Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Richard Smith]

You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it. 

Another lie. I never said what they were looking at was not open. You just made that up.....

Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?

Of course... I never said anything different.

And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?

Of course it was accurate. You claimed they were looking through a notebook and that simply isn't true, no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Huh?  You are really losing it.  I quoted your direct words from post #88 on this thread.  Here it is again:  "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"  So you claimed the police were not "looking through anything" and the wallet was "not opened."  Is that an accurate depiction of what is being shown in the film clip?  The police clearly have the item "open" and are looking through it. 

[Richard Smith]

Let's revisit your pathetic arguments...

it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit.  The investigators are looking through it.

Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?

Here is Martin's post suggesting the police did not look through the item or even open it.  Compare that to film clip of the event.  Martin claims it is being held but "not opened." 

[Richard Smith]

I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.

Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.



JohnM

There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book.  Look at how they are holding it.  Vertically as though reading from a note page.  In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind.  That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet.  In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger.  If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down.  But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object.  I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman.  Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them.  I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction.  What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh?  You are really losing it.  I quoted your direct words from post #88 on this thread.  Here it is again:  "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?"  So you claimed the police were not "looking through anything" and the wallet was "not opened."  Is that an accurate depiction of what is being shown in the film clip?  The police clearly have the item "open" and are looking through it.

Here is Martin's post suggesting the police did not look through the item or even open it.  Compare that to film clip of the event.  Martin claims it is being held but "not opened." 

Aha, now I understand where you are coming from. Yes I did say that, but I phrased it poorly.

You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. For somebody to be able to look through a notebook it would needed to be opened, for each page to be turned.
That's what I meant when I said the wallet wasn't opened. My bad.

[Martin Weidmann]

There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book.  Look at how they are holding it.  Vertically as though reading from a note page.  In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind.  That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet.  In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger.  If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down.  But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object.  I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman.  Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them.  I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction.  What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

So many words and it's all selfsevering speculation.

What you see "blow up at the very end from the wind" is the flap of the wallet.

Bottom line is still that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene, said it was a wallet and the LNs can not even begin to explain why they would doubt what he said. In fact, they have no reasonable or plausible grounds to doubt his words, nor do they have anything else but speculation about what it could be if not a wallet.

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

Ok, mr. know it all.... surprise us all and prove (not with so-called "logic" or "common sence" but with actual evenidence it isn't a wallet!

Perhaps you can track down the uniformed officer holding the wallet and have him confirm it wasn't a wallet after all. That would do the trick. Go on then...

[Richard Smith]

Aha, now I understand where you are coming from. Yes I did say that, but I phrased it poorly.

You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. For somebody to be able to look through a notebook it would needed to be opened, for each page to be turned.
That's what I meant when I said the wallet wasn't opened. My bad.

You not only phrased it "poorly" but incorrectly.  Again, the object that they are looking at (whether a small notebook or wallet) is clearly "open" and the police are "looking through it."  It makes no sense to explain away your claim based on some bizarre distinction about it being a notebook.  And you referenced a "wallet" not a notebook.  Regardless, the object would obviously have to be "open" to read the contents of either a wallet or notebook.  Something you suggested didn't happen. 

[Richard Smith]

So many words and it's all selfsevering speculation.

What you see "blow up at the very end from the wind" is the flap of the wallet.

Bottom line is still that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene, said it was a wallet and the LNs can not even begin to explain why they would doubt what he said. In fact, they have no reasonable or plausible grounds to doubt his words, nor do they have anything else but speculation about what it could be if not a wallet.

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

Ok, mr. know it all.... surprise us all and prove (not with so-called "logic" or "common sence" but with actual evenidence it isn't a wallet!

Perhaps you can track down the uniformed officer holding the wallet and have him confirm it wasn't a wallet after all. That would do the trick. Go on then...

Do you notice how they are holding the object?  Vertically away from the officer.  Is that more typical of how you look at the contents of a wallet or small notebook?  Are they writing down any information from the object like a witness ID?  No.  Would a witness typically hand a police officer their entire wallet or remove whatever they are being asked for and hand it to them?  One person in the film traces something with his finger.  Why do that unless it is some form of writing like might be contained in a small notebook or citation book?  Is there any accounting for Tippit's citation book?  He must have had one - right?  That is how police officers write tickets.  Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene and then disappeared from history for all the reasons noted.  None of which have been rebutted including why the police would not have radioed the name of any suspect or at least description derived from the information contained in the wallet.

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you notice how they are holding the object?  Vertically away from the officer.  Is that more typical of how you look at the contents of a wallet or small notebook?  Are they writing down any information from the object like a witness ID?  No.  Would a witness typically hand a police officer their entire wallet or remove whatever they are being asked for and hand it to them?  One person in the film traces something with his finger.  Why do that unless it is some form of writing like might be contained in a small notebook or citation book?  Is there any accounting for Tippit's citation book?  He must have had one - right?  That is how police officers write tickets.  Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene and then disappeared from history for all the reasons noted.  None of which have been rebutted including why the police would not have radioed the name of any suspect or at least description derived from the information contained in the wallet.

The same old speculation....

Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene

So you can't say for certain what it is but you can say without reservation that it isn't a wallet?

What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.

Your explanation isn't even an explanation. It's just a word salad with nothing conclusive to counter the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene and saw the damned thing, said it was a wallet. You keep on ignorning that.... why is that?