Oswald: No power lunch

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Jack Dougherty said that he ate lunch in the Domino Room from 12:00 until 12:30 (or shortly before 12:30).
Jack then took a lift to the 6th floor or 5th floor to get stock.
Jack said that he saw LHO twice that day -- (1) entering the building at 8:00 am, & (2) on the 6th floor at about 11:00 am.
Jack did not mention whether Jarman or Norman entered the Domino Room at about 12:10.
Jack did not mention whether Jarman or Norman walked past the Domino Room at about 12:26.

[Martin Weidmann]

So why should anyone believe Oswald was on the first floor during the assassination?
Oswald wouldn't even admit he placed the package across the back seat. He said it was a lunch bag of some vague size that he kept with him in the front seat. So either Oswald is lying (now what would be his motivation?) or Frazier is,

BTW, you're not still claiming you're not a conspiracy theorist? You have all the authorities lying about everything Oswald said; meanwhile a cop-killer, Presidential assassin and wife-beater gets all the benefit you can muster.

So why should anyone believe Oswald was on the first floor during the assassination?

Why would anyone dismiss out of hand anything Oswald said and not investigate any of it?

Oswald wouldn't even admit he placed the package across the back seat. He said it was a lunch bag of some vague size that he kept with him in the front seat. So either Oswald is lying (now what would be his motivation?) or Frazier is,

As we have no verbatim record of what Oswald said, we don't know what he actually said. All we have is the word of those who screwed up the interrogation. In a murder investigation that's not a good place to be.

BTW, you're not still claiming you're not a conspiracy theorist? You have all the authorities lying about everything Oswald said; meanwhile a cop-killer, Presidential assassin and wife-beater gets all the benefit you can muster.

There is the same old "if you're not with us, you must be against us" crap again. Not everybody who is skeptical about the WC narrative is a conspiracy theorist. All I have been doing is testing the strength (or lack thereof) of the WC's prosecutorial case against Oswald. I have never gone beyond that and will never go there. So, yes, even if you don't like it, I am still saying that I am not a conspiracy theorist.

All I do is look at the known facts and try to make sense of them. Time and time again history has shown us that you can not blindly believe everything authorities tell you. In a murder investigation there is no assumption that a person of authority always speaks the truth. Too many innocent people have gone to jail because a jury believed crooked cops!

[Martin Weidmann]

Getting it from you isn't any better than not being there. Worse, actually, since one can see in the second image that the ledges hardly protrude at all. A person could easily place a knee or two on the brickwork beneath the window and lean forward with hands gripping the outer edge of the ledge while peering earthward.

Hahahaha... now all you have to do is find a witness that said this actually happened.

Don't bother, it didn't happen. You guys are stuck so deep in your own delusion that in your mind anything could have happened.

[Martin Weidmann]

You could certainly be right, but I don't have the time to look for evidence of that claim so could you provide a cite? Thanks.

The following photo is obviously not proof of anything because it was taken after the 22nd and the window could have been fixed but just for reference the photo does show what the fully open window looks like.



JohnM

So, despite the fact that you admit that the photo isn't proof of anything, you post it anyway? Yeah, that makes sense.

The photo does not prove a damned thing, because the original window was removed and replaced by a new one shortly after the investigation. A far better indication of how high the windows could actually open is this photo;



Now just imagine somebody sitting on the ledge and try to imagine how for his shoulders and head would reach.

Btw, there is a photo in circulation of Detective Hill (I believe) calling down from the sniper's nest, which shows exactly how high the opening of the window was on 11/22/63.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it's a really bizarre way to present evidence and even if true, Martin was no near where Oswald was. 

JohnM

Yes, it's a really bizarre way to present evidence

Yeah right... a far better way to present evidence is never going there and just using pictures to make up your own stories.

Hilarious

[Martin Weidmann]

Estimates are estimates, but you'd at least expect Arnold to be consistent.  I brought it up because you selectively chose to use 12:25 from one version and not 12:15 from another.
Off the top of my head, only Arnold Rowland is the only person who claimed to see "movement" in any 6th floor window at 12:15. Please see the tete' a tete'  I had with Dan O'Meara regarding Rowland.

And, why do  I have this feeling that you really have no idea what a "normal murder investigation" would entail?

Estimates are estimates, but you'd at least expect Arnold to be consistent.  I brought it up because you selectively chose to use 12:25 from one version and not 12:15 from another.

No. I never used either estimate. I merely pointed out that Carolyn Arnold was consistent is saying that she had seen Oswald, whether it was at 12:15 or 12:25 or somewhere inbetween.

Off the top of my head, only Arnold Rowland is the only person who claimed to see "movement" in any 6th floor window at 12:15. Please see the tete' a tete'  I had with Dan O'Meara regarding Rowland.

Brennan also claimed to have seen somebody in the window well before the arrival of the motorcade.

And, why do  I have this feeling that you really have no idea what a "normal murder investigation" would entail?

That's an easy question to answer. You are a LN. That's why you have that "feeling"! It has to do with pure bias and nothing to do with reality.

The LNs in this thread really must not like the obvious facts being presented since all of them are now attacking the messenger. Says it all, really!

[John Mytton]

So, despite the fact that you admit that the photo isn't proof of anything, you post it anyway? Yeah, that makes sense.

The photo does not prove a damned thing, because the original window was removed and replaced by a new one shortly after the investigation. A far better indication of how high the windows could actually open is this photo;



Now just imagine somebody sitting on the ledge and try to imagine how for his shoulders and head would reach.

Btw, there is a photo in circulation of Detective Hill (I believe) calling down from the sniper's nest, which shows exactly how high the opening of the window was on 11/22/63.

So, despite the fact that you admit that the photo isn't proof of anything, you post it anyway? Yeah, that makes sense.

No, I simply asked and quite innocently because I'd really like to know, where is the evidence of your claim that the window could only open half way on the 22nd and you didn't answer the question?
I admitted that the photo isn't proof that the window being fully opened is how it was on the 22nd, but until you provide evidence to the contrary, the fully open window is a possibility. I am still waiting for you.
And since I can't date when the photo was taken, how can you assume it's a different window, it may well be the replaced window but it also may not be.

The photo does not prove a damned thing, because the original window was removed and replaced by a new one shortly after the investigation.

Well Martin, without a date the photo was taken, your assumption is a little premature and as I said you could well be right but I just asked for some evidence. I didn't claim a single thing.

Btw, there is a photo in circulation of Detective Hill (I believe) calling down from the sniper's nest, which shows exactly how high the opening of the window was on 11/22/63.

The photo of Sergeant Gerald Hill wasn't from the sniper's nest, it's a completely different window.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Yes, it's a really bizarre way to present evidence

Yeah right... a far better way to present evidence is never going there and just using pictures to make up your own stories.

Hilarious

On your alleged visit which you are reluctant to prove, if you were kneeling at the sniper's nest window or seated on the sniper's net window sill, then you may have a point but you weren't and you don't, sorry about that.

JohnM