Jump to content
The Education Forum
Rich Pope

Number of shots

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Citation please.

David Welsh, Ramparts (November, 1966)

Now, go and run and ask your community college professor friend what you are supposed to do now?

Edited by Rich Pope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rich Pope said:

David Welsh, Ramparts (November, 1966)

It would be nice to have the ACTUAL (ALLEGED) QUOTE from the lips of Lee E. Bowers, Jr.

Any chance you'd be willing to share that info with a lowly LNer, Richard?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here you go, David:

These two men were standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near two trees which were in the area. And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. These two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there at the time of the shooting.--Lee Bowers

"there was a flash of light or smoke" in the vicinity of where the two men were standing.This is in front of the limo.

Edited by Robert Card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Back some time ago in this thread it was posted that 60 witnesses said the FBI changed their testimony.  That fits with what I saw when examining what the witnesses around the TSBD said over several statements to the authorities.  I would like to use that but, I want to check what they said before I do.

Of the 50 witnesses I surveyed in the TSBD and immediately around it over half said there was firing of shots in the intersection and in front of the TSBD.  Later this was expanded to close to 40 witnesses.  I posted the witnesses and a brief summary of what they said earlier in the topic The Turn on Elm Street.  There is a longer and more detailed version of about 50 pages in a word doc, 

So, does anyone have a info on this or perhaps a link to a reference.  It would be appreciated.  Thanks.

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Robert Card said:

"there was a flash of light or smoke" in the vicinity of where the two men were standing.This is in front of the limo.

Is the part in quotation marks something that Bowers said in an FBI or SS report? Or did you get that straight from Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" film?

https://drive.google.com/file/Lee Bowers' Interview With Mark Lane

BTW, Bowers never said he saw anyone with a gun.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see.  This thread in part is about LHO firing 3 shots from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest at the TSBD. 

The problem is that you can't prove that statement to a conclusive surety.  No one clearly was able to identify LHO as being on the 6th floor in the Sniper's nest.  Chief Jesse Curry said he couldn't put Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hands.  Capt. Will Fritz couldn't either.  The great and mighty J. Edgar Hoover said Mr. President the evidence is not very, very strong, meaning it was very, very weak.

As far as 3 shots being fired out of the 6th floor Sniper's Nest.  That is a no go also.  The majority of closest TSBD witnesses to 6th floor Sniper's Nest said the shots came from some place else, generally to the west or towards the Grassy Knoll.  These were 8 witnesses on other floors within 40 feet of the Sniper's Nest which is about the width of the average American home.  At that distance you could not miss where the shots came from. 

Two witnesses on the 5th floor said they heard shooting from of above.  A third on the 5th floor initially agreed.  But, recanted at a Warren Commission hearing saying he heard shooting from low and to the left.  4 witnesses on the 4th floor 3 windows over said they hear shooting from some other place than the 6th floor.  The last and 8th witness said the shooting came from outside the building.

You can argue minutia of shooting or shots forever but, you still have to get around the notion of reasonable doubt saying LHO fired 3 shots from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor.  It can't be proven. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Is the part in quotation marks something that Bowers said in an FBI or SS report? Or did you get that straight from Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" film?

https://drive.google.com/file/Lee Bowers' Interview With Mark Lane

BTW, Bowers never said he saw anyone with a gun.

Walter Rischel (Friend of Bowers): "He (Bowers), said he saw a car pull up, 2 men get out of the car, when they was carrying what appeared to be rifles." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

Walter Rischel (Friend of Bowers): "He (Bowers), said he saw a car pull up, 2 men get out of the car, when they was carrying what appeared to be rifles." 

Robert,

You are right.  DVP wrecks everything.  I'm just going to put him on ignore and move on with life.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rich Pope said:

Robert,

You are right.  DVP wrecks everything.  I'm just going to put him on ignore and move on with life.  

Absolutely, he's here to wreck the site, and to stop legitimate discussion.  I may do the ignore thing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

Absolutely, he's here to wreck the site, and to stop legitimate discussion.  I may do the ignore thing too.

I just did it.  I already feel a great weight off my shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Card said:

Walter Rischel (Friend of Bowers): "He (Bowers) said he saw a car pull up, 2 men get out of the car, when they was carrying what appeared to be rifles." 

I wonder how that hunk of pure fantasy managed to not be included in Mark Lane's conspiracy-riddled film in 1967? It sounds like something Lane would have loved.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich Pope said:

Robert, You are right.  DVP wrecks everything. I'm just going to put him on ignore and move on with life.

 

1 hour ago, Robert Card said:

Absolutely, he's here to wreck the site, and to stop legitimate discussion. I may do the ignore thing too.

What you just said is total nonsense, Robert. And it's totally unfair as well. I'm here to provide another (non-conspiracy) point-of-view on the evidence. Not everybody agrees with everything the JFK conspiracy theorists say, you know. There are a lot more "LNers" in the world than many CTers seem to want to admit.

BTW....

Please tell me, Bob, how my input here has come even close to "stopping legitimate discussion" at this forum?

Sure, many threads go "off topic" here, and I have participated in some of those threads. But I'm certainly not ALONE when those threads stray from the original topic. And even when a topic strays, what's stopping a CTer from putting it back on track again toward, as you phrased it, "legitimate discussion"? That's not an impossible mission, is it?

BTW #2....

And what ever happened to "freedom of speech", Bob? Don't I have a right to participate in this forum and give my own opinions about what the evidence shows? Or do you think this should be an "All CTer" JFK forum (like the Deep Politics Forum is)?

I'm a little tired of hearing about how I am on a mission to "wreck this site". That accusation, as I said, is totally wrong (and preposterous). And it's an offensive and wholly unwarranted accusation as well. I'm merely an "LNer" with a lot of opinions about the events of 11/22/63. And, quite frequently, I'll share them. What's wrong with that? This forum is, after all, a "JFK Assassination Debate" forum. Right?

So, Robert Card, when can I expect your apology? :)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

What you just said is total nonsense, Robert. And it's totally unfair as well. I'm here to provide another (non-conspiracy) point-of-view on the evidence. Not everybody agrees with everything the JFK conspiracy theorists say, you know. There are a lot more "LNers" in the world than many CTers seem to want to admit.

 

If you were providing another point of view with evidence, I'd say OK.   What you're doing is running away anytime you're cornered.   A recent example would be the BBC Report on 911 that reported that WTC7 fell 22 minutes before it actually did.  You runaway when you're confronted with evidence and logic, like the James Chaney problem.  It's a tactic you use hoping that good posters will leave, thereby stopping the discussion.  I don't care if you get things wrong, my only complaint is the personal attacks that are sometimes delivered in large type.

In just one month, I've shown you example after example of you using the 25 Rules of Disinformation.  The only other person I can do that with is FC.

Yesterday, I had a comment deleted that was not insulting to anyone, totally factual, and informative.  I have no idea why it was deleted.  you somehow get away with murder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

 

And what ever happened to "freedom of speech", Bob? Don't I have a right to participate in this forum and give my own opinions about what the evidence shows? Or do you think this should be an "All CTer" JFK forum (like the Deep Politics Forum is)?

 

Freedom of speech issues always involves the govt.  You're free to go to almost any street corner and preach about anything you want.  But this is a private website, and the owners have a right to run it any way they want.  They can set rules on the behavior of posters.  Like I say, even I had my post deleted yesterday, even though there was nothing factually wrong with it, or insulting.  (It involved 3 men, intimate lovers, who were at the top of the assassination and coverup.)

What do I think the site should be?   I think it should be a research and investigative site, and not a site of personal attacks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

 

I'm a little tired of hearing about how I am on a mission to "wreck this site". That accusation, as I said, is totally wrong (and preposterous). And it's an offensive and wholly unwarranted accusation as well. I

This is supposedly one of the rules of this forum:

 “no member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.” 

David, what percentage of your posts contain personal insults?  30%?  40%?  More?  What about FC?   I realize that all you have is ad hom arguments, but i don't understand why management lets you get away with this.

Someone mentioned you should go on 'ignore', and that may be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×