Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[John Mytton]

Question What time did you go to lunch?
Oswald   At noon.
Question Where did you go for lunch?
Oswald    I went to the 2nd floor to get a coke then went back to the 1st floor to eat my lunch.
Question Then what happened?
Oswald    I then went outside to watch the Presidents Parade.

Oswald was implying that he had no idea what was happening outside.

Btw under Ford's scenario even Oswald refers to being on the steps as being outside. OUCH that's gotta hurt!

Hahahahaha!

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

Poor Mr Mytton, your only resort is to trot out your old long-refuted Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Chestnut!

Mr Oswald never said he was inside the building. He answered in the affirmative when asked if he was 'in' the building. Every time you continue to put the word 'inside' in Mr Oswald's mouth, we see your shameless dishonesty!

Now! Agent Hosty states clearly that Mr Oswald stated clearly that he 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Apart from the roof, there is literally only one place that can be said to be both in the Texas School Book Despository (i.e. part of the building, not part of the world beyond it) and outside... Have you guessed it yet, Mr Mytton?

That's right! The enclosed front entranceway!

That's where Mr Oswald said he was, and the reason he said that was where he was was that that was where he in fact was. And! The reason Captain Fritz and his crooked pals pretended Mr Oswald said he was somewhere other than where he actually said he was..... was that they wanted to frame him for the shooting. And you're still falling for the scam, and devoting yourself to making others fall for it too!

The Hosty note destroys you, Mr Mytton! it's why you tried to argue that Mr Oswald only said he went out to watch the rest of the parade------i.e. the bits that came after JFK! (I am not making this up, folks, it's what poor Mr Mytton actually said!)



 

As for why Mr Oswald didn't scream his assassination-time location at the press, this too has been addressed-----------multiple times! But you, being a propagandist, pretend you never notice.

So! Once more for the benefit of He Who is Too Blind to See and Too Deaf to Hear:

Captain Fritz knows very early on that Mr Oswald was on the front steps. Under pressure to pin the shooting on his suspect, and not one to let trivial questions of basic justice get in the way, all he has to do is tell Mr Oswald: 'Look son, we know you didn't fire the actual shots. But we have you tied to the rifle. And that's what we're charging you with.'

Anyhoo, Mr Mytton, we look forward to seeing you pop up again in a few months with the same old easily-disposable garbage!

 

CT Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

Mr Oswald: I'm innocent
CT Judge: Okay, you can go
Mr Oswald: [SMIRK]

[Alan J. Ford]

Mr O'Meara, a lot of folks have looked at this Altgens-Wiegman synchronisation question very closely. Mr Mark Tyler's outstanding 'Motorcade 63' animated reconstruction is well worth checking out!

https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html

As astute as ever, Mr. Ford, no great surprise considering the credible source, who always seems to have an uncanny knack for sharing exemplary research. Appreciate the timely reference material within your shared link.

That said, it's also interesting how you honed right in on semantics. Again, no great surprise given that critical-thinkers like you aren't beholden to tunnel-vision. Your reference to semantics conjured up memories of my youth, where depending upon what region of the country my pappy was working in, the locals would make reference to , quote, " a soft drink, a soda, a pop and/or a tonic" when speaking of Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, RC Cola, Root Beer, Vernon Ginger-Ale, etc. So your point at semantics is a valid one. It wouldn't surprise if there are other items out there in our world that are also subject to a matter/manner of speaking depending upon the speaker.

Lastly, an excellent point at no one, and I mean no one has be able to credibly put anyone else in Prayer Man's specific position. They have nothing. That's very telling, especially more so given the revealing revelation in Mr. Hosty's notes. I'm open-minded enough to change my contention that Prayer Mn is in fact the wrongly accused IF someone produces a credible candidate to account for his position.

Any takers up to this challenge?

[Bill Chapman]

Question What time did you go to lunch?
Oswald   At noon.
Question Where did you go for lunch?
Oswald    I went to the 2nd floor to get a coke then went back to the 1st floor to eat my lunch.
Question Then what happened?
Oswald    I then went outside to watch the Presidents Parade.

Oswald was implying that he had no idea what was happening outside.

Btw under Ford's scenario even Oswald refers to being on the steps as being outside. OUCH that's gotta hurt!

Hahahahaha!

JohnM

I guess when Ford is on the steps to his house, he's IN his house. Then when he actually unlocks the door and steps forward, he's INSIDE the house. 

[Bill Chapman]

As astute as ever, Mr. Ford, no great surprise considering the credible source, who always seems to have an uncanny knack for sharing exemplary research. Appreciate the timely reference material within your shared link.

That said, it's also interesting how you honed right in on semantics. Again, no great surprise given that critical-thinkers like you aren't beholden to tunnel-vision. Your reference to semantics conjured up memories of my youth, where depending upon what region of the country my pappy was working in, the locals would make reference to , quote, " a soft drink, a soda, a pop and/or a tonic" when speaking of Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, RC Cola, Root Beer, Vernon Ginger-Ale, etc. So your point at semantics is a valid one. It wouldn't surprise if there are other items out there in our world that are also subject to a matter/manner of speaking depending upon the speaker.

Lastly, an excellent point at no one, and I mean no one has be able to credibly put anyone else in Prayer Man's specific position. They have nothing. That's very telling, especially more so given the revealing revelation in Mr. Hosty's notes. I'm open-minded enough to change my contention that Prayer Mn is in fact the wrongly accused IF someone produces a credible candidate to account for his position.

Any takers up to this challenge?

Stop posting to yourself and tell us the difference between being IN a building and being INSIDE a building.

[Alan J. Ford]

Question: Am I in my house, when I'm out on a screened in porch-patio attached to the overall structure? I would say so as it is a part of the overall structure, where as someone else may come to the conclusion no I'm not because I'm not actually inside my house. Again, as Mr. Ford so aptly pointed out it's simply a case of semantics.

That said, Mr. Chapman, Are you up to the task of producing a candidate to account for Prayer Man's specific position?

Those of us reading along understand why if you cannot do so. There's a reason for that. The wrongly accused is right where he said he was (within the structure of the building outside).

[Bill Chapman]

Question: Am I in my house, when I'm out on a screened in porch-patio attached to the overall structure? I would say so as it is a part of the overall structure, where as someone else may come to the conclusion no I'm not because I'm not actually inside my house. Again, as Mr. Ford so aptly pointed out it's simply a case of semantics.

That said, Mr. Chapman, Are you up to the task of producing a candidate to account for Prayer Man's specific position?

Those of us reading along understand why if you cannot do so. There's a reason for that. The wrongly accused is right where he said he was (within the structure of the building outside).

Your hero said he was in the lunchroom (when the motorcade passed by)
But I'd say he had somewhat loftier ambitions that day.

The TSBD steps were not enclosed.
Some people were outside on the steps, not inside the building.
Definitly on the premises, though.
Which includes the Cuckoo's Nest, of course