Why classify information?

[Jack Nessan]

Barnett, really, you actually think like this?  This is so odd that you would think somebody has to stare at something to see it and they cannot be aware of things in their peripheral vision. Especially given he was hoping to catch someone fleeing the building. I bet riding in car with you is a real treat. You must be like a horse with blinders.

No idea what you are talking about. Oswald was not carrying his leg,he was carrying a 40 inch rifle by holding it by the barrel located in the folded over end of the bag. The bag was 42 inches long. Same dimension stated by Randle. You do not have to carry it by the tip of the barrel.

Harold Weisberg  ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "

Are you able to understand what Weisberg stated? Seems you are full of questions and no answers. Most thoughts go right by you.

It would be about right if held it by the barrel. You should not measure everyone's intelligence by the severe limits of your own. LHO was a little sharper than that. The guy was wanting to get his gun to the TSBD undetected, and he did.

---------------------------------------------------

Are you not able to understand Canning's testimony? It appears the first sentence has completely stumped you. Read the rest it is very informative. Of course, nothing can match your two movie clips. They were a classic example of how a simple mind views a complicated issue.

-------------------------------------

You are making a huge assumption and bigger mistake. Nobody stated Styles was not stopped at the door. All she had to do was tell the officers, as Adams did, that she worked in the building, and she would be let in. Were you thinking they were strip searching and finger printing people to get in.

----------------------------------

Is this good bye this time?  Thanks for the concern over my sleeping well. I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.

[Martin Weidmann]

Barnett, really, you actually think like this?  This is so odd that you would think somebody has to stare at something to see it and they cannot be aware of things in their peripheral vision. Especially given he was hoping to catch someone fleeing the building. I bet riding in car with you is a real treat. You must be like a horse with blinders.

No idea what you are talking about. Oswald was not carrying his leg,he was carrying a 40 inch rifle by holding it by the barrel located in the folded over end of the bag. The bag was 42 inches long. Same dimension stated by Randle. You do not have to carry it by the tip of the barrel.

Harold Weisberg  ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "

Are you able to understand what Weisberg stated? Seems you are full of questions and no answers. Most thoughts go right by you.

It would be about right if held it by the barrel. You should not measure everyone's intelligence by the severe limits of your own. LHO was a little sharper than that. The guy was wanting to get his gun to the TSBD undetected, and he did.

---------------------------------------------------

Are you not able to understand Canning's testimony? It appears the first sentence has completely stumped you. Read the rest it is very informative. Of course, nothing can match your two movie clips. They were a classic example of how a simple mind views a complicated issue.

-------------------------------------

You are making a huge assumption and bigger mistake. Nobody stated Styles was not stopped at the door. All she had to do was tell the officers, as Adams did, that she worked in the building, and she would be let in. Were you thinking they were strip searching and finger printing people to get in.

----------------------------------

Is this good bye this time?  Thanks for the concern over my sleeping well. I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.

Oh yes it's goodbye.
You may not understand this, but, like a chain is just as strong as it's weakest link, the outcome of a conversation is always determined by the lack of education and knowledge of the weakest person. I can try to convey a message as much as I like, but if the recipient lacks the ability to understand what he is told, the inevitable outcome will always be a demonstration of total ignorance. Having said that, every fool on the planet thinks he's the most intelligent person and has the most intelligent answers. A wise man, on the other hand, would always consider it possible that somebody else is wiser.

So, I bow to your inferior cop show based "expertise" and gullibility. Ignorance clearly is bliss!

[Martin Weidmann]

So you understand what Jack Nessan has been saying. Finally!!

What else can be expected from the weakest link?   

No, you and Jack Nessan simply don't understand what I have been saying.

I'm asking questions that neither of you can even begin to answer. Why is that?

[John Iacoletti]

Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?

[Martin Weidmann]

Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?

He already told us! He knows

I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles.

He just can't explain in a credible way how he knows nor can he back up his so-called "knowledge" with verifiable evidence or even sound reasoning. He can't even explain how he "knows" nor can he answer any reasonable question, so don't expect any answers soon. But he "knows". Now isn't that just amazing?

It looks like you're just going to have to accept the word of somebody who is gullible enough to believe without questioning what he is being told and then claims he "knows".

[Jack Nessan]

There were only two shots fired that day. That is the answer to the JFK Assassination. The WC and the HSCA both allude to it in their conclusions stating the media heavily influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. That information completely changes the perception of the assassination. Single Bullet Theory is the only answer.  A large amount of eyewitness testimony verifies it.

Fritz retained one shell to be used in the search for the source of the ammunition. The casing was later sent to the FBI.

WC Conclusion: "It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired"
---------------

HSCA:  "'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

[Jack Nessan]

Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?

All good questions, John.  Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.

Feel free to elaborate on who really did the murder and with what weapon. I know what was determined and agree with it. If you have better analysis by all means share it so I can change my opinion.

If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.

---------------------

Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not? What is to be believed is he had parameters on how he was doing it? Martin's problem is he ignorantly referenced Barnett without realizing what Barnett stated.

 Barnett would have seen A & S emerge, especially given Garner's statement she was at her desk during the assassination and then that they don't leave until sometime after she goes to the window.

Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly . If they were  behind Oswald they would have been witnesses to the encounter or encountered Baker and Truly on the stairs. Garner states she saw Baker and Truly after their departure.

------------------------

Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.

Randle: "I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."

Colin noted the Carcano could not be disassembled, or it would have fallen out. I think he is right.

What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.

---------------------------------

Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.

[Martin Weidmann]

All good questions, John.  Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.

Feel free to elaborate on who really did the murder and with what weapon. I know what was determined and agree with it. If you have better analysis by all means share it so I can change my opinion.

If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.

---------------------

Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not? What is to be believed is he had parameters on how he was doing it? Martin's problem is he ignorantly referenced Barnett without realizing what Barnett stated.

 Barnett would have seen A & S emerge, especially given Garner's statement she was at her desk during the assassination and then that they don't leave until sometime after she goes to the window.

Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly . If they were  behind Oswald they would have been witnesses to the encounter or encountered Baker and Truly on the stairs. Garner states she saw Baker and Truly after their departure.

------------------------

Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.

Randle: "I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."

Colin noted the Carcano could not be disassembled, or it would have fallen out. I think he is right.

What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.

---------------------------------

Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.

The same song and dance routine as before.

Let's go through John's question one by one;

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?

No answer. Just evasion.

- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?

No direct answer, just some vague BS comments about Dorothy Garner, which basically confirms what we already knew; that the girls went downstairs before she saw Truly and Baker come up.

- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?

No direct answer. Just some ramblings about Randle seeing Oswald carrying the package next to his body and holding it at the top, which seemed to be folded, and not touching the ground. Unless Oswald had legs that were larger than 35" a 34,8" package would have touched to ground! Nessan doesn't even understand that Randle's description destroys his argument completely!

- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?

No answer

- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?

No answer

- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?

No answer He can't justify it

- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.

No comment or reply Likely because he hasn't seen a cop show yet where chain of custody was an issue.

- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?

Because he simply doesn't understand it.

Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants.

He said it himself and he still doesn't understand it. He goes on to say;

At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.

Yet only a few posts ago he said;

I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.

How Canning can be "spot on with his analysis" when that analysis is the result of "his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants" and does not result "a perfect pin point line" is yet another question Jack Nessan will likely never answer.