Subject: Re: Too many people storming the "Knoll" Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 18:59:21 GMT From: "Jerry Organ" Organization: Sympatico-Subscriber Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk RicBissell wrote: >> Wait a minute, Ric. You concluded from the interview that: "Newman >> clearly believed (and still believes) that the third shot came from the >> grassy knoll." Then a few lines later, you say "Newman himself won't >> differentiate what he meant by "behind him". Well, which it is?? > It's both. Newman said the shot came from behind him. He ALSO said > it came from "that little knoll, that little knoll back there." He also followed up that phrase you quoted by saying "somethng like that." Newman, who's now deceased, said that in an interview decades after the assassination that "Texas Monthly" published. Newman doesn't commit to either "my left, meaning the school book depository? To my right, meaning the picket fence?" In 1964, Newman said "the garden behind me" and the "mall." Then in 1984, he defined it as an area from the east pergola eastward. >> Aren't you doing what you accuse me of -- "filling in the meaning"??? > No. Newman SAID both things. But he also said in "Texas Monthly" that he now lets the interviewer define the area, since he doesn't commit to either the Depository or picket fence as the area "behind" him. > What he never said is, "The third shot came from that big building over there." He was never able to pinpoint it either way. In later years, he seemed to have given up arguing for any direction. > He also never even looked in that direction after the shot. > Why? Because he didn't think the third shot came from there. The immediate-aftermath photos show him looking towards the Depository, not towards the picket fence at all. > Still waiting for a quote on that. I tried. Recall I wrote: "Sorry, no transcript. But I'm sure there are some critics reading this who could confirm what Newman did and said on the Showtime-TV show." In the show, Newman verbally -- but non-descriptively -- says he heard all the shots come from "here." As I recall, Newman physically goes over to the map and marks a circle that includes some of the area behind the east pergola and part of the area east of there. In his 1963 affidavit, he described a "garden directly behind me" -- to me, that adds up to the general area of the landscaped walkway that leads eastward from the east pergola, the area where where shots from the Sniper's Nest would have reverberated. > Maybe that was one of the times Newman was letting the listener's bias > make them hear what they wanted to hear. A tendency I now know *you* > share, based on your assumptions about my beliefs. I think he took his "oath" and appearance for prosperity seriously. I believe he would be more prone to do, in your words, "let the listener's bias make them hear what they wanted to hear" when he's in a casual setting with a persistent CT. >> Newman didn't say he heard shots from the Depository; > Finally! "Finally"??? Perhaps you have a comprehension problem. From posting of Oct. 22: " Newman didn't defind a specific area, just a direction that happened to include the Depository." From Oct 24: "I never said Newman's account was absolutely perfect or pinpointed the Oswald window." "Newman never claimed he thought he would pinpoint the source ..." From Oct. 28: "Yes, he looked back in 'the vicinity of the garden.' And beyond that is the Depository." From Oct. 30: "Newman heard Oswald's shots from the Depository and was unsure as to the elevation. That's all -- he wasn't indicating a third firing point. He was mistaken -- you think he's 100-percent accurate." >> I'm interpreting what he heard, > Instead of what he actually said. Actually, you're just trying > to make his testimony fit what *you think* he heard. It "fits" the evidence for a Depository shooter a lot better than the "evidence" for a Grassy Knoll gunman. Use some common sense. >> I guess it's OK for you to interpret Newman > I haven't interpreted him. Just reported accurately what I know he said. You wrote: "So, yes Jerry, Newman clearly believed (and still believes) that the third shot came from the grassy knoll." Yet Newman NEVER DEFINES the Grassy Knoll unless it's in a casual conversation with CTs decades after the event. Even then, he admits he's willing to go along with whatever the questioner's perception of "behind" is. And yet, this latter-day Newman is the only basis for your conclusion that "Newman clearly believed (and still believes) that the third shot came from the grassy knoll." Yet from that very same interview, Newman said he lets the interviewer define the direction for himself, a factor you always omit when you conclude: "Newman clearly believed (and still believes) that the third shot came from the grassy knoll." >> as the critics did for 30-years-point -- just so long as it doesn't >> point to the Depository. In fact, you join their chorus. > Which chorus is that? Well, at least your problem can no longer be viewed > as solely one of jumping to conclusions. Now your problem just seems to > be a lack of understanding what other people actually write. You're citing latter-day Newman exclusively. Look at his actions in Dealey Plaza and 1963 statements. Look at what he said when under "oath" and in a TV studio. You seek to overturn all that with what Newman is willing to venture in a casual interview in which he admits he's willing to go along with the interviewer's perception. > You really don't comprehend the logical fallacy of the above, do you? The > "physical, medical, photographic and more-reliable eyewitnesses" may prove > beyond a shadow of a doubt and unto a moral certainty that LHO, acting alone, > killed JFK. That STILL doesn't make Newman a TSBD witness, much less a > sniper's nest witness. Newman said the third shot came from "that little knoll". He originally said "mall" according to Gary Mack and Anthony Marsh. He said "that little knoll" decades later using qualifications you prefer to overlook in your conclusion. > What you really think about his testimony is that he was mistaken (we've > already established that). Why don't you just be honest and admit that, > instead of insisting on including Newman as a witness who supports shots > from the TSBD? You know he doesn't. Because any serious consideration of the legitimate evidence will make Newman a "Depository" witness rather than a "Grassy Knoll" witness. >> And you've joined the CT's chorus: "Newman clearly believed (and >> still believes) that the third shot came from the grassy knoll." Isn't >> that an "interpretation"?? > No. He actually said that. Well, all right, he didn't actually use > the word "grassy". ;-) He originally didn't even use the word "knoll." ;-) >> Not only that, but it's an interpretation NOT SUPPORTED >> by the physical and medical evidence. > Again, it's not an interpretation at all. Shows the value you place on subjective evidence over objective evidence. Your conclusion is an "interpretation" because you're baldly citing latter-day Newman, while ignoring his admission that he now lets the interviewer define their own shot direction. To add support to your already-shaky interpretaion, you even presented a similar "interpretation" from James Kirkwood. >> How does Newman fit into your scenario?? > As an eye- and earwitness to the crime. So, if Newman is a "Grassy Knoll" witness to you, then would your scenario include a "decoy" shot from the Grassy Knoll??? (Just asking, not assuming.) >> Again, Ric. You're interpreting Newman with just statements. But above, >> you say "Newman himself won't differentiate what he meant by "behind >> him". Well, which it is?? > Asked and answered. It's both. Newman thought the shot came from > behind him on the knoll. Whether it was behind him on the knoll to the > left or right, he's not sure of. I see. So, Newman, to you, could have been indicating the whole length of Elm Street in Dealey Plaza. Why couldn't that include being confused about shots from the Depository, the direction the aftermath photos show him looking towards? If he "not sure of" left-or-right, couldn't he also be "not sure of" the elevation??? >> I see. You perceive not being forthright as having "fun." > I was as forthright as I know how to be. You said that Newman's testimony > supports the idea that the shots came from the TSBD. I said: "Newman > clearly believed (and still believes) that the third shot came from the grassy > knoll." What could be more forthright? It's not forthright when Newman originally didn't look towards or describe a "knoll." It's not forthright when you baldly describe Newman as "still believing that the third shot came from the grassy knoll" based on an interview in which he acknowledges he lets the interviewer's perception define the direction; and in which Newman doesn't single out what you call "the third shot." Jerry Organ ____________________