Franzen Observations

Is it possible Franzen heard the bullet impact on the President's head and
the fragments he saw flying were fragments of blood, brains, and skull
from that impact?

And is it possible he mentioned that first although it was the last shot
because of its importance? And he was misunderstand by the person taking
the statement? Or he himself mis-remembered the sequence of the shots?

And is it possible he heard three shots and one impact on the head,
accounting for what he thought was four shots?

That seems quite reasonable. More reasonable - to me - than assuming he
was a very accurate witness, and everyone who recalled only three shots
was wrong or lying.

Hank

claviger

2019-04-04 18:19:58 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Is it possible Franzen heard the bullet impact on the President's head and
the fragments he saw flying were fragments of blood, brains, and skull
from that impact?
And is it possible he mentioned that first although it was the last shot
because of its importance? And he was misunderstand by the person taking
the statement? Or he himself mis-remembered the sequence of the shots?
And is it possible he heard three shots and one impact on the head,
accounting for what he thought was four shots?
That seems quite reasonable. More reasonable - to me - than assuming he
was a very accurate witness, and everyone who recalled only three shots
was wrong or lying.
Hank

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

donald willis

2019-04-05 19:40:41 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

Hank is very good at re-writing. I guess he's finished re-writing Sam
Holland's story and has moved on to the Franzens.

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-06 16:38:42 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

Hank is very good at re-writing. I guess he's finished re-writing Sam
Holland's story and has moved on to the Franzens.
dcw

I get the impression that he is a Hollywood sci-fi writer.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-13 03:35:54 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

Hank is very good at re-writing. I guess he's finished re-writing Sam
Holland's story and has moved on to the Franzens.
dcw

I get the impression that he is a Hollywood sci-fi writer.

As is true of much of what you post, you're wrong above as well.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-13 03:35:44 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

Hank is very good at re-writing. I guess he's finished re-writing Sam
Holland's story and has moved on to the Franzens.

I rewrote nothing. I pointed out the conclusions expressed are susceptible
of other interpretations that are non-conspiratorial. Of course conspiracy
believers object to crediting anything but the conspiratorial
interpretation.

bigdog

2019-04-06 00:08:46 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

How about like all witnesses it is possible they did not perfectly
remember what they saw and heard. You can't prove anything by citing
witnesses unless you can prove those witnesses were right. For that you
need corroborating evidence.

claviger

2019-04-06 21:15:41 UTC

Post by bigdog

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

You make a good point. The loud shot they heard was not inside the
Limousine. That loud shot came from the follow-up Security Car about 6
feet behind.

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-09 12:59:45 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

You make a good point. The loud shot they heard was not inside the
Limousine. That loud shot came from the follow-up Security Car about 6
feet behind.

No matter what the shot or where you will try to make it into a Hickey
shot.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-13 03:35:18 UTC

Sounds like you're rewriting a script for the Franzen family to say whet
you want them to say. How about they were two intelligent adults who
can speak for themselves.

Absolutely. Here's Mrs. Franzen's statement. Tell me where she eliminates
the head shot as the cause of the fragments she saw flying about. Tell me
where she says this was the first shot that she heard:

== QUOTE ==

Mrs. JACK FRANZEN, 11572 Cromwell Circle, contacted at 1900 Main Street,
advised she was with her husband and small son viewing the motorcade of
President KENNEDY from the park area near the intersection of Houston and
Elm Streets at approximately 12:30 PM, November 22, 1963.

"She advised shortly after the President's automobile passed by on Elm
Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise
which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the
President's automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she
noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President's
automobile."
== QUOTE ==

Let's be reasonable here. The films (and the Z-film primarily) shows only
one bullet causing fragments to be seen in the limo. That occurs at frame
313 of the Z-film. Fragments of a bullet, of skull and brains were found
in the limo. Numerous witnesses spoke of seeing a explosion of matter at
one time, not twice.

Governor Connally: "Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I
could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue,
brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on
my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb,
thumbnail..."

Postal Inspector Holmes: "I had my binoculars on this car, on the
Presidential car all the time. I realized something was wrong, but I
thought they were dodging somebody throwing things at the car like
firecrackers or something, but I did see dust fly up like a firecracker
had burst up in the air.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see the dust?
Mr. HOLMES. Off of President Kennedy and I couldn't tell you which one of the cracks of the firecracker resulted in this."

You're imagining the Franzens were more accurate than everyone else, and
that the fragments they saw came from another shot. I'm simply pointing
out one of the statements you cite says nothing about a bullet hitting the
street and causing the fragmentation of a bullet. I'm pointing out the far
more reasonable conclusion that the Franzens simply saw the damage caused
by the head shot. And that the document you cite is a hearsay report typed
up and filed by others. There is always a problem when you rely on
hearsay.

I'm suggesting there's a reasonable conclusion here, one you're ignoring
while assuming Mrs. Franzen was talking about the first shot.

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-05 03:44:16 UTC

You're not trying hard enough to cover-up.
You should say that the fourth sound was a fragment hitting the chrome
topping. No one has ever even tried to explain that dent of the chrome
topping. You could be the hero and explain it, thus getting rid of a
fourth shot sound.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
That seems quite reasonable. More reasonable - to me - than assuming he
was a very accurate witness, and everyone who recalled only three shots
was wrong or lying.
Hank

claviger

2019-04-06 16:38:39 UTC

1. Large fragment of First Shot miss.

2. Large fragment of Head Shot.

3. Large fragment of Third Shot miss.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-14 22:09:47 UTC

1. Large fragment of First Shot miss.
2. Large fragment of Head Shot.
3. Large fragment of Third Shot miss.

You've provided no evidence there were two misses, nor that three large
fragments were recovered. Nor have you accounted for the wounds to JFK's
back and Connally's trunk, wrist, and thigh. You only mention two misses
and one head shot. Depending on how you put this together, you could be
talking an additional four more shots and god-knows how many additional
misses. You've provided no evidence of a second or third shooter, and
you've ignored the one point most witnesses agreed on to the tune of
greater than 90%: Three shots, no more, no less. In fact, of the witnesses
who gave a number, more said two or fewer shots than four or more.

Massive fail. Your assertions above do not rise to the level of fact, or
even of reasonable conclusions.

Hank

Jason Burke

2019-04-15 19:53:10 UTC

1. Large fragment of First Shot miss.
2. Large fragment of Head Shot.
3. Large fragment of Third Shot miss.

You've provided no evidence there were two misses, nor that three large
fragments were recovered. Nor have you accounted for the wounds to JFK's
back and Connally's trunk, wrist, and thigh. You only mention two misses
and one head shot. Depending on how you put this together, you could be
talking an additional four more shots and god-knows how many additional
misses. You've provided no evidence of a second or third shooter, and
you've ignored the one point most witnesses agreed on to the tune of
greater than 90%: Three shots, no more, no less. In fact, of the witnesses
who gave a number, more said two or fewer shots than four or more.
Massive fail. Your assertions above do not rise to the level of fact, or
even of reasonable conclusions.
Hank

Amazing how these fools think they've come to the finish line when
theycan't even get out of the gate.

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-16 16:12:35 UTC

1. Large fragment of First Shot miss.
2. Large fragment of Head Shot.
3. Large fragment of Third Shot miss.

Is this a multiple choice or do you have a favorite?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-14 22:10:26 UTC

Focus, Tony.

We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.

Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-16 16:12:24 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-18 01:48:48 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.

There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.

What's to explain?

That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?

That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.

Hank

donald willis

2019-04-19 06:12:44 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....

dcs

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-26 00:48:19 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.

Hank

donald willis

2019-04-26 17:07:37 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Luke Mooney: "Capt. Fritz picked up the cartridges"--WC testimony.
Check the testimony of Day & Sims--the shells were immediately bagged
after being photographed. No chance for Fritz to pick them up afterwards.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

claviger

2019-04-27 01:32:38 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

I have never understood why this is a point of contention. LHO could have
accidentally stepped on them while leaving in a rush or intentionally
kicked them or gathered them to take with him, then changed his mind and
tossed them back on the floor. He could have put them in his pocket and
dropped them in the trash can in the Lunch Room on the 2nd floor. DPD
Baker didn't think to frisk him. LHO could have carried those shells all
the way home and dumped them anywhere in the neighborhood in a neighbors
garbage can or walked down to the Trinity River and tossed them in. His
rifle was on the 6th floor with no other rifle was found inside the TSBD.

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-28 17:43:26 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

Pretty silly. What difference does it make if someone stepped on them?
The point is that a caop tampered with the evidence.

Post by claviger
tossed them back on the floor. He could have put them in his pocket and
dropped them in the trash can in the Lunch Room on the 2nd floor. DPD
Baker didn't think to frisk him. LHO could have carried those shells all
the way home and dumped them anywhere in the neighborhood in a neighbors

That makes no sense. We don't even need the sheells to prove that there
shots fired from that widow and from that rifle.

Post by claviger
garbage can or walked down to the Trinity River and tossed them in. His
rifle was on the 6th floor with no other rifle was found inside the TSBD.

You mean except for a Mauser?

donald willis

2019-04-30 00:36:13 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

Pretty silly. What difference does it make if someone stepped on them?
The point is that a caop tampered with the evidence.

That makes no sense. We don't even need the sheells to prove that there
shots fired from that widow and from that rifle.

I've never heard this widow with the rifle theory....

Post by claviger
garbage can or walked down to the Trinity River and tossed them in. His
rifle was on the 6th floor with no other rifle was found inside the TSBD.

You mean except for a Mauser?

claviger

2019-04-30 15:22:58 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

Pretty silly. What difference does it make if someone stepped on them?
The point is that a caop tampered with the evidence.

A witness said he picked up one shell then put it back. How does that
affect the evidence? Witnesses watched him do it and they said he put it
back where he found it. He did that to verify the caliber. In that time
it was acceptable for a Lead Detective to do that.

donald willis

2019-05-01 03:47:38 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

Pretty silly. What difference does it make if someone stepped on them?
The point is that a caop tampered with the evidence.

A witness said he picked up one shell then put it back. How does that
affect the evidence? Witnesses watched him do it and they said he put it
back where he found it.

I see where you need to cite the sources for a least three different
witnesses. And I wouldn't use Tom Alyea as a witness (I admit that I used
to)--the above "witness said" was only one of several versions of the
incident which he offered, at various times. And I don't recall that any
"witnesses watched him do it".... More reliable are the reports of the two
deputy sheriffs, Mooney and Faulkner.

dcw

claviger

2019-05-01 19:44:35 UTC

Post by claviger
A witness said he picked up one shell then put it back. How does that
affect the evidence? Witnesses watched him do it and they said he put it
back where he found it.

Why does this matter? Why are we discussing this subject?

donald willis

2019-05-02 02:50:01 UTC

Post by claviger
A witness said he picked up one shell then put it back. How does that
affect the evidence? Witnesses watched him do it and they said he put it
back where he found it.

Why does this matter? Why are we discussing this subject?

"Captain Will Fritz arrived, and the shells were given to him." --Dep.
Sheriff Jack Faulkner (v19 p511) Nothing about picking up just one shell
and putting it back. "[Fritz] was the first officer that picked [the
shells] up."--Dep. Sheriff Luke Mooney. Again, multiple shells and
nothing about putting them back down (near) where they were found.

What does this matter? Supposedly, the shells were not touched before
they were photographed. Or, Lies LNs love....

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-02 02:02:27 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

Pretty silly. What difference does it make if someone stepped on them?
The point is that a caop tampered with the evidence.

No, not WHERE he found it. I am not claiming that the DPD was smart enough
to analyze ejection patterns, but the FBI was and the WC even published
some. If you preserve evidence correctly, future technology might be able
to analyze it and learn more. I am not going to tell you the specific
cases, but when DNA analysis became more advanced, the police were able to
solve cold cases and identify the criminal or exonerate a suspect.

Echo location of gunfire was known and used since WWI, but acoustical
analysis of recorded shots was not used in court until the Kent State
Massacre. We ASSuMEd that the DPD tape had been lost or destroyed because
the DPD had a history of improper handling of evidence. But by luck a DPD
detective found it and the HSCA was able to use the same company, BBN, to
do an acoustical analysis of the DPD tape. BTW, tampering with evidence
has led to dismismissal or reversal of several cases.

I don't think it would have in the Oswald case, but it may be an indicator
of a pattern of incompetence which casts doubt on all the evidence that
the DPD collected. That creates Doubt about Oswald's guilt. That is one
reason why I never say that Oswald was innocent, but I doubt that he was
guilty.

Post by claviger
it was acceptable for a Lead Detective to do that.

donald willis

2019-04-30 00:36:01 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

A lot of "LHO could have". All irrelevant. The shells had to be found on
the 6th floor in order to situate LHO on that floor. So, I maintain,
Fritz brought them there from some other undisclosed location. Had LHO
lived another day, he could have, perhaps, exposed the conspiracy by
admitting that it was he in the FIFTH-floor window, lying on the sill.
("You must have photographs.") (Of course, he'd also be admitting his own
guilt.)

Well, yes & no, as per photographs. The Weaver Polaroid shows a very
congested 5th-floor SE corner window just before 12:30. It could be
someone lying on the sill. At the same moment, NOTHING is visible in SE
corner SIXTH-floor window. (Oh, yes, boxes in the back.) In this
eventuality, Brennan would again prove to be the key witness here: There's
nothing in the "nest" window at that moment to reflect his "lying on the
window sill" observation re the suspect....

dcw

Mark

2019-04-30 20:42:35 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

A lot of "LHO could have". All irrelevant. The shells had to be found on
the 6th floor in order to situate LHO on that floor. So, I maintain,
Fritz brought them there from some other undisclosed location. Had LHO
lived another day, he could have, perhaps, exposed the conspiracy by
admitting that it was he in the FIFTH-floor window, lying on the sill.
("You must have photographs.") (Of course, he'd also be admitting his own
guilt.)
Well, yes & no, as per photographs. The Weaver Polaroid shows a very
congested 5th-floor SE corner window just before 12:30. It could be
someone lying on the sill. At the same moment, NOTHING is visible in SE
corner SIXTH-floor window. (Oh, yes, boxes in the back.) In this
eventuality, Brennan would again prove to be the key witness here: There's
nothing in the "nest" window at that moment to reflect his "lying on the
window sill" observation re the suspect....
dcw

"I maintain"

"some other undisclosed location"

"he could have, perhaps"

"It could be"

All irrelevant.

CT assumptions based on eyewitness testimony that is not corroborated by
hard evidence.

You should spend more time replying to Hank's unanswered questions. Mark

donald willis

2019-05-01 19:41:50 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

A lot of "LHO could have". All irrelevant. The shells had to be found on
the 6th floor in order to situate LHO on that floor. So, I maintain,
Fritz brought them there from some other undisclosed location. Had LHO
lived another day, he could have, perhaps, exposed the conspiracy by
admitting that it was he in the FIFTH-floor window, lying on the sill.
("You must have photographs.") (Of course, he'd also be admitting his own
guilt.)
Well, yes & no, as per photographs. The Weaver Polaroid shows a very
congested 5th-floor SE corner window just before 12:30. It could be
someone lying on the sill. At the same moment, NOTHING is visible in SE
corner SIXTH-floor window. (Oh, yes, boxes in the back.) In this
eventuality, Brennan would again prove to be the key witness here: There's
nothing in the "nest" window at that moment to reflect his "lying on the
window sill" observation re the suspect....
dcw

"I maintain"
"some other undisclosed location"
"he could have, perhaps"
"It could be"
All irrelevant.
CT assumptions based on eyewitness testimony that is not corroborated by
hard evidence.
You should spend more time replying to Hank's unanswered questions. Mark

You should actually read the thread before responding. You may notice,
now, above, if you deign to look, that I DID answer Hank's request for a
quote on the picking up of the shells.

And, again, you apparently did not notice that Claviger's post was made up
entirely of "could haves". Well, I guess, LNs let other LNs get away with
the very things that they call CTs on!

And in fact the "hard evidence"--the Weaver Polaroid--contradicts LNers'
belief that what Brennan was describing (suspect lying on sill) was on the
6th floor. It clearly was not. So, you have a choice, Mark: Dismiss
Brennan entirely, or accept that the suspect he was watching was on the
(crowded) corner FIFTH floor. Actually, I'll say that you DO have to
dismiss Brennan, because he contradicts what may be your next point: It
was Harold Norman in that corner fifth-floor window. However, read
Brennan's testimony and you'll see that Brennan did not place ANY witness,
including Norman, in that corner window. He left it seemingly vacant.

So much for your "hard evidence"!

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-02 02:04:07 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

A lot of "LHO could have". All irrelevant. The shells had to be found on
the 6th floor in order to situate LHO on that floor. So, I maintain,
Fritz brought them there from some other undisclosed location. Had LHO
lived another day, he could have, perhaps, exposed the conspiracy by
admitting that it was he in the FIFTH-floor window, lying on the sill.
("You must have photographs.") (Of course, he'd also be admitting his own
guilt.)
Well, yes & no, as per photographs. The Weaver Polaroid shows a very
congested 5th-floor SE corner window just before 12:30. It could be
someone lying on the sill. At the same moment, NOTHING is visible in SE
corner SIXTH-floor window. (Oh, yes, boxes in the back.) In this
eventuality, Brennan would again prove to be the key witness here: There's
nothing in the "nest" window at that moment to reflect his "lying on the
window sill" observation re the suspect....
dcw

"I maintain"
"some other undisclosed location"
"he could have, perhaps"
"It could be"
All irrelevant.
CT assumptions based on eyewitness testimony that is not corroborated by
hard evidence.

False. Some witnesses said that shots came from the TSBD. And hard
evidence corroborates them. The rifle found on the 6th floor, the empty
shells found on the floor, and the acoustical evidence proving that 3
shots were fired from that open window.

If you keep pushing your phony claim that the witnesses were not
corroborated by hard evidence then you weaken the WC findings. And you
dishonestly limit it to only testimony. You can't debate honestly.

Post by Mark
You should spend more time replying to Hank's unanswered questions. Mark

JOE has heard the replies thousands of times, but he doesn't care. He
only purpose in being here is to attack.

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-02 02:03:08 UTC

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.
Hank

A lot of "LHO could have". All irrelevant. The shells had to be found on
the 6th floor in order to situate LHO on that floor. So, I maintain,
Fritz brought them there from some other undisclosed location. Had LHO
lived another day, he could have, perhaps, exposed the conspiracy by
admitting that it was he in the FIFTH-floor window, lying on the sill.
("You must have photographs.") (Of course, he'd also be admitting his own
guilt.)
Well, yes & no, as per photographs. The Weaver Polaroid shows a very
congested 5th-floor SE corner window just before 12:30. It could be
someone lying on the sill. At the same moment, NOTHING is visible in SE

No. Physically impossible. Try it some time. The window sill was not
long enough or long enough to lie down.
If someone is resting his arms on the window sill it might look like he
is lying down on the window sill, but that is not the same as actually
lying o the window sill.

Post by donald willis
corner SIXTH-floor window. (Oh, yes, boxes in the back.) In this
eventuality, Brennan would again prove to be the key witness here: There's
nothing in the "nest" window at that moment to reflect his "lying on the
window sill" observation re the suspect....

Brennan is not a reliable witness. He was not looking up at the time of
the shooting. Before and after the shooting he WAS looking up and may
have seen SOMETHING, but he could not have seen OSWALD shooting.
Or anyone LYING on the window sill.
Some witnesses are lying, but some are just stupid.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-01 19:43:54 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?

Got any?

Or just assertions?

I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

We'll await your evidence.

Hank

donald willis

2019-05-02 02:50:39 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.

"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.

Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.

dcw

claviger

2019-05-03 03:35:42 UTC

Post by donald willis
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

donald willis

2019-05-03 17:07:31 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of
shells. They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the
DPD photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry,
Clav

dcw

Mark

2019-05-04 03:40:00 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.

Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

donald willis

2019-05-05 01:11:28 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.

Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.

, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-06 01:49:16 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....
dcw

People involved in a cover-up are not necessarily involved in the original
crime. Sometimes a cover-up is just to cover up their incompetence.

Mark

2019-05-08 20:02:37 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.

Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.

So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.

How did that happen so quickly?

How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?

After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?

Mark

Steve M. Galbraith

2019-05-09 19:47:48 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?
Mark

Good questions. I'd like to know when/how they coordinated it.

This is, for me, one of the problems with the "coup" argument: how did the
leaders know that their subordinates would go along? That they wouldn't
reveal or expose the plan? Before or after? We all know that "coups" are
done openly: the makers, for example, take over the TV/radio stations and
publicly announce their takeover of the government. It's done openly.

In this case, the coup makers operated in secrecy, not only before the
plan was enacted but during and afterwards. I am not aware of another
example in history where such a "silent" coup was done.

To us, it's impossible to pull off such an act; to coordinate the federal,
state and local officials and underlings that would be involved. This is
not a coup in a third world country where power is in the hands of small
groups, especially the military. This is the United States of America with
its separation of powers and federal system and immense bureaucracy (even
in 1963). I cannot see how it could be done. And kept secret? Impossible.

BOZ

2019-05-10 02:24:45 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?
Mark

Good questions. I'd like to know when/how they coordinated it.
This is, for me, one of the problems with the "coup" argument: how did the
leaders know that their subordinates would go along? That they wouldn't
reveal or expose the plan? Before or after? We all know that "coups" are
done openly: the makers, for example, take over the TV/radio stations and
publicly announce their takeover of the government. It's done openly.
In this case, the coup makers operated in secrecy, not only before the
plan was enacted but during and afterwards. I am not aware of another
example in history where such a "silent" coup was done.
To us, it's impossible to pull off such an act; to coordinate the federal,
state and local officials and underlings that would be involved. This is
not a coup in a third world country where power is in the hands of small
groups, especially the military. This is the United States of America with
its separation of powers and federal system and immense bureaucracy (even
in 1963). I cannot see how it could be done. And kept secret? Impossible.

Watch Spygate Part 1

BOZ

2019-05-10 13:28:02 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?
Mark

Good questions. I'd like to know when/how they coordinated it.
This is, for me, one of the problems with the "coup" argument: how did the
leaders know that their subordinates would go along? That they wouldn't
reveal or expose the plan? Before or after? We all know that "coups" are
done openly: the makers, for example, take over the TV/radio stations and
publicly announce their takeover of the government. It's done openly.
In this case, the coup makers operated in secrecy, not only before the
plan was enacted but during and afterwards. I am not aware of another
example in history where such a "silent" coup was done.
To us, it's impossible to pull off such an act; to coordinate the federal,
state and local officials and underlings that would be involved. This is
not a coup in a third world country where power is in the hands of small
groups, especially the military. This is the United States of America with
its separation of powers and federal system and immense bureaucracy (even
in 1963). I cannot see how it could be done. And kept secret? Impossible.

HAVE YOU HEARD OF THAILAND'S SILENT COUP?

BOZ

2019-05-10 13:29:19 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?
Mark

Good questions. I'd like to know when/how they coordinated it.
This is, for me, one of the problems with the "coup" argument: how did the
leaders know that their subordinates would go along? That they wouldn't
reveal or expose the plan? Before or after? We all know that "coups" are
done openly: the makers, for example, take over the TV/radio stations and
publicly announce their takeover of the government. It's done openly.
In this case, the coup makers operated in secrecy, not only before the
plan was enacted but during and afterwards. I am not aware of another
example in history where such a "silent" coup was done.
To us, it's impossible to pull off such an act; to coordinate the federal,
state and local officials and underlings that would be involved. This is
not a coup in a third world country where power is in the hands of small
groups, especially the military. This is the United States of America with
its separation of powers and federal system and immense bureaucracy (even
in 1963). I cannot see how it could be done. And kept secret? Impossible.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I really say now we have to get down because this
was a coup, this was an attempted overthrow of the United States
government. These are sick people. These are sick, sick people. Let's see
what happens with McCabe and Comey and Brennan and Clapper. They were in
on the act, and let's see what happens and let's see how high it goes up
because it's inconceivable when it goes to Clapper, Brennan, Comey these
people, I would imagine some other people maybe higher up also knew about
it and maybe a lot higher up.

BOZ

2019-05-10 13:29:45 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?
Mark

Good questions. I'd like to know when/how they coordinated it.
This is, for me, one of the problems with the "coup" argument: how did the
leaders know that their subordinates would go along? That they wouldn't
reveal or expose the plan? Before or after? We all know that "coups" are
done openly: the makers, for example, take over the TV/radio stations and
publicly announce their takeover of the government. It's done openly.
In this case, the coup makers operated in secrecy, not only before the
plan was enacted but during and afterwards. I am not aware of another
example in history where such a "silent" coup was done.
To us, it's impossible to pull off such an act; to coordinate the federal,
state and local officials and underlings that would be involved. This is
not a coup in a third world country where power is in the hands of small
groups, especially the military. This is the United States of America with
its separation of powers and federal system and immense bureaucracy (even
in 1963). I cannot see how it could be done. And kept secret? Impossible.

Loading Image...

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-10 13:43:00 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?

Not all cover-ups are well planned.

Post by Mark
Mark

Mark

2019-05-11 01:40:06 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?

Not all cover-ups are well planned.

Well, Mr. Straw Man, I'm not talking about all cover-ups.

Only the alleged one after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Mark

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-11 23:43:26 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can.

You can say that, yes, but they're still not evidence.
Just because you don't like what the evidence

Post by Mark
shows

It doesn't show a damn thing except what Fritz wanted it to show.
, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Two deputy sheriffs back me up--Fritz got to the shells "evidence" before
Day....

Post by Mark
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president.

Very very few were in on the conspiracy--Fritz, maybe Sawyer. Others
joined the cover-up....

And how in the hell did that come about, Donald? Why don't you tell us.
Fritz and maybe Sawyer wanted to help murder President Kennedy? Without me
asking you why in the heck would they want to do that?, let's move on.
So those two were in on the conspiracy, and then they got these other
Dallas cops to be involved in the cover-up.
How did that happen so quickly?
How did Fritz and Sawyer know the others would help them cover up their
involvement in the murder of a POTUS?
After the shots, did they have a Dallas Cowboys-like huddle behind the
Depository and come to a criminal understanding, or maybe on the 2nd or
third floor?

Not all cover-ups are well planned.

Well, Mr. Straw Man, I'm not talking about all cover-ups.

No straw man argument. I did not specify any conditions. It is a general
statement of fact.

Post by Mark
Only the alleged one after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Mark

Which alleged one? Some kook's theory?
I think I already destroyed that one in person.
Stop citing silly things.

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-05 17:51:07 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man. Reductio ad absurdum.
The DPD did not have to kill JFK just to be incompetent. Police
departments are incompetent without being part of the crime. The
cover-up is a separate thing.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:21:22 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man.

Wrong. That's precisely what Donald Willis is arguing. Fritz was part of
the conspiracy, he threw down different shells than originally found to
frame Oswald. That's what Donald Willis is arguing. Your dismissal of the
claim by Mark with the 'Nobody said that' remark is wrong.

Hank

donald willis

2019-05-11 23:22:09 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man.

Wrong. That's precisely what Donald Willis is arguing. Fritz was part of
the conspiracy, he threw down different shells

That was one of the three possibilities I put forward, but notice that I
land on: Fritz threw the (same) shells down, on a different floor.

than originally found to

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
frame Oswald. That's what Donald Willis is arguing. Your dismissal of the
claim by Mark with the 'Nobody said that' remark is wrong.
Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-12 23:01:15 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man.

Wrong. That's precisely what Donald Willis is arguing. Fritz was part of
the conspiracy, he threw down different shells

That was one of the three possibilities I put forward, but notice that I
land on: Fritz threw the (same) shells down, on a different floor.

And you present absolutely no evidence of that, nor do you even attempt to
rebut the evidence that there was no mishandling of the shells found at
the crime scene.

Post by donald willis
than originally found to

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
frame Oswald. That's what Donald Willis is arguing. Your dismissal of the
claim by Mark with the 'Nobody said that' remark is wrong.
Hank

donald willis

2019-05-13 23:39:57 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man.

Wrong. That's precisely what Donald Willis is arguing. Fritz was part of
the conspiracy, he threw down different shells

That was one of the three possibilities I put forward, but notice that I
land on: Fritz threw the (same) shells down, on a different floor.

And you present absolutely no evidence of that, nor do you even attempt to
rebut the evidence that there was no mishandling of the shells found at
the crime scene.

Deputies Mooney & Faulkner both said that Fritz picked up the shells.
And it had to have been before they were photographed since Day & Sims
both say that they were bagged & taken by Sims after the shoot....

Post by donald willis
than originally found to

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
frame Oswald. That's what Donald Willis is arguing. Your dismissal of the
claim by Mark with the 'Nobody said that' remark is wrong.
Hank

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-11 23:44:03 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man.

Wrong. That's precisely what Donald Willis is arguing. Fritz was part of

He is not that explicit about exactly who and when and what. If you create
a kook theory it usually has to be vague so that you can plug in the
details later.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the conspiracy, he threw down different shells than originally found to
frame Oswald. That's what Donald Willis is arguing. Your dismissal of the
claim by Mark with the 'Nobody said that' remark is wrong.

Throwing down the shells is not part of a cover-up.
It is just typically sloppy DPD work.

Do you think that a couple of cops identified the rifle as a Mauser to
FRAME Oswald? Incompetence explains a lot more than conspiracy. Do you
think that McCord put the tape on the door at Watergate to make sure they
would get caught?

Mark

2019-05-13 23:36:23 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Amazing. Of course we can. Just because you don't like what the evidence
shows, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it without evidence of your own.
Once again, we're back to your unsubstantiated opinion that the Dallas
cops in the Depository were all in on the murder of a president. The fact
that you don't see that as damn near impossible, and I do, tells us just
how different our worldviews are. Mark

No one said that Mr. Straw man.

Wrong. That's precisely what Donald Willis is arguing. Fritz was part of

He is not that explicit about exactly who and when and what. If you create
a kook theory it usually has to be vague so that you can plug in the
details later.

That's darn interesting.

A "kook" theory has to be vague "so that you can plug in the details
later."

Really.

In that case, why don't you plug in the details of your vague (unseen and
nameless) rogue CIA hit team? Mark

claviger

2019-05-04 03:41:06 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

So what?

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Please explain.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of shells.

Please explain.

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Which floor?

Post by donald willis
You can't use the DPD photographs as evidence
of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

If they were the only shells found in the TSBD and
on the 6th floor where the rifle was found I would
think they were worth photographing as evidence.

donald willis

2019-05-05 01:11:58 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

So what?

LNs are such trusting souls.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Please explain.

We don't know what Fritz was doing with the shells. And never will,
because he couldn't quite admit that he picked them up.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of shells.

Please explain.

There may have been two, three, four, five. We can't know. Only Fritz
knew.

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Which floor?

Perhaps the floor on which Brennan said he saw no one in the end window.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the DPD photographs as evidence
of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

If they were the only shells found in the TSBD and
on the 6th floor where the rifle was found I would
think they were worth photographing as evidence.

Again, they may NOT have been the "shells found in the TSBD". We don't
know what Fritz did with the latter. He may not have done any funny
business with the original shells, but that is unknowable....

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-06 01:49:32 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

So what?

LNs are such trusting souls.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Please explain.

We don't know what Fritz was doing with the shells. And never will,
because he couldn't quite admit that he picked them up.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of shells.

Please explain.

There may have been two, three, four, five. We can't know. Only Fritz
knew.

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Which floor?

Perhaps the floor on which Brennan said he saw no one in the end window.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the DPD photographs as evidence
of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

If they were the only shells found in the TSBD and
on the 6th floor where the rifle was found I would
think they were worth photographing as evidence.

I dismiss the notion that Fritz brought some Carcano shells to plant in
the TSBD. The only question is when and how the shells that were there
from the shooting were found and recovered.
No shells were found on the fifth floor. No shots wer fired from the
fifth floor.
One thing you can do is speculate that only 2 shells were seen on the
floor in the sniper's nest and one empty was ejected from the Carcano by
Fritz the Klutz.

donald willis

2019-05-07 02:42:40 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

So what?

LNs are such trusting souls.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Please explain.

We don't know what Fritz was doing with the shells. And never will,
because he couldn't quite admit that he picked them up.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of shells.

Please explain.

There may have been two, three, four, five. We can't know. Only Fritz
knew.

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Which floor?

Perhaps the floor on which Brennan said he saw no one in the end window.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the DPD photographs as evidence
of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

If they were the only shells found in the TSBD and
on the 6th floor where the rifle was found I would
think they were worth photographing as evidence.

No shells were DECLARED found on a floor other than the 6th

No shots wer fired from the

Post by Anthony Marsh
fifth floor.
One thing you can do is speculate that only 2 shells were seen on the
floor in the sniper's nest and one empty was ejected from the Carcano by
Fritz the Klutz.

I haven't looked at the police inventory lists in a long time. Were all
FOUR shells, then, accounted for there?

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-08 19:58:57 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

So what?

LNs are such trusting souls.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Please explain.

We don't know what Fritz was doing with the shells. And never will,
because he couldn't quite admit that he picked them up.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of shells.

Please explain.

There may have been two, three, four, five. We can't know. Only Fritz
knew.

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Which floor?

Perhaps the floor on which Brennan said he saw no one in the end window.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the DPD photographs as evidence
of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

If they were the only shells found in the TSBD and
on the 6th floor where the rifle was found I would
think they were worth photographing as evidence.

No shells were DECLARED found on a floor other than the 6th
No shots wer fired from the

Post by Anthony Marsh
fifth floor.
One thing you can do is speculate that only 2 shells were seen on the
floor in the sniper's nest and one empty was ejected from the Carcano by
Fritz the Klutz.

I haven't looked at the police inventory lists in a long time. Were all
FOUR shells, then, accounted for there?
dcw

Normally we do not call a live round a shell. Shell usually means empty.

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-04 20:14:28 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Sure, but then you can't say anything about anything, because someone
can claim it is all fake. Maybe we have an alterationist here who claims
that the moon is fake.

donald willis

2019-05-05 17:53:42 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Sure, but then you can't say anything about anything, because someone
can claim it is all fake.

I'm not even saying the DPD photos are necessarily "fakes"--they may
constitute a rough approximation of what was found & where. I'm just
saying that they can't be used as "hard evidence". Call them "possible
evidence", soft evidence....

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-06 01:55:45 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Sure, but then you can't say anything about anything, because someone
can claim it is all fake.

You souldn't even be open to any possibility that any evidence is fake.

donald willis

2019-05-07 02:42:57 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Sure, but then you can't say anything about anything, because someone
can claim it is all fake.

You souldn't even be open to any possibility that any evidence is fake.

I assume you're being facetious. The Sawyer Exhibits were proven to be
phonies with the publication of the subsequent DPD transcriptions of the
radio logs....

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-08 19:59:34 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

Sure, but then you can't say anything about anything, because someone
can claim it is all fake.

You souldn't even be open to any possibility that any evidence is fake.

I assume you're being facetious. The Sawyer Exhibits were proven to be
phonies with the publication of the subsequent DPD transcriptions of the
radio logs....

There is a slight difference between being defective and being fake. We
have some autopsy photos that were mishandled and damaged, but that does
not make them fake.

I pointed out one page of a report that was tampered with by crossing out
words, but that do not make it a fake.

claviger

2019-05-05 01:08:40 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-06 01:49:51 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

It ALMOST was. When the DPD lifted a palmprint so that the FBI could not
find one.

donald willis

2019-05-06 01:51:59 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-07 18:09:01 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Which is why we don't rely on witnesses. One one was smarr enough to
know which floor was which.

BOZ

2019-05-08 17:17:12 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Which is why we don't rely on witnesses. One one was smarr enough to
know which floor was which.

Define smarr. Is this Esperanto?

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-10 13:43:42 UTC

Post by BOZ

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Which is why we don't rely on witnesses. One one was smarr enough to
know which floor was which.

Define smarr. Is this Esperanto?

VERY VERY SMART.
No, YOU are Esperanto.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:21:31 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Quote him saying that. Bet you can't.

Hank

donald willis

2019-05-11 23:20:18 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Quote him saying that. Bet you can't.
Hank

I guess you win, by default. I can't put my hands on the Dick Russell
book which talks about that. Maybe you have it and can definitively win
your bet....

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-12 23:04:16 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Quote him saying that. Bet you can't.
Hank

I guess you win, by default. I can't put my hands on the Dick Russell
book which talks about that. Maybe you have it and can definitively win
your bet....

Dick Russell "talking about it" doesn't establish a thing. You never had a
valid argument about the shells being mishandled. You never had a valid
argument about the rifle being found on a different floor.

donald willis

2019-05-13 23:38:12 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Quote him saying that. Bet you can't.
Hank

I guess you win, by default. I can't put my hands on the Dick Russell
book which talks about that. Maybe you have it and can definitively win
your bet....

Dick Russell "talking about it" doesn't establish a thing. You never had a
valid argument about the shells being mishandled.

Curiously, however, in an affidavit, Fritz would neither confirm nor deny
that he picked up the shells. In other words, he could offer no good
explanation of why he picked them up....

You never had a valid

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
argument about the rifle being found on a different floor.

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-11 23:44:12 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed. The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest". They may not have been the same number of shells.
They may have been found on a different floor. You can't use the DPD
photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry, Clav
dcw

So was the so-called Rifle. Is it tainted evidence too?

Dunno. The ATF guy, Ellsworth was it, did say that the rifle was found on
a floor lower than the 6th....

Quote him saying that. Bet you can't.
Hank

You're not playing along.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:20:41 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

No, that's your interpretation of the testimony. That's not what the
evidence necessarily shows. Please quote Mooney saying Fritz picked up the
shells before the photographs were taken.

His 11/23/63 typewritten report says "...Inside this cubby hole affair was
three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for
a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The
minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of
the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and
McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab
Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned
this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing."

So he says he and other officers guarded the spot until Fritz and the
Crime Lab got there. Now what did J.C.Day, the principal Crime Lab officer
on duty that day, say about the shells?

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were
moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==

So Day is testifying the shells weren't moved and he was so told by one of
the officers guarding the area.

Now let's examine Mooney's testimony to the Warren Commission in a little
more detail. He testified:
== QUOTE ==
...And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted.

So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will
Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time,
of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they
came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officers
McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they
was all en route up there, I assume.

== UNQUOTE ==

So I'm seeing Mooney saying the same thing as Day: That Fritz and "his
group of officers" (Day included) arrived at the same time. And Day
testified nothing was moved in his presence before the photos were taken,
and Day was told nothing was moved before that. And that's what Mooney
testified to, that he and other officers guarded that area and touched
nothing.

And in fact, Mooney said the shells in the photograph showed the shells as
he first saw them:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. *** That is
the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****. I assume that this possibly could have been the
first shot.
Mr. BALL - You cannot speculate about that?
Mr. MOONEY - You cannot speculate about that.
Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

Here's the pertinent part once more:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - ...*** That is the way they were when you saw them, is that
right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****.
== UNQUOTE ==

I am seeing nothing in Mooney's testimony where he says Fritz handled the
shells before the photos were taken. I am seeing nothing in Day's
testimony that Fritz handled the shells before the photos were taken.

Now, let's go to the testimony of Fritz, shall we?

Fritz says he cautioned the officers present to not touch anything
("preserve the evidence") and he left before the photos were taken.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think
we went up probably to the top.
Different people would call me when they would find something that looked
like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to
floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me
and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window,
they had found some empty cartridges.
Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything
until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were
lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done,
and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted
the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see
whether he could.
Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?
Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve
that evidence and I went right ahead.
== UNQUOTE ==

Note that Fritz recalls it slightly differently, that he arrived shortly
before J.C. ("Carl") Day. This is a common failing, it's called having a
memory of the event. The mind is a not a tape-recorder, it doesn't record
in high fidelity. Differences in recollections are common in police work,
or even in everyday transactions.

You are trying to discard the evidence of the shells, which directly
implicate Oswald's rifle, and of course Oswald, in the assassination. You
are simply trying to get Oswald off the hook here. We've played that game
long enough.. You're inventive, but your arguments are meaningless. They
aren't based on attempting to reconcile the testimony of everyone
preesent. They are taking a couple of snippets of testimony, juxtaposing
them, and reaching a conclusion contrary to what the totality of the
evidence shows. We're aware of that game. It's worn out, and the
cardboard the game came in is falling apart. Mark Lane was a master at
that game. You're not in his class yet. But keep trying.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Even accepting your interpretation *for the sake of argument* (it's wildly
wrong, but let's run with this silliness for a moment, shall we?), how'd
you get THERE?

Fritz was a part-time magician in Jack Ruby's night club, practiced at
sleight of hand, picked up three shells, palmed those, and threw down
three different ones which he had brought along for just this
eventuality?

And those somehow matched Oswald's rifle and established Oswald's weapon
was used in the assassination? Where did Fritz get three of Oswald's
shells from, to throw down in place of the original three, in your theory?
It's not like three of Oswald's shells were lying around all over the
sniper's nest just waiting to be picked up, right?

Oh, wait. That's right. They were. According to the evidence.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of
shells.

So Fritz picked up five and the witnesses mostly said three, so Fritz
threw down three? How's Fritz know the majority of the witnesses would say
three? Mooney vouched for the veracity of the photo showing the shells. He
didn't say anything about a different number of shells. Day said nobody
touched anything in his presence. Fritz said he gave a command not to
touch anything and left.

Even worse, for you, is that in this theory you advance, Fritz is part of
the conspiracy - actively swapping shells to frame Oswald. Yet he doesn't
go upstairs, swap out the shells first, and then call out he found the
shells? He waits until the real killer's shells are discovered, then he
goes up to the sixth floor, or maybe "on a different floor" (see below),
and in the presence of other officers, not only picks up the evidence
before it could be photographed, but actively swaps it out? That's your
final answer? You sure you don't want to poll the audience or phone a
friend?

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Sigh. That's NOT what Mooney, Fritz, and Day testified to. Please stop
before you embarrass yourself with these bizarre speculations contrary to
all the evidence.

Oh, wait. Too late.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the
DPD photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry,
Clav

No, the officers present at the time vouched for the accuracy of the
photos, including Mooney. Their testimony is evidence. The shells taken
into evidence is evidence. The photographs taken at the scene are
evidence.

Your interpretations of the testimony is NOT evidence. And I'm going -
once again - with the evidence.

Hank

donald willis

2019-05-11 23:21:49 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

He does not include Day here, you'll note.

arrived at the same time.

I question their simultaneous arrival on the 5th or 6th floor. They did
not arrive at the depository at the same time. Famously, Fritz arrived
(as he testified) at 12:58 (Mooney testifies that he saw him at that time,
outside); within a minute or so, Sgt. Harkness was on the DPD radio
calling for the Crime Lab. So Fritz had a head start on Day & Studebaker,
in the building.

And Day

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
testified nothing was moved in his presence before the photos were taken,
and Day was told nothing was moved before that.

"was TOLD"

And that's what Mooney

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
testified to, that he and other officers guarded that area and touched
nothing.
And in fact, Mooney said the shells in the photograph showed the shells as
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. *** That is
the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****. I assume that this possibly could have been the
first shot.
Mr. BALL - You cannot speculate about that?
Mr. MOONEY - You cannot speculate about that.
Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - ...*** That is the way they were when you saw them, is that
right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****.
== UNQUOTE ==
I am seeing nothing in Mooney's testimony where he says Fritz handled the
shells before the photos were taken. I am seeing nothing in Day's
testimony that Fritz handled the shells before the photos were taken.

They had to have been--as Sims notes, just as soon as Day finished
photographing the shells, he put them in Sims' envelope. Fritz does not
say he picked up either shells or envelope, yet (as per Mooney & Faulkner)
he clearly did, & it had to have been before they were processed....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Now, let's go to the testimony of Fritz, shall we?
Fritz says he cautioned the officers present to not touch anything
("preserve the evidence") and he left before the photos were taken.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think
we went up probably to the top.
Different people would call me when they would find something that looked
like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to
floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me
and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window,
they had found some empty cartridges.
Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything
until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were
lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done,
and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted
the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see
whether he could.
Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?
Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve
that evidence and I went right ahead.
== UNQUOTE ==
Note that Fritz recalls it slightly differently, that he arrived shortly
before J.C. ("Carl") Day. This is a common failing, it's called having a
memory of the event. The mind is a not a tape-recorder, it doesn't record
in high fidelity. Differences in recollections are common in police work,
or even in everyday transactions.
You are trying to discard the evidence of the shells, which directly
implicate Oswald's rifle, and of course Oswald, in the assassination. You
are simply trying to get Oswald off the hook here.

You haven't caught up with my more recent postings--I now believe that
Oswald WAS a shooter... on the fifth floor, however! I'm not trying to
get him off the hook. Ascribe to me some other motive for my madness....

We've played that game

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
long enough.. You're inventive, but your arguments are meaningless. They
aren't based on attempting to reconcile the testimony of everyone
preesent. They are taking a couple of snippets of testimony, juxtaposing
them, and reaching a conclusion contrary to what the totality of the
evidence shows. We're aware of that game. It's worn out, and the
cardboard the game came in is falling apart. Mark Lane was a master at
that game. You're not in his class yet. But keep trying.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Even accepting your interpretation *for the sake of argument* (it's wildly
wrong, but let's run with this silliness for a moment, shall we?), how'd
you get THERE?
Fritz was a part-time magician in Jack Ruby's night club, practiced at
sleight of hand, picked up three shells, palmed those, and threw down
three different ones which he had brought along for just this
eventuality?
And those somehow matched Oswald's rifle and established Oswald's weapon
was used in the assassination? Where did Fritz get three of Oswald's
shells from, to throw down in place of the original three, in your theory?
It's not like three of Oswald's shells were lying around all over the
sniper's nest just waiting to be picked up, right?
Oh, wait. That's right. They were. According to the evidence.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of
shells.

He couldn't have done that--Mooney called that out while Fritz was outside
the building.

dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-12 23:27:16 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

He does not include Day here, you'll note.

He didn't name any officers, other than Fritz. He did say he guarded the
spot until the crime lab showed up in his memo. That means Day and
Studebaker. "At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and McCurley came
over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers got
upstairs within a matter of a few minutes."

Post by donald willis
arrived at the same time.
I question their simultaneous arrival on the 5th or 6th floor.

Nobody cares about your theory about other floors. Nobody cares what you
question. You can't establish anything through your questions and doubts.
They are meaningless.

I pointed out there are contradictions in the record, and pointed out
Fritz says he got there before Day. Mooney, however (your witness to Fritz
picking up the shells) says he guarded the shells until the crime lab (Day
and Studebaker, to name names) arrived. That means if Fritz handled the
shells, Day should have witnessed that. There's nothing in his testimony
about that. You can't question Mooney's statements while relying on
Mooney's statements. Well, you can, and do, but it doesn't make it
sensible to do so. Again, you're just playing with the testimony and
seeing if the puzzle pieces can fit together in another way. They don't,
and your mallet of out of context claims isn't going to hammer the pieces
into place.

Post by donald willis
They did
not arrive at the depository at the same time. Famously, Fritz arrived
(as he testified) at 12:58 (Mooney testifies that he saw him at that time,
outside); within a minute or so, Sgt. Harkness was on the DPD radio
calling for the Crime Lab. So Fritz had a head start on Day & Studebaker,
in the building.

Yes, I even quoted Fritz saying he arrived before Day. That's not what the
other witnesses said, as far as I could determine. Why would Fritz want to
claim he got there early, if as you accuse, he was part of the conspiracy?

Post by donald willis
And Day

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
testified nothing was moved in his presence before the photos were taken,
and Day was told nothing was moved before that.

"was TOLD"

Yes, that's what I said. More important, is what Mooney said in his
memorandum: That he and other officers guarded the sniper's nest until the
crime lab arrived. That means Mooney (or someone else there) told Day when
he arrived the shells had not been disturbed. Your reason for quoting that
Day was told that?

Post by donald willis
And that's what Mooney

They had to have been--as Sims notes, just as soon as Day finished
photographing the shells, he put them in Sims' envelope.

Ok. Great, we're making real progress here.

Post by donald willis
Fritz does not
say he picked up either shells or envelope, yet (as per Mooney & Faulkner)
he clearly did, & it had to have been before they were processed....

Not according to Mooney's memo for the record. Where does he mention Fritz
picking up the shells? Where does Day testify to seeing Fritz do that?
Where does Fritz?

You're taking the Faulker statement out of context. Where does Faulker say
that Fritz picked up and then threw down shells? He didn't.

He's saying the shells were given to Fritz. They were. Sims so testified:
== quote ==
Mr. SIMS. Captain Fritz told me to get the hulls after Lieutenant Day
finished with them and to take possession of them.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do?
Mr. SIMS. I did that.
Mr. BELIN. How did you take possession of them?
Mr. SIMS. I placed them in an envelope and put them in my coat pocket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember which pocket?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do with them?
Mr. SIMS. When we got to the city hall, I gave them to Captain Fritz in his
office.
== unquote ==

Easy: You want a conspiracy more than you want Oswald innocent. You
ignored my points to question only the motive I subscribed to you. Try
addressing the points I made.

Post by donald willis
We've played that game

No response.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Even accepting your interpretation *for the sake of argument* (it's wildly
wrong, but let's run with this silliness for a moment, shall we?), how'd
you get THERE?
Fritz was a part-time magician in Jack Ruby's night club, practiced at
sleight of hand, picked up three shells, palmed those, and threw down
three different ones which he had brought along for just this
eventuality?
And those somehow matched Oswald's rifle and established Oswald's weapon
was used in the assassination? Where did Fritz get three of Oswald's
shells from, to throw down in place of the original three, in your theory?
It's not like three of Oswald's shells were lying around all over the
sniper's nest just waiting to be picked up, right?
Oh, wait. That's right. They were. According to the evidence.

No response.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of
shells.

He couldn't have done that--Mooney called that out while Fritz was outside
the building.

Did you major in missing the point in college?

Yes. So Fritz was not part of the conspiracy. If he was interested in
planting or swapping shells, he would have done that discreetly, not in
front of witnesses. He would have entered the building and "found" the
"sniper's nest" and planted shells for Mooney to find. Wouldn't he? Why
would he wait until real shells were found by an officer to then go to the
site of the shells and swap them out in front of witnesses?

And address the point about the number of shells... you alleged it was
possible Fritz picked up X number of shells and threw down three different
ones. How and why does Fritz know to throw down three shells? Was he in
contact with Merriman Smith? With the vast majority of witnesses who said
they all heard three shots?

One additional point: Since Fritz came into possession of the shells later
that day anyway, wouldn't that have been his best opportunity to swap out
the shells as you allege? Instead of in front of witnesses at the
Depository, why couldn't he swap them out in the privacy of his own
office?

Your theory isn't supported by the evidence, takes claims out of context,
ignores much of the testimony, and it has Fritz acting contrary to the way
a conspirator would typically act, if he was an actual conspirator as you
accuse.

In short, your argument makes no sense on may levels. Keep pushing that
rock uphill. It will keep rolling back down.

Remember that there can be no stronger punishment than unceasing labor to
no satisfactory end. Here, you are bearing the burden of the self-assigned
punishment, attempting to push the facts up the mountain of evidence to
the point of conspiracy, but the facts refuse to cooperate and keep
contradicting you and rolling back down that mountain of evidence.

Hank

Mark

2019-05-11 23:24:49 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

No, that's your interpretation of the testimony. That's not what the
evidence necessarily shows. Please quote Mooney saying Fritz picked up the
shells before the photographs were taken.
His 11/23/63 typewritten report says "...Inside this cubby hole affair was
three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for
a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The
minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of
the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and
McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab
Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned
this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing."
So he says he and other officers guarded the spot until Fritz and the
Crime Lab got there. Now what did J.C.Day, the principal Crime Lab officer
on duty that day, say about the shells?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were
moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
So Day is testifying the shells weren't moved and he was so told by one of
the officers guarding the area.
Now let's examine Mooney's testimony to the Warren Commission in a little
== QUOTE ==
...And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted.
So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will
Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time,
of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they
came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officers
McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they
was all en route up there, I assume.
== UNQUOTE ==
So I'm seeing Mooney saying the same thing as Day: That Fritz and "his
group of officers" (Day included) arrived at the same time. And Day
testified nothing was moved in his presence before the photos were taken,
and Day was told nothing was moved before that. And that's what Mooney
testified to, that he and other officers guarded that area and touched
nothing.
And in fact, Mooney said the shells in the photograph showed the shells as
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. *** That is
the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****. I assume that this possibly could have been the
first shot.
Mr. BALL - You cannot speculate about that?
Mr. MOONEY - You cannot speculate about that.
Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - ...*** That is the way they were when you saw them, is that
right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****.
== UNQUOTE ==
I am seeing nothing in Mooney's testimony where he says Fritz handled the
shells before the photos were taken. I am seeing nothing in Day's
testimony that Fritz handled the shells before the photos were taken.
Now, let's go to the testimony of Fritz, shall we?
Fritz says he cautioned the officers present to not touch anything
("preserve the evidence") and he left before the photos were taken.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think
we went up probably to the top.
Different people would call me when they would find something that looked
like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to
floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me
and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window,
they had found some empty cartridges.
Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything
until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were
lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done,
and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted
the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see
whether he could.
Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?
Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve
that evidence and I went right ahead.
== UNQUOTE ==
Note that Fritz recalls it slightly differently, that he arrived shortly
before J.C. ("Carl") Day. This is a common failing, it's called having a
memory of the event. The mind is a not a tape-recorder, it doesn't record
in high fidelity. Differences in recollections are common in police work,
or even in everyday transactions.
You are trying to discard the evidence of the shells, which directly
implicate Oswald's rifle, and of course Oswald, in the assassination. You
are simply trying to get Oswald off the hook here. We've played that game
long enough.. You're inventive, but your arguments are meaningless. They
aren't based on attempting to reconcile the testimony of everyone
preesent. They are taking a couple of snippets of testimony, juxtaposing
them, and reaching a conclusion contrary to what the totality of the
evidence shows. We're aware of that game. It's worn out, and the
cardboard the game came in is falling apart. Mark Lane was a master at
that game. You're not in his class yet. But keep trying.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Even accepting your interpretation *for the sake of argument* (it's wildly
wrong, but let's run with this silliness for a moment, shall we?), how'd
you get THERE?
Fritz was a part-time magician in Jack Ruby's night club, practiced at
sleight of hand, picked up three shells, palmed those, and threw down
three different ones which he had brought along for just this
eventuality?
And those somehow matched Oswald's rifle and established Oswald's weapon
was used in the assassination? Where did Fritz get three of Oswald's
shells from, to throw down in place of the original three, in your theory?
It's not like three of Oswald's shells were lying around all over the
sniper's nest just waiting to be picked up, right?
Oh, wait. That's right. They were. According to the evidence.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of
shells.

So Fritz picked up five and the witnesses mostly said three, so Fritz
threw down three? How's Fritz know the majority of the witnesses would say
three? Mooney vouched for the veracity of the photo showing the shells. He
didn't say anything about a different number of shells. Day said nobody
touched anything in his presence. Fritz said he gave a command not to
touch anything and left.
Even worse, for you, is that in this theory you advance, Fritz is part of
the conspiracy - actively swapping shells to frame Oswald. Yet he doesn't
go upstairs, swap out the shells first, and then call out he found the
shells? He waits until the real killer's shells are discovered, then he
goes up to the sixth floor, or maybe "on a different floor" (see below),
and in the presence of other officers, not only picks up the evidence
before it could be photographed, but actively swaps it out? That's your
final answer? You sure you don't want to poll the audience or phone a
friend?

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Sigh. That's NOT what Mooney, Fritz, and Day testified to. Please stop
before you embarrass yourself with these bizarre speculations contrary to
all the evidence.
Oh, wait. Too late.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the
DPD photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry,
Clav

No, the officers present at the time vouched for the accuracy of the
photos, including Mooney. Their testimony is evidence. The shells taken
into evidence is evidence. The photographs taken at the scene are
evidence.
Your interpretations of the testimony is NOT evidence. And I'm going -
once again - with the evidence.

Hank

Wow. I know that took research time. A brilliant post. Mark

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-11 23:44:34 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

No, that's your interpretation of the testimony. That's not what the
evidence necessarily shows. Please quote Mooney saying Fritz picked up the
shells before the photographs were taken.
His 11/23/63 typewritten report says "...Inside this cubby hole affair was
three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for
a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The
minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of
the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and
McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab
Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned
this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing."
So he says he and other officers guarded the spot until Fritz and the
Crime Lab got there. Now what did J.C.Day, the principal Crime Lab officer
on duty that day, say about the shells?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were
moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
So Day is testifying the shells weren't moved and he was so told by one of
the officers guarding the area.
Now let's examine Mooney's testimony to the Warren Commission in a little
== QUOTE ==
...And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted.
So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will
Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time,
of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they
came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officers
McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they
was all en route up there, I assume.
== UNQUOTE ==
So I'm seeing Mooney saying the same thing as Day: That Fritz and "his
group of officers" (Day included) arrived at the same time. And Day
testified nothing was moved in his presence before the photos were taken,
and Day was told nothing was moved before that. And that's what Mooney
testified to, that he and other officers guarded that area and touched
nothing.
And in fact, Mooney said the shells in the photograph showed the shells as
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. *** That is
the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****. I assume that this possibly could have been the
first shot.
Mr. BALL - You cannot speculate about that?
Mr. MOONEY - You cannot speculate about that.
Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - ...*** That is the way they were when you saw them, is that
right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****.
== UNQUOTE ==
I am seeing nothing in Mooney's testimony where he says Fritz handled the
shells before the photos were taken. I am seeing nothing in Day's
testimony that Fritz handled the shells before the photos were taken.
Now, let's go to the testimony of Fritz, shall we?
Fritz says he cautioned the officers present to not touch anything
("preserve the evidence") and he left before the photos were taken.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think
we went up probably to the top.
Different people would call me when they would find something that looked
like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to
floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me
and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window,
they had found some empty cartridges.
Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything
until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were
lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done,
and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted
the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see
whether he could.
Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?
Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve
that evidence and I went right ahead.
== UNQUOTE ==
Note that Fritz recalls it slightly differently, that he arrived shortly
before J.C. ("Carl") Day. This is a common failing, it's called having a
memory of the event. The mind is a not a tape-recorder, it doesn't record
in high fidelity. Differences in recollections are common in police work,
or even in everyday transactions.
You are trying to discard the evidence of the shells, which directly
implicate Oswald's rifle, and of course Oswald, in the assassination. You
are simply trying to get Oswald off the hook here. We've played that game
long enough.. You're inventive, but your arguments are meaningless. They
aren't based on attempting to reconcile the testimony of everyone
preesent. They are taking a couple of snippets of testimony, juxtaposing
them, and reaching a conclusion contrary to what the totality of the
evidence shows. We're aware of that game. It's worn out, and the
cardboard the game came in is falling apart. Mark Lane was a master at
that game. You're not in his class yet. But keep trying.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Even accepting your interpretation *for the sake of argument* (it's wildly
wrong, but let's run with this silliness for a moment, shall we?), how'd
you get THERE?
Fritz was a part-time magician in Jack Ruby's night club, practiced at
sleight of hand, picked up three shells, palmed those, and threw down
three different ones which he had brought along for just this
eventuality?
And those somehow matched Oswald's rifle and established Oswald's weapon
was used in the assassination? Where did Fritz get three of Oswald's
shells from, to throw down in place of the original three, in your theory?
It's not like three of Oswald's shells were lying around all over the
sniper's nest just waiting to be picked up, right?
Oh, wait. That's right. They were. According to the evidence.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of
shells.

Why does Day have to SEE everything and be everywhere?
Did he watch Fitz eject the live round or the empty shell? Did he watch
the discovery and pulling out of the rifle?

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Even worse, for you, is that in this theory you advance, Fritz is part of
the conspiracy - actively swapping shells to frame Oswald. Yet he doesn't
go upstairs, swap out the shells first, and then call out he found the
shells? He waits until the real killer's shells are discovered, then he
goes up to the sixth floor, or maybe "on a different floor" (see below),
and in the presence of other officers, not only picks up the evidence
before it could be photographed, but actively swaps it out? That's your
final answer? You sure you don't want to poll the audience or phone a
friend?

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Sigh. That's NOT what Mooney, Fritz, and Day testified to. Please stop
before you embarrass yourself with these bizarre speculations contrary to
all the evidence.
Oh, wait. Too late.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the
DPD photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry,
Clav

No, the officers present at the time vouched for the accuracy of the
photos, including Mooney. Their testimony is evidence. The shells taken
into evidence is evidence. The photographs taken at the scene are
evidence.
Your interpretations of the testimony is NOT evidence. And I'm going -
once again - with the evidence.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-12 23:27:46 UTC

And if he did, so what? Maybe LHO picked them up, shook them like dice,
and tossed them back on the floor. Does that mean he gets a free, no fault
assassination because someone else touched them?

No, it means that you and I can say anything we want about the so-called
shells in evidence, because they were handled before they were
photographed.

No, that's your interpretation of the testimony. That's not what the
evidence necessarily shows. Please quote Mooney saying Fritz picked up the
shells before the photographs were taken.
His 11/23/63 typewritten report says "...Inside this cubby hole affair was
three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for
a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The
minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of
the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and
McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab
Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned
this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing."
So he says he and other officers guarded the spot until Fritz and the
Crime Lab got there. Now what did J.C.Day, the principal Crime Lab officer
on duty that day, say about the shells?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were
moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
So Day is testifying the shells weren't moved and he was so told by one of
the officers guarding the area.
Now let's examine Mooney's testimony to the Warren Commission in a little
== QUOTE ==
...And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted.
So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will
Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time,
of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they
came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officers
McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they
was all en route up there, I assume.
== UNQUOTE ==
So I'm seeing Mooney saying the same thing as Day: That Fritz and "his
group of officers" (Day included) arrived at the same time. And Day
testified nothing was moved in his presence before the photos were taken,
and Day was told nothing was moved before that. And that's what Mooney
testified to, that he and other officers guarded that area and touched
nothing.
And in fact, Mooney said the shells in the photograph showed the shells as
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. *** That is
the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****. I assume that this possibly could have been the
first shot.
Mr. BALL - You cannot speculate about that?
Mr. MOONEY - You cannot speculate about that.
Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - ...*** That is the way they were when you saw them, is that
right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir****.
== UNQUOTE ==
I am seeing nothing in Mooney's testimony where he says Fritz handled the
shells before the photos were taken. I am seeing nothing in Day's
testimony that Fritz handled the shells before the photos were taken.
Now, let's go to the testimony of Fritz, shall we?
Fritz says he cautioned the officers present to not touch anything
("preserve the evidence") and he left before the photos were taken.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think
we went up probably to the top.
Different people would call me when they would find something that looked
like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to
floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me
and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window,
they had found some empty cartridges.
Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything
until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were
lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done,
and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted
the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see
whether he could.
Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?
Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve
that evidence and I went right ahead.
== UNQUOTE ==
Note that Fritz recalls it slightly differently, that he arrived shortly
before J.C. ("Carl") Day. This is a common failing, it's called having a
memory of the event. The mind is a not a tape-recorder, it doesn't record
in high fidelity. Differences in recollections are common in police work,
or even in everyday transactions.
You are trying to discard the evidence of the shells, which directly
implicate Oswald's rifle, and of course Oswald, in the assassination. You
are simply trying to get Oswald off the hook here. We've played that game
long enough.. You're inventive, but your arguments are meaningless. They
aren't based on attempting to reconcile the testimony of everyone
preesent. They are taking a couple of snippets of testimony, juxtaposing
them, and reaching a conclusion contrary to what the totality of the
evidence shows. We're aware of that game. It's worn out, and the
cardboard the game came in is falling apart. Mark Lane was a master at
that game. You're not in his class yet. But keep trying.

Post by donald willis
The shells as found may not have been the same shells as
displayed in the "nest".

Even accepting your interpretation *for the sake of argument* (it's wildly
wrong, but let's run with this silliness for a moment, shall we?), how'd
you get THERE?
Fritz was a part-time magician in Jack Ruby's night club, practiced at
sleight of hand, picked up three shells, palmed those, and threw down
three different ones which he had brought along for just this
eventuality?
And those somehow matched Oswald's rifle and established Oswald's weapon
was used in the assassination? Where did Fritz get three of Oswald's
shells from, to throw down in place of the original three, in your theory?
It's not like three of Oswald's shells were lying around all over the
sniper's nest just waiting to be picked up, right?
Oh, wait. That's right. They were. According to the evidence.

Post by donald willis
They may not have been the same number of
shells.

Why does Day have to SEE everything and be everywhere?
Did he watch Fitz eject the live round or the empty shell? Did he watch
the discovery and pulling out of the rifle?

Straw man argument. Nobody is claiming Day saw everything and was
everywhere.

What I am claiming is J.C.Day's (and others) testimony contradict the
conspiracy arguments advanced by Donald Willis in this thread, and he is
ignoring those contradictions and that testimony

Post by donald willis
They may have been found on a different floor.

Sigh. That's NOT what Mooney, Fritz, and Day testified to. Please stop
before you embarrass yourself with these bizarre speculations contrary to
all the evidence.
Oh, wait. Too late.

Post by donald willis
You can't use the
DPD photographs as evidence of the shells found in the depository, sorry,
Clav

No, the officers present at the time vouched for the accuracy of the
photos, including Mooney. Their testimony is evidence. The shells taken
into evidence is evidence. The photographs taken at the scene are
evidence.
Your interpretations of the testimony is NOT evidence. And I'm going -
once again - with the evidence.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-03 03:37:03 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.

== UNQUOTE ==

Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.

Hank

donald willis

2019-05-04 03:23:32 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.

You're changing the challenge. I answer, and you (as they say) move the
goal posts. "Replaced" is your word....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge.

His knowledge was useless in this regard. He was not there when the
shells were found.

I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.

Oh, yes, and Sims is going to contradict his boss!

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

Again, "moved" is your word. But Fritz clearly picked up the shells
before they had been photographed.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.

Your just saying that has zero validity....

dcw

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:22:06 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.

You're changing the challenge. I answer, and you (as they say) move the
goal posts. "Replaced" is your word....

What's your word? Thrown back down? Swapped out? Altered?

His knowledge was useless in this regard. He was not there when the
shells were found.

Mooney affirmed the photographs showed the shells as he found them.

Mr. BALL - ... Now, I show you 510. (The document referred to was marked
Commission Exhibit No. 510 for identification.)

Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. That is the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Q: Is that the way they were when you saw them?
A: Yes, sir.

Post by donald willis
I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.

Oh, yes, and Sims is going to contradict his boss!

So you're saying everyone is lying. Or almost everyone.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

Again, "moved" is your word. But Fritz clearly picked up the shells
before they had been photographed.

And what was photographed? Shells. So didn't he of necessity have to place
them again ("replace") the shells in the Sniper's Nest?

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.

Your just saying that has zero validity....

Your interpretations are not evidence. You prefer that language?

Either way, what you claim happened would never see the inside of a
courtroom. Unless you snuck in and whispered it after hours. It's not
evidence.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-04 14:46:33 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

Again, another phony challenge. You demand that I show you the video
when you know it was destroyed. Please play for me the original 18-1/2
minutes that was erased from the Nixon tape.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.
Hank

BOZ

2019-05-05 17:50:51 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

Again, another phony challenge. You demand that I show you the video
when you know it was destroyed. Please play for me the original 18-1/2
minutes that was erased from the Nixon tape.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.
Hank

I have the 18 and a half minutes. You don't.

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-06 01:55:58 UTC

Post by BOZ

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

Again, another phony challenge. You demand that I show you the video
when you know it was destroyed. Please play for me the original 18-1/2
minutes that was erased from the Nixon tape.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.
Hank

I have the 18 and a half minutes. You don't.

No, YOU don't. All you have is SHIT.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:22:26 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.

Again, another phony challenge. You demand that I show you the video
when you know it was destroyed. Please play for me the original 18-1/2
minutes that was erased from the Nixon tape.

I demanded nothing of you. I am asking Willis to establish his claims
using testimony and evidence not taken out of context and subjected to his
meat grinder of interpretation.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.
Hank

Mark

2019-05-05 00:59:13 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

The quotes you provided do NOT say anything about the shells being picked
up and replaced before the photos were taken. And J.C.Day said otherwise.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the building,
and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they
were found before they were moved. ...
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls
were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, show *unequivocally* that the shells were moved before the photos
were taken.
What you posted above doesn't establish that your assertion has any
validity.
Hank

Donald, when I suggested you should spend more time answering Hank's
questions for you, I was also referring to this one, among others. Mark

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:16:06 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

"[Fritz] was the first officer that picked up [the hulls]."--Luke Mooney
v3p286.
"Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls.... Sims picked
up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped
them in the envelope." --Sims Exhibit A.
Again, Fritz handled the shells before they could be photographed.... None
of those DPD Crime Lab photos shows the shells as they were found.
dcw

All you have above is a contradiction in recollections about who was first
to handle the shells. What you don't have -- but you keep pretending you
do -- is a statement by Mooney that Fritz handled the shells before the
shells were photographed in place. If you have that, please quote it. You
have two different statements about who was first to pick up the shells,
and you staple them together and somehow come up with Sims being second to
handle the shells.

Your entire argument stems solely from *your interpretation* of how the
various statements should be reconciled. Your interpretation is not
evidence. Show me the evidence.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

2019-05-03 03:08:50 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

Clever. Why don't you demand that we show you the Alyea clip?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-11 01:22:51 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.

Actual quotes and cites?
Got any?
Or just assertions?
I am not about to re-read all of J.C.Day's (or Mooney's or Sims')
testimony to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. Anything else
is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
We'll await your evidence.
Hank

Clever. Why don't you demand that we show you the Alyea clip?

And then there's Tony, doing his best to try and keep up.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-27 01:30:09 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.

Alyea. You've never seen us discuss Alyea?

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-05-01 19:43:23 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

"Hard evidence"? The apparent fact that Capt. Fritz retrieved the shells
before they could be photographed means that evidence was pretty soft....
dcs

How *apparent* is it? Which persons testified to the shells being picked
up from the floor before they were photographed? Quote them saying that.
Otherwise, you're basing your theory on your interpretations of the
evidence, not on the facts.

Alyea. You've never seen us discuss Alyea?

Alyea never testified to the shells being picked up. Alyea never
testified.

Back in the early 1990s, he started to publish his own little newsletter
about the JFK assassination, and that was the first time he every told for
publication that he saw the shells being picked up. As I recall. Of
course, it's almost 30 years since that transpired, and you know how
memory is fallible. So maybe it didn't happen that way.

But if you recall how fallible memory is, then you have to take Alyea's
nearly 30-year after the fact recollection of what happened on 11/22/63
with a grain of salt, too.

Hank

Anthony Marsh

2019-04-19 13:19:20 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.

90% of the witnesses said three shots.
There were more witnesses that said fewer than three shots than there were
witnesses that said more than three shots.
What's to explain?
That clearly some of the witnesses were mistaken as to the number of
shots?
That's a given, because they didn't all say the same number. But the
responses centered around three shots. And there were three shells
recovered from the Depository. So I need not explain in any great detail
why some witnesses said four shots because the eyewitness testimony and
the hard evidence indicates three shots.
Hank

I am trying to help you weasel out of this so that you won't have to
agree that there were 4 shots.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2019-04-26 00:48:00 UTC

Focus, Tony.
We're discussing the Franzen's statements. Right now, we have the mention
of only one shot by Mrs. Franzen. And of three by Mr. Franzen. That
doesn't make four shots, unless you're taking the bizarre position that
the shot mentioned by the wife wasn't heard by her husband.
Try to stick to the topic at hand and not be so obvious in your attempts
to divert the discussion.

I was trying to help you find a way out of your inability to explain 4
shot sounds.