Jump to content
The Education Forum

The witnesses tell what they saw


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting that I have posted some REAL EVIDENCE which can be studied

and analyzed and conclusions reached...but not a single person has commented

on this. Maybe some are frightened of several obvious conclusions which can be

drawn. Maybe they can not figure anything to ridicule or persons to attack.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that I have posted some REAL EVIDENCE which can be studied

and analyzed and conclusions reached...but not a single person has commented

on this. Maybe some are frightened of several obvious conclusions which can be

drawn. Maybe they can not figure anything to ridicule or persons to attack.

Jack

Jack,

In all fairness ... maybe you didn't post anything that everyone else hadn't already heard. And/or maybe responsible researchers will take the needed time to digest the information they have just seen so to intelligently apply it to their area of study. All I am saying is that it may not be right to ask people to just rush to judgment without properly digesting the information they have just seen.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack wrote:

Maybe some are frightened of several obvious conclusions which can be

drawn.

That's me, Jack!

John Chism (page 2):

When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd.

Faye Chism (presumably John's wife) also reported that he was standing. (Also on page 2.)

The frightening conclusion to be drawn is that a person can be both standing and sitting at the very same time, in defiance of everything we have been taught about the natural world! It seems quite improbable, but on the other hand, with respect to the JFK case, as several have noted, "anything is possible".

I would prefer a less frightening alternative conclusion: that eyewitnesses can be mistaken.

As Dr. Josiah Thompson wrote in his essay "Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassinaton" (reproduced at the MFF website):

At the present time, there is not a single discrepancy in the photo record of Dealey Plaza. It forms a seamless, self-authenticating whole. If you want to find out what happened in Dealey Plaza, start out with the photographic record of what happened there. That record can become the touchstone against which eyewitness testimony and physical evidence can be compared. If it matches the photographic record, it should be accepted. If it doesn't, it should be rejected.

But Jack the essay from Assassination Research is a vary valuable compendium of the eyewitness testimony and I commend you for bringing it to our attention. Much good stuff therein. Mr. Costella did a good job in putting it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rear seat of the limo was about eight inches higher than the jump seat.

The Chisms were way down by the Stemmons sign. Looking up the street, with

the Kennedys higher than the Connally's, could have surmised the

Kennedys were standing.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jack. However, it is true that witnesses can often be mistaken. There is a famous law school exercise where unexpectedly two or three people burst into the classroom, do something strange, say a few words, and leave. The recollection of the law students re the description of the intruders and what they did varies widely.

Again, this is a very excellent compendium and I ditto Bill's comment that people will need time to study it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important for Bugliosi's theory of the case that the first shot missed and the second shot hit both JFK and Gov Connally. I have found it interesting to read the statements of the numerous witnesses (starting on page 19) who saw President Kennedy "slump" after the first shot.

Also, as we all know, so many of the witnesses said the first shot sounded like a firecracker. But as I recall Gov Connally immediately recognized it as a rifle shot.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jack. However, it is true that witnesses can often be mistaken. There is a famous law school exercise where unexpectedly two or three people burst into the classroom, do something strange, say a few words, and leave. The recollection of the law students re the description of the intruders and what they did varies widely.

Again, this is a very excellent compendium and I ditto Bill's comment that people will need time to study it.

Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY.

As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED.

There were several remarkable statements I was previously unaware of.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY.

As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED.

If you continue to say that 56 witnesses said that the limo stopped, then you will be consistently wrong. Just the other day, someone posted on that claim and laid out the reasons why that claim was erroneous ... and did an excellent job in doing so.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Bill's post, I reiterate the point made by Dr. Thompson:

At the present time, there is not a single discrepancy in the photo record of Dealey Plaza. It forms a seamless, self-authenticating whole. If you want to find out what happened in Dealey Plaza, start out with the photographic record of what happened there. That record can become the touchstone against which eyewitness testimony and physical evidence can be compared. If it matches the photographic record, it should be accepted. If it doesn't, it should be rejected.

If the Zapruder film does not show the limo stopping, it must mean one of two things:

a. The witnesses who said it did were mistaken.

or

b. The Zapruder film was in fact faked.

The probability of a) is quite large, but for reasons most of us know, and have been debated at length, the probability of :rolleyes: is about equal to the probability that the moon landing--er, let me say, the probability that a cow once jumped over the moon.

Whenever I try to post the letter "b" I get that stupid smiley face! Sorry!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Bill's post, I reiterate the point made by Dr. Thompson:

At the present time, there is not a single discrepancy in the photo record of Dealey Plaza. It forms a seamless, self-authenticating whole. If you want to find out what happened in Dealey Plaza, start out with the photographic record of what happened there. That record can become the touchstone against which eyewitness testimony and physical evidence can be compared. If it matches the photographic record, it should be accepted. If it doesn't, it should be rejected.

If the Zapruder film does not show the limo stopping, it must mean one of two things:

a. The witnesses who said it did were mistaken.

or

b. The Zapruder film was in fact faked.

The probability of a) is quite large, but for reasons most of us know, and have been debated at length, the probability of B) is about equal to the probability that the moon landing--er, let me say, the probability that a cow once jumped over the moon.

Whenever I try to post the letter "b" I get that stupid smiley face! Sorry!

Let us not exclude the three other assassination films that show the limo not stopping either. I don't know if many recall the evolution of the limo stop, but in the beginning it was alleged that the limo was stopped so the assassin(s) could have a clear target at the president at the moment JFK was killed. In recent times since Moorman's photo was said to show the wheels still turning by the blur of the center emblem on the hubcap, the alleged limo stop was moved back to a point after JFK was killed, which would not have helped an assassin by that point in time.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jack. However, it is true that witnesses can often be mistaken. There is a famous law school exercise where unexpectedly two or three people burst into the classroom, do something strange, say a few words, and leave. The recollection of the law students re the description of the intruders and what they did varies widely.

Again, this is a very excellent compendium and I ditto Bill's comment that people will need time to study it.

Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY.

As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED.

There were several remarkable statements I was previously unaware of.

Jack

Sorry for the thread hijack, and I'll make it this one post only, but Jack you have said

"Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY. As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED."

So does that mean you support the 103 witnesses who saw a plane - and not a missile - hit the Pentagon?

The 6 that were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon?

The 26 that said it was an American Airlines jet?

The 39 others who mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner?

Just asking questions, is all....

Edited by Evan Burton
Correct capitalisation from 'jack' to 'Jack'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...