, again, or as you like to call it, "Poisoning the well":

The original argument by the early critics like Lane, Weisberg and Meagher was that there was no clip (or at least, no evidence for the clip); so the argument went, without the clip; Oswald could not have fired three shots in the requisite time; and without the clip, Oswald could not be the sole assassin.

But that was never a serious argument, as I demonstrated that photos of the rifle taken as it was removed from the Depository showed the clip within the rifle. So later critics are reduced to taken a step back and arguing another, even less meaningful point, like the above silliness, "Where is the receipt for the clip?"

Let me respond thusly: Do you keep receipts for everything you ever purchased? Isn't the argument that he could walk into any gunshop in Dallas and purchase a rifle without leaving a paper trail? Isn't that also true of a clip? Do you think the absence of a receipt for the clip proves that there was no clip in the rifle when it was removed from the Depository and moves the needle one iota towards Oswald's innocence?

I realize that is four questions, but since I am not dealing with Robert Prey, I trust you can respond with more than "baloney".

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...There is no evidence that this rifle was shot from that day...

I realize I excised a lot from your argument, but I really want to discuss the point you make above.

Here is the evidence you are saying doesn't exist:

1. A rifleman (or a rifle protruding from the sniper's nest window) was seen at the time of the shooting in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository by numerous witnesses.

2. The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository hidden amongst some boxes was photographed in place.

3. Three shells were found near the sniper's nest window from where the witnesses saw the rifle or rifleman mentioned in (1) above.

3. The rifle was filmed by Alyea as it was inspected within the building.

4. The rifle was photographed as it was removed from the building by news photographers like William Allen.

5. That is the only weapon known to have been found and removed from the building.

6. The weapon was identified by J.C.Day back at the crime lab as a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano. This weapon was eventually traced to Lee Oswald, but for the purposes of this discussion ("There is no evidence that this rifle was shot from that day"), that is an irrelevant point.

7. A nearly whole bullet found at Parkland was ballistically matchable to this rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

8. Two large fragments, comprising about half a bullet in total, found in the limo after the shooting, were likewise ballistically matchable to this rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

9. Photographic experts working for the HSCA in 1978 determined the rifle in the Alyea film and the rifle shown in many other films and photographs in the subsequent few days photographed outside the Depository as well as in the police station, were the same rifle as the one in evidence in the archives, the one ordered by Lee Oswald and shipped to his PO Box, and the one bearing the serial number C2766.

When the shells, fragments, and nearly whole bullet found at the scene of the crime and at the hospital are all traceable to that rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, and that rifle is provably the one found in the Depository, you don't get to say something silly like "There is no evidence that this rifle was shot from that day" without expecting to be called out on it.

Your claim is provably false, and you know it.

Hank

 

[Laton]

snip

Corrision can come from a number of sources; wear being one of them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrode

1: to eat away by degrees as if by gnawing; especially : to wear away gradually usually by chemical action <the metal was corroded beyond repair>
2: to weaken or destroy gradually : undermine <manners and miserliness that corrode the human spirit — Bernard De Voto>

Let me reiterate: At no point did he mention RUST within the barrel being found.

YOUR citation itself shows that. The point you attempt to make is unproven because your own citation does not say what you said it did. No rust was found in the barrel.


Hank

Just jumping in to note that the residue from smokeless powders (& cordite as far as I'm aware) can cause barrel corrosion if the firearm isn't cleaned on a regular basis. So finding corrosion in the action or barrel of an ex-military weapon is not that unusual. No rust needed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What was the serial number on the clip?

Ladmo, any answer to this yet?

 

[HSienzant]

Too much prose, too many questions. As to the above suggested proofs, of course not all are ever necessary in any murder trial. One or two would probably do. Like a confession, for instance.

One or two?

But Robert, I already listed that we have that many for Oswald!

You do remember authoring the list below, right?

An eyewitness or two, up close and positive.
A positive paraffin test.
Recent Fingerprints Id'd on the alleged Rifle.
An absence of planted evidence (shells, rifle, stretcher bullet)
An admission of guilt
A positive Lie test.
A motive.

I offered the names of two witnesses. Edwards and Fischer, and cited their testimony and first day statements. You ignored both.

I pointed out that J.C.Day found fingerprints on the weapon's trigger guard he was in the process of determining were Oswald's, and Vincent Scalise worked from the photos of those prints to positively identify them as Oswald's.

You haven't offered one iota of evidence that the shells, rifle, or stretcher bullet was planted.

I offered two motives, Oswald's desire to go down in history, along with his desire to kill an avowed enemy of the Cuban revolution (he had already shot at one such enemy in General Walker whom he had gone out of his way to stalk and shoot; Kennedy was different in that he was a target of opportunity in that the motorcade route took JFK past Oswald's place of employment).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

One of the shibboleths often spouted by Lone Nutters is, if there was a conspiracy, then why hasn't anyone talked? The obverse of that is the other shibboleth, namely that too many people have talked, therefore they are all loonies. Make up your mind.

lol. No, that's a false dichotomy on your part. Nobody ever said that too many people have talked, therefore they are all loonies. The claims have been examined and found wanting, therefore they are each provably a loony.

Robert, when the question is asked, "why hasn't anyone talked" we of course mean people actually involved in the conspiracy, that could prove, by insider knowledge and other evidence, that there was indeed a conspiracy and that they indeed were part of it.

We don't mean the run-of-the-mill loonies that come out of the woodwork in every crime, and the more you get as the crime gets bigger.

I am truly sorry you don't understand the difference. You appear to equate any loony coming forward with a 'story' and no evidence of any kind with a true conspirator who was actually involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

I think I see part of the reason this discussion has lasted nearly one hundred pages.

Let me clarify: those two are not equivalent, and a ton of loonies coming forward with stories of how they were involved (either as witnesses or conspirators or even as assassins), does not equal one legit confession with verifiable evidence. You have plenty of the former; none of the latter.

Again, I apologize for the confusion and am glad I could clear this up for you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If so, then document where Scalise swore to it.

See the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE, by Gary Savage. I already provided that, and further info on the book a few days ago in an earlier post.

True to form, you ignored it all.

Hank

 

[Border Reiver]

Removed duplicate post.

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, but there may have indeed been a shooter or shooters from the TSBD. But none of them nor the Grassy Knoll shooters were seen.The idea is to commit the crime and then get away quickly. And the idea is if you want to make sure the assassination is successful you have shooters in more than one location.[emphasis by Hank]

Neither claimed to have seen a weapon.

True, but both saw a man fitting Oswald's description in the TSBD's SE corner 6th floor window seconds before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza. Within no more than 30 seconds of that, the shooting took place, and numerous witnesses saw a rifle in the window.

If you want someone who actually saw the rifle just after the shooting, one such witness would be Bob Jackson.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm

Mr. JACKSON - ... 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.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn the corner.
Mr. SPECTER - Which corner were you beginning to turn?
Mr. JACKSON - Houston onto Elm.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. 348 and ask you if you can identify what that depicts?
Mr. JACKSON - This is the School Book Depository. This is the window the two colored men were looking out of. This is the window where the rifle was.

Jackson only saw the rifle from his angle, not the shooter. But clearly the rifle seen by Jackson was held by someone, and just as clearly the man that was seen by Fischer and Edwards in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor was the same man that was holding the rifle that was seen about 40 seconds later by Bob Jackson.

Surely you are not going to argue that an innocent man left that window and a guilty man took his place in the short time between the Fischer and Edwards sightings of the man in the window and the Jackson sighting of the rifle.

If not, and I trust not, then the man seen by Fischer and Edwards is the same man holding the rifle seen by Jackson. That man fit Oswald's description.

But the conclusion is inescapable -- the shooter in the TSBD SE corner window was seen. By Fischer and Edwards. And others.

Your statement is false, that the shooter in the TSBD was unseen. He was seen, and clearly described. On the other hand, there is absolutely no first-day evidence of a grassy knoll shooter.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Irrelevant minutia.

Thanks for that admission. It does sum up almost everything you post pretty effectively, I find.

But I find my responses are hardly irrelevant, and certainly don't deal with minutia, so I know you're not talking about what I wrote.

You made the point in earlier posts that Ed Hoffman was an excellent witness who you believed, citing his years-later story that he saw a gunman on the knoll, a puff of smoke, and then saw the gunman walk a short distance, toss the rifle to another man, who then walked to the intersection of the knoll and the overpass, whereupon this second man quickly dismantled the weapon, stuffed it into a carryall, and walked away from the knoll.

You also cited the statements of Sam Holland about seeing smoke on the knoll, and hearing a possibility of four shots, thinking that buttressed Hoffman's claims.

But it didn't, because as I pointed out and you ignored, it only happened one way, and Hoffman's account would put the man who stuffed the rifle into the carryall in plain view of Sam Holland, yet Sam Holland and the other six or seven men on the overpass described seeing nothing of the sort.

You also felt it necessary to cite Holland's testimony about the steam pipes and the 'sea of cars' Holland found a major obstacle when he rounded the corner and tried to get to the corner of the grassy knoll fence. (if he had seen the man dismantling the rifle as describe by Hoffman, he had no need to go any further and he would have tried to stop that man).

I merely pointed out the sea of cars and any obstacles mentioned by Holland went unmentioned in Hoffman's story that didn't appear until the 1970's.

That's relevant to determining which of these men is telling the truth, don't you think?

I also pointed out the steam pipe Holland mentioned and you cited (which usually goes unmentioned in the conspiracy literature, btw) would offer some explanation for the 'smoke' seen by Holland. That too is relevant as it goes directly to the evidence of a grassy knoll shooter, don't you think?

So I fail to understand why you would respond with "irrelevant minutia" to my points instead of offering some reasoned rebuttal to it. Ergo, I conclude you are summarizing your own posts for me.

Here my post once again, for ease of reference so you can actually take a stab at rebutting it this time (good luck):

Robert, did you compare Sam Holland's statement about the steam pipe and how difficult it was to get to the corner of the knoll fence with Hoffman's statements about how the gunman walked away from the fence and tossed the rifle to another man (which would have put the other man and this rifle into the view of Holland?

Did you note there's NOTHING about a sea of cars or the like in Hoffman's years-later statement?

It only happened one way, Robert. Which way did it happen? Who is telling the truth here?

Do you know where the steam pipe ran, and where it vented, btw?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You're missing my point. They could do all that much simpler ways.

If they were planning to frame a patsy, there are easier ways to do it than your way.

The smart way to do it:
1. Use his weapon from his building, while telling him to wait on the second floor for a phone call.
2. Nothing else need be done. Since his weapon was used, and he was in the building, of course all the evidence points to him doing it.


Your claims about how the planners did it instead:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Quite simply, your argument about how this frame up / conspiracy to assassinate JFK was put together and went done is idiotic.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
I don't know how people like yourself fall for this nonsense.

Hank

Why would the conspirators do it the way you suggest instead of the way I suggest? Do you a response that doesn't amount to 'baloney' with a capital B, Robert?

 

[BravesFan]

Just jumping in to note that the residue from smokeless powders (& cordite as far as I'm aware) can cause barrel corrosion if the firearm isn't cleaned on a regular basis. So finding corrosion in the action or barrel of an ex-military weapon is not that unusual. No rust needed.

Which is why all ex army guys wake up with nightmares of cleaning weapons.... sweet Jesus it took a lot of the fun out of trips to the range!!! Cuz, well, we fired a lot of rounds and then spent more time cleaning than we did firing....

 

[HSienzant]

Aah, but you are presuming the success in advance of the completion of the operation. You are also using circular reasoning, using the conclusion (the films were altered, the photos were altered, evidence was planted, etc.) to justify the premise (there was a conspiracy).

Let me be more clear -- you are saying the operation was successful, so of course it was a great plan. That only works in hindsight.

I am asking how the planners knew - when they planned it, in advance of the actual killing, and without the hindsight you are claiming you possess - how they knew it would be successful, and since they obviously weren't assured of it being successful, why would they plan the Rube Goldbergian plan you put forward, instead of the just far-more-simple plan of crashing the plane or exposing the President's affairs, most likely costing him the 1964 election.

Try to answer it this time without the benefit of the hindsight the planners obviously didn't possess, and without circular reasoning. Bet you can't.

Hank

Hi Robert,

You never did answer this one at any time.

Why would the conspirators come up with the Rube-Goldbergian plan you suggest, since they didn't have the hindsight of knowing it would be successful?

To date, your only response has been "You can't argue with success", which is of course, a meaningless and silly response, because the conspirators you allege successfully planned this mission weren't working from hindsight in planning this assassination attempt.

Unless you are alleging the conspirators are time-travellers. It follows from your argument. Please tell me you have a better answer than that.

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

Hi Robert,

You never did answer this one at any time.

Why would the conspirators come up with the Rube-Goldbergian plan you suggest, since they didn't have the hindsight of knowing it would be successful?

To date, your only response has been "You can't argue with success", which is of course, a meaningless and silly response, because the conspirators you allege successfully planned this mission weren't working from hindsight in planning this assassination attempt.

Unless you are alleging the conspirators are time-travellers. It follows from your argument. Please tell me you have a better answer than that.

Hank

To be fair, I think it's reasonable to assume that anybody who goes to the effort of planning, implementing and taking on the risk of a serious assassination attempt can be reasonably assumed to act according to the assassination attempt being successful. It would be a somewhat underconfident person who would act otherwise; arguably a self-defeating prospect. Of course, it always makes sense to have a 'Plan B', just in case the unexpected happens, especially for the getaway!

 

[HSienzant]

To be fair, I think it's reasonable to assume that anybody who goes to the effort of planning, implementing and taking on the risk of a serious assassination attempt can be reasonably assumed to act according to the assassination attempt being successful. It would be a somewhat underconfident person who would act otherwise; arguably a self-defeating prospect. Of course, it always makes sense to have a 'Plan B', just in case the unexpected happens, especially for the getaway!

But which plan has a better chance of success, and why would anyone start with plan B below?
Robert is alleging that is the plan. I fail to see why anyone would think Plan B (the conspiracy theory advocated by Robert) would have any chance for success. There are just too many points of failure; too many people who could reveal the plot.

Plan A:
1. Use his weapon from his building, while telling him to wait on the second floor for a phone call.
2. Nothing else need be done. Since his weapon was used, and he was in the building, of course all the evidence points to him doing it.


Plan B:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

 

[Southwind17]

But which plan has a better chance of success, and why would anyone start with plan B below?
Robert is alleging that is the plan. I fail to see why anyone would think Plan B (the conspiracy theory advocated by Robert) would have any chance for success. There are just too many points of failure; too many people who could reveal the plot.

Plan A:
1. Use his weapon from his building, while telling him to wait on the second floor for a phone call.
2. Nothing else need be done. Since his weapon was used, and he was in the building, of course all the evidence points to him doing it.


Plan B:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

I see what your saying. A little like Occam's Razor, or Bertrand Russell's take on it: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.", which seems particularly poignant in the case of LHO vs. ANO!

 

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

You never did answer this one at any time.

Why would the conspirators come up with the Rube-Goldbergian plan you suggest, since they didn't have the hindsight of knowing it would be successful?

To date, your only response has been "You can't argue with success", which is of course, a meaningless and silly response, because the conspirators you allege successfully planned this mission weren't working from hindsight in planning this assassination attempt.

Unless you are alleging the conspirators are time-travellers. It follows from your argument. Please tell me you have a better answer than that.

Hank

To increase the chances of success, it is logical to have more than one shooter in more than one location. Logic 101. If one shooter gets cold feet, the others may not. If one shooter's weapon jams, the others may not. If one shooter misses, the others may not. Logic 101 and 102. It's not Rube Goldberg but common sense. On the other hand, your plan(s) have a high risk of failure.

 

[Robert Prey]

Thanks for that admission. It does sum up almost everything you post pretty effectively, I find.

But I find my responses are hardly irrelevant, and certainly don't deal with minutia, so I know you're not talking about what I wrote.

You made the point in earlier posts that Ed Hoffman was an excellent witness who you believed, citing his years-later story that he saw a gunman on the knoll, a puff of smoke, and then saw the gunman walk a short distance, toss the rifle to another man, who then walked to the intersection of the knoll and the overpass, whereupon this second man quickly dismantled the weapon, stuffed it into a carryall, and walked away from the knoll.

You also cited the statements of Sam Holland about seeing smoke on the knoll, and hearing a possibility of four shots, thinking that buttressed Hoffman's claims.

But it didn't, because as I pointed out and you ignored, it only happened one way, and Hoffman's account would put the man who stuffed the rifle into the carryall in plain view of Sam Holland, yet Sam Holland and the other six or seven men on the overpass described seeing nothing of the sort.

You also felt it necessary to cite Holland's testimony about the steam pipes and the 'sea of cars' Holland found a major obstacle when he rounded the corner and tried to get to the corner of the grassy knoll fence. (if he had seen the man dismantling the rifle as describe by Hoffman, he had no need to go any further and he would have tried to stop that man).

I merely pointed out the sea of cars and any obstacles mentioned by Holland went unmentioned in Hoffman's story that didn't appear until the 1970's.

That's relevant to determining which of these men is telling the truth, don't you think?

I also pointed out the steam pipe Holland mentioned and you cited (which usually goes unmentioned in the conspiracy literature, btw) would offer some explanation for the 'smoke' seen by Holland. That too is relevant as it goes directly to the evidence of a grassy knoll shooter, don't you think?

So I fail to understand why you would respond with "irrelevant minutia" to my points instead of offering some reasoned rebuttal to it. Ergo, I conclude you are summarizing your own posts for me.

Here my post once again, for ease of reference so you can actually take a stab at rebutting it this time (good luck):

Here's what happened: The fatal shot came from the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll. We know that from close up on the scene witnesses and confirmation from the medical reports. We can only speculate as to the specifics as to the details, but a sober, unbiased analysis cannot refute the result. Arguing about steam pipes, the number of cars, how the rifle disappeared (who says it was a rifle?) is irrelevant minutia in an attempt to refute the irrefutable.

 

[Robert Prey]

True, but both saw a man fitting Oswald's description in the TSBD's SE corner 6th floor window seconds before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza. Within no more than 30 seconds of that, the shooting took place, and numerous witnesses saw a rifle in the window.

If you want someone who actually saw the rifle just after the shooting, one such witness would be Bob Jackson.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm

Mr. JACKSON - ... 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.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn the corner.
Mr. SPECTER - Which corner were you beginning to turn?
Mr. JACKSON - Houston onto Elm.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. 348 and ask you if you can identify what that depicts?
Mr. JACKSON - This is the School Book Depository. This is the window the two colored men were looking out of. This is the window where the rifle was.

Jackson only saw the rifle from his angle, not the shooter. But clearly the rifle seen by Jackson was held by someone, and just as clearly the man that was seen by Fischer and Edwards in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor was the same man that was holding the rifle that was seen about 40 seconds later by Bob Jackson.

Surely you are not going to argue that an innocent man left that window and a guilty man took his place in the short time between the Fischer and Edwards sightings of the man in the window and the Jackson sighting of the rifle.

If not, and I trust not, then the man seen by Fischer and Edwards is the same man holding the rifle seen by Jackson. That man fit Oswald's description.

But the conclusion is inescapable -- the shooter in the TSBD SE corner window was seen. By Fischer and Edwards. And others.

Your statement is false, that the shooter in the TSBD was unseen. He was seen, and clearly described. On the other hand, there is absolutely no first-day evidence of a grassy knoll shooter.

Hank

The WC concluded that neither Edwards nor Fischer could ID the man in the window. That there may have been shooter or shooters in one or more window is not denied by me or anyone. But all such discussion is a Red Herring because we know the fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and thus was the result of a conspiracy.

 

[jargon buster]

But all such discussion is a Red Herring because we know the fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and thus was the result of a conspiracy.

edit
But all such discussion is a Red Herring because I keep saying over and over without actually providing any evidence whatsoever,the fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and thus was the result of a conspiracy.