Obviously !
Concocting your own factoids is as slippery as it gets .
It is, isn't it? How many of your fellow CTers agree with your sentiments? One person's factoid is another's gospel, I suppose.
For me I'll stick to the actual testimony
the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I seen
it at the time, but I don’t remember now what it was.
Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did-I’m not sure, because I-at that particular
time I remembered it.
Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was-106 it seems to me like it was 106, but I do
know what theirs was-it was 170 and it wasn’t their car.
443
Mr. BALL. It was not 170?
Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for n-as 170.
Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this incident
to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was
Yes, but at the time of the JFKA she said the number was 207:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339485/m1/1/.
I don't insist my Taxi Factoid is true. I merely say it provides a plausible alternative explanation for what doddering Aunt Earlene says she saw, one that raises none of the questions her story does.
If there were no other known Dallas police cars in the vicinity, Tippit's car was #10, Dallas patrol cars had only one officer, and a three-digit Dallas police car with two officers pulled up in front of the rooming house, tooted its horn and departed (just like a taxi might have done!) - well, what sense does that make? how likely is that? what would be even a plausible conspiratorial explanation?
"They" were alerting Oswald by their toot that ... well,
what, that Tippit was waiting him? That the coast was clear? Not to forget his .38? What were they doing? And why did "they" need two officers in a police car to do it? Far more plausible to me is that Earlene was simply confused by a taxi or more than slightly "off."
