You actually cannot see that you are making no sense?
Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof. Moreover, as Bugliosi points out, the totality of the descriptions apart from Alyea do not place the remains where you would like them to be but rather where BRW subsequently said he left them.
In addition, as Bugliosi points out, the lunch remains, even if on the 6th floor, are of no clear significance. You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant. Contrary to your narrative, the WC did not ignore the inconsistency but attempted to resolve it and then left it in the record for all to see. The HSCA likewise failed to see the significance you now see. As a reasonably sane and rational individual, it is difficult for me even to hypothesize any particular significance. And yet, this nothingburger is your lead story for the WC being a sham!
I have a difficult time believing, since I do see intelligence in your posts, that you actually cannot see the absurdity in ones like I have quoted here. "No bearing," "irrational," "desperate," "zero uncertainty," "fact" - come on, you know every one of these statements is false.
In what corner of the LN narrative does this silly issue fit? Wouldn't the WC and the LN community presumably have preferred a consistent narrative with the lunch remains either being found on the 5th floor or where BRW subsequently said, at some distance from the SN? Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? Like so many CT efforts, yours just makes no sense at all, and you seemingly don't care.
Having to wade through your nonsense posts is starting to get a bit tedious, Lance.
I have to assume that you are a through-and-through Lone Nutter and in highlighting the disgraceful sham that was the Warren Commission, I'm attacking your 'scripture' which you will defend with any amount of irrational nonsense.
Where to start?
"Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof." This is the crux of your argument against the
fact that six of the first officers on the scene described seeing lunch remains in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
According to your embarrassing suggestion, all six officers heard an "erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports".
Wow!
It is a FACT that all six officers describe features specific to the southeast corner of the 6th floor as the location of the lunch remains. The notion that they were all somehow individually fooled by an erroneous newscast is truly foolish and something you should retract. Just in case you genuinely don't understand this incredibly simple point let's take a section of the report of Luke Mooney written up the day after the assassination:
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. 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,Mooney discovers the Sniper's Nest. He is describing this moment in his report. He is describing what he sees - "an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books", "three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle", "a half-eaten piece of chicken" and "expended shells on the floor".
There is zero uncertainty as to the location Mooney (or any of the other officers) is describing - the Sniper's Nest in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mooney heard an erroneous newscast that made him believe he saw a half eaten piece of chicken on one of the Sniper's Nest boxes?
Did this fictional erroneous newscast mention a half eaten piece of chicken?
Is there any evidence of this fictional and completely bogus erroneous newscast? Of course there isn't.
Fact - all six officers describe lunch remains in the location of the Sniper's Nest.
Fact - this discovery was made before Fritz, Alyea or the crime lab officers were on the scene.
Fact - the discovery of these remains on the Sniper's Nest was completely ignored by the Warren Commission
Remember, this forum is a written record and once you've posted something it stays up for all to see.
Your suggestion - that all six officers independently heard the same erroneous newscast which tricked them into believing they were seeing lunch remains on top of the stacks of boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest - is as bad as any Tinfoil nonsense I've ever heard of.
Didn't you think this through?
Aren't you embarrassed for suggesting this.
Your desperation to try to make this testimony go away is making you post some real nonsense.
"You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant"Nutters have a variety of strategies for dealing with issues that reveal the lie of their narrative, most just disappear for a while and come back spouting the same nonsense when the coast is clear. Those who stick around they rely on misrepresentation, willful ignorance, selective memory loss and outright lying.
The above quote come under "selective memory loss".
Here, Lance is accusing me of being unable to explain why this issue is significant.
He made the same accusation a few posts ago [REPLY#40] and it was answered in full [REPLY#54]
I have no doubt a few more posts will go by and he will make the same accusation again.
It's really tedious.
"Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? "How, exactly, would the WC have "cleaned up the issue"?
This just seems like another nonsensical comment, another meaningless contribution to the discussion.
Whatever the case, in a previous post I asked you this:
Why don't you give us an analysis of what the officers reported and why you think it doesn't matter
Rather than your meaningless posts why not go through the testimonies/statements of the officers in the OP.
Explain where the uncertainty is in the location these officers are describing.
Explain how Alyea's report of lunch remains on the 5th floor changes the testimonies/statements of these officers.
Explain why this evidence of someone other than Oswald being in the Sniper's Nest is irrelevant.
If the only argument you can offer is that Ayeas comments mean these officers didn't really see what they saw, then you should take a step back and maybe return to the thread when the topic has moved on.
