Re: Was. W.W. Scoggins the only witness at 10th and Patton who actually

On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 8:04:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 8:04:19 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 5:58:47 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 9:46:30 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > The witnesses described the gunman emptying a revolver, not an automatic. 
> > > > The witnesses said he emptied the revolver shells into his hand, not onto 
> > > > the ground. 
> > 
> > > Exception: Sam Guinyard. 
> > He was not a witness to the gun being emptied.
> Try again: 
> 
> Mr. BALL. So that you could look up Patton Street? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. 
> Mr. BALL. North on Patton?
> Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. 
> Mr. BALL. And you saw a man, did you? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. Yes. 
> Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out 
> of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand. 
> Mr. BALL. With which hand? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out. 
> Mr. BALL. He had it up? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he had it up just like this. 
> Mr. BALL. How was he kicking them out? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. He was rolling them with his hand--with his thumb. 
> Mr. BALL. Rolling them with his thumb? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. Checking them--he had the pistol up just like this 
> [indicating]. 
> Mr. BALL. Did he use his left hand any? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. No; I never did see him use his left hand.
> Note, especially, the phrase, "knocking empty shells out of his 
> pistol"....
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good question. But if I respond to every point I'll be months behind 
> > > > > answering you and John rather than just a week. Wish I had all the time 
> > > > > you seem to have.... 
> > 
> > > > Hilarious. I am going back to the testimony and quoting directly from 
> > > > that. It's not a matter of how much time I have. It's a matter of how much 
> > > > evidence I have. I have the evidence. 
> > 
> > > Gee, on alt.conspiracy.jfk, Ben Holmes says that HE has the evidence, 
> > Ben Holmes says a lot of things that are not true. Hank does not. 
> > > LNs don't. I also recall Prof. Marsh saying, often, that HE has the photos, 
> > > no one else does. You guys are very possessive..... 
> > Marsh is not one of us.
> He's not one of us either.
> > > > > The changes in their testimony and sequencing of events (call to police 
> > > > > BEFORE spotting of subject) establish the existence of outside help. 
> > 
> > > > Hilarious. You're claiming people don't mis-remember unless they 
> > > > had "outside help" doing so? 
> > > > 
> > > > John Corbett has already dealt with this, so I don't need to go into any 
> > > > more detail. Which is more likely? She called the police before going to 
> > > > the door and hearing Markham screaming "He killed him! He killed him!" and 
> > > > seeing the police officer lying in the street, or she called police after 
> > > > witnessing that? 
> > 
> > > In one instance, Virginia D. testified that they went to the door, heard 
> > > Mrs. Markham saying to call the cops, then they did, without having seen 
> > > the suspect. (See separate thread.) 
> > > > 
> > She contradicted herself numerous times during her testimony. She clearly 
> > was confused as to the sequence of events because she claimed the cops 
> > were called both before they went to the door and afterward. Naturally you 
> > pick the version that makes the least sense. 
> > > > You never did explain why a vigilante with Tippit's gun would think he 
> > > > should toss bullets aside. 
> > 
> > > Never said that he did. The tossing bullets business was invented. 
> > Why would somebody invent that? Oh, that's right. Everybody wanted to 
> > frame Oswald for the Tippit murder. The cops had no interest in finding 
> > the person who really killed one of their fellow officers. 
> > > You never did explain why the witnesses found 
> > > > expended shells, not unfired bullets. You never did explain how Barbara 
> > > > Davis mistook Scoggins for a teenager. 
> > 
> > > As I say in the other thread, I'm beginning to doubt that the Davises saw 
> > > anyone. 
> > What you believe and what really happened took diverging paths a long time 
> > ago. 
> > > I'm sure there's a lot more about 
> > > > your scenario that needs explaining, but those three just jump out at me. 
> > > > > Or okay if you like the harmless explanation: self-destruction of their 
> > > > > testimony though abject confusion. Either way, however, they are not to 
> > > > > be believed. Call them, then, self-compromised witnesses, if you like. 
> > > > You're here saying it's your way or the highway. 
> > > You're projecting. 
> > > No, the testimony and the 
> > > > affidavits tell a relatively consistent story. There are inconsistencies 
> > > > from witness to witness and within the same witness' statements from time 
> > > > to time. Those inconsistencies don't overturn the hard evidence, and don't 
> > > > overrule what the witnesses consistently said they saw: A gunman with a 
> > > > revolver manually emptying his handgun. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You've merely assumed 
> > > > > > their existence. So let's carry this a step further: let's assume the 
> > > > > > advisors were Keebler elves, so you understand the problem a bit better. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So your statement then becomes: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "The Keebler elves who were the Davis's "advisors" thought it was pretty 
> > > > > > important". 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does that clarify your problem for you? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay, let's say, then, that they were simply confused to the point of 
> > > > > uselessness. They self-destructed. Happy? 
> > > > Sorry, no. You're assuming, not proving, the existence of the so-called 
> > > > 'advisers' to Davis. A few inconsistencies in her story doesn't abrogate 
> > > > the consistent story told by the witnesses. 
> > > > > > > They had them add 
> > > > > > > the business re not dropping the shells in the front yard to later reports 
> > > > > > > & testimony. And I've detailed the importance of this elsewhere. 
> > > > > > And this becomes "The Keebler elves had them add the business re not 
> > > > > > dropping the shells in the front yard to later reports & testimony". 
> > > > > > Still failing to understand your problem? You can't just assume the 
> > > > > > Keebler elves had any involvement. You need to proof it. And the same 
> > > > > > applies no matter what you call these assumed "advisors". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay, they were useless on their very own.... 
> > Eyewitness accounts are neither empirical evidence nor useless. Their 
> > value falls in the middle ground between those two extremes. Witnesses 
> > usually don't get everything right nor everything wrong. Fortunately we 
> > don't have to look at what they tell us in a vacuum. We have other 
> > evidence which can give us a good idea of what they got right and what 
> > they got wrong. You on the other hand weigh each witnesses account against 
> > the assumptions you have made. 
> > > > Still not proving the existence of any advisors. You appear to be arguing 
> > > > now the inconsistencies themselves are enough to discard the consistencies 
> > > > as well. That's not the way it works in real life. 
> > That's another way of making the same point I just made. Hank has done it 
> > a little more succinctly. 
> > > > 
> > > > For example, Mark Lane points out the Tippit witnesses were all over the map 
> > > > concerning what the gunman was wearing: 
> > > > In his book, Rush to Judgment, in Chapter 14 • The Murder of 
> > > > Officer Tippit: The Eyewitnesses, Lane says this: 
> > > > 
> > > > == QUOTE == 
> > > > Benavides made reference to having seen a 'light-beige' 
> > > > jacket, but when Commission Exhibit 163, described by the 
> > > > Commission Report as a 'heavy blue jacket', was shown to 
> > > > him by counsel, evidently in error, he said, 'I would say this looks 
> > > > just like it.' Barbara Davis testified that the killer wore 'a black 
> > > > coat' when she saw him run across her lawn. * Ted Callaway 
> > > > thought the jacket worn by the assailant 'had a little more tan to 
> > > > it' than Commission Exhibit 162. Mrs Markham believed the 
> > > > jacket was darker than the one shown to her in Washington, 
> > > > although little or no credence can be placed in her estimate. 
> > > > Warren Reynolds described the jacket that the fleeing man wore 
> > > > as 'blueish' and Scoggins told Commission counsel that the 
> > > > man who ran past his taxicab wore a jacket darker than Commission 
> > > > Exhibit 162. 
> > > > == UNQUOTE == 
> > > > Lane notes this, but fails to take it to it's logical conclusion. 
> > > > Tippit is still dead. A gunman still shot him. The inconsistencies don't 
> > > > remove the gun from the gunman's hand, and these inconsistencies don't 
> > > > make the gunman someone other than Oswald. You are guilting of arguing in 
> > > > the same way. 
> > > > 
> > > > It's quite common for witnesses to fail to remember everything 
> > > > consistently (indeed, consistent testimony is often a sign of collusion, 
> > > > where two or more people acting in concert, get together to make sure 
> > > > their testimony is consistent). You and Lane above both ignore this, and 
> > > > take the inconsistencies as somehow absolving Oswald. 
> > > > > > > The fact 
> > > > > > > > is he emptied the spent shells so he could reload with live rounds. 
> > > > > > Absolutely. But Don has no answer for this, so he ignores it. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oh it's so sweet how LNs always agree with one another. Unless one of 
> > > > > them--say, Claviger--strays off the reservation. Poor guy seems to have a 
> > > > > mind of his own. (Okay, not sure I agree with him either re the SS 
> > > > > accident, but I can't outright reject his ideas here either.) 
> > Claviger hardly qualifies as an LN. He is a different type of CT.
> Debatable. I believe that Claviger posited only one *intentional* 
> shooter--Oswald. Hence, LN.... 
> 

Claviger posited that JFK was killed by an accidental shot fired by a SS 
agent and that the SS conspired to cover up this alleged fact. That makes 
him a CT.