Reviewing The Evidence Against Oswald On 11/24/63

[David Von Pein]

Ed LeDoux very likely didn't even glance at my webpage on Bill Newman, wherein I posted this photo below, which shows Newman demonstrating (in 1986) the area in Dealey Plaza where he said he thought the shots came from:

Now, let's be realistic here:

Who in the world has EVER suggested (among conspiracy theorists, I mean) that shots came from that area marked by Newman on that map?

Answer (AFAIK):

Not even the kookiest conspiracy theorist in the world thinks shots came from that area, which was to Newman's LEFT (or east) when the shooting occurred.

Therefore, even CTers must admit (if they're honest) that Mr. Newman was just flat-out wrong about the place where he thought the shots came from.

Logically, then, why would ANY conspiracy theorist use Newman as a good and reliable witness when it comes to the question of "Where Did The Shots Come From?"?

BTW, another good still photo from Gayle Newman's WFAA interview indicates the location on JFK's head where she said she saw "blood gushing out" of JFK's head -- and it certainly isn't in the occipital area:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Edited December 18, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Ed LeDoux]

Are you saying the shots came from the SW corner of the TSBD then?

Because Newman gave a general area as to where the shot came from over his head.

Do you think the statement of where the shot and the, as he said it, people running to that area was a dream?

He was in the line of fire. Are you saying a bullet weaved its way from the SE corner of the sixth floor around the SW corner of the building, then weaved its way back over the pergola to come across the Newman's?

I realize you are a fan of magical bullets and their amazing directional changes and characteristics, but a bullet that veers off "course" by that much is incredible!

Again you'll avoid the reactions of people standing directly under your necessary snipers nest. Now that is some funny logic!

Under the TSBD no one dives for cover, no one runs for cover.

On the grass they are running or diving for cover.

Need a diagram of that David?

Way to tweak the facts to meet the logic of DVP!

"I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden."

~William (Bill) E. Newman Jr. sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963.

Ed

[Ed LeDoux]

Can you show me Weigman, who would have been right there under the TSBD with his camera rolling, panning the windows of the sixth floor?

Can you show me the part of his film where people are running and diving for cover?

Oh that's right, the folks running and diving for their lives are ....near the knoll.

Where did Weigman run to?

Did he run to the TSBD to capture the people hitting the pavement?

Did Weigman run towards the TSBD to film the murderer in the window? Hahaha

NOPE! He went to the same source of shots as those on the grass heard/saw.

Do I need to name all the employees under that window who went back inside, back to where a supposed murderer with a rifle was supposedly shooting from.

Now then demonstrate the fact that these people directly under that window did not take cover. Be honest. Be rational. They did not flee the building. They in fact took notice of shots from the West of their location and many went to see what happened by the knoll as that was the source.

Your beginning to sound like Jerry Ford!

"There is no evidence of a second man, of other shots, of other guns."

~Congressman Gerald R. Ford

And we know what Jerry does with the evidence, don't we!

Ed

[David Von Pein]

Are you saying the shots came from the SW corner of the TSBD then?

No. I'm saying that Newman was simply incorrect as to the source of the shots. And all CTers think he was wrong too, because (obviously) no shots came from this location:

Plus: An additional logical question that should be asked (which CTers never bother to ask) is:

If shots really were fired from the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area (as almost all conspiracy theorists believe), then why didn't William Newman hear shots coming from TWO separate directions?

Even CTers will admit that at least SOME audible shots came from the TSBD (to Newman's left). So why didn't Newman (who was smack dab between the two alleged firing positions) hear shots coming from both his LEFT and his RIGHT?

The answer is fairly obvious -- The reason he didn't hear gunfire coming from multiple locations is because gunfire did not come from multiple locations. The gunfire came from just one single location--the TSBD's sixth floor (where all of the physical evidence of the shooter was found).

THE DEALEY PLAZA EARWITNESSES

Edited December 18, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Are you saying the shots came from the SW corner of the TSBD then?

No. I'm saying that Newman was simply incorrect as to the source of the shots. And all CTers think he was wrong too, because (obviously) no shots came from this location:

Plus: An additional logical question that should be asked (which CTers never bother to ask) is:

If shots really were fired from the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area (as almost all conspiracy theorists believe), then why didn't William Newman hear shots coming from TWO separate directions?

Even CTers will admit that at least SOME audible shots came from the TSBD (to Newman's left). So why didn't Newman (who was smack dab between the two alleged firing positions) hear shots coming from both his LEFT and his RIGHT?

The answer is fairly obvious -- The reason he didn't hear gunfire coming from multiple locations is because gunfire did not come from multiple locations. The gunfire came from just one single location--the TSBD's sixth floor (where all of the physical evidence of the shooter was found).

THE DEALEY PLAZA EARWITNESSES

David, I know that you and other LNs are found of this argument but it just doesn't stand up when one reads the eyewitness statements with an open mind. The vast majority of witnesses DID NOT form a clear impression as to where the first sound came from, and only formed a true impression based upon the last two sounds BANG BANG.

IF people claiming they thought shots came from the depository all thought so after hearing the FIRST sound, then why did so few of them look up and spot the rifle supposedly hanging out of the window prior to hearing the THIRD sound--which you claim came 8 seconds later?

And why did so many think the sound was a motorcycle backfire, or firecracker--which would presumably have derived from a location on the GROUND level, and not 60 feet up in the air?

The answer should be obvious. They didn't form a clear impression as to the location from which the first sound derived...which means they could not say WITH ANY AUTHORITY that the last sound(s) came from somewhere else.

[David Von Pein]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

Edited December 19, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Ed LeDoux]

Your over simplified pie chart aside. (note how sparse the amount of people are on or near the knoll) A weighted chart describes a different scene than you erroneously portray.

Show me where Newman points to the Six Floor David.

Ed

[Gil Jesus]

How will I be able to make it through another day knowing that Lee Farley thinks I'm a Goddamn fool? Such a crushing blow has never befallen me heretofore. ~sob~

Sarcasm and name calling. That's all you know. Grow up.

[Gil Jesus]

Wrong again.

WFAA interview with William 'Bill' Newman.

Shots were fired from the knoll.

"Shots came from behind me....Up on top of the hill, the mound of ground, the garden" ~ Bill Newman

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/gknoll.mov

David will not admit that witnesses near the knoll said shots came from there.

Two shots, one clearly hit Kennedy in the temple, fired from behind Newman.

[Duke Lane]

... why didn't William Newman hear shots coming from TWO separate directions?

Even CTers will admit that at least SOME audible shots came from the TSBD (to Newman's left). So why didn't Newman (who was smack dab between the two alleged firing positions) hear shots coming from both his LEFT and his RIGHT?

The answer is fairly obvious -- The reason he didn't hear gunfire coming from multiple locations is because gunfire did not come from multiple locations. The gunfire came from just one single location--the TSBD's sixth floor (where all of the physical evidence of the shooter was found).

Given the "echo effect" of Dealey Plaza, or the lack thereof, then the same must be able to be said about those who only (thought they) heard sounds from the knoll area, no?

[William Kelly]

... why didn't William Newman hear shots coming from TWO separate directions?

Even CTers will admit that at least SOME audible shots came from the TSBD (to Newman's left). So why didn't Newman (who was smack dab between the two alleged firing positions) hear shots coming from both his LEFT and his RIGHT?

The answer is fairly obvious -- The reason he didn't hear gunfire coming from multiple locations is because gunfire did not come from multiple locations. The gunfire came from just one single location--the TSBD's sixth floor (where all of the physical evidence of the shooter was found).

Given the "echo effect" of Dealey Plaza, or the lack thereof, then the same must be able to be said about those who only (thought they) heard sounds from the knoll area, no?

The so-called acoustics study of the assassination during the HSCA by Weiss & Ackensany was based on the unique echos produced by gunfire at Dealey Plaza and when recreated produced a set of echo patterns that indicated a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll. This study was definitive and not refuted by any other scientists because the study was not duplicated. When asked what he would say if he was told the shots were recorded at another location, he said he would want to be taken to that location and expect to find an exact duplicate of Dealey Plaza.

BK

[David Von Pein]

Two shots, one clearly hit Kennedy in the temple, fired from behind Newman.

But Gil totally ignores Newman's own explanation as to WHY he thought that Kennedy was hit "in the side of the temple":

During his 2003 interview, Bill Newman goes into some detail about his observations, when he says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise".

Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this 2003 interview:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GayleN

Edited December 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Why didn't William Newman hear shots coming from TWO separate directions?

Even CTers will admit that at least SOME audible shots came from the TSBD (to Newman's left). So why didn't Newman (who was smack dab between the two alleged firing positions) hear shots coming from both his LEFT and his RIGHT?

The answer is fairly obvious -- The reason he didn't hear gunfire coming from multiple locations is because gunfire did not come from multiple locations. The gunfire came from just one single location--the TSBD's sixth floor (where all of the physical evidence of the shooter was found).

Given the "echo effect" of Dealey Plaza, or the lack thereof, then the same must be able to be said about those who only (thought they) heard sounds from the knoll area, no?

Fair enough, Duke.

But I think a key is the extremely low number of "Two Directions" witnesses. And even CTers like Galanor and Thompson have the number of "2 Directions" witnesses being very, very low. And you're not going to find a single witness who corroborates the Oliver Stone theory of THREE different locations for gunmen. That should probably be a pretty big hint right there that there weren't THREE guns popping away at JFK (as many conspiracists firmly believe, and not just Oliver Stone).

I know how much CTers hate John McAdams, but I think John said it very well (and succinctly) when he said this:

"As can be seen, 34 witnesses believed that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll (or at least the direction of the Knoll), and 56 thought the shots came from the Depository (or at least, in that direction). Eight witnesses thought the shots came from a location entirely distinct from the Knoll and the Depository (including two who thought the shots came from inside the car!), and five witnesses thought they heard shots from two locations. Witnesses who didn't know, or couldn't distinguish between the Knoll and the Depository are excluded.

This "two locations" number is exceedingly important.

There is overwhelming evidence that at least some shots were fired from behind the motorcade. Several witnesses saw a shooter, or at least a gun in the sixth floor sniper's nest window. The medical evidence is clear that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind (regardless of whether either was also hit from the front).

Once we understand that at least some shots came from behind, it is hard to see how shots could also have come from the Grassy Knoll without more witnesses reporting shots from more than one direction. It begins to look like some were confused about the direction of the shots."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

Edited December 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

Two shots, one clearly hit Kennedy in the temple, fired from behind Newman.

But Gil totally ignores Newman's own explanation as to WHY he thought that Kennedy was hit "in the side of the temple":

During his 2003 interview, Bill Newman goes into some detail about his observations, when he says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise"....

Ah, yes, that 40-year-old memory, just as sharp if not sharper then than the day it happened. Whatever became of those maxims that memories closest to the event are the most accurate, that witnesses tend to "grow" their memories as time goes by, or have them influenced by any number of things that they've heard or seen or been told in the intervening time?

I trust we're not going to suggest that the people we most believe tend to be more accurate than those whose views we disagree with, are we? Or that people who tell the truth as we believe and they perceive it tend to embellish/forget/misremember less than those whose "truth" we don't hold in such high esteem?

I don't think it's appropriate that an interview held almost a lifetime ago be trotted out to tell us what Newman or anybody else thinks they remember from so long ago. Do YOU, really? Or will you concede that everyone's memory is just as accurate today as it was in late November 1963?

I suspect, based on a conversation or two I've had with him, that Newman is pretty tired of being told "what he thinks" that he's become more adamant about what he thinks now, and partially in response to what people think he thought then ... no matter what he thought then.

Why didn't William Newman hear shots coming from TWO separate directions?

Even CTers will admit that at least SOME audible shots came from the TSBD (to Newman's left). So why didn't Newman (who was smack dab between the two alleged firing positions) hear shots coming from both his LEFT and his RIGHT?

The answer is fairly obvious -- The reason he didn't hear gunfire coming from multiple locations is because gunfire did not come from multiple locations. The gunfire came from just one single location--the TSBD's sixth floor (where all of the physical evidence of the shooter was found).

Given the "echo effect" of Dealey Plaza, or the lack thereof, then the same must be able to be said about those who only (thought they) heard sounds from the knoll area, no?

Fair enough, Duke.

But I think a key is the extremely low number of "Two Directions" witnesses. And even CTers like Galanor and Thompson have the number of "2 Directions" witnesses being very, very low. And you're not going to find a single witness who corroborates the Oliver Stone theory of THREE different locations for gunmen. That should probably be a pretty big hint right there that there weren't THREE guns popping away at JFK (as many conspiracists firmly believe, and not just Oliver Stone).

David, you know fully as well as anyone else here that the number of people who thought they heard anything has zero effect on the "echo effect," so quit the misdirection. If the shots came only from the TSBD and people thought they heard them coming from the grassy knoll (or elsewhere), then clearly they heard echoes; it doesn't matter where they were.

Echoes by their very nature are not unidirectional. To say that people who thought the shots came from the knoll are the only ones who heard echoes is baseless. Furthermore, your query about why Newman didn't hear shots coming from more than one direction is perhaps answered in part by your (or John McAdams') observation that very few people claimed to have heard shots from more than one direction; so why, then, should Newman have?

Given that echoes could have bounced off of the Dal-Tex or Courts buildings just as much (or more!) than they could have echoed off the Triple Underpass, it would strike me that, if "echoes" are a valid thesis as to why people only "thought" they heard shots from the knoll, they are even more valid an explanation why others thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBD: after all, aren't flat, brick buildings in the open more conducive to echoing than a somewhat-"ornamental" bridge surrounded in large part by foliage is?

The low number of "two direction" witnesses likely has more to do with where they were located than where the shots were actually fired from, and the difference in the number of people who variously thought the shots came from the TSBD vs. the knoll seems quite reasonable since there were fewer people nearer to the bridge than to the TSBD and the other echo-producing buildings.

... continued next post (the new, more restrictive forum software kinda sucks in limiting nesting!)

Edited December 21, 2011 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

Continued from above ....

... I know how much CTers hate John McAdams, but I think John said it very well (and succinctly) when he said this:

"As can be seen, 34 witnesses believed that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll (or at least the direction of the Knoll), and 56 thought the shots came from the Depository (or at least, in that direction). Eight witnesses thought the shots came from a location entirely distinct from the Knoll and the Depository (including two who thought the shots came from inside the car!), and five witnesses thought they heard shots from two locations. Witnesses who didn't know, or couldn't distinguish between the Knoll and the Depository are excluded.

This "two locations" number is exceedingly important.

There is overwhelming evidence that at least some shots were fired from behind the motorcade. Several witnesses saw a shooter, or at least a gun in the sixth floor sniper's nest window. The medical evidence is clear that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind (regardless of whether either was also hit from the front).

Once we understand that at least some shots came from behind, it is hard to see how shots could also have come from the Grassy Knoll without more witnesses reporting shots from more than one direction. It begins to look like some were confused about the direction of the shots."

I have no issues with John, and I don't think he has any issues with me, and I'm pretty sure neither of us much care what anyone else thinks of the other. Anyone who "hates" someone because of their beliefs in this or any other matter isn't worth discussion or consideration, present company included.

That said, making something sound plausible doesn't make it so. As much as Assassination Logic "tells us not what, but how to think about" evidence, the "logic" touted also reflects a fair amount of bias in its evaluation of facts. One case in point, tho' not excerpted from the book that I remember, is the above statement; another is the treatment of Mrs Mooneyham's sighting of a figure or figures in the 6th floor windows. In that case, the arbitrary determination that her timing was correct was the only thing that "invalidated" her observation when, in fact, it is just as possible that her time estimate was wrong as that what she saw was.

Left unaddressed was the question of who she must've seen if in fact she had seen someone in those windows "five or six" (or however few) minutes after the shooting and not at the time of the shooting. As far as I can recall, there should have been no one there then. If we concede that she did see someone there, then it's incumbent to at least hytpothesize who else it might have been.

Besides, isn't the passage of time another one of those things that makes witness testimony so unreliable? So how is it that it becomes more reliable when it helps to illustrate a given point?

If the number of people who heard echoes from one direction rather than another is important in any way (other than to help determine who was located nearer to what), by all means, please explain why.

One thing I've come to realize over the years is that CTers and LNers both use the same devices to "prove" their points, and disdain each other for doing it. Pots and kettles, ya think?