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

On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 1:01:50 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 7:38:24 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) 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:
> > > > On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:2 CUT
> > > > 
> > > > 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. 
> > No, he's not an exception. He didn't see Oswald emptying and reloading his 
> > weapon because by the time he saw Oswald (and he picked Oswald out of the 
> > lineup) Oswald had already completed that action. 
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/guinyard.htm
> First, that's only his 11/22 affidavit. Secondly, Guinyard IS an exception:
> 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.
> Mr. BALL. He didn't? 
> Mr. GUINYARD. No, sir 
> 
> You're wrong. He testified that he did see emptying, and onto the ground. 
> You've got to check more than just his affidavit. Of course, Guinyard's 
> testimony contradicts the Davises, who said--in their testimony--that the 
> shells found in the side yard were emptied into his hand in the front 
> yard.

Great, so yet another witness to the gunman with a *revolver*. Thank you 
for that. You do realize that what you posted doesn't help your argument 
that the real gunman had an automatic at all, right?

> > > > Your assumptions to the contrary (automatic, shells dropped 
> > > > from gun directly onto ground, witnesses saw a vigilante with Tippit's 
> > > > gun, for some reason emptying THAT) makes no sense and is contrary to the 
> > > > evidence. 
> > You ignored this. 
> > > > > At the hearings, she told a different story--they were 
> > > > > now supposedly found on the side yard, beyond the row of bushes and out of 
> > > > > sight (from the pov of the front door). 
> > > > No, she told the story as she saw it, which is contradictory to your 
> > > > unwarranted assumptions, so you accuse her of changing her story under 
> > > > pressure. But all she did is clarify her affidavit by specifying what she 
> > > > saw and where. 
> > You're ignoring a lot of my points again. It's almost like you don't care 
> > what the facts are.
> Speaking of facts... see above!

Speaking of facts, Guinyard testified he saw the gunman emptying a 
revolver. Thanks again!

> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's your argument here. 
> > > > > > > > > > You ignored this entirely. 
> > > > > > Still ignoring it. We're onto you. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, she would have been able to lead 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the cops directly to it, and it would have been found well before Sgt 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hill's 1:40 transmission re "auto" shells. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > "would have been able to" vs "did". Look up the difference and report back 
> > > > > > > > > > > > to us. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why they had Ms Davis 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change her story for her testimony, 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not established. Your entire premise is begged, based on accusing Barbara 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Davis of lying, which is premised on her saying the shell was found where 
> > > > > > > > > > > > she saw the man emptying his gun. 
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm accusing her of changing her story. As you note, she said, in her 
> > > > > > > > > > > affidavit, "the shell was found where she saw the man emptying his gun", 
> > > > > > > > > > > on the front lawn. In her later testimony, she said it was found on the 
> > > > > > > > > > > side yard, on Patton. 
> > > > > > > > > > No, you're not simply accusing her of changing her story. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > You're claiming there's a massive cover-up / conspiracy to frame Oswald: 
> > > > > > > > > > "That's why *THEY* [emphasis added] had Ms Davis change her story for her 
> > > > > > > > > > testimony," And so it's not as simple as accusing her of changing her 
> > > > > > > > > > story. There is a whole other story imbedded in your claim. Who is "they" 
> > > > > > > > > > and what evidence do you have of that? You have none. And so we come to 
> > > > > > > > > > you constantly imbedding your premise into your arguments, begging the 
> > > > > > > > > > question, because you have no evidence of this cover-up / conspiracy you 
> > > > > > > > > > suggest, just so changes of testimony that you figure must lead somewhere, 
> > > > > > > > > > whether they be nothing more than either a clarification / forgetfulness 
> > > > > > > > > > on the part of the witness or a misunderstanding of the evidence on your 
> > > > > > > > > > part. 
> > > > > Virginia D's later "clarification" re what the suspect was doing with the 
> > > > > shells is very precise--she remembered those details very clearly come the 
> > > > > hearings. And yet the same day as the assassination she was putting her 
> > > > > witnessing of the suspect at the "side door" on Patton,' she then changed 
> > > > > that to the front door on 10th. Funny how her "memory" is just terrible 
> > > > > later the same day, yet laser-focused months later. More than short-term 
> > > > > memory vs. long term is involved here.... 
> > > > She saw the gunman at the front door emptying his revolver into his hand. 
> > > > She went to the side door and saw the gunman discard one shell. There's no 
> > > > conflict in her testimony to anyone not assuming she meant something else. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You're ignoring this too. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > No longer! 
> > I see no response here that explains your problem away.
> You were saying I ignored something, not that I didn't explain something 
> to your satisfaction.

So you could type "I like broccoli" and that eliminates any possibility of 
me complaining that you're ignoring my point? Try again. Trying to explain 
your problem away.

> > > > > 
> > > > > If you're going to ignore the majority of my 
> > > > > > points, why should I bother discussing anything with you? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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.
> Hilarious! See above....
> 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. 
> > > You have assumptions and hearsay. 
> > 
> > > Gee, on alt.conspiracy.jfk, Ben Holmes says that HE has the evidence, LNs 
> > > don't. I also recall Prof. Marsh saying, often, that HE has the photos, 
> > > no one else does. You guys are very possessive..... 
> > The evidence is available to you. But you seldom if ever utilize it.
> Oh, I have utilized it. (See above.)
> > Instead you utilize hearsay and conjecture to attempt to explain away 
> > where the evidence clearly points. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so that the shell could be said to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have been found outside her range of vision, and it could not have been 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > said to have been covered by the transmission. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > What? The man was seen emptying his *revolver*. Numerous witnesses said 
> > > > > > > > > > > > that. 
> > > > > > > > > > > The key word is "found". In their testimony, both Davises now said that 
> > > > > > > > > > > they only SAW the man emptying his gun into his HAND. They now (in their 
> > > > > > > > > > > testimony) say they did NOT see the suspect dropping the shell in the 
> > > > > > > > > > > grass. 
> > > > > > > > > > Virginia Davis did NOT say she saw the suspect dropping the shell on the 
> > > > > > > > > > ground in her affidavit either: 
> > > > > > > > > Nor did she say there that she saw him emptying the gun into his *hand*. 
> > > > > > > > > The hand business turned up only later in their statements & testimony. 
> > > > > > > > Why do you think that is the least bit important? What difference does it 
> > > > > > > > make whether he dumped the shells on the ground or into his hand? 
> > > > > > > The Davis's "advisors" thought it was pretty important. 
> > > > > > Uh, that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You've never 
> > > > > > established the existence of any Davis 'advisors'. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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.) 
> > And that makes no sense, as John Corbett patiently explained to you. Her 
> > and her sister-in-law both saw someone unloading a revolver. Who was it 
> > except the gunman who had just shot Tippit. Since the other witnesses 
> > didn't say the gunman hung around but left quickly, then any 
> > reconstruction that puts the gunman hanging around for the Davis women to 
> > see is just wrong. So we know they saw him, then made the phone call, not 
> > the other way around.
> "We know"--as if you were there. Then you say that the words of someone 
> who WAS there make no sense. Nice.

Not on everything, but where she says she saw the gunman both before and 
after the phone call, that's where she's obviously mistaken at least half 
the time. Which one of her two recollections do you favor and why? Choose 
one and explain why you chose that one.

> > 
> > See, that's the way the evidence works, you disregard the inconsistencies, 
> > and resolve in favor of the consistencies. 
> > 
> > The inconsistencies don't reveal a cover-up with everyone lying. They 
> > reveal witnesses who are not colluding to frame an innocent man 
> > (otherwise, their stories would all mesh). 
> > > > 
> > > > 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. 
> > What!!!??? It was mentioned in the earliest affidavits on 11/22/63. 
> > The witnesses were part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald on the afternoon 
> > of the assassination? 
> >
> Yes.

Please expand on this answer.

How could the conspirators arrange to have all the witnesses testify on 
the afternoon of the assassination the way they wanted? Were they all 
recruited ahead of time and the shooting of Tippit staged? If the 
conspirators arranged for that in advance, why didn't they at least put a 
*revolver* into the hands of the gunman? Did Oswald own a revolver, and 
was he arrested with one? Didn't the conspirators know that? Did the 
conspirators think Oswald owned an automatic for some reason?


> > Why'd so many many pick Oswald out of lineups? Why'd they mention a 
> > revolver? Why were shells found not near the body, but picked up out of 
> > the grass off to the side? Your arguments make no sense. 
> > > 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. 
> > Hilarious. So you come here with a bunch of conjectures that don't fit the 
> > evidence, and then revise as necessary. 
> > 
> > So your argument is they saw no one and simply invented the gunman 
> > emptying his revolver on the afternoon ofup 11/22/63? And then picked out 
> > Oswald at the lineup as the guy they didn't see? 
> > 
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm 
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm 
> > 
> > Why were shells found in the grass? Why did those shells match Oswald's 
> > weapon? 
> > 
> > Your argument above exposes the fatal flaw in all conspiracy thinking. 
> > You'll do everything in your power not to admit to it being Oswald. So you 
> > flit from one unreasonable explanation (The Davis women saw Scoggins with 
> > Tippit's gun, not Oswald with his own revolver) to another unreasonable 
> > explanation (The Davis women saw nobody) rather than alight on the most 
> > reasonable explanation (The Davis women saw Oswald emptying his revolver 
> > of his expended shells after shooting Tippit).
> If I'm simply doing everything in my power to maintain that it wasn't 
> Oswald, why do I admit it was he shooting in Dealey? Maybe I'm simply 
> looking at the evidence more closely than you and Corbett.

I think you're ignoring the evidence completely and utilizing conjecture 
and hearsay to build a case for a gunman shooting Tippit with an 
automatic. But you cannot explain why the conspirators would arm the 
gunman with an automatic. Didn't one of those conspirators object, and 
say, "but guys, Oswald ordered a revolver. Shouldn't the gunman shooting 
Tippit use a revolver?

And of course you never did try to explain why the cops would go along 
with framing an innocent man and letting the real cop-killer go free.

> > > > 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 ignored this. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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. 
> > You ignored this.
> It certainly took some advice for them to come up with the palming of the 
> shells business. 

Still assuming what you need to prove. Repeating the same assumption 
doesn't establish the assumption as fact.

> Apparently, Guinyard didn't have the same adviser. 
> Everyone seems to ignore him. 

You mean the part where he mentioned the gunman had a *revolver*, or 
something else?