JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 03, 2024, 09:56:34 PM
-
The McIntyre photo was obviously taken seconds after the assassination. The Hertz clock reads 12:30.
When we look at the Dallas Police tapes, we see that the very first call after the 12:30 timestamp call is Chief Curry stating:
“Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.”
(A clear reference to the assassination)
This is an example of "real" time connecting with "police" time, probably within less than one minute.
"Real" time (the Hertz clock) says the assassination occurred at 12:30pm.
"Police" time (the tapes) says the assassination occurred at 12:30pm.
So why is it so difficult to accept that the police tapes are accurate when they show that T.F. Bowley called in the Tippit killing (using Tippit's squad car radio) at 1:17 (versus Bowley's statement that his watch read 1:10 when he arrived)?
Bowley's description of his actions upon arriving on the scene tells us he was on the patrol car radio in about one minute.
Was the clock in the dispatch room accurate at 12:30 and somehow very inaccurate by 1:17? The whole idea that the police tapes were off by as much as 6 minutes is complete nonsense.
Bowley arrives on the scene and walks over to the body and notes that there is nothing he can do for the officer. He then goes to the patrol car, takes the mic from Benavides and reports the shooting to the dispatcher (Murray Jackson). All in all, Bowley is on the radio about 60 to 90 seconds after arriving. Bowley's report to the dispatcher was at 1:17. Therefore, Bowley arrived around 1:15/1:16. His 1960's era windup wristwatch, which he claims read 1:10 when he arrived, was 5 minutes slow.
-
The McIntyre photo was obviously taken seconds after the assassination. The Hertz clock reads 12:30.
When we look at the Dallas Police tapes, we see that the very first call after the 12:30 timestamp call is Chief Curry stating:
“Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.”
(A clear reference to the assassination)
This is an example of "real" time connecting with "police" time, probably within less than one minute.
"Real" time (the Hertz clock) says the assassination occurred at 12:30pm.
"Police" time (the tapes) says the assassination occurred at 12:30pm.
So why is it so difficult to accept that the police tapes are accurate when they show that T.F. Bowley called in the Tippit killing (using Tippit's squad car radio) at 1:17 (versus Bowley's statement that his watch read 1:10 when he arrived)?
Bowley's description of his actions upon arriving on the scene tells us he was on the patrol car radio in about one minute.
Was the clock in the dispatch room accurate at 12:30 and somehow very inaccurate by 1:17? The whole idea that the police tapes were off by as much as 6 minutes is complete nonsense.
Bowley arrives on the scene and walks over to the body and notes that there is nothing he can do for the officer. He then goes to the patrol car, takes the mic from Benavides and reports the shooting to the dispatcher (Murray Jackson). All in all, Bowley is on the radio about 60 to 90 seconds after arriving. Bowley's report to the dispatcher was at 1:17. Therefore, Bowley arrived around 1:15/1:16. His 1960's era windup wristwatch, which he claims read 1:10 when he arrived, was 5 minutes slow.
What makes you think that the Hertz clock showed the "real" time?
Was the clock in the dispatch room accurate at 12:30 and somehow very inaccurate by 1:17?
Which clock are you talking about? There were several in the dispatch room and DPD supervisor Bowles has explained clearly what the problems with those clocks and time stamps were in relation to "real time".
The whole idea that the police tapes were off by as much as 6 minutes is complete nonsense.
The police tapes were not off. They merely recorded what was said over the radio. Too bad there was a (several minutes?) break in the recording starting at around 1.12!
Therefore, Bowley arrived around 1:15/1:16. His 1960's era windup wristwatch, which he claims read 1:10 when he arrived, was 5 minutes slow.
If that's true, and the shooting took place at 1:14, what in the world was Helen Markham still doing there, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15?
-
What makes you think that the Hertz clock showed the "real" time?
Was the clock in the dispatch room accurate at 12:30 and somehow very inaccurate by 1:17?
Which clock are you talking about? There were several in the dispatch room and DPD supervisor Bowles has explained clearly what the problems with those clocks and time stamps were in relation to "real time".
The whole idea that the police tapes were off by as much as 6 minutes is complete nonsense.
The police tapes were not off. They merely recorded what was said over the radio. Too bad there was a (several minutes?) break in the recording starting at around 1.12!
Therefore, Bowley arrived around 1:15/1:16. His 1960's era windup wristwatch, which he claims read 1:10 when he arrived, was 5 minutes slow.
If that's true, and the shooting took place at 1:14, what in the world was Helen Markham still doing there, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15?
If there was ever a topic posted that was aimed at a specific member of the forum it has to be this one for you.
This was a topic I had a go at myself but with limited results. I remember you made a compelling argument for the various timings but it was never really resolved before being derailed.
I also remember you and Bill had a bit of a head-to-head and, a little bit to my surprise I must confess, I felt you came out on top.
I'd like to chip in, if I may, with a comment about "real time".
As I understand it, Bill is not talking about some universally agreed standard of that particular day, which is why he has it in speech marks.
Bowles' reference to "real" time, whatever that may mean, is not what I believe Bill is talking about.
He would be better off calling it something like " Non-Police Time", which is a reference to the timings of events that are happening in the real world. (I could be completely wrong about this).
I'm assuming the point he is making is that "Police Time", the time recorded in the police transmissions, can be synched with "Non-Police Time", events in the real world.
Whether both of these things are Real Time is not the issue.
He notes that the Hertz clock (Non-Police Time) records the assassination at 12:30pm.
He then notes that recorded time on the radio transmissions (Police Time) at the time of the assassination is also 12:30pm.
So these two times are synched.
It must be noted that Dave Powers recalled it was 12:30pm just before the first shot rang out (Non-Police Time).
And Greer testified that Kellerman simply said "12:30" (Non-Police Time) as they entered the Underpass.
Here we have three independent, corroborating sources that confirm the timings of events in Dealey Plaza (Non-Police Time) were synched with the timing given out on the radio transmissions (Police Time).
It has nothing to do with some absolute or philosophical "Real Time".
If it can be shown that Police Time and Non-police Time are in perfect synch then a radio transmission at 12:30pm refers to a real world event that happened at 12:30pm. A radio transmission at 1:00pm refers to a real world event that happened at 1:00pm.
Unless, of course, the timings given are false or reconstructed in any way.
Or if the clock system in the Dispatchers Office, from which Police Time comes, is faulty.
Bill's point seems to be that Police Time and Non-Police Time are perfectly in synch at 12:30pm but that by the time it comes to the murder of Tippit, a six minute discrepancy has crept in between these two Times throwing them completely out of synch.
Bowles refers to such a possibility but is it a credible possibility?
On the flip side, I remember you had a matrix of interlocking evidence that pointed very strongly to this being the case. It was a compelling argument.
In my opinion, it would be good to thrash this issue out as, for me anyway, something about it wasn't quite resolved either way.
All that said, I might be completely misrepresenting where Bill is coming from and I should keep my big bazoo out of it.
-
What makes you think that the Hertz clock showed the "real" time?
Was the clock in the dispatch room accurate at 12:30 and somehow very inaccurate by 1:17?
Which clock are you talking about? There were several in the dispatch room and DPD supervisor Bowles has explained clearly what the problems with those clocks and time stamps were in relation to "real time".
The whole idea that the police tapes were off by as much as 6 minutes is complete nonsense.
The police tapes were not off. They merely recorded what was said over the radio. Too bad there was a (several minutes?) break in the recording starting at around 1.12!
Therefore, Bowley arrived around 1:15/1:16. His 1960's era windup wristwatch, which he claims read 1:10 when he arrived, was 5 minutes slow.
If that's true, and the shooting took place at 1:14, what in the world was Helen Markham still doing there, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15?
What makes you think that the Hertz clock showed the "real" time?
Unless you're going to argue that the Hertz clock was off by as much as six minutes, what's your point?
Which clock are you talking about? There were several in the dispatch room and DPD supervisor Bowles has explained clearly what the problems with those clocks and time stamps were in relation to "real time".
Bowles does indeed explain and nowhere in his explanation does he hint that the clock(s) could be off by as much as six minutes. That would be nonsense.
In fact, here is what Bowles had to say:
"Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done."
If that's true, and the shooting took place at 1:14, what in the world was Helen Markham still doing there, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15?
Markham told Ball that she "got her bus" at 1:15. Since there was no 1:15 bus, It's my opinion that she gets to the bus stop around 1:15 in order to catch the 1:22 bus. If that is true, then it's perfectly reasonable that she's standing on the corner of Tenth and Patton (one block from her bus stop) at 1:14.
-
If there was ever a topic posted that was aimed at a specific member of the forum it has to be this one for you.
This was a topic I had a go at myself but with limited results. I remember you made a compelling argument for the various timings but it was never really resolved before being derailed.
I also remember you and Bill had a bit of a head-to-head and, a little bit to my surprise I must confess, I felt you came out on top.
I'd like to chip in, if I may, with a comment about "real time".
As I understand it, Bill is not talking about some universally agreed standard of that particular day, which is why he has it in speech marks.
Bowles' reference to "real" time, whatever that may mean, is not what I believe Bill is talking about.
He would be better off calling it something like " Non-Police Time", which is a reference to the timings of events that are happening in the real world. (I could be completely wrong about this).
I'm assuming the point he is making is that "Police Time", the time recorded in the police transmissions, can be synched with "Non-Police Time", events in the real world.
Whether both of these things are Real Time is not the issue.
He notes that the Hertz clock (Non-Police Time) records the assassination at 12:30pm.
He then notes that recorded time on the radio transmissions (Police Time) at the time of the assassination is also 12:30pm.
So these two times are synched.
It must be noted that Dave Powers recalled it was 12:30pm just before the first shot rang out (Non-Police Time).
And Greer testified that Kellerman simply said "12:30" (Non-Police Time) as they entered the Underpass.
Here we have three independent, corroborating sources that confirm the timings of events in Dealey Plaza (Non-Police Time) were synched with the timing given out on the radio transmissions (Police Time).
It has nothing to do with some absolute or philosophical "Real Time".
If it can be shown that Police Time and Non-police Time are in perfect synch then a radio transmission at 12:30pm refers to a real world event that happened at 12:30pm. A radio transmission at 1:00pm refers to a real world event that happened at 1:00pm.
Unless, of course, the timings given are false or reconstructed in any way.
Or if the clock system in the Dispatchers Office, from which Police Time comes, is faulty.
Bill's point seems to be that Police Time and Non-Police Time are perfectly in synch at 12:30pm but that by the time it comes to the murder of Tippit, a six minute discrepancy has crept in between these two Times throwing them completely out of synch.
Bowles refers to such a possibility but is it a credible possibility?
On the flip side, I remember you had a matrix of interlocking evidence that pointed very strongly to this being the case. It was a compelling argument.
In my opinion, it would be good to thrash this issue out as, for me anyway, something about it wasn't quite resolved either way.
All that said, I might be completely misrepresenting where Bill is coming from and I should keep my big bazoo out of it.
I also remember you and Bill had a bit of a head-to-head and, a little bit to my surprise I must confess, I felt you came out on top.
This was over whether or not Ted Callaway got on the police radio to report the shooting before or after helping to load the body into the ambulance. It really has no bearing on anything important either way, it's just something Weidmann and I were going back and forth on. Having said that, if I was wrong (which I wasn't), then both Vince Bugliosi and Dale Meyers agree with my take and are also wrong. Could they both be wrong, too? Of course. Are they? No.
What I remember the most from all of that was that Martin challenged me to a debate on the Tippit case and when I accepted (telling him we could do a Skype/Youtube debate any time he felt ready), he declined.
-
Unless you're going to argue that the Hertz clock was off by as much as six minutes, what's your point?
Bowles does indeed explain and nowhere in his explanation does he hint that the clock(s) could be off by as much as six minutes. That would be nonsense.
In fact, here is what Bowles had to say:
"Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done."
Markham told Ball that she "got her bus" at 1:15. Since there was no 1:15 bus, It's my opinion that she gets to the bus stop around 1:15 in order to catch the 1:22 bus. If that is true, then it's perfectly reasonable that she's standing on the corner of Tenth and Patton (one block from her bus stop) at 1:14.
Unless you're going to argue that the Hertz clock was off by as much as six minutes, what's your point?
Isn't it your implicit point that the Hertz clock was absolutely correct? If not, what's the point you're trying to make?
Bowles does indeed explain and nowhere in his explanation does he hint that the clock(s) could be off by as much as six minutes. That would be nonsense.
In fact, here is what Bowles had to say:
"Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done."
Bowles had a lot more to say than that. This only concerns the time stamps called out by the operator. Clocks used by the operators could differ from eachother and time stamps being called could be out of synch during heavy radio traffic. So, this alone allows for a difference in time between "real" time and the time stamps. But that's not all Bowles said. I have to paraphrase, but IIRC he also said that the clocks used by the operators were not in synch with the master clock used at the police station, which in turn was not in synch with the main clock used for determining "real time", located elsewhere (can't remember where exactly). There are so many variable elements that it would be nonsense to claim that the clocks used by the operators and/or the time stamps on the recordings can be relied upon. I would have to dig up my research on that subject, to be precise, but I do recall off hand that at a particular moment only 49 seconds elapsed between two time stamp calls by the operators, which off course is utterly impossible if the entire timing system was precise.
Markham told Ball that she "got her bus" at 1:15. Since there was no 1:15 bus, It's my opinion that she gets to the bus stop around 1:15 in order to catch the 1:22 bus. If that is true, then it's perfectly reasonable that she's standing on the corner of Tenth and Patton (one block from her bus stop) at 1:14.
It doesn't matter that there was no bus scheduled at exactly 1:15. The schedule showed a bus at 1:12 and one at 1:22. Markham could have taken either a delayed 1:12 bus or the next one at 1:22. The main point is that either way, she said she got her bus at 1:15, which means she would have had to have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at that time. As she would have needed to walk one more block from 10th street to Jefferson to get there by 1:15, there is no reasonable way that she would still have been at 10th/Patton at 1:14. Even less so, as she said she left home at 1 to make a phone call and then started walking down Patton at around 1:06 or 1:07.... A three minute walk would have gotten here to the corner of 10th and Patton by 1:09 or 1:10 at the latest. It just doesn't add up.
And the same goes for Bowley's trip from the school where he picked up his daughter to 10th street where he arrived just after the shooting. I have driven the route he took myself several times and it never took longer than 13 minutes, yet you seem to believe it must have taken him 17 minutes..... now, that's nonsense
-
This was over whether or not Ted Callaway got on the police radio to report the shooting before or after helping to load the body into the ambulance. It really has no bearing on anything important either way, it's just something Weidmann and I were going back and forth on. Having said that, if I was wrong (which I wasn't), then both Vince Bugliosi and Dale Meyers agree with my take and are also wrong. Could they both be wrong, too? Of course. Are they? No.
What I remember the most from all of that was that Martin challenged me to a debate on the Tippit case and when I accepted (telling him we could do a Skype/Youtube debate any time he felt ready), he declined.
Stop trying to rewrite history. I already know that you will never admit to being wrong about anything, even though you keep claiming falsely that you would admit being wrong if proven so.
And no appeal to "authority" will help you either. That - as you claim - Bugliosi and Meyers agree with you, does not mean you were right. It only means they - like you - have an agenda and were wrong also as the facts are obvious and against you.
-
Unless you're going to argue that the Hertz clock was off by as much as six minutes, what's your point?
Isn't it your implicit point that the Hertz clock was absolutely correct? If not, what's the point you're trying to make?
Bowles does indeed explain and nowhere in his explanation does he hint that the clock(s) could be off by as much as six minutes. That would be nonsense.
In fact, here is what Bowles had to say:
"Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done."
Bowles had a lot more to say than that. This only concerns the time stamps called out by the operator. Clocks used by the operators could differ from eachother and time stamps being called could be out of synch during heavy radio traffic. So, this alone allows for a difference in time between "real" time and the time stamps. But that's not all Bowles said. I have to paraphrase, but IIRC he also said that the clocks used by the operators were not in synch with the master clock used at the police station, which in turn was not in synch with the main clock used for determining "real time", located elsewhere (can't remember where exactly). There are so many variable elements that it would be nonsense to claim that the clocks used by the operators and/or the time stamps on the recordings can be relied upon. I would have to dig up my research on that subject, to be precise, but I do recall off hand that at a particular moment only 49 seconds elapsed between two time stamp calls by the operators, which off course is utterly impossible if the entire timing system was precise.
Markham told Ball that she "got her bus" at 1:15. Since there was no 1:15 bus, It's my opinion that she gets to the bus stop around 1:15 in order to catch the 1:22 bus. If that is true, then it's perfectly reasonable that she's standing on the corner of Tenth and Patton (one block from her bus stop) at 1:14.
It doesn't matter that there was no bus scheduled at exactly 1:15. The schedule showed a bus at 1:12 and one at 1:22. Markham could have taken either a delayed 1:12 bus or the next one at 1:22. The main point is that either way, she said she got her bus at 1:15, which means she would have had to have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at that time. As she would have needed to walk one more block from 10th street to Jefferson to get there by 1:15, there is no reasonable way that she would still have been at 10th/Patton at 1:14. Even less so, as she said she left home at 1 to make a phone call and then started walking down Patton at around 1:06 or 1:07.... A three minute walk would have gotten here to the corner of 10th and Patton by 1:09 or 1:10 at the latest. It just doesn't add up.
And the same goes for Bowley's trip from the school where he picked up his daughter to 10th street where he arrived just after the shooting. I have driven the route he took myself several times and it never took longer than 13 minutes, yet you seem to believe it must have taken him 17 minutes..... now, that's nonsense
Isn't it your implicit point that the Hertz clock was absolutely correct? If not, what's the point you're trying to make?
My point should be obvious. The Hertz clock needs to be off by six or seven minutes in order for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
Bowles had a lot more to say than that. This only concerns the time stamps called out by the operator. Clocks used by the operators could differ from eachother and time stamps being called could be out of synch during heavy radio traffic. So, this alone allows for a difference in time between "real" time and the time stamps. But that's not all Bowles said. I have to paraphrase, but IIRC he also said that the clocks used by the operators were not in synch with the master clock used at the police station, which in turn was not in synch with the main clock used for determining "real time", located elsewhere (can't remember where exactly). There are so many variable elements that it would be nonsense to claim that the clocks used by the operators and/or the time stamps on the recordings can be relied upon. I would have to dig up my research on that subject, to be precise, but I do recall off hand that at a particular moment only 49 seconds elapsed between two time stamp calls by the operators, which off course is utterly impossible if the entire timing system was precise.
But... and this is the important part... Bowles never says anything even remotely close to the idea that the clocks could be six or seven minutes apart/off, which is what is required for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
It doesn't matter that there was no bus scheduled at exactly 1:15. The schedule showed a bus at 1:12 and one at 1:22. Markham could have taken either a delayed 1:12 bus or the next one at 1:22. The main point is that either way, she said she got her bus at 1:15, which means she would have had to have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at that time. As she would have needed to walk one more block from 10th street to Jefferson to get there by 1:15, there is no reasonable way that she would still have been at 10th/Patton at 1:14. Even less so, as she said she left home at 1 to make a phone call and then started walking down Patton at around 1:06 or 1:07.... A three minute walk would have gotten here to the corner of 10th and Patton by 1:09 or 1:10 at the latest. It just doesn't add up.
No matter how you spin it, it is perfectly reasonable for one to be a block from the bus stop (on their way to that stop) eight minutes (1:14) before the bus is to arrive (1:22).
-
Stop trying to rewrite history. I already know that you will never admit to being wrong about anything, even though you keep claiming falsely that you would admit being wrong if proven so.
And no appeal to "authority" will help you either. That - as you claim - Bugliosi and Meyers agree with you, does not mean you were right. It only means they - like you - have an agenda and were wrong also as the facts are obvious and against you.
No Sir. The audio of the actual police tapes tells you that I was right, re: Callaway's call and how it relates to the ambulance pulling away, etc...
Prove me wrong and I will easily admit it. I have before. Your issue is that you haven't shown where I was wrong about anything.
-
No Sir. The audio of the actual police tapes tells you that I was right, re: Callaway's call and how it relates to the ambulance pulling away, etc...
Prove me wrong and I will easily admit it. I have before. Your issue is that you haven't shown where I was wrong about anything.
Your issue is that you haven't shown where I was wrong about anything.
You have been proven wrong and now you have proven that my statement about you never admitting being wrong is correct Thumb1:
Btw, you have never ever proven the claim you made about Callaway. All you have done is claim you are right and ask to be proven wrong. "
It's the typical LN mantra "I am right unless you prove me wrong, but you can't prove me wrong because I am right. So sad!
-
Your issue is that you haven't shown where I was wrong about anything.
You have been proven wrong and now you have proven that my statement about you never admitting being wrong is correct Thumb1:
Btw, you have never ever proven the claim you made about Callaway. All you have done is claim you are right and ask to be proven wrong. "
It's the typical LN mantra "I am right unless you prove me wrong, but you can't prove me wrong because I am right. So sad!
Again, the audio of the actual police tapes tells you that I was right, re: Callaway's call and how it relates to the ambulance pulling away, etc...
-
My point should be obvious. The Hertz clock needs to be off by six or seven minutes in order for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
But... and this is the important part... Bowles never says anything even remotely close to the idea that the clocks could be six or seven minutes apart/off, which is what is required for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
No matter how you spin it, it is perfectly reasonable for one to be a block from the bus stop (on their way to that stop) eight minutes (1:14) before the bus is to arrive (1:22).
My point should be obvious. The Hertz clock needs to be off by six or seven minutes in order for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
No. It could be the Hertz clock by itself was (for example) two minutes off, already making the DPD time stamps two minutes wrong at the time of the Kennedy shooting.
Add the comments by Bowles about no adjustments being made at busy time makes it realistically possible that the time discrepancy grew bigger during the hour after Kennedy being shot.
But... and this is the important part... Bowles never says anything even remotely close to the idea that the clocks could be six or seven minutes apart/off, which is what is required for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
Again, what clocks are you talking about? It is true that Bowles never said that any one particular clock could be six or seven minutes off, but he did point out that individual clocks had margins of error which of course could end up to a 6 or 7 minute difference in total. Why are you cherry picking the evidence?
No matter how you spin it, it is perfectly reasonable for one to be a block from the bus stop (on their way to that stop) eight minutes (1:14) before the bus is to arrive (1:22).
Yes, that's perfectly reasonable when you believe you get on the bus at 1:22.
But that's not what Markham believed. She said she got her bus (either a delayed 1:12 or 1:22) at 1:15, which means that in her mind she needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15, making it utterly unreasonable to believe she would still be one block away from the bus stop at 1:14. Even less so, as she claimed she started walking to the bus stop at 1:06 or 1:07. A three minute walk (which means walking really slow) would have gotten her to 10th and Patton at 1:10 at the latest. So why would she still be there at 1:14? Can you explain that?
-
Again, the audio of the actual police tapes tells you that I was right, re: Callaway's call and how it relates to the ambulance pulling away, etc...
You can make the same claim a 1000 times more and still you will not be correct. What you believe is not evidence!
As I proved conclusively in our mini-debate is that the ambulance driver tried to make two calls to the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police officer.
This happened before Tippit was lifted into the ambulance.
You mistakenly claimed that one of those two calls was made to inform the dispatcher that the ambulance was leaving.
The ambulance driver, Butler, confirmed that you were wrong in the Nash interview.
-
My point should be obvious. The Hertz clock needs to be off by six or seven minutes in order for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
No. It could be the Hertz clock by itself was (for example) two minutes off, already making the DPD time stamps two minutes wrong at the time of the Kennedy shooting.
Add the comments by Bowles about no adjustments being made at busy time makes it realistically possible that the time discrepancy grew bigger during the hour after Kennedy being shot.
But... and this is the important part... Bowles never says anything even remotely close to the idea that the clocks could be six or seven minutes apart/off, which is what is required for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
Again, what clocks are you talking about? It is true that Bowles never said that any one particular clock could be six or seven minutes off, but he did point out that individual clocks had margins of error which of course could end up to a 6 or 7 minute difference in total. Why are you cherry picking the evidence?
No matter how you spin it, it is perfectly reasonable for one to be a block from the bus stop (on their way to that stop) eight minutes (1:14) before the bus is to arrive (1:22).
Yes, that's perfectly reasonable when you believe you get on the bus at 1:22.
But that's not what Markham believed. She said she got her bus (either a delayed 1:12 or 1:22) at 1:15, which means that in her mind she needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15, making it utterly unreasonable to believe she would still be one block away from the bus stop at 1:14. Even less so, as she claimed she started walking to the bus stop at 1:06 or 1:07. A three minute walk (which means walking really slow) would have gotten her to 10th and Patton at 1:10 at the latest. So why would she still be there at 1:14? Can you explain that?
My point should be obvious. The Hertz clock needs to be off by six or seven minutes in order for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
No. It could be the Hertz clock by itself was (for example) two minutes off, already making the DPD time stamps two minutes wrong at the time of the Kennedy shooting.
"Could be" LOL
But... and this is the important part... Bowles never says anything even remotely close to the idea that the clocks could be six or seven minutes apart/off, which is what is required for the Tippit shooting to have taken place before 1:10.
Again, what clocks are you talking about? It is true that Bowles never said that any one particular clock could be six or seven minutes off, but he did point out that individual clocks had margins of error which of course could end up to a 6 or 7 minute difference in total.
Six or seven minutes difference in total? No. Bowles pointed out no such "margins of error". You're just making stuff up or you've completely forgotten just what it was that Bowles said. Yes, perhaps you need to go "dig it up" and read it again.
No matter how you spin it, it is perfectly reasonable for one to be a block from the bus stop (on their way to that stop) eight minutes (1:14) before the bus is to arrive (1:22).
Yes, that's perfectly reasonable when you believe you get on the bus at 1:22.
But that's not what Markham believed. She said she got her bus (either a delayed 1:12 or 1:22) at 1:15, which means that in her mind she needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:15, making it utterly unreasonable to believe she would still be one block away from the bus stop at 1:14. Even less so, as she claimed she started walking to the bus stop at 1:06 or 1:07. A three minute walk (which means walking really slow) would have gotten her to 10th and Patton at 1:10 at the latest. So why would she still be there at 1:14? Can you explain that?
Ball basically asked Markham what time do you "get your bus". A strange way to ask a question. We can't know how Markham perceived that non-descript question and therefore we cannot know what she meant by her answer. She replied "1:15". Since there was no 1:15 bus and she would regularly miss her bus if she gets to the bus stop at 1:15 to catch the 1:12 bus, I am left to conclude that she regularly caught the 1:22 bus, getting there around 1:15. If my conclusion is correct, then it's reasonable that she's still one block away (at Tenth and Patton) at 1:14.
As for her estimate that she left her apartment at 1:07ish, the police tapes, combined with the descriptions and actions of MANY other witnesses, tell me that she left her apartment later than that.
You see, I'll take hard physical evidence (the police tapes) over a lady's estimate of when it was that she left her apartment.
You have no proof that Markham left her apartment around 1:07, only her claim. On the other hand, the police tapes, combined with the actions of other witnesses, suggest that she left her apartment 5 minutes later.
-
You can make the same claim a 1000 times more and still you will not be correct. What you believe is not evidence!
As I proved conclusively in our mini-debate is that the ambulance driver tried to make two calls to the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police officer.
This happened before Tippit was lifted into the ambulance.
You mistakenly claimed that one of those two calls was made to inform the dispatcher that the ambulance was leaving.
The ambulance driver, Butler, confirmed that you were wrong in the Nash interview.
You can make the same claim a 1,000 times more and still you will not be correct. The police tapes themselves tell you everything you need to know, re: whether or not Callaway helped load the body before or after his call. Same holds true for J.C. Butler.
-
"Could be" LOL
Six or seven minutes difference in total? No. Bowles pointed out no such "margins of error". You're just making stuff up or you've completely forgotten just what it was that Bowles said. Yes, perhaps you need to go "dig it up" and read it again.
Ball basically asked Markham what time do you "get your bus". A strange way to ask a question. We can't know how Markham perceived that non-descript question and therefore we cannot know what she meant by her answer. She replied "1:15". Since there was no 1:15 bus and she would regularly miss her bus if she gets to the bus stop at 1:15 to catch the 1:12 bus, I am left to conclude that she regularly caught the 1:22 bus, getting there around 1:15. If my conclusion is correct, then it's reasonable that she's still one block away (at Tenth and Patton) at 1:14.
As for her estimate that she left her apartment at 1:07ish, the police tapes, combined with the descriptions and actions of MANY other witnesses, tell me that she left her apartment later than that.
You see, I'll take hard physical evidence (the police tapes) over a lady's estimate of when it was that she left her apartment.
You have no proof that Markham left her apartment around 1:07, only her claim. On the other hand, the police tapes, combined with the actions of other witnesses, suggest that she left her apartment 5 minutes later.
"Could be" LOL
Are you claiming the Hertz clock could not be off by a couple of minutes? You seem hesitant to claim it displayed the absolutely correct time. Why is that? Are you not so sure of yourself as you pretend to be?
Six or seven minutes difference in total? No. Bowles pointed out no such "margins of error". You're just making stuff up or you've completely forgotten just what it was that Bowles said. Yes, perhaps you need to go "dig it up" and read it again.
Stop being patronizing. It doesn't impress. Who said that Bowles pointed out such "margin of error"? You are misrepresenting what I said. Never a good sign if you want to convince anybody.
Funny enough, you seem to feel that the DPD time stamps could not have been 6 or 7 minutes wrong, but at the same time you suggest that Bowley's watch was wrong by that same margin, without providing a shred of evidence for it.
Even worse, you simply ignore the time needed by Bowles to get from the school where he picked up his daughter to 10th street. Very weak indeed.
Ball basically asked Markham what time do you "get your bus". A strange way to ask a question. We can't know how Markham perceived that non-descript question and therefore we cannot know what she meant by her answer. She replied "1:15". Since there was no 1:15 bus and she would regularly miss her bus if she gets to the bus stop at 1:15 to catch the 1:12 bus, I am left to conclude that she regularly caught the 1:22 bus, getting there around 1:15. If my conclusion is correct, then it's reasonable that she's still one block away (at Tenth and Patton) at 1:14.
Oh boy... and you complain about spinning the evidence? Hilarious! First of all, you seem to be claiming that the buses always drove on time and exactly according to their schedule. Without that, your entire argument is moot.
Markham said she got her bus at 1:15 and that means that in her mind she must have been at Jefferson at that time. Period. Your conclusion is based on selfserving flawed arguments and as such worthless.
As for her estimate that she left her apartment at 1:07ish,
1:07ish? Where exactly did she say that?
the police tapes, combined with the descriptions and actions of MANY other witnesses, tell me that she left her apartment later than that.
There are no police tapes or witness statements that tell you anything about the time Markham left her apartment. None whatsoever. You just made it up, because you don't like what Markham actually said.
You see, I'll take hard physical evidence (the police tapes) over a lady's estimate of when it was that she left her apartment.
Say what? Oh boy, the quality of your silly claims is going downhill fast.
You have no proof that Markham left her apartment around 1:07, only her claim.
The witness' statement under oath is evidence and proof. But I can understand why you don't like that.
On the other hand, the police tapes, combined with the actions of other witnesses, suggest that she left her apartment 5 minutes later.
Ok, I'll play. Pray tell, where do these tapes and witnesses make that suggestion?
-
You can make the same claim a 1,000 times more and still you will not be correct. The police tapes themselves tell you everything you need to know, re: whether or not Callaway helped load the body before or after his call. Same holds true for J.C. Butler.
Ok, now we are just going round and round. Why don't you explain in detail how the police tapes and Butler tell me everything I need to know?
Making grand statements without backing them up with actual evidence is a pretty meaningless exercise.
-
Ok, now we are just going round and round. Why don't you explain in detail how the police tapes and Butler tell me everything I need to know?
Making grand statements without backing them up with actual evidence is a pretty meaningless exercise.
I supported my statements, over and over again, in the mini-debate thread. Go look.
-
I supported my statements, over and over again, in the mini-debate thread. Go look.
If that was all you've got, you've got nothing but assumptions and opinions.
But I fully understand why you don't want to go into the details again.
All you are doing is confirming time after time that you are incapable of even accepting evidence that shows you were and are wrong. But, hey that's what I expected anyway, so no worries.
-
If that was all you've got, you've got nothing but assumptions and opinions.
But I fully understand why you don't want to go into the details again.
All you are doing is confirming time after time that you are incapable of even accepting evidence that shows you were and are wrong. But, hey that's what I expected anyway, so no worries.
You can make the same claim a 1,000 times more and still you will not be correct.
All anyone has to do, if they wish, is go have a look at that thread. I stand by EVERY thing I said there.
If you feel you've proven me wrong, then why not debate me live either thru Skype or Youtube this week? I know a few legitimate guys who would be happy to host it.
-
You can make the same claim a 1,000 times more and still you will not be correct.
All anyone has to do, if they wish, is go have a look at that thread. I stand by EVERY thing I said there.
If you feel you've proven me wrong, then why not debate me live either thru Skype or Youtube this week? I know a few legitimate guys who would be happy to host it.
why not debate me live either thru Skype or Youtube this week?
And do what exactly? Do you propose to repeat the same flawed claims and expect another outcome, or do you have anything more than what you claimed and said in the mini-debate?
I don't have anything more, but I also don't need anymore as the facts are obvious and against you. But, as stated earlier, you will never accept that, so what would be the point in going over the same information?
This wouldn't be a case of you simply not being able to get over having been proven wrong, would it?
-
why not debate me live either thru Skype or Youtube this week?
And do what exactly? Do you propose to repeat the same flawed claims and expect another outcome, or do you have anything more than what you claimed and said in the mini-debate?
I don't have anything more, but I also don't need anymore as the facts are obvious and against you. But, as stated earlier, you will never accept that, so what would be the point in going over the same information?
This wouldn't be a case of you simply not being able to get over having been proven wrong, would it?
How can I be any more clear? Let's debate the shooting death of J.D. Tippit and Oswald's relationship to that death. The entire case, Callaway, Butler, loading the body and everything else. You'd be worthy, unlike someone like Iacoletti who would spend the entire debate saying things like "Oswald's gun LOL". I know you'd at least discuss the case, which I can respect.
You.
Me.
Tippit.
Oswald.
Youtube.
Skype.
This week.
Next week.
Recorded live and then posted here for all to listen to.
Cool?
-
Mr. Benavides: No; afterward. You know, I told your---I told him, he asked me when we went, when Ted Callaway got around there, he opened the car door and picked up the phone and called in and told them there was an officer that had been killed. But the officer on the other side of the radio told him to hang up the phone to keep the lines clear, or something of that sort.
Then he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened, and I said yes. And he said let's chase him, and I said no.
Mr. Belin: Why did you say "No"?
Mr. Benavides: Well, he was reaching down and getting the gun out of the policeman's hand, and I didn't think he should bother to go like that. So he then turned around and went to the cab that was sitting on the corner.
According to Benevides, Tippit was still lying in the road after Callaway had made his call.
-
Mr. Benavides: No; afterward. You know, I told your---I told him, he asked me when we went, when Ted Callaway got around there, he opened the car door and picked up the phone and called in and told them there was an officer that had been killed. But the officer on the other side of the radio told him to hang up the phone to keep the lines clear, or something of that sort.
Then he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened, and I said yes. And he said let's chase him, and I said no.
Mr. Belin: Why did you say "No"?
Mr. Benavides: Well, he was reaching down and getting the gun out of the policeman's hand, and I didn't think he should bother to go like that. So he then turned around and went to the cab that was sitting on the corner.
According to Benevides, Tippit was still lying in the road after Callaway had made his call.
Yes. I sent John Mytton a private message on what Benavides had said way back when Weidmann and I were participating in the mini-debate thread. I was wondering if Weidmann was ever going to bring up what Benavides said but he never did.
However, the police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
-
Yes. I sent John Mytton a private message on what Benavides had said way back when Weidmann and I were participating in the mini-debate thread. I was wondering if Weidmann was ever going to bring up what Benavides said but he never did.
However, the police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
According to Callaway, Tippit was loaded into the ambulance after he made the call.
According to Benevides, Tippit was loaded into the ambulance after Callaway made the call.
And it would appear that Scoggins testifies to the same thing:
Mr. Scoggins: And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if we can find him."
Mr. Belin: Mr. Scoggins, I started to ask you about the revolver of the policeman when you came and saw him. This was in his holster or on the street?
Mr. Scoggins: It was on the street whenever I saw it.
Mr. Belin: Do you know where it was with relation to the policeman's body?
Mr. Scoggins: It was there pretty close to his body, you know, like kind of under his body when they picked him up. It either fell out of his holster or was laying on the ground, one, I don't know which.
Mr. Belin: What did you see him do? This man came up and picked up the policeman's gun. He picked it up and said, "Let's go see if we can find him?"
Although he doesn't know Callaway's name Scoggins testifies to the same sequence - he makes the call, after which he picks up the pistol from where Tippit is still lying.
...the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
This is simply not true. The tapes tell us no such thing. This is something you have completely made up.
Below is a copy of the relevant transcript of the tapes. The ambulance calls (602) are picked out with red stars.
Both calls are just the call numbers of the ambulance - 602
There is nothing else.
You have assigned your own meaning to them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCPrZKZB/Tapes1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The bottom line is that all the key witnesses report the call being made before the body is removed and the tapes reveal nothing other than your own unsupported interpretation.
These two 602 calls are best explained by the ambulance driver, Butler. After realising it was a police officer lying in the street, Butler returned to his ambulance and tried to call in that the victim was a police officer but couldn't get through (because Callaway was in the process of making his call).
Butler's explanation can be found in this article:
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Support_from_center/The_other_witnesses--Nashes.html
After reading through how you approached the mini-debate I do not expect any amount of evidence to change your mind about this aspect of the case and, to be quite frank, I couldn't care less. What I'd like to know is, what was the point of the mini-debate? Was it just about point-scoring over some trivial detail?
-
According to Callaway, Tippit was loaded into the ambulance after he made the call.
According to Benevides, Tippit was loaded into the ambulance after Callaway made the call.
And it would appear that Scoggins testifies to the same thing:
Mr. Scoggins: And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if we can find him."
Mr. Belin: Mr. Scoggins, I started to ask you about the revolver of the policeman when you came and saw him. This was in his holster or on the street?
Mr. Scoggins: It was on the street whenever I saw it.
Mr. Belin: Do you know where it was with relation to the policeman's body?
Mr. Scoggins: It was there pretty close to his body, you know, like kind of under his body when they picked him up. It either fell out of his holster or was laying on the ground, one, I don't know which.
Mr. Belin: What did you see him do? This man came up and picked up the policeman's gun. He picked it up and said, "Let's go see if we can find him?"
Although he doesn't know Callaway's name Scoggins testifies to the same sequence - he makes the call, after which he picks up the pistol from where Tippit is still lying.
...the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
This is simply not true. The tapes tell us no such thing. This is something you have completely made up.
Below is a copy of the relevant transcript of the tapes. The ambulance calls (602) are picked out with red stars.
Both calls are just the call numbers of the ambulance - 602
There is nothing else.
You have assigned your own meaning to them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCPrZKZB/Tapes1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The bottom line is that all the key witnesses report the call being made before the body is removed and the tapes reveal nothing other than your own unsupported interpretation.
These two 602 calls are best explained by the ambulance driver, Butler. After realising it was a police officer lying in the street, Butler returned to his ambulance and tried to call in that the victim was a police officer but couldn't get through (because Callaway was in the process of making his call).
Butler's explanation can be found in this article:
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Support_from_center/The_other_witnesses--Nashes.html
After reading through how you approached the mini-debate I do not expect any amount of evidence to change your mind about this aspect of the case and, to be quite frank, I couldn't care less. What I'd like to know is, what was the point of the mini-debate? Was it just about point-scoring over some trivial detail?
Dan, you're simply incorrect about Scoggins. Read what he said again.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air. Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer. Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
-
Dan, you're simply incorrect about Scoggins. Read what he said again.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air. Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer. Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
;)
As I said Bill, no amount of evidence was ever going to change you're mind.
A couple of things:
What was the point of the debate about Callaway? What difference does it make whether he called in before or after the body was removed?
When you write things like this - "That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital." - do you know you're just making up what you believe it means? You do realise that you are just plucking this interpretation of what the "602" means out of thin air?
-
Examining the transcripts of the DPD tapes, there's something I find very unusual.
Between 12:54pm and 1:09pm on channel 2 there are hardly any transmissions:
Chism asks for a squad to pick up some blood.
Souter asks for info on JFK and JBC's condition.
And that's basically it.
More or less, for 15 minutes there appears to be radio silence.
I find this almost inconceivable.
Are there transmissions at this time that aren't recorded in the transcripts?
These are the transcripts I'm using:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
-
;)
As I said Bill, no amount of evidence was ever going to change you're mind.
A couple of things:
What was the point of the debate about Callaway? What difference does it make whether he called in before or after the body was removed?
When you write things like this - "That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital." - do you know you're just making up what you believe it means? You do realise that you are just plucking this interpretation of what the "602" means out of thin air?
Do you at least understand that you're wrong to say that Scoggins is a witness to use in favor of Weidmann's argument that Callaway first made the radio call and then helped load the body? It's very clear that Scoggins says the opposite of what you tried to use him for above.
As for the purpose of the argument over whether or not Callaway helped load the body first or got on the radio first, it's only relevant when trying to determine a timeline related to how soon Callaway was on the radio after hearing the shots. Interestingly, if Weidmann is right (he isn't), then it helps my timeline in determining that the shooting of Tippit occurred at 1:14/1:15 versus earlier.
It's not a huge point either way, it's just something Weidmann and I were discussing and we decided to both have a go at it.
In all honesty, I don't really wish to rehash this tired old argument, anyway.
This thread is about Bowley and if he really arrived at 1:10.
-
Do you at least understand that you're wrong to say that Scoggins is a witness to use in favor of Weidmann's argument that Callaway first made the radio call and then helped load the body? It's very clear that Scoggins says the opposite of what you tried to use him for above.
You're 100% wrong about Scoggins. You don't present the full part of his testimony dealing with this issue whereas I do.
He is absolutely clear that Callaway makes his call and then picks the gun up:
"...there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground..."
I don't understand how you're interpreting this any other way.
Also, I don't think it's helpful to examine each testimony in isolation. It's clear Callaway, Benevides and Scoggins are all talking about the same event and they all corroborate each other.
Not that this will sway you in any way.
As for the purpose of the argument over whether or not Callaway helped load the body first or got on the radio first, it's only relevant when trying to determine a timeline related to how soon Callaway was on the radio after hearing the shots. Interestingly, if Weidmann is right (he isn't), then it helps my timeline in determining that the shooting of Tippit occurred at 1:14/1:15 versus earlier.
I was kind of thinking that Martin's point was better for a shooting at 1:14/1:15 and yours would have left too much time to fill in.
That was really confusing me.
It's not a huge point either way, it's just something Weidmann and I were discussing and we decided to both have a go at it.
In all honesty, I don't really wish to rehash this tired old argument, anyway.
This thread is about Bowley and if he really arrived at 1:10.
I personally think only way this issue will be resolved is if it can be shown definitively that the tapes have been falsified.
I agree with the OP, that the Hertz clock is synched with the dispatchers clock on Channel 2.
I think this means the dispatchers clock is synched with the main clock in the dispatchers office which is synched with the City Hall and that all these are in synch with the Hertz clock and the watches of Powers and Kellerman.
But, as Bowles points out, it is an unwieldy system and subject to a certain amount of inconsistency. However, I imagine it is also a self-regulating system and find it very difficult to believe it could lose 6 minutes in 45 minutes. Particularly as there is 15 minutes of almost radio silence on channel 2 so it's not like the dispatchers are rushed off their feet.
Falsifying the transmissions would literally consist of reconstructing all the actual transmissions (or at least the dispatchers transmissions), which seems fanciful, to say the least, even if the reason to do this would be because the original transmissions revealed it was impossible for Oswald to be on Tenth and Patton at the time of Tippit's murder.
-
You're 100% wrong about Scoggins. You don't present the full part of his testimony dealing with this issue whereas I do.
He is absolutely clear that Callaway makes his call and then picks the gun up:
"...there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground..."
I don't understand how you're interpreting this any other way.
Also, I don't think it's helpful to examine each testimony in isolation. It's clear Callaway, Benevides and Scoggins are all talking about the same event and they all corroborate each other.
Not that this will sway you in any way.
I was kind of thinking that Martin's point was better for a shooting at 1:14/1:15 and yours would have left too much time to fill in.
That was really confusing me.
I personally think only way this issue will be resolved is if it can be shown definitively that the tapes have been falsified.
I agree with the OP, that the Hertz clock is synched with the dispatchers clock on Channel 2.
I think this means the dispatchers clock is synched with the main clock in the dispatchers office which is synched with the City Hall and that all these are in synch with the Hertz clock and the watches of Powers and Kellerman.
But, as Bowles points out, it is an unwieldy system and subject to a certain amount of inconsistency. However, I imagine it is also a self-regulating system and find it very difficult to believe it could lose 6 minutes in 45 minutes. Particularly as there is 15 minutes of almost radio silence on channel 2 so it's not like the dispatchers are rushed off their feet.
Falsifying the transmissions would literally consist of reconstructing all the actual transmissions (or at least the dispatchers transmissions), which seems fanciful, to say the least, even if the reason to do this would be because the original transmissions revealed it was impossible for Oswald to be on Tenth and Patton at the time of Tippit's murder.
You're 100% wrong about Scoggins. You don't present the full part of his testimony dealing with this issue whereas I do.
He is absolutely clear that Callaway makes his call and then picks the gun up:
"...there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground..."
I don't understand how you're interpreting this any other way.
Again...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
-
Again...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Again:
Scoggins - "...there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground..."
That "someone" was Callaway. He was on the radio and then he picked up the pistol.
Benevides - "...he opened the car door and picked up the phone and called in and told them there was an officer that had been killed. But the officer on the other side of the radio told him to hang up the phone to keep the lines clear, or something of that sort.
Then he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened, and I said yes. And he said let's chase him...he was reaching down and getting the gun out of the policeman's hand"
Callaway was on the radio then he picked up the pistol
Callaway - "So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him."
Callaway was on the radio then he picked up the pistol.
The passage of Scoggin's testimony that you're posting over and over again is just a general description of the things that were going on around the time he arrived on the scene, not in linear sequence. If you read further on in his testimony it all becomes clear but you notably refuse to do that.
When you see his testimony alongside that of Callaway and Benevides it is perfectly clear what is being said.
But it doesn't matter Bill. It's a little detail and you should really drop it.
It's obvious you're not interested in the evidence I'm presenting and that's your choice. It's obvious you're going to carry on thinking what you want to think no matter how much evidence is produced to the contrary.
I think anyone reading these posts can make their own minds up about the issue.
-
Again:
Scoggins - "...there was someone that got on the radio at that time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground..."
That "someone" was Callaway. He was on the radio and then he picked up the pistol.
Benevides - "...he opened the car door and picked up the phone and called in and told them there was an officer that had been killed. But the officer on the other side of the radio told him to hang up the phone to keep the lines clear, or something of that sort.
Then he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened, and I said yes. And he said let's chase him...he was reaching down and getting the gun out of the policeman's hand"
Callaway was on the radio then he picked up the pistol
Callaway - "So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him."
Callaway was on the radio then he picked up the pistol.
The passage of Scoggin's testimony that you're posting over and over again is just a general description of the things that were going on around the time he arrived on the scene, not in linear sequence. If you read further on in his testimony it all becomes clear but you notably refuse to do that.
When you see his testimony alongside that of Callaway and Benevides it is perfectly clear what is being said.
But it doesn't matter Bill. It's a little detail and you should really drop it.
It's obvious you're not interested in the evidence I'm presenting and that's your choice. It's obvious you're going to carry on thinking what you want to think no matter how much evidence is produced to the contrary.
I think anyone reading these posts can make their own minds up about the issue.
Guys, I apoligize for not being involved in the discussion since Bill proposed another debate, but I am having some health issues at the moment and am in and out of hospital frequently at short notice. Earlier today I was told that I will need an operation some time next week resulting in another hospital stay for several days. I will gladly rejoin the discussion after all this is done as I have other things on my mind at the moment than a discussion about a 60 years old event.
I'll be back as soon as I can.
-
Guys, I apoligize for not being involved in the discussion since Bill proposed another debate, but I am having some health issues at the moment and am in and out of hospital frequently at short notice. Earlier today I was told that I will need an operation some time next week resulting in another hospital stay for several days. I will gladly rejoin the discussion after all this is done as I have other things on my mind at the moment than a discussion about a 60 years old event.
I'll be back as soon as I can.
I wish you the best of health, Martin.
-
Guys, I apoligize for not being involved in the discussion since Bill proposed another debate, but I am having some health issues at the moment and am in and out of hospital frequently at short notice. Earlier today I was told that I will need an operation some time next week resulting in another hospital stay for several days. I will gladly rejoin the discussion after all this is done as I have other things on my mind at the moment than a discussion about a 60 years old event.
I'll be back as soon as I can.
This will all be waiting for you when you're back on top.
Good luck.
-
There is Bowleys watch time stamp of 1:10pm. There is Markams clock at 1:04 when she left the house, thus her estimate of 1:06-1:07 of 1st sighting the shooter she thought looked like Oswald as she was on her way to bus stop to wait for a 1:12 bus ( the one she called her 1:15 bus).
There is the hospital emergency room clock, the 1:15 DOA time stamp of the emergency room doctor who pronounced the DOA WHEN the body of Tippit arrives at the hospital AT 1:15.
Note: DOA time stamp is NOT the same as a physicians estimate of death. DOA document is simply marking the time a body arriving at the emergency room was declared as received and found to be dead “on arrival”.
Multiple different clocks and witnesses that verify the shooter of Tippit had to have been at 10th and Patton by approx not later than 1:08 so as to have 1 extra minute for the shooter being followed by Tippit, a conversation , the shooting, lingering and throwing shells and running away out of view before Benevides got out of the car and made the 1st call attempt just before Bowley arrived.
Would people be aware their clocks are running slow by 6 minutes or more since they relied routinely on their clocks and watches to catch buses on time , drive buses, pick up their children at school on time , and sign important legal documents like DOA time of a body arriving at emergency room of a hospital?
Are we supposed to believe that the school clock and Markams work clock , and Bowleys (an engineer no less) watch, and the bus drivers watch and bus company’s clock and the hospital clock were ALL 6-7 minutes slow?
-
How can I be any more clear? Let's debate the shooting death of J.D. Tippit and Oswald's relationship to that death. The entire case, Callaway, Butler, loading the body and everything else. You'd be worthy, unlike someone like Iacoletti who would spend the entire debate saying things like "Oswald's gun LOL". I know you'd at least discuss the case, which I can respect.
I thought I felt my ears burning.
If you don't want to be LOLed at, then don't make statements of fact that you cannot substantiate as facts. It's really that simple. That's not "discussing the case". That's propagandizing.
As for the Hertz clock and Curry's 12:30 broadcast, that was on police channel 2. All of the Tippit-related broadcasts were on channel 1. But your fatal flaw is assuming that you have any basis for determining how much time elapsed between the Tippit shooting and the Benavides/Bowley call. It's completely speculative.
-
However, the police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
BS: The tapes tell us that 602 said "602". That's it.
-
Only a fool would believe that the police tape time stamps by the dispatcher were off by as much as 7 minutes, which is what would be required for Bowley's watch to be accurate when he looked at it (1:10) upon arriving at the scene.
Could the tapes be off by 60 seconds? Sure. But that's pretty much it.
-
Only a fool would believe that the police tape time stamps by the dispatcher were off by as much as 7 minutes, which is what would be required for Bowley's watch to be accurate when he looked at it (1:10) upon arriving at the scene.
Could the tapes be off by 60 seconds? Sure. But that's pretty much it.
Maybe the tapes were off by two minutes. This isn't inconceivable and is alluded to by Bowles.
This would have Bowley's 1:17pm call really happening at 1:15pm.
And maybe it really said 1:12pm on Bowley's watch and he just rounded it to the nearest 5 minute mark. Not unheard of.
This would give Bowley three minutes to get to the scene, check out Tippit and see what he could do for him and then stand by the patrol car waiting for Benevides to finish messing about on the radio.
And maybe Benevides was in the patrol car for one minute before handing over to Bowley. This would have him entering the patrol car around 1:11pm.
And maybe Benevides was in no rush to get out of his truck in case the shooter came back and he stayed in there for a couple of minutes after the shooting.
And suddenly we have a shooting at 1:09pm.
There's nothing unrealistic about any of the assumptions and it's the same amount of speculating that you or anyone else does trying to ascertain what time the shooting actually happened.
-
The Texas theater was kind of SW of Oswald’s boarding house.
So if Oswald was the shooter at 10th and Patton , he got there (if walking) NOT actually heading SW when he left the boarding house, instead he was going more in a SE direction which is going away from the theater.
So there might be an alternate motive if Ruby was involved in having set up Oswald , like say having paid Oswald $200 Thursday afternoon to “deliver the special package” on Friday morning to the TSBD loading dock.
( postulate here is that Oswald had been paid on previous occasions working thru Ruby to deliver packages of drugs to the TSBD loading dock annex building where they got distributed to neighboring “consumers”.)
Oswald figured out he had been set up after shots fired from TSBD, and he went home asap to get his pistol , then head to Rubys house which was SE of Oswald’s boarding house.
-
The Texas theater was kind of SW of Oswald’s boarding house.
So if Oswald was the shooter at 10th and Patton , he got there (if walking) NOT actually heading SW when he left the boarding house, instead he was going more in a SE direction which is going away from the theater.
So there might be an alternate motive if Ruby was involved in having set up Oswald , like say having paid Oswald $200 Thursday afternoon to “deliver the special package” on Friday morning to the TSBD loading dock.
( postulate here is that Oswald had been paid on previous occasions working thru Ruby to deliver packages of drugs to the TSBD loading dock annex building where they got distributed to neighboring “consumers”.)
Oswald figured out he had been set up after shots fired from TSBD, and he went home asap to get his pistol , then head to Rubys house which was SE of Oswald’s boarding house.
That's some far out fiction. It's unfortunate, however, that there is not a single iota of evidence to support any of this. But I'll play along. How exactly did Oswald figure out in this scenario that he had been set up as an assassin after the shots were fired? You have him involved in some type of petty drug transaction. He would have no apparent reason to believe that he could be linked to a murder. Why even go through this charade if Ruby was ultimately willing to commit murder and go to prison for the rest of his life? Why not cut out the middle-man and just have Ruby assassinate JFK?
-
@Richard:
You are right, I should not have speculated that Oswald’s reason to return to his boarding house asap was to get his revolver, let alone to head out to Rubys house located SE of Oswalds boarding house.
Its just seems odd to me that Oswald’s heading SE to get to 10th and Patton was not exactly the most direct route to take if Oswald was intending to go to a theater that’s located SW of the boarding house.
Since Frazier described the bag length as 2 feet plus or minus a couple of inches , then something else must have been in the bag other than a disassembled (34.5”) MC rifle.
Questions
1.So what could be in the bag and why was Oswald carrying it into TSBD loading dock annex building yet NOT apparently into TSBD building itself, since Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald’s hands when Oswald entered the door to TSBD?
2.Why were Oswald and Ruby seen together on several occasions ?
3. How did Oswald manage to have as much as $200 cash on his person by Thursday night?
These are questions that led me to suggest Oswald involved in drug trafficking thru Ruby mafia connections and therefore it’s a possibility that the reason Ruby shot Oswald in front of cameras no less, was because Oswald had become too much of a liability connecting Mafia to drugs and to the JFK assassination as well.
The mafia was already under investigation by RFK and having one boss known to have made remark such as “cutting the head of the snake off” , it’s not so implausible to consider that Ruby HAD to shot Oswald asap especially after Oswald was arrested and charged with shooting Tippit and under suspicion of having shot JFK.
-
@Richard:
You are right, I should not have speculated that Oswald’s reason to return to his boarding house asap was to get his revolver, let alone to head out to Rubys house located SE of Oswalds boarding house.
Its just seems odd to me that Oswald’s heading SE to get to 10th and Patton was not exactly the most direct route to take if Oswald was intending to go to a theater that’s located SW of the boarding house.
Since Frazier described the bag length as 2 feet plus or minus a couple of inches , then something else must have been in the bag other than a disassembled (34.5”) MC rifle.
Questions
1.So what could be in the bag and why was Oswald carrying it into TSBD loading dock annex building yet NOT apparently into TSBD building itself, since Jack Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald’s hands when Oswald entered the door to TSBD?
2.Why were Oswald and Ruby seen together on several occasions ?
3. How did Oswald manage to have as much as $200 cash on his person by Thursday night?
These are questions that led me to suggest Oswald involved in drug trafficking thru Ruby mafia connections and therefore it’s a possibility that the reason Ruby shot Oswald in front of cameras no less, was because Oswald had become too much of a liability connecting Mafia to drugs and to the JFK assassination as well.
The mafia was already under investigation by RFK and having one boss known to have made remark such as “cutting the head of the snake off” , it’s not so implausible to consider that Ruby HAD to shot Oswald asap especially after Oswald was arrested and charged with shooting Tippit and under suspicion of having shot JFK.
There is no reason to believe that Oswald intended to go to the Texas Theatre. That's like claiming the Boston bomber planned to end up in a boat in someone's backyard. I think Oswald was trying to get a particular bus. There are some good FBI materials explaining the nearby bus routes. If he had any plan - and there wasn't a good one under the circumstances - it would have been to get out of Dallas likely heading to Mexico. After the Tippit encounter, however, Oswald was simply in flight. Moving in any direction still available. And the theatre was just a matter of necessity with the police closing in. In terms of the bag, Frazier was simply off in his estimate of its length. There are lots of reasons to support that conclusion. No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found, a longer bag with Oswald's prints was found, Oswald denied carrying any long bag or curtain rods rendering his story to Frazier suspect etc.
-
There is no reason to believe that Oswald intended to go to the Texas Theatre. That's like claiming the Boston bomber planned to end up in a boat in someone's backyard. I think Oswald was trying to get a particular bus. There are some good FBI materials explaining the nearby bus routes. If he had any plan - and there wasn't a good one under the circumstances - it would have been to get out of Dallas likely heading to Mexico. After the Tippit encounter, however, Oswald was simply in flight. Moving in any direction still available. And the theatre was just a matter of necessity with the police closing in. In terms of the bag, Frazier was simply off in his estimate of its length. There are lots of reasons to support that conclusion. No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found, a longer bag with Oswald's prints was found, Oswald denied carrying any long bag or curtain rods rendering his story to Frazier suspect etc.
If he had any plan - and there wasn't a good one under the circumstances - it would have been to get out of Dallas likely heading to Mexico.
Really? And that's why he ended up walking east on a go nowhere suburban street where there are no bus stops whatsoever? Do you not understand just how stupid this makes you look?
There are some good FBI materials explaining the nearby bus routes.
Those "nearby bus routes" were all on Jefferson, so why in the world would Oswald not simply have walked down N. Crawford street to get to the bus stops instead of turning left onto 10th street? You entire argument, as per usual, makes no sense.
In terms of the bag, Frazier was simply off in his estimate of its length. There are lots of reasons to support that conclusion.
There is not a shred of evidence to conclude that Frazier was off in his estimate of the bag. And there are no valid reasons to support such a conclusion. It's all wishful thinking on your part.
No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found,
So what? Did they even search for it? Did they even ask Oswald what he did with the bag he carried into the TSBD? And if they did, why is that (and his answer) not in the interrogator's reports?
a longer bag with Oswald's prints was found,
"Found" at his place of work, at a location he would be everyday and made out of TSBD packaging materials. There is no evidence whatsoever it ever contained a rifle or that it ever left the TSBD.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag or curtain rods rendering his story to Frazier suspect etc.
The interrogators claimed Oswald denied carrying a "long bag", but what exactly is a "long bag"? Did the interrogators give him dimensions or some sort of description? Or did they simply ask about "a long bag", whatever that would have meant to Oswald?
As for the curtain rods story, there is at least one other plausible explanation for it; Oswald simply used it to explain his trip to Irving instead of having to tell his 19 year old co-worker about his marital problems.
You really have got nothing conclusive, Smith, and are blowing hot air once again.
-
If he had any plan - and there wasn't a good one under the circumstances - it would have been to get out of Dallas likely heading to Mexico.
Really? And that's why he ended up walking east on a go nowhere suburban street where there are no bus stops whatsoever? Do you not understand just how stupid this makes you look?
There are some good FBI materials explaining the nearby bus routes.
Those "nearby bus routes" were all on Jefferson, so why in the world would Oswald not simply have walked down N. Crawford street to get to the bus stops instead of turning left onto 10th street? You entire argument, as per usual, makes no sense.
In terms of the bag, Frazier was simply off in his estimate of its length. There are lots of reasons to support that conclusion.
There is not a shred of evidence to conclude that Frazier was off in his estimate of the bag. And there are no valid reasons to support such a conclusion. It's all wishful thinking on your part.
No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found,
So what? Did they even search for it? Did they even ask Oswald what he did with the bag he carried into the TSBD? And if they did, why is that (and his answer) not in the interrogator's reports?
a longer bag with Oswald's prints was found,
"Found" at his place of work, at a location he would be everyday and made out of TSBD packaging materials. There is no evidence whatsoever it ever contained a rifle or that it ever left the TSBD.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag or curtain rods rendering his story to Frazier suspect etc.
The interrogators claimed Oswald denied carrying a "long bag", but what exactly is a "long bag"? Did the interrogators give him dimensions or some sort of description? Or did they simply ask about "a long bag", whatever that would have meant to Oswald?
As for the curtain rods story, there is at least one other plausible explanation for it; Oswald simply used it to explain his trip to Irving instead of having to tell his 19 year old co-worker about his marital problems.
You really have got nothing conclusive, Smith, and are blowing hot air once again.
Really? And that's why he ended up walking east on a go nowhere suburban street where there are no bus stops whatsoever? Do you not understand just how stupid this makes you look?
Those "nearby bus routes" were all on Jefferson, so why in the world would Oswald not simply have walked down N. Crawford street to get to the bus stops instead of turning left onto 10th street? You entire argument, as per usual, makes no sense.
The nearest transfer point in Oak Cliff on the Marsalis line (which is the line that the transfer was good for) was at Jefferson Blvd., roughly three blocks away from the site of the Tippit shooting scene. Oswald, if he were walking east on Tenth, was heading in that exact direction.
If you familiarize yourself with a street map of the area, you'd know that going all the way down Crawford to Jefferson and then "simply" walking east on Jefferson to the bus stop would include serious backtracking along Jefferson, since Jefferson bends drastically back north.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a map of the area before telling Richard Smith that he looks stupid?
-
The nearest transfer point in Oak Cliff on the Marsalis line (which is the line that the transfer was good for) was at Jefferson Blvd., roughly three blocks away from the site of the Tippit shooting scene. Oswald, if he were walking east on Tenth, was heading in that exact direction.
If you familiarize yourself with a street map of the area, you'd know that going all the way down Crawford to Jefferson and then "simply" walking east on Jefferson to the bus stop would include serious backtracking along Jefferson, since Jefferson bends drastically back north.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a map of the area before telling Richard Smith that he looks stupid?
The nearest transfer point in Oak Cliff on the Marsalis line (which is the line that the transfer was good for) was at Jefferson Blvd., roughly three blocks away from the site of the Tippit shooting scene. Oswald, if he were walking east on Tenth, was heading in that exact direction.
Markham saw Tippit's killer walking east and crossing Patton Ave. This means that he would have turned left onto 10th street from Crawford street, which makes no sense if he was walking to the Marsalis bus stop as it would be a long way around. A far better and shorter route would have been East Davis street and turn left on either South Patton ave or North Denver street.
But there isn't a shred of evidence that Oswald was walking to a Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson. It's pure speculation on your part and Richard Smith never mentioned the Marsalis line bus stop at all.
So, just like Richard Smith, you've got nothing conclusive.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a map of the area before telling Richard Smith that he looks stupid?
Perhaps you should be a bit less condescending and not misrepresent my actual response to Richard Smith in a vain attempt to score a pathetic point.
If he had any plan - and there wasn't a good one under the circumstances - it would have been to get out of Dallas likely heading to Mexico.
Really? And that's why he ended up walking east on a go nowhere suburban street where there are no bus stops whatsoever? Do you not understand just how stupid this makes you look?
If, as Richard said, Oswald wanted to get out of Dallas quickly, then it doesn't make a bit of sense for him to end up on a go nowhere suburban street with no bus stops at all.
That was the point I made. But I'm not surprised you tried to twist it into something else.
-
The nearest transfer point in Oak Cliff on the Marsalis line (which is the line that the transfer was good for) was at Jefferson Blvd., roughly three blocks away from the site of the Tippit shooting scene. Oswald, if he were walking east on Tenth, was heading in that exact direction.
Markham saw Tippit's killer walking east and crossing Patton Ave. This means that he would have turned left onto 10th street from Crawford street, which makes no sense if he was walking to the Marsalis bus stop as it would be a long way around. A far better and shorter route would have been East Davis street and turn left on either South Patton ave or North Denver street.
But there isn't a shred of evidence that Oswald was walking to a Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson. It's pure speculation on your part and Richard Smith never mentioned the Marsalis line bus stop at all.
So, just like Richard Smith, you've got nothing conclusive.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a map of the area before telling Richard Smith that he looks stupid?
Perhaps you should be a bit less condescending and not misrepresent my actual response to Richard Smith in a vain attempt to score a pathetic point.
If, as Richard said, Oswald wanted to get out of Dallas quickly, then it doesn't make a bit of sense for him to end up on a go nowhere suburban street with no bus stops at all.
That was the point I made. But I'm not surprised you tried to twist it into something else.
But there isn't a shred of evidence that Oswald was walking to a Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson. It's pure speculation on your part...
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
If, as Richard said, Oswald wanted to get out of Dallas quickly, then it doesn't make a bit of sense for him to end up on a go nowhere suburban street with no bus stops at all.
That was the point I made. But I'm not surprised you tried to twist it into something else.
I have news for you, Jackass... IF Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis, he was walking pretty much the most direct line to that point from the rooming house and that most direct line included taking Tenth Street from Crawford to the area of Marsalis and Jefferson. That was my point and it is not speculation, it is a fact. Look at a damn map.
-
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
I have news for you, Jackass... IF Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis, he was walking pretty much the most direct line to that point from the rooming house and that most direct line included taking Tenth Street from Crawford to the area of Marsalis and Jefferson. That was my point and it is not speculation, it is a fact. Look at a damn map.
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
Really? So, now it's suddenly a fact that Oswald was walking to the Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson?
I have news for you, Jackass... IF Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis, he was walking pretty much the most direct line to that point from the rooming house and that most direct line included taking Tenth Street from Crawford to the area of Marsalis and Jefferson. That was my point and it is not speculation, it is a fact. Look at a damn map.
pretty much the most direct line? It's pretty amazing what you consider to be a fact.
First you claim to have stated as fact that Oswald was walking to the Marsalis bus stop on Jefferson only to follow it up with "If Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis"
Could you please make up your mind?
Is it really a fact that Oswald was walking to the Marsalis bus stop (and if so, what is your evidence for that?) or are you just speculating that he may have walked that way?
-
The bus transfer ticket that Oswald was supposedly carrying is interesting as it feeds into the idea he was trying to make it to a point where he could get a transfer.
-
The Belin report on the bus routes is informative: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0393/23811296.pdf
-
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
Really? So, now it's suddenly a fact that Oswald was walking to the Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson?
That isn't what I said, though.
-
I have news for you, Jackass... IF Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis, he was walking pretty much the most direct line to that point from the rooming house and that most direct line included taking Tenth Street from Crawford to the area of Marsalis and Jefferson. That was my point and it is not speculation, it is a fact. Look at a damn map.
pretty much the most direct line? It's pretty amazing what you consider to be a fact.
First you claim to have stated as fact that Oswald was walking to the Marsalis bus stop on Jefferson only to follow it up with "If Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis"
Could you please make up your mind?
Is it really a fact that Oswald was walking to the Marsalis bus stop (and if so, what is your evidence for that?) or are you just speculating that he may have walked that way?
I have never stated as a fact that Oswald was walking with the Marsalis bus stop in mind.
Why do you continually misrepresent my position?
-
That isn't what I said, though.
Isn't it? What was it then that you stated as a fact?
Let's see what you actually replied to my comment that you were speculating about Oswald walking to a Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson;
But there isn't a shred of evidence that Oswald was walking to a Marsalis line bus stop on Jefferson. It's pure speculation on your part and Richard Smith never mentioned the Marsalis line bus stop at all.
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
Thumb1:
-
I have never stated as a fact that Oswald was walking with the Marsalis bus stop in mind.
Why do you continually misrepresent my position?
I have never stated as a fact that Oswald was walking with the Marsalis bus stop in mind.
Which makes your initial post a moot point.
Why do you continually misrepresent my position?
What did I misrepresent? Be percise....
-
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
I have news for you, Jackass... IF Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis, he was walking pretty much the most direct line to that point from the rooming house and that most direct line included taking Tenth Street from Crawford to the area of Marsalis and Jefferson. That was my point and it is not speculation, it is a fact. Look at a damn map.
Bill-
It's hopeless. That is why I no longer respond to our resident contrarian. Every interaction goes down the same rabbit hole. An amazing pattern repeated on every thread on this forum. Here he has taken issue with why Oswald would "end up on a go nowhere suburban street" if he were fleeing from the assassination. A false and misleading premise, but we are left in a sense of wonderment as to how the contrarian would answer his own question when Oswald he was supposed to be at his place of employment at this time. What would Oswald be doing if he had just assassinated the president and was on the run is obvious. Trying to escape. What do we know about his circumstances? We know that he didn't own or have access to a car. We know that he did ride the bus. We know that he had a bus transfer in his pocket. We know that he must have been familiar with the local bus routes as his primary means of transportation. We know that he had recently taken a bus to Mexico City and was familiar with the drill. None of that matters to the flat Earthers who suggest that no conclusion can ever be reached that they don't want to accept absent a time machine or Ouija board. Any manner of reasoned logic supported by the facts and evidence is rejected for that reason without providing any alternative explanation. It is a tortured exercise to suggest doubt by any means. No effort to shed light on what happened or even attempt to explain the consequences of their own objections having validity. The discussion stops and ends with taking issue as to the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
-
Bill-
It's hopeless. That is why I no longer respond to our resident contrarian. Every interaction goes down the same rabbit hole. An amazing pattern repeated on every thread on this forum. Here he has taken issue with why Oswald would "end up on a go nowhere suburban street" if he were fleeing from the assassination. A false and misleading premise, but we are left in a sense of wonderment as to how the contrarian would answer his own question when Oswald he was supposed to be at his place of employment at this time. What would Oswald be doing if he had just assassinated the president and was on the run is obvious. Trying to escape. What do we know about his circumstances? We know that he didn't own or have access to a car. We know that he did ride the bus. We know that he had a bus transfer in his pocket. We know that he must have been familiar with the local bus routes as his primary means of transportation. We know that he had recently taken a bus to Mexico City and was familiar with the drill. None of that matters to the flat Earthers who suggest that no conclusion can ever be reached that they don't want to accept absent a time machine or Ouija board. Any manner of reasoned logic supported by the facts and evidence is rejected for that reason without providing any alternative explanation. It is a tortured exercise to suggest doubt by any means. No effort to shed light on what happened or even attempt to explain the consequences of their own objections having validity. The discussion stops and ends with taking issue as to the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
That is why I no longer respond to our resident contrarian. Every interaction goes down the same rabbit hole. An amazing pattern repeated on every thread on this forum.
I am sure it must be frustrating for you that not everybody swallows the BS you constantly are coming up with. Perhaps it would help if you substituted, once in a while, your wild unsubstantiated claims with actual facts and conclusive evindence.
It's typical that you keep on doing the same thing (i.e. making claims you can't back up with evidence) and still expect a different outcome.
Here he has taken issue with why Oswald would "end up on a go nowhere suburban street" if he were fleeing from the assassination. A false and misleading premise,
There is nothing false or misleading about it. It's just one more basic question you can't answer.
What would Oswald be doing if he had just assassinated the president and was on the run is obvious. Trying to escape.
The most significant word in this sentence is "if"...
But I agree, if Oswald killed the President it's obvious that he would try to escape. What is less obvious is what he was doing on a go nowhere suburban street when he had all sorts of other options available to him.
We know that he had a bus transfer in his pocket.
Really? We know this? All I know is that the DPD claimed to have found a transfer on Oswald after searching him several times and finding nothing.
It is a tortured exercise to suggest doubt by any means.
How is it a tortured exercise to present conclusive evidence to back up your outlandisch claims and dispel the justifiable doubt?
Btw, it's kind of funny that you reply to my comments by pretending not to reply to them and talk to Bill Brown instead..... Actually, it's hilarious! But nice try Thumb1:
You may well be gullible enough to be convinced by the flimsy evidence against Oswald but that doesn't automatically mean that you are right. But you actually do believe that you are 100% right about everything and all the time.... :D
-
The only theory I ever read to try to explain why Oswald was going SE was that Patton st leads to the Marsalles Zoo, and that Oswald was intending to hide out at the Zoo and then jump on board at night on an empty box car on the railroad that passes nearby the Zoo.
-
The only theory I ever read to try to explain why Oswald was going SE was that Patton st leads to the Marsalles Zoo, and that Oswald was intending to hide out at the Zoo and then jump on board at night on an empty box car on the railroad that passes nearby the Zoo.
Hi Zeon. Obviously there is no way to know what that wretched waif was thinking. One thing is for sure, though. He was making his way (whether purposeful or not) in the general direction of the bus stop at Jefferson and Marsalis. He had a transfer for that bus which was good until 1:15.
-
Bill-
It's hopeless. That is why I no longer respond to our resident contrarian. Every interaction goes down the same rabbit hole. An amazing pattern repeated on every thread on this forum. Here he has taken issue with why Oswald would "end up on a go nowhere suburban street" if he were fleeing from the assassination. A false and misleading premise, but we are left in a sense of wonderment as to how the contrarian would answer his own question when Oswald he was supposed to be at his place of employment at this time. What would Oswald be doing if he had just assassinated the president and was on the run is obvious. Trying to escape. What do we know about his circumstances? We know that he didn't own or have access to a car. We know that he did ride the bus. We know that he had a bus transfer in his pocket. We know that he must have been familiar with the local bus routes as his primary means of transportation. We know that he had recently taken a bus to Mexico City and was familiar with the drill. None of that matters to the flat Earthers who suggest that no conclusion can ever be reached that they don't want to accept absent a time machine or Ouija board. Any manner of reasoned logic supported by the facts and evidence is rejected for that reason without providing any alternative explanation. It is a tortured exercise to suggest doubt by any means. No effort to shed light on what happened or even attempt to explain the consequences of their own objections having validity. The discussion stops and ends with taking issue as to the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Fair points, Richard. In addition to that, this particular conspiracy advocate has misrepresented my position time and time again. He's doing it in this very thread. Once they begin doing that, I lose interest in discussing anything with them.
-
Hi Zeon. Obviously there is no way to know what that wretched waif was thinking. One thing is for sure, though. He was making his way (whether purposeful or not) in the general direction of the bus stop at Jefferson and Marsalis. He had a transfer for that bus which was good until 1:15.
One thing is for sure, though. He was making his way (whether purposeful or not) in the general direction of the bus stop at Jefferson and Marsalis. He had a transfer for that bus which was good until 1:15.
How is that something you think is "for sure"?
If he was there at all, how is walking east on 10th street the same as walking "in the general direction of the bus stop at Jefferson and Marsalis".
Instead of making meaningless statements, why don't you try, for once, to say something that's actually based on real facts rather than your usual speculation?
-
Fair points, Richard. In addition to that, this particular conspiracy advocate has misrepresented my position time and time again. He's doing it in this very thread. Once they begin doing that, I lose interest in discussing anything with them.
In addition to that, this particular conspiracy advocate has misrepresented my position time and time again. He's doing it in this very thread.
And yet, when asked to explain in detail what that so-called misrepresentation is, you never answer.... Go figure!
Btw, can you please point to any of my posts in which I have actually advocated a conspiracy of any kind?
-
I still think the main problem is the insistence on keeping the Mcwatters bus ride part of the WC theory valid.
Imo that’s in serious question because of Bledsoe on the bus , claiming to have seen a hole in the sleeve of a brown shirt Oswald was not wearing until AFTER he left the boarding house.
Are we CTs mistaken that Oswald was Wearing the reddish brown shirt at the TSBD and did not change out of that shirt to the other brown shirt with hole in sleeve until after he got to his boarding room?
And Mcwatters did not.actually ID Oswald imo.
The bus transfer ticket had no prints of either Oswald or Mcwatters on it which it should have had especially being paper. Given the pressure the FBI and Fritz were under from LBJ to make sure Oswald was their man, it’s not that unreasonable to suggest the transfer ticket may have been embellishment”.
So why not just discard this part of the WC theory of Oswald as “unconfirmed” and just go with the more substantial witness Whaley the Taxi driver and his manifest which had Oswald entering his cab somewhere between 12:30 and not later than 12:45?
In that scenario, Oswald had left TSBD by 3 minutes post shots ( presuming DPD officer Barnett locked the doors as he claimed ) and then 7 minutes later after traveling the 7 blocks to go directly to the taxi , Oswald could easily have entered Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40. That makes then easy for Oswald to have been at 10th and Patton by 1:07-1:08 and then all witness clocks and estimates match up and the 1:15 DOA document makes sense.
-
I still think the main problem is the insistence on keeping the Mcwatters bus ride part of the WC theory valid.
Imo that’s in serious question because of Bledsoe on the bus , claiming to have seen a hole in the sleeve of a brown shirt Oswald was not wearing until AFTER he left the boarding house.
Are we CTs mistaken that Oswald was Wearing the reddish brown shirt at the TSBD and did not change out of that shirt to the other brown shirt with hole in sleeve until after he got to his boarding room?
And Mcwatters did not.actually ID Oswald imo.
The bus transfer ticket had no prints of either Oswald or Mcwatters on it which it should have had especially being paper. Given the pressure the FBI and Fritz were under from LBJ to make sure Oswald was their man, it’s not that unreasonable to suggest the transfer ticket may have been embellishment”.
So why not just discard this part of the WC theory of Oswald as “unconfirmed” and just go with the more substantial witness Whaley the Taxi driver and his manifest which had Oswald entering his cab somewhere between 12:30 and not later than 12:45?
In that scenario, Oswald had left TSBD by 3 minutes post shots ( presuming DPD officer Barnett locked the doors as he claimed ) and then 7 minutes later after traveling the 7 blocks to go directly to the taxi , Oswald could easily have entered Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40. That makes then easy for Oswald to have been at 10th and Patton by 1:07-1:08 and then all witness clocks and estimates match up and the 1:15 DOA document makes sense.
Why would anyone fake Oswald's presence on the bus? Think of the effort and risk to do so. The fantasy conspirators would have to figure out which bus was in the vicinity. Convince the passengers to either confirm Oswald's presence or at least not deny that he got on the bus. They would have to somehow get a bus transfer from the driver. They would then have to make sure Oswald was not in the presence of anyone else during this timeframe. So many variables to handle on the fly in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. And for what purpose? The bus takes him nowhere. He gets off and takes a cab. It's ridiculous to suggest the bus to nowhere was the product of any conspiracy plan. In a plan, everything has purpose. You don't stage things to unnecessarily complicate what is already a complex and risky operation for no apparent reason.
-
Why would anyone fake Oswald's presence on the bus? Think of the effort and risk to do so. The fantasy conspirators would have to figure out which bus was in the vicinity. Convince the passengers to either confirm Oswald's presence or at least not deny that he got on the bus. They would have to somehow get a bus transfer from the driver. They would then have to make sure Oswald was not in the presence of anyone else during this timeframe. So many variables to handle on the fly in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. And for what purpose? The bus takes him nowhere. He gets off and takes a cab. It's ridiculous to suggest the bus to nowhere was the product of any conspiracy plan. In a plan, everything has purpose. You don't stage things to unnecessarily complicate what is already a complex and risky operation for no apparent reason.
you just made up an entire "fantasy plan" and then crossed it all out because it would never work. Thumb1:
-
you just made up an entire "fantasy plan" and then crossed it all out because it would never work. Thumb1:
Not following. I didn't make up anything. Another poster suggested that Oswald was never on the bus even though he had a transfer from the bus driver in his pocket. I just pointed out that faking Oswald's presence on the bus would be pointless and risky since it does not advance any apparent objective. The bus doesn't go anywhere, and he quickly gets off. If you disagree, maybe form your response in terms of a complete thought. Let me help get you started. "I believe Oswald was/was not on the bus because..."
-
Not following. I didn't make up anything. Another poster suggested that Oswald was never on the bus even though he had a transfer from the bus driver in his pocket. I just pointed out that faking Oswald's presence on the bus would be pointless and risky since it does not advance any apparent objective. The bus doesn't go anywhere, and he quickly gets off. If you disagree, maybe form your response in terms of a complete thought. Let me help get you started. "I believe Oswald was/was not on the bus because..."
Always happens. We cite the conspiracy claims, point out the illogic of it, how it doesn't make sense, how there's no evidence for it and then the response it "You just made that up, it's a strawman!!"
This is the same poster who says Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and then Hoover, who knew about the double, blabs about it on a call to LBJ. Then they publish the call where Hoover exposes the impersonation. Right, Hoover knew who the person was, that it was part of a plan to incriminate Cuba, and then Hoover reveals the plan! He doesn't keep it quiet. But I made that all up?
-
Always happens. We cite the conspiracy claims, point out the illogic of it, how it doesn't make sense, how there's no evidence for it and then the response it "You just made that up, it's a strawman!!"
This is the same poster who says Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and then Hoover, who knew about the double, blabs about it on a call to LBJ. Then they publish the call where Hoover exposes the impersonation. Right, Hoover knew who the person was, that it was part of a plan to incriminate Cuba, and then Hoover reveals the plan! He doesn't keep it quiet. But I made that all up?
Yes, it's the old blow smoke and imply there is a fire technique. Never pausing to explain the consequences of their own claims having validity. Why fake Oswald's presence on the bus or in Mexico City if he was never in those places? Think of the risk and complexity to get everyone involved to go along with these efforts including random folks on a bus or employees of the Russian and Cuban embassies. The CTer mind has to conjure some anomaly in the case which might lend itself to suspicion but then ignore everything else that runs counter to the claim including logic, common sense, and the evidence.
-
Just want to clarify that I was NOT suggesting some conspirator got on the bus pretending to be Oswald. That certainly would be an unnecessary thing to be done by conspirators
What I was suggesting was to discard THIS PART of the WC scenario for Oswald’s route from leaving TSBD to getting to Whaleys taxi.
Bledsoe account of seeing Oswald on the bus wearing a brown shirt with hole in the sleeve cannot be accepted as valid if Oswald was not wearing that brown shirt yet. Therefore her ID of Oswald must be doubted.
McWatters never did actually ID Oswald as the man he gave a ticket too. Therefore more reasonable doubt that Oswald was ever on that bus.
If the premise is that Oswald’s intent after leaving TSBD as early as 12:34 was to get back to the boarding house asap, the most logical thing would be to get a taxi directly and it would cost him just a mere 90 cents of that 13 dollars he was carrying.
So for we know there was just some man who banged on the bus door, sat down for a few minutes , got a transfer ticket from McWatters about 12:43 , then that man left the bus and know telling where he went from there.
Bill Brown was trying to work out this time line anomaly in a more complicated way (imo) and my suggestion was to simply eliminate the bus ride account as “unconfirmed” and in doing so, Oswald going directly to the taxi being a logical route if his intent was to return to the boarding house ASAP would have Oswald entering Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40.
-
Why would anyone fake Oswald's presence on the bus? Think of the effort and risk to do so. The fantasy conspirators would have to figure out which bus was in the vicinity. Convince the passengers to either confirm Oswald's presence or at least not deny that he got on the bus. They would have to somehow get a bus transfer from the driver. They would then have to make sure Oswald was not in the presence of anyone else during this timeframe. So many variables to handle on the fly in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. And for what purpose? The bus takes him nowhere. He gets off and takes a cab. It's ridiculous to suggest the bus to nowhere was the product of any conspiracy plan. In a plan, everything has purpose. You don't stage things to unnecessarily complicate what is already a complex and risky operation for no apparent reason.
Agreed.
For what it's worth, I talked to Roy Milton Jones last year. For those who don't know, Jones was on the McWatters bus at the same time as Oswald. Jones told me that he boarded the bus near Crozier Tech High School. I asked him if he specifically remembered Oswald boarding the bus. He said that he did not remember because it was not conspicuous. I asked him if he remembers Oswald being on the bus. He told me that after he saw Oswald's picture on the news, he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus. I then asked him flat out if Oswald, in his opinion, was on the bus and he said "Yes".
-
Just want to clarify that I was NOT suggesting some conspirator got on the bus pretending to be Oswald. That certainly would be an unnecessary thing to be done by conspirators
What I was suggesting was to discard THIS PART of the WC scenario for Oswald’s route from leaving TSBD to getting to Whaleys taxi.
Bledsoe account of seeing Oswald on the bus wearing a brown shirt with hole in the sleeve cannot be accepted as valid if Oswald was not wearing that brown shirt yet. Therefore her ID of Oswald must be doubted.
McWatters never did actually ID Oswald as the man he gave a ticket too. Therefore more reasonable doubt that Oswald was ever on that bus.
If the premise is that Oswald’s intent after leaving TSBD as early as 12:34 was to get back to the boarding house asap, the most logical thing would be to get a taxi directly and it would cost him just a mere 90 cents of that 13 dollars he was carrying.
So for we know there was just some man who banged on the bus door, sat down for a few minutes , got a transfer ticket from McWatters about 12:43 , then that man left the bus and know telling where he went from there.
Bill Brown was trying to work out this time line anomaly in a more complicated way (imo) and my suggestion was to simply eliminate the bus ride account as “unconfirmed” and in doing so, Oswald going directly to the taxi being a logical route if his intent was to return to the boarding house ASAP would have Oswald entering Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40.
Oswald had a transfer from the bus in his pocket. It was given to him that day. Your choices are that Oswald got on the bus or there was a conspiracy to frame him and for some unknown reason the fantasy conspirators decided to fake his presence on the bus. The evidence elminates any other possibilities like a mistaken identification.
-
...
Has Brown ever properly documented his call with Jones?
It's a shame the WC never called Jones to clarify what he saw.
And a disgrace the lineup fill ins were cops dressed in suits - but it did make the choice more obvious:
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, just like I say, he was the shortest man in the lineup, in other words, when they brought these
men out there, in other words, he was about the shortest, and the lightest weight one, I guess, was the reason I
say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men than--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--
Mr. BALL - Now you realize you were mistaken in your identification that night?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is right.
Mr. BALL - As I understand it, neither then nor now are you able to identify or say that you have again
seen the man that got off your bus to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify him.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7404/thread
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ted Callaway | WC Testimony
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself.
We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time,
see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer.
We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."
So they brought four men in.
-
Oswald had a transfer from the bus in his pocket. It was given to him that day. Your choices are that Oswald got on the bus or there was a conspiracy to frame him and for some unknown reason the fantasy conspirators decided to fake his presence on the bus. The evidence elminates any other possibilities like a mistaken identification.
Oswald had a transfer from the bus in his pocket. It was given to him that day.
Really? So why wasn't it found on him in several searches?
-
Oswald had a transfer from the bus in his pocket. It was given to him that day.
Really? So why wasn't it found on him in several searches?
Oswald wasn't properly searched until they finally searched him and found the bus transfer in the shirt pocket and five live bullets in his left front pants pocket.
-
Oswald wasn't properly searched until they finally searched him and found the bus transfer in the shirt pocket and five live bullets in his left front pants pocket.
So the DPD was completely incompetent?
-
He was "completely searched and nothing was left in his pockets"
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53757723472_86ccd680a9_o.png
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7401
-
Oswald wasn't properly searched until they finally searched him and found the bus transfer in the shirt pocket and five live bullets in his left front pants pocket.
It's hard to fathom the logic behind suggesting that a short delay in finding the bus transfer after his arrest lends itself somehow to it being planted. But again, this implies that Oswald never got on the bus, and someone is trying to place Oswald there by planting evidence. We are left in a sense of wonderment, however, as to WHY they are doing this. In this CTer fantasy, the DPD or someone goes to the considerable risk of planting evidence in a homicide case - and not just any homicide case but the assassination of the president. WHY is it so important for them to place Oswald on this bus that goes nowhere? How do they ensure that the driver and other passengers either support or at least don't refute that Oswald got on that bus? How do they know that Oswald was not in the presence of someone else who could vouch for him at the time he was supposed to be on the bus? None of that is ever addressed. It's just the transfer wasn't found right away, so that makes it suspect for some unspecified reason.
-
"...a short delay.." lol
-
"...a short delay.." lol
No answer to any of the underlying questions. WHY are your fantasy conspirators going to the considerable risk of planting evidence to place Oswald on that bus? How does this advance their interests?
-
No answer to any of the underlying questions. WHY are your fantasy conspirators going to the considerable risk of planting evidence to place Oswald on that bus? How does this advance their interests?
when did I say they planted evidence to place him on a bus?
How are they my fantasy conspirators? - U made them up.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
They don't call you "Strawman Smith" for nothing
-
when did I say they planted evidence to place him on a bus?
How are they my fantasy conspirators? - U made them up.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
They don't call you "Strawman Smith" for nothing
LOL. You can tell CTers are cornered with they start playing the everything is suspect, but they are not suggesting a conspiracy card. HA HA HA. Now where have I heard that one before? Maybe in "Europe"? So the bus transfer was not planted? How about instead of trying to decipher whatever point you are trying to make that you just lay it out for once? I tried to help you communicate in complete thoughts. Try this "I think Oswald was/was not on the bus because [here you fill in a thought].
-
This cartoon is suggestive of the obliviousness of some of the naysayers around here…
(https://i.vgy.me/mSGCOT.png)
-
This cartoon is suggestive of the obliviousness of some of the naysayers around here…
(https://i.vgy.me/mSGCOT.png)
They read the conspiracy books and get drunk on all of this history about the CIA and Operation Northwoods and Guatemala and intrigue and spying and military industrial complex and Allan Dulles. So they have to interpret the assassination through that view, through that history. It's the only way for them it makes sense. The nut with the umbrella is not a nut with an umbrella; no, he's signalling the sniper teams. Secret teams and CIA and spies and coverups and Cold War intrigue and....they can't resist it.
It's the Jim Garrison view. We can't reason with it.
-
LOL. You can tell CTers are cornered with they start playing the everything is suspect, but they are not suggesting a conspiracy card. HA HA HA. Now where have I heard that one before? Maybe in "Europe"? So the bus transfer was not planted? How about instead of trying to decipher whatever point you are trying to make that you just lay it out for once? I tried to help you communicate in complete thoughts. Try this "I think Oswald was/was not on the bus because [here you fill in a thought].
LOL. You can tell CTers are cornered with they start playing the everything is suspect, but they are not suggesting a conspiracy card. HA HA HA.
LOL. You can tell when the LNs have no answers to questions being asked; they collectively start to attack CT's
So the bus transfer was not planted?
Here's one of those simple questions; when was the first time the bus transfer having been found was mentioned in any report?
-
LOL. You can tell CTers are cornered with they start playing the everything is suspect, but they are not suggesting a conspiracy card. HA HA HA. Now where have I heard that one before? Maybe in "Europe"? So the bus transfer was not planted? How about instead of trying to decipher whatever point you are trying to make that you just lay it out for once? I tried to help you communicate in complete thoughts. Try this "I think Oswald was/was not on the bus because [here you fill in a thought].
cornered? - I don't think so. All I said was that he was completely searched when he was arrested.
I showed a document to prove it.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53757723472_86ccd680a9_o.png
Here is a link to 4 witnesses saw a man leave the plaza in a car. 2 of them said it looked like Oswald.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
Does that mean I choose the car and you choose the bus? - NO !
It means the case against Oswald is completely inconsistent and broken.
So ramble all day Richard with your dopey conspirator stories you try to pin on legitimate criticisms of this case.
-
cornered? - I don't think so. All I said was that he was completely searched when he was arrested.
I showed a document to prove it.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53757723472_86ccd680a9_o.png
Here is a link to 4 witnesses saw a man leave the plaza in a car. 2 of them said it looked like Oswald.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
Does that mean I choose the car and you choose the bus? - NO !
It means the case against Oswald is completely inconsistent and broken.
So ramble all day Richard with your dopey conspirator stories you try to pin on legitimate criticisms of this case.
So ramble all day Richard with your dopey conspirator stories you try to pin on legitimate criticisms of this case.
You can't talk to him like that. He doesn't have a clue what the words "legitimate criticisms" mean.
-
cornered? - I don't think so. All I said was that he was completely searched when he was arrested.
I showed a document to prove it.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53757723472_86ccd680a9_o.png
Here is a link to 4 witnesses saw a man leave the plaza in a car. 2 of them said it looked like Oswald.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
Does that mean I choose the car and you choose the bus? - NO !
It means the case against Oswald is completely inconsistent and broken.
So ramble all day Richard with your dopey conspirator stories you try to pin on legitimate criticisms of this case.
"Completely" searched. LOL. Once again you have failed to address a single substantive point or even tell us what you are suggesting. This is real simple. If Oswald wasn't on that bus, then someone MUST have planted the transfer. The police said it was found in Oswald's possession. There are only two possible explanations for this: 1) Oswald was given the transfer by the bus driver; or 2) it was planted on him by DPD. If you are suggesting that the transfer was planted - and why else would you harp on this - then that means you are the proponent of the "dopey conspirator stories." If so, that begs an explanation for which I've repeatedly try to get from you. WHY would the police want to place Oswald on that bus? How does this advance the cause of framing him? If there is no point to this from the perspective of framing Oswald, then that lends itself to the conclusion the transfer was not planted and Oswald was on the bus. So spin us a yarn and explain why anyone trying to frame Oswald would need to place him on that bus. The bus that takes him nowhere.
-
"Completely" searched. LOL. Once again you have failed to address a single substantive point or even tell us what you are suggesting. This is real simple. If Oswald wasn't on that bus, then someone MUST have planted the transfer. The police said it was found in Oswald's possession. There are only two possible explanations for this: 1) Oswald was given the transfer by the bus driver; or 2) it was planted on him by DPD. If you are suggesting that the transfer was planted - and why else would you harp on this - then that means you are the proponent of the "dopey conspirator stories." If so, that begs an explanation for which I've repeatedly try to get from you. WHY would the police want to place Oswald on that bus? How does this advance the cause of framing him? If there is no point to this from the perspective of framing Oswald, then that lends itself to the conclusion the transfer was not planted and Oswald was on the bus. So spin us a yarn and explain why anyone trying to frame Oswald would need to place him on that bus. The bus that takes him nowhere.
I'm sorry, I don't have time for your nonsense - I stated my case with documentation to back it up.
U can spend the rest of the day making what you think a fantasy conspirator would do, of course could never be proven.
Up to you, that means nothing to me. These facts remain:
Lee was "completely searched" at the time of his arrest.
There were no bullets or bus transfer found on his person.
4 people saw a man leave DP in a car. 2 of them said it looked like Lee Oswald.
When the suspect was asked about this, he did not deny it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll go one step further
The WC was already aware what was expected of them as early as January 1964:
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7711
-
I'm sorry, I don't have time for your nonsense - I stated my case with documentation to back it up.
U can spend the rest of the day making what you think a fantasy conspirator would do, of course could never be proven.
Up to you, that means nothing to me. These facts remain:
Lee was "completely searched" at the time of his arrest.
There were no bullets or bus transfer found on his person.
4 people saw a man leave DP in a car. 2 of them said it looked like Lee Oswald.
When the suspect was asked about this, he did not deny it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll go one step further
The WC was already aware what was expected of them as early as January 1964:
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7711
You have time to type another rant but can't answer a very simple question? Why would anyone plant evidence to place Oswald on the bus? How can you suggest the bus transfer was planted but then claim you are not suggesting a conspiracy? If Oswald left in a car, wouldn't that confirm a conspiracy? It wasn't his car. Why would anyone be picking him up in the middle of the day except to aid in his escape? It's an interesting psychological insight to watch you struggle so mightily against accepting the consequences of your own claims having validity.
-
You have time to type another rant but can't answer a very simple question? Why would anyone plant evidence to place Oswald on the bus? How can you suggest the bus transfer was planted but then claim you are not suggesting a conspiracy? If Oswald left in a car, wouldn't that confirm a conspiracy? It wasn't his car. Why would anyone be picking him up in the middle of the day except to aid in his escape? It's an interesting psychological insight to watch you struggle so mightily against accepting the consequences of your own claims having validity.
I am not struggling with anything.
Have a good day, Richard. :)
-
It's hard to fathom the logic behind suggesting that a short delay in finding the bus transfer after his arrest lends itself somehow to it being planted. But again, this implies that Oswald never got on the bus, and someone is trying to place Oswald there by planting evidence. We are left in a sense of wonderment, however, as to WHY they are doing this. In this CTer fantasy, the DPD or someone goes to the considerable risk of planting evidence in a homicide case - and not just any homicide case but the assassination of the president. WHY is it so important for them to place Oswald on this bus that goes nowhere? How do they ensure that the driver and other passengers either support or at least don't refute that Oswald got on that bus? How do they know that Oswald was not in the presence of someone else who could vouch for him at the time he was supposed to be on the bus? None of that is ever addressed. It's just the transfer wasn't found right away, so that makes it suspect for some unspecified reason.
You make a great point, Richard; one that is never properly addressed.
-
You have time to type another rant but can't answer a very simple question? Why would anyone plant evidence to place Oswald on the bus? How can you suggest the bus transfer was planted but then claim you are not suggesting a conspiracy? If Oswald left in a car, wouldn't that confirm a conspiracy? It wasn't his car. Why would anyone be picking him up in the middle of the day except to aid in his escape? It's an interesting psychological insight to watch you struggle so mightily against accepting the consequences of your own claims having validity.
You have time to type another rant but can't answer a very simple question?
Looking in the mirror? In recent months you have been asked numerous questions in connection with all sorts of wild claims you made and you haven't been able to answer one of them. Instead, you've ran away saying you don't want to talk to me anymore but then respond to my comments by pretending to respond to a comment of another user. You're truly pathetic.
Why would anyone plant evidence to place Oswald on the bus?
That's actually a good question. Perhaps the simple answer is that at some point in time during the "investigation" they needed to explain how (the long dead) Oswald made his way to the roominghouse as several witnesses had said he (or somebody looking like him) has been picked up by a rambler. With Bledsoe's "identification" of a hole in Oswald's shirt (the one he wasn't wearing on the bus) perhaps it was just convinient to place Oswald on the bus near the TSBD.
If you want to claim that the bus transfer was actually authentic and did belong to Oswald, you need to produce a chain of evidence for it. But, as with so many other pieces of evidence, no such chain exists. So, I'll ask again, when was the bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald first reported and where is the document showing it was placed in the evidence locker prior to Oswald's death?
How can you suggest the bus transfer was planted but then claim you are not suggesting a conspiracy?
If the bus transfer was planted it was off course done as part of a conspiracy. That's obvious.
If Oswald left in a car, wouldn't that confirm a conspiracy?
Yes indeed... and that may well have been the reason for the bus transfer.
Thank you for providing a possible answer to your own question. Thumb1:
-
So in addition to someone/anyone on the bus who said Oswald boarded that bus (former landlady Mary Bledsoe), we can now add William Whaley to the list of those telling porky pies in order to frame the patsy.
-
It's hard to fathom the logic behind suggesting that a short delay in finding the bus transfer after his arrest lends itself somehow to it being planted. But again, this implies that Oswald never got on the bus, and someone is trying to place Oswald there by planting evidence. We are left in a sense of wonderment, however, as to WHY they are doing this. In this CTer fantasy, the DPD or someone goes to the considerable risk of planting evidence in a homicide case - and not just any homicide case but the assassination of the president. WHY is it so important for them to place Oswald on this bus that goes nowhere? How do they ensure that the driver and other passengers either support or at least don't refute that Oswald got on that bus? How do they know that Oswald was not in the presence of someone else who could vouch for him at the time he was supposed to be on the bus? None of that is ever addressed. It's just the transfer wasn't found right away, so that makes it suspect for some unspecified reason.
It's hard to fathom the logic behind suggesting that a short delay in finding the bus transfer after his arrest lends itself somehow to it being planted.
Thanks Richard, it's abundantly clear to me, that initially for everyone's safety the Dallas Police simply patted down Oswald and shortly thereafter it was determined that Oswald should be searched more thoroughly. Simple as that!
But again, this implies that Oswald never got on the bus, and someone is trying to place Oswald there by planting evidence.
The idea of adding an unnecessary complication is absurd.
Bledsoe, who knew Oswald, confirmed on the very next day that Oswald got on and off her bus while the bus was stuck on Elm street. And as far as I know at that stage, none of that information was public knowledge and even if it was, how would Bledsoe know that the bus in question was in fact the same bus that took her to where she lived?
McWatters on the same day confirmed that the Bus transfer on Oswald came from his bus and the transfer had McWatters unique punch mark. Besides, the Bus Transfer could only have come from McWatters and if McWatters was part of some massive conspiracy, McWatters would have positively identified Oswald but alas, Oswald was as expected just another unimportant passenger.
And to top it off, Oswald himself admitted being on a bus and then he admitted to getting off the bus because the bus was stuck in traffic.
The only reason the CT's are fighting this hard to deny this solid piece of evidence is because the CT's know that Oswald's panicked flight from the TSBD is powerful evidence of Oswald's undeniable guilt!
Flight, in the context of criminal law, means when a person accused of a crime runs away or hides to avoid arrest or prosecution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/flight#:~:text=Flight%2C%20in%20the%20context%20of,to%20avoid%20arrest%20or%20prosecution
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFLqx46R/flight-zps2prfpevd.gif)
JohnM
-
So in addition to someone/anyone on the bus who said Oswald boarded that bus (former landlady Mary Bledsoe), we can now add William Whaley to the list of those telling porky pies in order to frame the patsy.
When was the discovery of the bus transfer first mentioned in a DPD report?
-
The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm
Senator COOPER - Are you certain that you did see some man who knocked on the window of your door of your bus and wanted to get in your bus at some point near Murphy?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; I am positive about that. There was--
Senator COOPER - You saw that man get off later?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Before you got to--
Mr. McWATTERS - Before I got to Lamar Street, between Poydras and Lamar.
Senator COOPER - That is all.
Mr. McWATTERS - The best I can remember is that is where I issued two transfers. That is the best I can remember.
Mr. BALL - To clear this matter up with your punch, you have your punch there, have you?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
Mr. BALL - Tell me when you issued it, on what run?
Mr. McWATTERS - I issued it on Marsalis and Munger line at I would say, around to the best of my knowledge it would be around 12:40 or somewheres in that vicinity on November 22.
Mr. BALL - And it has your punch mark, has it?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; that is my punch mark.
Mr. BALL - Identify it punched in the p.m. section?
Mr. McWATTERS - Of the Lakewood column here on the transfer.
Mr. BALL - When did you punch it exactly? Where were you when you punched it?
Mr. McWATTERS - I punched it before I left the end of the line, in other words.
Mr. BALL - This is number 004459, is the transfer number. Entitled "The Shoppers Transfer." Every transfer has a separate number, has it?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; everyone has a separate number.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49672/m1/1/med_res/)
The back Oswald's Bus transfer shows multiple folds.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0g0PVWw/back-of-osw--ald-bus-transferb.jpg)
Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bookhout.htm
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hosty.htm
-
It’s seems odd to me that Oswald would have walked 7 blocks to get on a bus that he could see was parked in a position such that the bus was facing TSBD because the last thing thing he would want is to do is go back towards the TSBD if he was intending to go home asap.
If Bledsoe made up the part about seeing a hole in Oswald’s brown shirt which he was not yet wearing, then how can we believe anything else she says?
If Mcwatters cannot ID Oswald, and the ticket had no fingerprints then it’s a weak argument to proclaim that because some ticket had the same punch mark McWatters used proves Oswald was the man to whom that ticket was given.
Its highly improbable that Oswald was only casually searched after being arrested as prime suspect who shot a police officer,
Especially if Oswald had just been involved in hitting another DPD officer and was resisting arrest outside the theater also.
Therefore wallet and ticket and bullets supposedly found on Oswald’s should have been found immediately on Oswald’s person instead of hours later.
Therefore there is reasonable doubt about the validity of the evidence and considering the chain of custody problems also, such evidence is suspect.
Regarding Markam catching her 1:15 bus, it’s more probable imo that it’s the 1:12 bus which matches her leaving by 1:04 clock and half way to the bus stop by 1:07 which = arriving at her bus stop by 1:10 thus only having to wait 2 minutes and not likely more than 5 minutes even if the 1:12 bus was a few minutes late.
The other option of a 1:22 bus would require that either Markams 1:07 time was accurate and that she was going to wait for 12 more minutes upon reaching the bus stop , or you have to claim that Markams clock was slow by at least 6 minutes such that what she thought was 1:07 was actually 1:13 and that she was arriving at her bus stop at 1:15 which would require waiting another 7 minutes ( or more if the 1:22 bus was a few minutes late).
Here’s another reason: Markam relies on a bus to get to work and to be more probable to get to work she opts to take the 1:12 bus because if for some reason that bus fails to show up, she still has a good chance of catching a 1:22 bus allowing her to get to work despite the mishap of the other bus failure.
-
It’s seems odd to me that Oswald would have walked 7 blocks to get on a bus that he could see was parked in a position such that the bus was facing TSBD because the last thing thing he would want is to do is go back towards the TSBD if he was intending to go home asap.
If Bledsoe made up the part about seeing a hole in Oswald’s brown shirt which he was not yet wearing, then how can we believe anything else she says?
If Mcwatters cannot ID Oswald, and the ticket had no fingerprints then it’s a weak argument to proclaim that because some ticket had the same punch mark McWatters used proves Oswald was the man to whom that ticket was given.
Its highly improbable that Oswald was only casually searched after being arrested as prime suspect who shot a police officer,
Especially if Oswald had just been involved in hitting another DPD officer and was resisting arrest outside the theater also.
Therefore wallet and ticket and bullets supposedly found on Oswald’s should have been found immediately on Oswald’s person instead of hours later.
Therefore there is reasonable doubt about the validity of the evidence and considering the chain of custody problems also, such evidence is suspect.
Regarding Markam catching her 1:15 bus, it’s more probable imo that it’s the 1:12 bus which matches her leaving by 1:04 clock and half way to the bus stop by 1:07 which = arriving at her bus stop by 1:10 thus only having to wait 2 minutes and not likely more than 5 minutes even if the 1:12 bus was a few minutes late.
The other option of a 1:22 bus would require that either Markams 1:07 time was accurate and that she was going to wait for 12 more minutes upon reaching the bus stop , or you have to claim that Markams clock was slow by at least 6 minutes such that what she thought was 1:07 was actually 1:13 and that she was arriving at her bus stop at 1:15 which would require waiting another 7 minutes ( or more if the 1:22 bus was a few minutes late).
Here’s another reason: Markam relies on a bus to get to work and to be more probable to get to work she opts to take the 1:12 bus because if for some reason that bus fails to show up, she still has a good chance of catching a 1:22 bus allowing her to get to work despite the mishap of the other bus failure.
This is brutal. Here it is again. WHY would the conspirators fake Oswald's presence on the bus? W-H-Y?
-
I think the reason somebody decided to plant a ticket with McWatters punch mark, was to “embellish” the time line that was being constructed for the period of time Oswald left TSBD to when he was seen by Earlene Roberts entering the boarding house
They were trying to discredit other witnesses (Roger Craig etc) claiming to have seen Oswald leaving TSBD at 12:45 and picked up by a rambler station wagon by DC man after a whistle was heard.
So it’s more like an overzealous decision they made just like some of the other decisions they made up on the 6th floor TSBD at the SN window moving and placing boxes and failing to photograph the paper bag that has various accounts of where it was found.
So it’s NOT “conspirators” wanting a fake Oswald on a bus. It is instead an overzealous Fritz /DPD team under a LOT of pressure to make sure Oswald was their man and to follow Hoover directive the public must be convinced of no conspiracy.
-
Regarding Markam catching her 1:15 bus, it’s more probable imo that it’s the 1:12 bus which matches her leaving by 1:04 clock and half way to the bus stop by 1:07 which = arriving at her bus stop by 1:10 thus only having to wait 2 minutes and not likely more than 5 minutes even if the 1:12 bus was a few minutes late.
The other option of a 1:22 bus would require that either Markams 1:07 time was accurate and that she was going to wait for 12 more minutes upon reaching the bus stop , or you have to claim that Markams clock was slow by at least 6 minutes such that what she thought was 1:07 was actually 1:13 and that she was arriving at her bus stop at 1:15 which would require waiting another 7 minutes ( or more if the 1:22 bus was a few minutes late).
Here’s another reason: Markam relies on a bus to get to work and to be more probable to get to work she opts to take the 1:12 bus because if for some reason that bus fails to show up, she still has a good chance of catching a 1:22 bus allowing her to get to work despite the mishap of the other bus failure.
Zeon,
The FBI determined that a bus stopped at that stop at 1:12, 1:22 and about every ten minutes afterward. Markham was not due at work until 2:30. She had plenty of time to catch another bus even if it was the 1:22 bus that she would miss.
-
I think the reason somebody decided to plant a ticket with McWatters punch mark, was to “embellish” the time line that was being constructed for the period of time Oswald left TSBD to when he was seen by Earlene Roberts entering the boarding house
They were trying to discredit other witnesses (Roger Craig etc) claiming to have seen Oswald leaving TSBD at 12:45 and picked up by a rambler station wagon by DC man after a whistle was heard.
So it’s more like an overzealous decision they made just like some of the other decisions they made up on the 6th floor TSBD at the SN window moving and placing boxes and failing to photograph the paper bag that has various accounts of where it was found.
So it’s NOT “conspirators” wanting a fake Oswald on a bus. It is instead an overzealous Fritz /DPD team under a LOT of pressure to make sure Oswald was their man and to follow Hoover directive the public must be convinced of no conspiracy.
"I think the reason somebody decided to plant a ticket with McWatters punch mark, was to “embellish” the time line that was being constructed for the period of time Oswald left TSBD to when he was seen by Earlene Roberts entering the boarding house"
How did "they" know what McWatters' punch mark looked like?
How did "they" know that McWatters had given a transfer to a man not far from the TSBD?
I agree that the DPD investigation was incompetent beyond belief, including the unbelievably incompetent search of Oswald after he was arrested.
-
Zeon,
The FBI determined that a bus stopped at that stop at 1:12, 1:22 and about every ten minutes afterward. Markham was not due at work until 2:30. She had plenty of time to catch another bus even if it was the 1:22 bus that she would miss.
That may be true, but she said she left her home to make a phone call and ultimately left for the bus stop at 1.06 or 1.07.
Now why would she do that if she could have caught a bus on Jefferson at 1.32 or even later?
It doesn't matter which bus you think she could have caught. What matters is that, in her mind, she placed herself at the bus stop at 1.15, which is why she left at 1.06 or 1.07, and I would argue that was her daily routine.
-
I think the reason somebody decided to plant a ticket with McWatters punch mark, was to “embellish” the time line that was being constructed for the period of time Oswald left TSBD to when he was seen by Earlene Roberts entering the boarding house
They were trying to discredit other witnesses (Roger Craig etc) claiming to have seen Oswald leaving TSBD at 12:45 and picked up by a rambler station wagon by DC man after a whistle was heard.
So it’s more like an overzealous decision they made just like some of the other decisions they made up on the 6th floor TSBD at the SN window moving and placing boxes and failing to photograph the paper bag that has various accounts of where it was found.
So it’s NOT “conspirators” wanting a fake Oswald on a bus. It is instead an overzealous Fritz /DPD team under a LOT of pressure to make sure Oswald was their man and to follow Hoover directive the public must be convinced of no conspiracy.
How exactly does the bus non-event advance any of these objectives? The bus takes Oswald nowhere. Oswald was seen by the cab driver. He would also have to be in on the plot to cover up for Oswald taking a ride with someone else to his boardinghouse. There is no reason to fake both a bus and cab ride. And why are the conspirators or whomever you are implying drove Oswald from the TSBD helping to escape. Aren't they trying to frame him?
-
Whaleys manifest has Oswald in his taxi not later than 12:45 and this was in conflict with Roger Craig’s observation of Oswald at 12:45 at the SW corner of TSBD and him running to the rambler station wagon driven by DC man.
So the ticket would be useful (they thought) to reinforce the Whaley taxi ride and a ticket added to Oswald’s shirt , so that Roger Craig whom had been a Deputy Sheriff of the Year, could be more effectively discredited.
But they got the wrong estimate (imo) on the shooting of Tippet occurring at 1:15 because maybe somebody thought ( (like Bill Brown 🤔) that the DOA 1:15 document meant the same thing as a physician “estimate” of death and therefore Tippit died 1:15 at 10th and Patton)
IF however, Oswald did in fact tell Fritz about boarding a bus , and IF Oswald really did shoot Tippit, then is it reasonable to suspect that Oswald maybe just made that up to try To aid himself by discrediting ( in his mind) the Whaley taxi ride ( perhaps Oswald saw Whaley write in the 12:45 block of his manifest) by Oswald claiming to be on a bus getting a ticket at 12:45?
This is why I’d rather just disregard the bus ticket and Oswald on the bus as late as 12:43 as unsubstantiated and just go with Whaleys 15 minute variable 12:30-12:45 manifest block in which case it’s possible therefore that Oswald got in the taxi as early as 12:40.
Then the 1:07 timeline arrival to 10th and Patton works , the clocks and watches of Bowley and Markam don’t have be running 6 minutes slow, and Tippit is shot by 1:09 and the Bowley call made at 1:10, and the ambulance dispatched gets to the scene by 1:12, loads the body in 30 seconds, returns to hospital by 1:14:30, unloads body to emergency room in another 30 secs, where the doctor notes the time is 1:15 as he pronounces Tippit dead.
-
Whaleys manifest has Oswald in his taxi not later than 12:45 and this was in conflict with Roger Craig’s observation of Oswald at 12:45 at the SW corner of TSBD and him running to the rambler station wagon driven by DC man.
So the ticket would be useful (they thought) to reinforce the Whaley taxi ride and a ticket added to Oswald’s shirt , so that Roger Craig whom had been a Deputy Sheriff of the Year, could be more effectively discredited.
But they got the wrong estimate (imo) on the shooting of Tippet occurring at 1:15 because maybe somebody thought ( (like Bill Brown 🤔) that the DOA 1:15 document meant the same thing as a physician “estimate” of death and therefore Tippit died 1:15 at 10th and Patton)
IF however, Oswald did in fact tell Fritz about boarding a bus , and IF Oswald really did shoot Tippit, then is it reasonable to suspect that Oswald maybe just made that up to try To aid himself by discrediting ( in his mind) the Whaley taxi ride ( perhaps Oswald saw Whaley write in the 12:45 block of his manifest) by Oswald claiming to be on a bus getting a ticket at 12:45?
This is why I’d rather just disregard the bus ticket and Oswald on the bus as late as 12:43 as unsubstantiated and just go with Whaleys 15 minute variable 12:30-12:45 manifest block in which case it’s possible therefore that Oswald got in the taxi as early as 12:40.
Then the 1:07 timeline arrival to 10th and Patton works , the clocks and watches of Bowley and Markam don’t have be running 6 minutes slow, and Tippit is shot by 1:09 and the Bowley call made at 1:10, and the ambulance dispatched gets to the scene by 1:12, loads the body in 30 seconds, returns to hospital by 1:14:30, unloads body to emergency room in another 30 secs, where the doctor notes the time is 1:15 as he pronounces Tippit dead.
Then the 1:07 timeline arrival to 10th and Patton works , the clocks and watches of Bowley and Markam don’t have be running 6 minutes slow, and Tippit is shot by 1:09 and the Bowley call made at 1:10, and the ambulance dispatched gets to the scene by 1:12, loads the body in 30 seconds, returns to hospital by 1:14:30, unloads body to emergency room in another 30 secs, where the doctor notes the time is 1:15 as he pronounces Tippit dead.
You've got, Zeon. There's a mountain of evidence that places Tippit's shooting somewhere between 1:08 and 1:10 and the only thing that does not compute with that are the DPD recordings/transcripts, which as far as time stamps go can not considered to be reliable according to Bowles, who actually was the man in charge of the DPD radio operators.
I would love to do a time trial, based on the actual witness testimonies and see what would be the result, but I seriously doubt that there will be one LN to go along with that.
-
Whaleys manifest has Oswald in his taxi not later than 12:45 and this was in conflict with Roger Craig’s observation of Oswald at 12:45 at the SW corner of TSBD and him running to the rambler station wagon driven by DC man.
So the ticket would be useful (they thought) to reinforce the Whaley taxi ride and a ticket added to Oswald’s shirt , so that Roger Craig whom had been a Deputy Sheriff of the Year, could be more effectively discredited.
But they got the wrong estimate (imo) on the shooting of Tippet occurring at 1:15 because maybe somebody thought ( (like Bill Brown 🤔) that the DOA 1:15 document meant the same thing as a physician “estimate” of death and therefore Tippit died 1:15 at 10th and Patton)
IF however, Oswald did in fact tell Fritz about boarding a bus , and IF Oswald really did shoot Tippit, then is it reasonable to suspect that Oswald maybe just made that up to try To aid himself by discrediting ( in his mind) the Whaley taxi ride ( perhaps Oswald saw Whaley write in the 12:45 block of his manifest) by Oswald claiming to be on a bus getting a ticket at 12:45?
This is why I’d rather just disregard the bus ticket and Oswald on the bus as late as 12:43 as unsubstantiated and just go with Whaleys 15 minute variable 12:30-12:45 manifest block in which case it’s possible therefore that Oswald got in the taxi as early as 12:40.
Then the 1:07 timeline arrival to 10th and Patton works , the clocks and watches of Bowley and Markam don’t have be running 6 minutes slow, and Tippit is shot by 1:09 and the Bowley call made at 1:10, and the ambulance dispatched gets to the scene by 1:12, loads the body in 30 seconds, returns to hospital by 1:14:30, unloads body to emergency room in another 30 secs, where the doctor notes the time is 1:15 as he pronounces Tippit dead.
The police tapes tell you when the shots were fired and it was not before 1:09. For example, Domingo Benavides stated that after the killer went around the corner, he sat in his truck "for a second or two" (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS-TV, 1967) and then went over to the patrol car to report the shooting on the police radio. Benavides begins keying the mic at around 1:15/1:16. Do you believe Benavides cowered down inside his truck for 7 or 8 minutes?
By the way, Bowles says nothing about the tapes ever being off by as much as 7 or 8 minutes.
-
The police tapes tell you when the shots were fired and it was not before 1:09. For example, Domingo Benavides stated that after the killer went around the corner, he sat in his truck "for a second or two" (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS-TV, 1967) and then went over to the patrol car to report the shooting on the police radio. Benavides begins keying the mic at around 1:15/1:16. Do you believe Benavides cowered down inside his truck for 7 or 8 minutes?
By the way, Bowles says nothing about the tapes ever being off by as much as 7 or 8 minutes.
A classic example of how the DPD recordings/transcripts trump everything else, when they really don't.
For example, Domingo Benavides stated that after the killer went around the corner, he sat in his truck "for a second or two" (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS-TV, 1967) and then went over to the patrol car to report the shooting on the police radio.
At other times he said several minutes..
Benavides begins keying the mic at around 1:15/1:16. Do you believe Benavides cowered down inside his truck for 7 or 8 minutes?
There is no conclusive evidence that Benavides begins keying the mic at around 1:15/1:16. That's just something Dale Myers concluded based on no evidence whatsoever.
By the way, Bowles says nothing about the tapes ever being off by as much as 7 or 8 minutes.
True.. he just said that operator's clocks would be off to the main clock in the office which in turn would be off by one or two minues to the main town hall clock, which in turn would be off from "real time"
Question for you, Bill; how can Tippit be pronounced dead at the hospital at 1:15 (confirmed by DPD officers that were present as well as the release for autopsy document) when he wasn't killed until 1:14 or 1:15 at 10th street?
-
The police tapes tell you when the shots were fired and it was not before 1:09. For example, Domingo Benavides stated that after the killer went around the corner, he sat in his truck "for a second or two" (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS-TV, 1967) and then went over to the patrol car to report the shooting on the police radio. Benavides begins keying the mic at around 1:15/1:16. Do you believe Benavides cowered down inside his truck for 7 or 8 minutes?
By the way, Bowles says nothing about the tapes ever being off by as much as 7 or 8 minutes.
-
Then the 1:07 timeline arrival to 10th and Patton works , the clocks and watches of Bowley and Markam don’t have be running 6 minutes slow, and Tippit is shot by 1:09 and the Bowley call made at 1:10, and the ambulance dispatched gets to the scene by 1:12, loads the body in 30 seconds, returns to hospital by 1:14:30, unloads body to emergency room in another 30 secs, where the doctor notes the time is 1:15 as he pronounces Tippit dead.
You've got, Zeon. There's a mountain of evidence that places Tippit's shooting somewhere between 1:08 and 1:10 and the only thing that does not compute with that are the DPD recordings/transcripts, which as far as time stamps go can not considered to be reliable according to Bowles, who actually was the man in charge of the DPD radio operators.
I would love to do a time trial, based on the actual witness testimonies and see what would be the result, but I seriously doubt that there will be one LN to go along with that.
Martin, it doesn't matter what time people guessed, the eyewitness testimony clearly says that Tippit's murderer was Oswald!
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Oswald was also identified holding a gun.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted to various law enforcement officers that he was carrying a gun.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
1. Roberts didn't say Oswald was buttoning up a jacket but specifically testified that Oswald was "zipping up" a jacket.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/images/landlady.jpg)
2. Oswald was positively identified at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene while wearing a jacket.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iBN1_9VPzOg/hqdefault.jpg)
3. Oswald was arrested without a jacket.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
4. Oswald was positively identified as carrying a gun while at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene. Callaway said that while he was in the Marines, he described the way Oswald was holding the gun was what he recalled as the "the raised pistol position". Didn't Oswald receive Marine training?
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsrYV2NX/raised-pistol-position.jpg)
5. The same parking lot where Oswald was seen entering, was later found to have a discarded jacket that Marina testified belonged to Oswald.
6. Oswald's jacket that Marina later proved was Oswald's was not long after filmed in the Parking lot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y95t3bmJ/Oswald-jacket-in-parking-lot.jpg)
7. Some members theorize that the Dallas Police without knowing that multiple Eyewitnesses saw Oswald wearing a jacket and/or that he was arrested without a jacket, took the jacket from Irving and placed it in the Parking lot? Talk about desperation based on stupidity.
8. The same shells that were discarded by Oswald at the crime scene Exclusively matched Oswald's revolver.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0N5cqdsm/Four-38-special-cartridges-found-at-the-Tippit-crime-scene-NARA.jpg)
9. Out of the hundreds of square miles of Dallas, the only Police Officer shot in years, was a stone's throw from both Oswald's rooming house and the the Theater where Oswald was arrested.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsGzLCmT/rsz-a-tippitmap-1.jpg)
10. Why would anybody else have any motive to kill Tippit who was the first Police Officer gunned down in Dallas for many years, but perhaps an escaping assassin would have reason to commit another murder.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71nb40EY+CL._UC256,256_CACC,256,256_.jpg)
11. After Oswald left the Rooming House and before Oswald was arrested, Tippit was killed.
12. Oswald's reason for being on the side streets, was obviously because after killing Kennedy, he was avoiding the main roads. Duh!
13. Oswald while being arrested tried to use the same revolver to kill more cops.
14. Oswald admitted to Fritz that he was carrying his revolver, ""Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it."
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCXFt5t1/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
JohnM
-
In that video clip of police guy in his black looking uniform holding what looks like a white jacket , the 2 cars in the background seem to be the same white as the jacket.
Since Mr. Mytton has previously suggested the jacket really is not white but is in fact a light GRAY, then since the 2 cars are the same tone as the jacket , then both of the cars must be light gray also?
Did Marina see the video of the officer holding the jacket and from that video she concluded that jacket was the light gray jacket belonging to Oswald?
-
If the DOA 1:15 time stamp is the Time Tippit was pronounced dead at the hospital , then Benavides did not wait 6 or 7 minutes in his truck.
Thank you Bill Brown for reinforcing the 1:07 Markam sighting of Oswald as the more probable time Oswald ( or similar looking man) arrived at 10th&Patton. 🙂
-
Official Time documents were doctored:
https://jfk.boards.net/post/57/thread
-
Martin, it doesn't matter what time people guessed, the eyewitness testimony clearly says that Tippit's murderer was Oswald!
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Oswald was also identified holding a gun.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted to various law enforcement officers that he was carrying a gun.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
If you want a serious discussion about this case, then stop being evasive. Eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most unreliable evidence there is. Even more so given the pathetic nature of the line ups. If you want to discuss the eyewitnesses, we can do that in another thread. I'll gladly destroy your fairytale.
The subject of my post has nothing to do with eyewitness testimony. Deal with the subject of my post or stay out of the discussion.
-
1. Roberts didn't say Oswald was buttoning up a jacket but specifically testified that Oswald was "zipping up" a jacket.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/images/landlady.jpg)
2. Oswald was positively identified at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene while wearing a jacket.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iBN1_9VPzOg/hqdefault.jpg)
3. Oswald was arrested without a jacket.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
4. Oswald was positively identified as carrying a gun while at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene. Callaway said that while he was in the Marines, he described the way Oswald was holding the gun was what he recalled as the "the raised pistol position". Didn't Oswald receive Marine training?
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsrYV2NX/raised-pistol-position.jpg)
5. The same parking lot where Oswald was seen entering, was later found to have a discarded jacket that Marina testified belonged to Oswald.
6. Oswald's jacket that Marina later proved was Oswald's was not long after filmed in the Parking lot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y95t3bmJ/Oswald-jacket-in-parking-lot.jpg)
7. Some members theorize that the Dallas Police without knowing that multiple Eyewitnesses saw Oswald wearing a jacket and/or that he was arrested without a jacket, took the jacket from Irving and placed it in the Parking lot? Talk about desperation based on stupidity.
8. The same shells that were discarded by Oswald at the crime scene Exclusively matched Oswald's revolver.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0N5cqdsm/Four-38-special-cartridges-found-at-the-Tippit-crime-scene-NARA.jpg)
9. Out of the hundreds of square miles of Dallas, the only Police Officer shot in years, was a stone's throw from both Oswald's rooming house and the the Theater where Oswald was arrested.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsGzLCmT/rsz-a-tippitmap-1.jpg)
10. Why would anybody else have any motive to kill Tippit who was the first Police Officer gunned down in Dallas for many years, but perhaps an escaping assassin would have reason to commit another murder.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71nb40EY+CL._UC256,256_CACC,256,256_.jpg)
11. After Oswald left the Rooming House and before Oswald was arrested, Tippit was killed.
12. Oswald's reason for being on the side streets, was obviously because after killing Kennedy, he was avoiding the main roads. Duh!
13. Oswald while being arrested tried to use the same revolver to kill more cops.
14. Oswald admitted to Fritz that he was carrying his revolver, ""Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it."
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCXFt5t1/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
JohnM
Well, isn't it just too bad that Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening and that Marina confirmed it.
Unless you can find some magical way in which a jacket that was in Irving on Thursday evening could have ended up at the roominghouse on Friday afternoon and subsequently at the parking lot where it was found and described as being white, you've got a problem.
Btw, I can give you a possible and plausible explanation on how the white jacket found at the parking lot suddenly turned out to be a gray jacket when it got to the DPD HQ, but I'm sure you won't like it.
-
"Eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most unreliable evidence there is." -- Martin Weidmann
"Well, isn't it just too bad that Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening..." -- also Martin Weidmann
-
If you want a serious discussion about this case, then stop being evasive. Eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most unreliable evidence there is. Even more so given the pathetic nature of the line ups. If you want to discuss the eyewitnesses, we can do that in another thread. I'll gladly destroy your fairytale.
The subject of my post has nothing to do with eyewitness testimony. Deal with the subject of my post or stay out of the discussion.
Huh?? Firstly, You do realize that the majority of times that you rely on mostly comes from eyewitness testimony? DOH! And your star eyewitness was Markham, who you Martin in the past, have not been exactly too kind to her state of mental health!
....who was an even bigger screwball than Markham, and whose "identification" of Oswald was completely pathetic.
Secondly, Oswald wasn't in some dark alley identified by a single eyewitness, but was out in the middle of the day, identified by not only one or two or three or even four eyewitnesses but there was a plethora of almost a DOZEN eyewitnesses.
Thirdly, the Police time on the radio was based on constant time checks and was actually the only officially calibrated time! And Tippit's doctor's report was clearly stated as Tippit arriving as DOA(Dead on Arrival) meaning the actual time of death, you do realize, happened some time before he arrived.
Fourthly, Let's as you suggest throw out all the eyewitness testimony and instead rely on the physical evidence.
A. we are left with the shells at the crime scene that was seen discarded by Tippit's murderer and were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0N5cqdsm/Four-38-special-cartridges-found-at-the-Tippit-crime-scene-NARA.jpg)
B. Nicol a ballistics expert exclusively matched one of the bullets in Tippit's body to Oswald's revolver and the following proof that Nicol forensically photographed, I believe still to this day hasn't been debunked.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dyv7Z8Pd/CE-625-Nicol-Tippit.jpg)
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
C. Oswald's zippered jacket was discovered close to the crime scene in a car park which the gunman was seen entering, and this jacket was actually filmed at the time and considering the entirety of the evidence, leaves any possibility of the Jacket being planted, being not only comical but completely impossible!. Earlene Roberts confirmed that Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket when he left the Rooming House and Oswald was arrested without the zippered jacket and Marina confirmed that the jacket that was discovered in the parking lot was owned by Lee Harvey Oswald!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y95t3bmJ/Osw-ald-jacket-in-parking-lot.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/439gMtXZ/jacket-initials-1.jpg)
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
D. When arrested Oswald pulled the exact same weapon that Oswald was sent and the same weapon which killed Tippit and the same weapon that Oswald attempted to kill more Police Officers and this is the man who you want to believe is innocent by fabricating some outlandish fantasy scenario? Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCXFt5t1/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
Martin BTW, next time don't bring a knife to a gunfight! LOL!
JohnM
-
"Eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most unreliable evidence there is." -- Martin Weidmann
"Well, isn't it just too bad that Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening..." -- also Martin Weidmann
Ouch, that's gotta hurt! LMFAO!
JohnM
-
"Eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most unreliable evidence there is." -- Martin Weidmann
"Well, isn't it just too bad that Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening..." -- also Martin Weidmann
Yes, it's also too bad that a half blind Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket, while paying more attention to the television.
Btw, Frazier's sighting was corroborated by Marina who also said the gray jacket was in Irving on Thursday evening.
-
Huh?? Firstly, You do realize that the majority of times that you rely on mostly comes from eyewitness testimony? DOH! And your star eyewitness was Markham, who you Martin in the past, have not been exactly too kind to her state of mental health!
Secondly, Oswald wasn't in some dark alley identified by a single eyewitness, but was out in the middle of the day, identified by not only one or two or three or even four eyewitnesses but there was a plethora of almost a DOZEN eyewitnesses.
Thirdly, the Police time on the radio was based on constant time checks and was actually the only officially calibrated time! And Tippit's doctor's report was clearly stated as Tippit arriving as DOA(Dead on Arrival) meaning the actual time of death, you do realize, happened some time before he arrived.
Fourthly, Let's as you suggest throw out all the eyewitness testimony and instead rely on the physical evidence.
A. we are left with the shells at the crime scene that was seen discarded by Tippit's murderer and were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0N5cqdsm/Four-38-special-cartridges-found-at-the-Tippit-crime-scene-NARA.jpg)
B. Nicol a ballistics expert exclusively matched one of the bullets in Tippit's body to Oswald's revolver and the following proof that Nicol forensically photographed, I believe still to this day hasn't been debunked.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dyv7Z8Pd/CE-625-Nicol-Tippit.jpg)
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
C. Oswald's zippered jacket was discovered close to the crime scene in a car park which the gunman was seen entering, and this jacket was actually filmed at the time and considering the entirety of the evidence, leaves any possibility of the Jacket being planted, being not only comical but completely impossible!. Earlene Roberts confirmed that Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket when he left the Rooming House and Oswald was arrested without the zippered jacket and Marina confirmed that the jacket that was discovered in the parking lot was owned by Lee Harvey Oswald!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y95t3bmJ/Osw-ald-jacket-in-parking-lot.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/439gMtXZ/jacket-initials-1.jpg)
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
D. When arrested Oswald pulled the exact same weapon that Oswald was sent and the same weapon which killed Tippit and the same weapon that Oswald attempted to kill more Police Officers and this is the man who you want to believe is innocent by fabricating some outlandish fantasy scenario? Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCXFt5t1/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
Martin BTW, next time don't bring a knife to a gunfight! LOL!
JohnM
I'm going to ignore your usual nonsense and will only reply to two of your comments;
the Police time on the radio was based on constant time checks and was actually the only officially calibrated time!
Utter BS. The clocks used by the dispatchers were not calibrated at all and the time calls were in no way accurate. All you have to do is use a stopwatch and time the times between two calls. Some calls only had 45 seconds between them.
And Tippit's doctor's report was clearly stated as Tippit arriving as DOA(Dead on Arrival) meaning the actual time of death, you do realize, happened some time before he arrived.
More BS.... Davenport confirmed that when Tippit was brought into the hospital the doctors checked for sign of life and when they found none they declared him D.O.A. at 1:15.
But if you want to argue that Tippit was already dead before he arrived at the hospital at 1:15, that's fine by me.
Btw, interesting photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/439gMtXZ/jacket-initials-1.jpg)
Can you explain how there are initials on the jacket from police officers that were never part of the chain of custody and why the initials of the police officers that actually were in the chain of custody are not there?
A uniformed policeman saw a jacket (described as white in DPD radio communications) and showed it to Captain Westbrook. The Captain had just come from 10th street and wanted to move on to the Texas Theater.
So, he gave the jacket to another uniformed policeman and left. He could not identify either police officer. Nobody knows what happened to the jacket after Westbrook left, until it somehow showed up at the DPD HQ where it magically had turned gray.
Go figure.....
-
I'm going to ignore your usual nonsense and will only reply to two of your comments;
the Police time on the radio was based on constant time checks and was actually the only officially calibrated time!
Utter BS. The clocks used by the dispatchers were not calibrated at all and the time calls were in no way accurate. All you have to do is use a stopwatch and time the times between two calls. Some calls only had 45 seconds between them.
And Tippit's doctor's report was clearly stated as Tippit arriving as DOA(Dead on Arrival) meaning the actual time of death, you do realize, happened some time before he arrived.
More BS.... Davenport confirmed that when Tippit was brought into the hospital the doctors checked for sign of life and when they found none they declared him D.O.A. at 1:15.
But if you want to argue that Tippit was already dead before he arrived at the hospital at 1:15, that's fine by me.
I'm going to ignore your usual nonsense and will only reply to two of your comments;
No problem, I understand that Conspiracy Theorist's have the same aversion to the evidence in this case as a Vampire has to garlic!
Utter BS. The clocks used by the dispatchers were not calibrated at all and the time calls were in no way accurate. All you have to do is use a stopwatch and time the times between two calls. Some calls only had 45 seconds between them.
We know that at 12:30 that the Police radio time was the same as the Hertz public clock and I'm guessing that you are going to pathetically suggest that the Hertz public clock and/or the Dallas Police tapes were way off? YAWN!
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
And since we know that the totally random time at 12:30 was corroborated and spot on, we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fy3TNycc/Police-radio-tape-after-1-16-PM.jpg)
More BS.... Davenport confirmed that when Tippit was brought into the hospital the doctors checked for sign of life and when they found none they declared him D.O.A. at 1:15.
But if you want to argue that Tippit was already dead before he arrived at the hospital at 1:15, that's fine by me.
Thanks for confirming that Tippit showed no sign of life when he arrived at the hospital and IIRC, the police officer also said that the Doctors tried bravely to put life back into Tippit.
And all this simply means that since Tippit arrived DOA, the Official Time of Death could NOT have been when Tippit arrived at the hospital because that's scientifically impossible, but was estimated before hand at 1:15, which btw perfectly corresponds to the Dallas Police tapes!
Also, the Ambulance was inquiring some time after the 1:19 time check and wanted to know the address of where Tippit was shot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7L55Dqgn/1-19-ambulance-wants-address.jpg)
Try again!
JohnM
-
How can I be any more clear? Let's debate the shooting death of J.D. Tippit and Oswald's relationship to that death. The entire case, Callaway, Butler, loading the body and everything else. You'd be worthy, unlike someone like Iacoletti who would spend the entire debate saying things like "Oswald's gun LOL". I know you'd at least discuss the case, which I can respect.
You. (Martin Weidmann)
Me. (Bill Brown)
Tippit. (R.I.P.)
Oswald. (Scum)
Youtube.
Skype.
This week.
Next week.
Recorded live and then posted here for all to listen to.
Cool?
Hey Bill, it looks like Martin is posting again and seems to want to debate this subject, so this idea of yours sounds really neat.
How about it Martin, how about you get on Skype and debate Bill and show us all why Oswald was "innocent" of shooting Tippit! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Hey Bill, it looks like Martin is posting again and seems to want to debate this subject, so this idea of yours sounds really neat.
How about it Martin, how about you get on Skype and debate Bill and show us all why Oswald was "innocent" of shooting Tippit! Thumb1:
JohnM
But we know the routine: he will say the eyewitness accounts must be dismissed because they are unreliable; the physical evidence must be waved away because it's "possibly" faked or manufactured; and the circumstantial evidence is simply lone nutter speculation. That debate will take all of 15 seconds.
So why is here? Using his arguments how can we reconstruct what happened in Dallas? Or really in any event? Historians should cease their work, police investigations ended since everything they do can be based on "possibly" erroneous information. That "possibly" covers a lot of ground, doesn't it?
Notice again that the above standards are never applied to the conspiracy theories. I had a thread on the Mexico City/Oswald double allegation. Did he challenge the conspiracy claims, that Oswald was impersonated? No, he was upset that the claim was refuted by lone nutters and used to implicate Oswald in the assassination.
-
No problem, I understand that Conspiracy Theorist's have the same aversion to the evidence in this case as a Vampire has to garlic!
We know that at 12:30 that the Police radio time was the same as the Hertz public clock and I'm guessing that you are going to pathetically suggest that the Hertz public clock and/or the Dallas Police tapes were way off? YAWN!
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
And since we know that the totally random time at 12:30 was corroborated and spot on, we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fy3TNycc/Police-radio-tape-after-1-16-PM.jpg)
Thanks for confirming that Tippit showed no sign of life when he arrived at the hospital and IIRC, the police officer also said that the Doctors tried bravely to put life back into Tippit.
And all this simply means that since Tippit arrived DOA, the Official Time of Death could NOT have been when Tippit arrived at the hospital because that's scientifically impossible, but was estimated before hand at 1:15, which btw perfectly corresponds to the Dallas Police tapes!
Also, the Ambulance was inquiring some time after the 1:19 time check and wanted to know the address of where Tippit was shot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7L55Dqgn/1-19-ambulance-wants-address.jpg)
Try again!
JohnM
And since we know that the totally random time at 12:30 was corroborated and spot on, we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fy3TNycc/Police-radio-tape-after-1-16-PM.jpg)
Hilarious. There is not a shred of proof that the clock on top of the TSBD was correct to the second or even minute.
we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
Really? I think you mean after 1:16.
But how did you come to this conclusion when the DPD recordings were not continuously and there was a break of several minutes 1:11 or 1:12?
Thanks for confirming that Tippit showed no sign of life when he arrived at the hospital and IIRC, the police officer also said that the Doctors tried bravely to put life back into Tippit.
And all this simply means that since Tippit arrived DOA, the Official Time of Death could NOT have been when Tippit arrived at the hospital because that's scientifically impossible, but was estimated before hand at 1:15, which btw perfectly corresponds to the Dallas Police tapes!
More BS... the DPD tapes do not give a time for Tippit being killed. And yes, he most likely died at the scene at 10th street before the ambulance arrived there. Having said that, his passing was formally confirmed by the doctors at the hospital who wrote down the time of 1:15 for the DOA. In order for Tippit to get to the hospital at 1:15 he must have been shot at least three to four minutes earlier, or do you perhaps believe that he was transported to the hospital on a high speed magic carpet?
Also, the Ambulance was inquiring some time after the 1:19 time check and wanted to know the address of where Tippit was shot.
According to the highly questionable DPD radio time stamps which does not explain how Tippit's ambulance could have arrived at the hospital at or even before 1:15, as confirmed by several police and hospital reports.
Care to try again?
-
Hey Bill, it looks like Martin is posting again and seems to want to debate this subject, so this idea of yours sounds really neat.
How about it Martin, how about you get on Skype and debate Bill and show us all why Oswald was "innocent" of shooting Tippit! Thumb1:
JohnM
Where did I ever say that Oswald was innocent (or guilty for that matter) of shooting Tippit?
I don't give a damn if he did it or not. I just examine the evidence that the WC used to claim that he was guilty and am finding it highly dubious.
You might not like that, and claim that my posts show that I believe Oswald was innocent but that's just the most pathetic LN argument you frequently use.
-
But we know the routine: he will say the eyewitness accounts must be dismissed because they are unreliable; the physical evidence must be waved away because it's "possibly" faked or manufactured; and the circumstantial evidence is simply lone nutter speculation. That debate will take all of 15 seconds.
So why is here? Using his arguments how can we reconstruct what happened in Dallas? Or really in any event? Historians should cease their work, police investigations ended since everything they do can be based on "possibly" erroneous information. That "possibly" covers a lot of ground, doesn't it?
Notice again that the above standards are never applied to the conspiracy theories. I had a thread on the Mexico City/Oswald double allegation. Did he challenge the conspiracy claims, that Oswald was impersonated? No, he was upset that the claim was refuted by lone nutters and used to implicate Oswald in the assassination.
Stop being histerical. Instead of constantly complaining about people who disagree with you, why don't you try for once to discuss evidence honestly and with an open mind?
But we know the routine: he will say the eyewitness accounts must be dismissed because they are unreliable
I never said anything of the kind. But eyewitness account do need corroboration. You simply can not rely on what one eyewitness says. If five people watch a car accident, you will get five different accounts. That's how it works, regardless if you like it or not>
the physical evidence must be waved away because it's "possibly" faked or manufactured;
Wrong again. Physical evidence needs to be autheticated before it can be accepted.
and the circumstantial evidence is simply lone nutter speculation.
Once again totally wrong. Circumstantial evidence is always specultion. It is has nothing to do with lone nutters!
The biggest problem with trying to discuss this case with an LN is the simple fact that just about every LN will refuse to concede anything that does not compute with their precious "evidence".
Can you, for example, accept that it is at least somewhat concerning that a jacket described as being white in several DPD radio broadcast by officers who actually saw it in full sunlight, became gray as soon as it resurfaced at DPD HQ with initials on it of officers who were never involved in the chain of custody? I seriously doubt it.
I, on the other hand, have no problem accepting that the BY photos are most likely real and that Oswald's departure from the TSBD doesn't bode well for him not being involved in some way.
You can not have a discussion when one party ignores and dismisses what the other says and just keeps on repeating his own talking points without (for the most part) backing them up with actual evidence.
Btw I don't expect an honest answer from you.
-
And since we know that the totally random time at 12:30 was corroborated and spot on, we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fy3TNycc/Police-radio-tape-after-1-16-PM.jpg)
Hilarious. There is not a shred of proof that the clock on top of the TSBD was correct to the second or even minute.
we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
Really? I think you mean after 1:16.
But how did you come to this conclusion when the DPD recordings were not continuously and there was a break of several minutes 1:11 or 1:12?
Thanks for confirming that Tippit showed no sign of life when he arrived at the hospital and IIRC, the police officer also said that the Doctors tried bravely to put life back into Tippit.
And all this simply means that since Tippit arrived DOA, the Official Time of Death could NOT have been when Tippit arrived at the hospital because that's scientifically impossible, but was estimated before hand at 1:15, which btw perfectly corresponds to the Dallas Police tapes!
More BS... the DPD tapes do not give a time for Tippit being killed. And yes, he most likely died at the scene at 10th street before the ambulance arrived there. Having said that, his passing was formally confirmed by the doctors at the hospital who wrote down the time of 1:15 for the DOA. In order for Tippit to get to the hospital at 1:15 he must have been shot at least three to four minutes earlier, or do you perhaps believe that he was transported to the hospital on a high speed magic carpet?
Also, the Ambulance was inquiring some time after the 1:19 time check and wanted to know the address of where Tippit was shot.
According to the highly questionable DPD radio time stamps which does not explain how Tippit's ambulance could have arrived at the hospital at or even before 1:15, as confirmed by several police and hospital reports.
Care to try again?
Hilarious. There is not a shred of proof that the clock on top of the TSBD was correct to the second or even minute.
Wow, talk about delusional!
First of all, it's up to you not me, to prove any inaccuracy of a public clock which thousands and thousands of citizens relied upon!!
Do you have a single piece of evidence to suggest that the Hertz public clock was off the City Hall time by 1 second or even a minute?
Surely in the decades of operation of the Hertz you could provide at least 1 example where the time on this public clock was proven wrong?
Anyway, at least now we're getting somewhere, you must agree that the corroborated time of the Hertz clock and the Police Radio time are at the most a minute or so off real time. Which in this case BTW doesn't bode well for your Tippit murder times. Oops
we know that the police radio to report Tippit being shot was timed checked AFTER 12:16 PM.
Really? I think you mean after 1:16.
But how did you come to this conclusion when the DPD recordings were not continuously and there was a break of several minutes 1:11 or 1:12?
I seriously don't believe that this even needs explaining, the despatcher looked at the clock and saw the time as being 1:16 and gave a verbal time check as 1:16, which according to Bowles could understandably be a minute or so off actual time, therefore everything said after this time check and before the next time check was, a minute or so off the actual time of 1:16. See how easy this is, even a child could understand!
...his passing was formally confirmed by the doctors at the hospital who wrote down the time of 1:15 for the DOA. In order for Tippit to get to the hospital at 1:15 he must have been shot at least three to four minutes earlier, or do you perhaps believe that he was transported to the hospital on a high speed magic carpet?
Take a close look at Rose's report, nowhere does it say that Tippit arrived at the hospital at 1:15! Doh!
The areas on the document where the DOA is written and the actual time of death are in two completely unconnected different sections.
The document does say that Tippit arrived DOA and then the certificate also specifically says the actual time of death was 1:15.
For instance, if someone dies overnight and arrives at the hospital/morgue Dead On Arrival in the morning at 9AM, the time of death obviously isn't 9AM but the Doctor will base the actual time of death on a number of factors, of when he estimates that the actual time of death actually happened.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTjypKLz/tippit14f.jpg)
Oh, and one last comment on the actual time of when Oswald shot Tippit, is so far from your perspective, you have inadvertently painted yourself into an inescapable corner, because you question the time on the huge Hertz public clock, you don't believe the Police Tape clocks, you put your faith in what you personally call a "screwball" and your interpretation of the time of death in the case of a DOA is not consistent with reality.
So what have you got left?, some cherry picked guessed times, all the while you conveniently omit these following guessed times and then you have the gall to say, "I don't give a damn if he did it or not". You can't make this up!
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
"Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street."
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.[/]
Care to try again?
Wow, I've just proven that your level of self delusion is staggered beyond belief and you say that I need to try again? Hahahahahahahaha!
JohnM
-
Where did I ever say that Oswald was innocent (or guilty for that matter) of shooting Tippit?
I don't give a damn if he did it or not. I just examine the evidence that the WC used to claim that he was guilty and am finding it highly dubious.
You might not like that, and claim that my posts show that I believe Oswald was innocent but that's just the most pathetic LN argument you frequently use.
Hey that's Awesome Martin, so you shouldn't have any trouble debating Bill Brown on the reasons why you believe the evidence is "highly dubious"
When can we expect your commitment to debate Bill face to face on Skype?
JohnM
-
Wow, talk about delusional!
First of all, it's up to you not me, to prove any inaccuracy of a public clock which thousands and thousands of citizens relied upon!!
Do you have a single piece of evidence to suggest that the Hertz public clock was off the City Hall time by 1 second or even a minute?
Surely in the decades of operation of the Hertz you could provide at least 1 example where the time on this public clock was proven wrong?
Anyway, at least now we're getting somewhere, you must agree that the corroborated time of the Hertz clock and the Police Radio time are at the most a minute or so off real time. Which in this case BTW doesn't bode well for your Tippit murder times. Oops
I seriously don't believe that this even needs explaining, the despatcher looked at the clock and saw the time as being 1:16 and gave a verbal time check as 1:16, which according to Bowles could understandably be a minute or so off actual time, therefore everything said after this time check and before the next time check was, a minute or so off the actual time of 1:16. See how easy this is, even a child could understand!
Take a close look at Rose's report, nowhere does it say that Tippit arrived at the hospital at 1:15! Doh!
The areas on the document where the DOA is written and the actual time of death are in two completely unconnected different sections.
The document does say that Tippit arrived DOA and then the certificate also specifically says the actual time of death was 1:15.
For instance, if someone dies overnight and arrives at the hospital/morgue Dead On Arrival in the morning at 9AM, the time of death obviously isn't 9AM but the Doctor will base the actual time of death on a number of factors, of when he estimates that the actual time of death actually happened.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTjypKLz/tippit14f.jpg)
Oh, and one last comment on the actual time of when Oswald shot Tippit, is so far from your perspective, you have inadvertently painted yourself into an inescapable corner, because you question the time on the huge Hertz public clock, you don't believe the Police Tape clocks, you put your faith in what you personally call a "screwball" and your interpretation of the time of death in the case of a DOA is not consistent with reality.
So what have you got left?, some cherry picked guessed times, all the while you conveniently omit these following guessed times and then you have the gall to say, "I don't give a damn if he did it or not". You can't make this up!
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
"Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street."
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.[/]
Wow, I've just proven that your level of self delusion is staggered beyond belief and you say that I need to try again? Hahahahahahahaha!
JohnM
First of all, it's up to you not me, to prove any inaccuracy of a public clock which thousands and thousands of citizens relied upon!!
Do you have a single piece of evidence to suggest that the Hertz public clock was off the City Hall time by 1 second or even a minute?
Oh no you don't. You don't get to make a claim about the Hertz clock being 100% correct and then say that I have to prove you wrong. That's typical LN crap which makes it an exercise in futility to try to have a normal conversation with you.
you must agree that the corroborated time of the Hertz clock and the Police Radio time are at the most a minute or so off real time
I must do no such thing.
I seriously don't believe that this even needs explaining, the despatcher looked at the clock and saw the time as being 1:16 and gave a verbal time check as 1:16, which according to Bowles could understandably be a minute or so off actual time, therefore everything said after this time check and before the next time check was, a minute or so off the actual time of 1:16. See how easy this is, even a child could understand!
Hilarious... Bowles said much more than that. For instance that the dispatchers clocks were not reset as often as they should be when radio traffic was busy. He also said that the dispatchers clocks were reset using a master clock at the DPD building, which in turn did not reflect real time.
Take a close look at Rose's report, nowhere does it say that Tippit arrived at the hospital at 1:15! Doh!
Rose's report? I think you mean the authorized permit for autopsy. You don't even know the difference between a report and an authorization?
The areas on the document where the DOA is written and the actual time of death are in two completely unconnected different sections.
The document does say that Tippit arrived DOA and then the certificate also specifically says the actual time of death was 1:15.
You can't be this stupid. On the left side it says under the line "Place of death" (which is DOA Methodist Hospital) and on the right it says "Date and time of death" which is 1:15 PM November 22, 1963.
But I never mentioned Rose. You might want to look up the report made by officers Davenport and Bardin, who actually were at the hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1:15 PM.
Wow, I've just proven that your level of self delusion is staggered beyond belief and you say that I need to try again? Hahahahahahahaha!
My level of so called self delusion is minute compared to your absurd delusion of grandeur.
And with that I end the "discussion" and go back to ignoring you. Try selling your BS to somebody else.
-
How could it be plausible that the other “1:30” witnesses saw Oswald somewhere else if Oswald was at Brewers store also at 1:30?
The other Davis sister and Callaway said the time was around 1:00pm when they heard the shots.
It can’t be 1:30 anyway because that would be way off the 1:16 time that LNs claim for Bowley making a call on Tippits radio and the ambulance would have arrived at the hospital not any earlier than 1:35. There is no record to support a 1:35 time, as opposed to the DOA document which confirms the 1:15 time Tippit arrived at the hospital.
At the line up , They all ( except maybe Markams confusion) picked out Oswald dressed in only a T-shirt and looking disheveled with cut over his eye vs the other men in suits and combed hair so…reasonable doubt?
Scoggins 1:20 estimate of hearing shots can’t be right either If the LNs are dedicated to a 1:16 time stamp for Bowleys radio call from Tippits car.
On the other hand even a “kook” like Markam was probably able to remember the clock she had just seen when she left her house, even if she was a little confused in her WC testimony answering whether she had ever seen Oswald before , which she misconstrued that ? To mean had she seen Oswald anytime before seeing him at the Tippit scene., so she answered “no” (at first ) until she finally declared that the “no.2” man in the line up ( Oswald) was the man she had seen at 10th and Patton at approx 1:06-1:07 and also saw this man shoot Tippit after just a short conversation with Tiipit at his car , which means probably by 1:08 the shooting occurred.
Imo it’s improbable that people like Markam who checked their clock before leaving their house and Bowley (an engineer) checked their watch which they wore on their wrist, are the sort of people who would be sloppy enough to allow their clocks to run 6 minutes slow. (If anything, they more likely would have their clocks and watches set FAST by a couple minutes )
Sloppy time keeping Is more typical of people like me who do NOT wear watches and do NOT have a regular schedule requiring to be at work or having to pick up children “on time” and where time is not as important a part of their typical day 🙂
-
At the line up , They all ( except maybe Markams confusion) picked out Oswald dressed in only a T-shirt and looking disheveled with cut over his eye vs the other men in suits and combed hair so…reasonable doubt?
No.
None of the lineup participants were wearing suits.
-
Suit jacket, or a red vest or a button down sweater, all 3 had collared shirts.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7689
-
Suit jacket, or a red vest or a button down sweater, all 3 had collared shirts.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7689
But no suits, right?
-
I guess a suit jacket was nice enough not to be chosen.
-
Well ok Bill , you are more the expert than I am, so There must be a fake image when you type in something like “Oswald’s line up “ in the search on the Bing browser , and then check images. Theres an image which has Oswald in just T- shirt flanked on either side by 2 taller men wearing suit and tie, (I kid you not) and the no 4 guy at the end has a nice collar short sleeve sports shirt.
So that’s my mistake about “suit and tie” unless somebody else can confirm that image as valid.
However, there is still Gil Jesus examination of the line ups which cause some reason to doubt if all the witness would have chosen Oswald if there were 3 other men with disheveled look and a similar bruise or cut and ALL were wearing only white T-shirts and all were the same age( no teenagers ) as Oswald.
And each witness separately view the lineup individually and without any knowledge of whom
other witnesses picked until after the lineups were concluded.
-
Well ok Bill , you are more the expert than I am, so There must be a fake image when you type in something like “Oswald’s line up “ in the search on the Bing browser , and then check images. Theres an image which has Oswald in just T- shirt flanked on either side by 2 taller men wearing suit and tie, (I kid you not) and the no 4 guy at the end has a nice collar short sleeve sports shirt.
So that’s my mistake about “suit and tie” unless somebody else can confirm that image as valid.
However, there is still Gil Jesus examination of the line ups which cause some reason to doubt if all the witness would have chosen Oswald if there were 3 other men with disheveled look and a similar bruise or cut and ALL were wearing only white T-shirts and all were the same age( no teenagers ) as Oswald.
And each witness separately view the lineup individually and without any knowledge of whom
other witnesses picked until after the lineups were concluded.
You can't honestly expect clones, the lineups were alright.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGM4zX55/SEND-IN-THE-Oswald-CLONES-FINAL.png)
The following guys all look the same height and weight. If anything Oswald and all the guys had different clothes, so no one uniquely stood out. In fact Oswald looked nothing like he did at the time he murdered Tippit and this surely gave him an advantage. And don't forget we aren't talking about some murder in a dark alley, this was outside in full on daylight and a stack of eyewitnesses all got a decent look at the guy with a gun.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVmMWktS/oswald-line-upa.jpg)
The image you saw on the net was based on a Commission Exhibit with a manipulated too small Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1CF15sh/WH-Vol22-0016a-zpsqf4ci9hr.jpg)
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-437a0ab5b73b766530414ee4471c67c7-lq)
For comparison, some other Line-ups.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxYyNwBX/policelineup-zps4e4b1319.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2nGYxPP/120210-dateline-police-Lineup-324p-photoblog600.jpg)
JohnM
-
First of all, it's up to you not me, to prove any inaccuracy of a public clock which thousands and thousands of citizens relied upon!!
Do you have a single piece of evidence to suggest that the Hertz public clock was off the City Hall time by 1 second or even a minute?
Oh no you don't. You don't get to make a claim about the Hertz clock being 100% correct and then say that I have to prove you wrong. That's typical LN crap which makes it an exercise in futility to try to have a normal conversation with you.
Sorry Martin, you don't understand that YOUR claim is YOUR problem, if you want to claim that the Official Hertz Public Clock which was proven to be perfectly synchronized with the Official Dallas Police Clock were unbelievably both wrong, then YOU must provide proof! It's as simple as that.
I eagerly await your proof.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
The areas on the document where the DOA is written and the actual time of death are in two completely unconnected different sections.
The document does say that Tippit arrived DOA and then the certificate also specifically says the actual time of death was 1:15.
You can't be this stupid. On the left side it says under the line "Place of death" (which is DOA Methodist Hospital) and on the right it says "Date and time of death" which is 1:15 PM November 22, 1963.
Hilarious, you couldn't be more wrong, the "Place of death" was at the corner of Tenth and Patton and the "Date and time of death" was therefore correctly estimated @ 1:15 PM November 22, 1963.
So in summary.
1. The eyewitness evidence overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
2. The forensic evidence of the discarded shells overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
3. The forensic evidence of one of the bullets in Tippit exclusively matched by Ballistics Expert Nicol, overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
4. The physical evidence of the discarded Jacket near the crime scene overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
5. Oswald in the Texas Theater pulling the exact same revolver while trying to kill more Police Officers, overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin, you don't understand that YOUR claim is YOUR problem, if you want to claim that the Official Hertz Public Clock which was proven to be perfectly synchronized with the Official Dallas Police Clock were unbelievably both wrong, then YOU must provide proof! It's as simple as that.
I eagerly await your proof.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
Hilarious, you couldn't be more wrong, the "Place of death" was at the corner of Tenth and Patton and the "Date and time of death" was therefore correctly estimated @ 1:15 PM November 22, 1963.
So in summary.
1. The eyewitness evidence overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
2. The forensic evidence of the discarded shells overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
3. The forensic evidence of one of the bullets in Tippit exclusively matched by Ballistics Expert Nicol, overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
4. The physical evidence of the discarded Jacket near the crime scene overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
5. Oswald in the Texas Theater pulling the exact same revolver while trying to kill more Police Officers, overwhelming proves it was Oswald.
JohnM
Great post John but this is hopeless. The same pattern. Ask for evidence, be given evidence, suggest evidence is fake or wrong but without providing any explanation or evidence for why that is the case. Deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. Ask others to disprove your baseless claim that something is "possible." Rinse and repeat.
-
Great post John but this is hopeless. The same pattern. Ask for evidence, be given evidence, suggest evidence is fake or wrong but without providing any explanation or evidence for why that is the case. Deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. Ask others to disprove your baseless claim that something is "possible." Rinse and repeat.
Classic LN. Present a clock on a building, without any evidence for the alleged accuracy of that clock and call it "evidence"
Just like, in Richard's delusional mind, the presence of a rifle for which no conclusive authentication is provided somehow is "evidence" that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time of the shooting. Not to mention the all time classic that the "evidence" for Oswald coming down the stairs of the TSBD within 75 seconds after the shooting, according to Richard, is that it happend
The LN play book is always the same; make a claim not supported by authentication or evidence and say you are right unless somebody proves you wrong!
-
Great post John but this is hopeless. The same pattern. Ask for evidence, be given evidence, suggest evidence is fake or wrong but without providing any explanation or evidence for why that is the case. Deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. Ask others to disprove your baseless claim that something is "possible." Rinse and repeat.
Thanks Richard, yeah, the pointless motivation for someone who literally says that they "don't give a damn" if Oswald is guilty or innocent and only debates here because he "finds it(the evidence) highly dubious" is truly surreal.
At the end of the day the Absolute Monster that was Lee Harvey Oswald, killed two good Men and left three Women as widowers and a stack of children fatherless, I hope Oswald is suffering painfully in Eternal Damnation! And to think some Conspiracy Theorists who couldn't deductively reason their way out of a wet paper bag, misguidedly defend this Maniac??
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8zSYwT8/a-Tippit-Family-495x580.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/18/article-2368935-1AE08D3B000005DC-959_634x537.jpg)
(https://pcdn.columbian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1120_met_offbeat_salute.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thanks Richard, yeah, the pointless motivation for someone who literally says that they "don't give a damn" if Oswald is guilty or innocent and only debates here because he "finds it(the evidence) highly dubious" is truly surreal.
At the end of the day the Absolute Monster that was Lee Harvey Oswald, killed two good Men and left three Women as widowers and a stack of children fatherless, I hope Oswald is suffering painfully in Eternal Damnation! And to think some Conspiracy Theorists who couldn't deductively reason their way out of a wet paper bag, misguidedly defend this Maniac??
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8zSYwT8/a-Tippit-Family-495x580.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/18/article-2368935-1AE08D3B000005DC-959_634x537.jpg)
(https://pcdn.columbian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1120_met_offbeat_salute.jpg)
JohnM
Great post John!
-
Thanks Richard, yeah, the pointless motivation for someone who literally says that they "don't give a damn" if Oswald is guilty or innocent and only debates here because he "finds it(the evidence) highly dubious" is truly surreal.
At the end of the day the Absolute Monster that was Lee Harvey Oswald, killed two good Men and left three Women as widowers and a stack of children fatherless, I hope Oswald is suffering painfully in Eternal Damnation! And to think some Conspiracy Theorists who couldn't deductively reason their way out of a wet paper bag, misguidedly defend this Maniac??
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8zSYwT8/a-Tippit-Family-495x580.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/18/article-2368935-1AE08D3B000005DC-959_634x537.jpg)
(https://pcdn.columbian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1120_met_offbeat_salute.jpg)
JohnM
This is a very good post. It brings home the reality of who and what Lee Harvey Oswald really was.
-
At the end of the day the Absolute Monster that was Lee Harvey Oswald, killed two good Men and left three Women as widowers and a stack of children fatherless, I hope Oswald is suffering painfully in Eternal Damnation! And to think some Conspiracy Theorists who couldn't deductively reason their way out of a wet paper bag, misguidedly defend this Maniac?? - John Mytton
The words of a guy who considers himself to be a rational researcher....... Absolutely hilarious!
The faux dramatics are so over the top that they can only be considered entertaining.
Even if Oswald did kill Kennedy and Tippit, he's been dead for 60 years, which means that Mytton was only a child or a teenager when the killings took place. He is, just like most of us, an outsider to this case. To nevertheless build up so much hatred towards a long dead invidual who never had his day in court and Mytton only believes to be guilty is utterly insane.
Do I defend Oswald? No, but I also don't declare him guilty based on the crappy evidence the WC and guys like Mytton come up with. And that's precisely what Mytton and his ilk can't handle. It goes against their "if you are not with us, you are against us" cult mantra. There is no rationality involved here or common sense. It's utter dishonesty driven by pure hatred. I have yet to meet one LN who is willing to conceed that there are obvious problems with the evidence and they way it was handled. Guys like Mytton "just know that Oswald did it" no matter how many problems there are with the evidence. Truth be told, I'm not really sure why LNs are so irrational that they believe the evidence to be 100% correct and conclusive, when nothing in the world is ever 100% correct and conclusive. Sometimes I think it's because they actually believe that the evidence is 100% correct and conclusive, but at other times I think they are just too afraid to admit that something is not right with the evidence because it might lead them on a path of discovery on which they will find that what they believe actually isn't true or conclusive at all.
Anyway, this is why Mytton will never understand that there are also people who are and can be neutral observers who just want to examine the evidence against Oswald. I'll be the first to declare Oswald guilty if the evidence conclusively showed that, but it doesn't and that's where Mytton's problem really lies. He can not argue the case or discuss the evidence beyond what is written in his bible (the Bugliosi doorstopper) and the WC report. And Mytton isn't the only one. There are several LNs on this forum who will tell you that what they argue is the truth, but when asked a simple question they are unable to answer it and either ignore the question or run. It's pathetic!
Let me give an example. Months ago, Richard Smith, argued that Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor and that was proof that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. When asked how the presence of a rifle, even if it did in fact belong to Oswald, can be proof that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when Kennedy was killed, he fell silent. It's been months and he still hasn't come up with an answer! See where this is going?
But it's also great entertaiment to see guys like Mytton and Smith making fools of themselves time after time. It's actually a good reason to continue posting on this forum.... Thumb1:
Oh btw, it's highly likely that Mytton's compulsive nature will compel him to respond to this post with a childish comment like "I thought you said you would ignore me", but that only shows two things; (1) his infantile nature and (2) that he is really nothing more than a troll who tries to provoke responses. This time I figured it was worth to give him what he wanted as it would blow up in his face, which of course it did! :D
-
In which we learn that because a wrong like double murder was committed in the past it is not a big deal. Poor Oswald. So many people are still picking on him. Hitler and Jack the Ripper must welcome this interpretation of history. Everyone should just leave them alone and get over it. It happened in the past. HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
-
Well ok Bill , you are more the expert than I am, so There must be a fake image when you type in something like “Oswald’s line up “ in the search on the Bing browser , and then check images. Theres an image which has Oswald in just T- shirt flanked on either side by 2 taller men wearing suit and tie, (I kid you not) and the no 4 guy at the end has a nice collar short sleeve sports shirt.
So that’s my mistake about “suit and tie” unless somebody else can confirm that image as valid.
However, there is still Gil Jesus examination of the line ups which cause some reason to doubt if all the witness would have chosen Oswald if there were 3 other men with disheveled look and a similar bruise or cut and ALL were wearing only white T-shirts and all were the same age( no teenagers ) as Oswald.
And each witness separately view the lineup individually and without any knowledge of whom
other witnesses picked until after the lineups were concluded.
Zeon, your first mistake is trusting a guy like Gil Jesus. He's dishonest.
That "lineup" photo you speak of has most definitely been faked; it's not a real photo.
In the summer of '64, the FBI visited Perry, Clark and Ables (the three men in the photo) in order to get a photograph of them for no other reason than to record forever what the three men look like. That two of them (Perry and Clark) are wearing suit and tie in that photo only means that is what they were wearing the day the FBI visited them in order to photograph them.
Conspiracy Kooks who either don't know any better or are lying then take that photo and doctor it by placing Oswald among them, though Oswald had been dead for six months by the time the photo was taken.
-
In which we learn that because a wrong like double murder was committed in the past it is not a big deal. Poor Oswald. So many people are still picking on him. Hitler and Jack the Ripper must welcome this interpretation of history. Everyone should just leave them alone and get over it. It happened in the past. HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
In which we learn that because a wrong like double murder was committed in the past it is not a big deal.
Who said that?
Oh, wait... It's Richard claiming that.... must be something he just made it up. Par for the course, really...
-
-
The first report on the shooting by Merriman Smith/UPI was sent out by UPI at 12:34. Smith, riding in the fourth car behind the presidential limo, said after hearing the shots that he grabbed the radio telephone from Jack Bell, the AP reporter riding with him, and contacted the UPI offices. He gave his report to the UPI Division Editor, Jack Fallon, and asked him to read it back to him. Fallon said that due to the static on the phone he asked Smith to repeat it three times.
Next, UPI bureau Staff Editor Don Smith typed out the first bulletin while Fallon talked, or tried to, with Smith. The bulletin was then handed to teletype operator Jim Tolbert, who keyed the words onto perforated paper tape that fed the teletype machines where it then went out to the various news organizations around the country.
So how much time is that between Smith hearing the last shot, calling it in, connecting with his editor, giving his report, having it checked, and then going out over the teletype? Four minutes? Three? Two? If the Hertz clock was off it wasn't by much. Unless one wants to argue the UPI clock was also well off.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11382402135/Keyxigdl35i906b/upi report.JPG)
Story details: https://www.upi.com/Archives/2003/11/14/UPIs-Pulitzer-winning-coverage-of-JFK/4008667018804/
-
Well it might be possible to work out Oswald actually getting to his boarding room as early as 12:52 because it’s uncertain if he double timed jogged some parts of the distances traveled.
There’s only a slight problem with the 2 reporters McNeil and Allman who claim to have seen Oswald in the front lobby before the front doors were locked by DPD officer Barnett not later than approx 3 minutes post shots.(his estimate)
And that Roger Craig sighting of Oswald at 12:45.
However , Buell W.Fraziers 50 year late revelation of seeing Oswald coming up Houston st where presumably Oswald had exited the rear of TSBD , maybe establishes Oswald out of TSBD as early as 12:33-12:34
I’ll use the 12:34 time just to allow an extra minute for Oswald to retrieve his brown shirt from the 2nd floor lunchroom , because he was only in his T-shirt when he was seen by Mrs Reid approx 2 minutes post shots.
The premise is that Oswald double timed some parts of each distance.
Trek no. 1 is from the back of TSBD to the McWatters bus 7 blocks away approx. Walking time was estimated about 7 minutes. Double timing parts of that distance allows Oswald to board the bus 2 minutes earlier at 12:39
Oswald sat in the bus maybe only about 3 minutes and then he got a bus transfer ticket from McWatters at 12:42. Then Oswald exited the bus.
Trek no. 2 is from the bus to Whaleys taxi which was approx 4 blocks distance. Double timing that distance could get Oswald to Whaleys taxi by 12:44.
Trek no. 3 is the taxi ride time which was originally 9 minutes by the WC time trial but that time has since been challenged and it’s possible Whaley could have driven faster , reducing that time to 6 minutes. So Oswald gets out at 12:50 5 blocks away from his boarding house.
Trek no.4 is the 5 blocks from Taxi to boarding house. Oswald double timed that in 2.5 minutes. He therefore enters the house approx by 12:53
How long exactly did Oswald stay in his room? It could be as long as 4 minutes . It’s possible it was only 2 minutes. Therefore Oswald could have left the house by 12:55.
It’s uncertain how long Oswald lingered outside to be seen by Earlene Roberts. It could have been only 1 minute.
Trek no .5 is from the boarding house to 10th& Patton st. approx 0.9 mile distance. Oswald could walk that distance and just occasionally double time and easily arrive 11 minutes later at 1:07 if Oswald left the boarding house at 12:56.
So who needs the problematic DPD dispatch time anomaly? You can even keep the McWatters bus ride and the ticket as valid. Oswald gets to 10th and Patton by 1:07, as Markam saw, and Oswald shot Tippit at 1:08 and then fled the scene by 1:09 before Bowley arrived at 1:10 and made the radio call.
Then the DOA 1:15 time stamp at the hospital works out perfectly too.
-
The first report on the shooting by Merriman Smith/UPI was sent out by UPI at 12:34. Smith, riding in the fourth car behind the presidential limo, said after hearing the shots that he grabbed the radio telephone from Jack Bell, the AP reporter riding with him, and contacted the UPI offices. He gave his report to the UPI Division Editor, Jack Fallon, and asked him to read it back to him. Fallon said that due to the static on the phone he asked Smith to repeat it three times.
Next, UPI bureau Staff Editor Don Smith typed out the first bulletin while Fallon talked, or tried to, with Smith. The bulletin was then handed to teletype operator Jim Tolbert, who keyed the words onto perforated paper tape that fed the teletype machines where it then went out to the various news organizations around the country.
So how much time is that between Smith hearing the last shot, calling it in, connecting with his editor, giving his report, having it checked, and then going out over the teletype? Four minutes? Three? Two? If the Hertz clock was off it wasn't by much. Unless one wants to argue the UPI clock was also well off.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11382402135/Keyxigdl35i906b/upi report.JPG)
Story details: https://www.upi.com/Archives/2003/11/14/UPIs-Pulitzer-winning-coverage-of-JFK/4008667018804/
At least you allow for the possibility that the Hertz clock could indeed been off. Thumb1:
-
Zeon, your first mistake is trusting guy like Gil Jesus. He's dishonest.
That "lineup" photo you speak of has most definitely been faked; it's not a real photo.
In the summer of '64, the FBI visited Perry, Clark and Ables (the three men in the photo) in order to get photograph of them for no other reason than to record forever what the three men look like. That two of them (Perry and Clark) are wearing suit and tie in that photo only means that is what they were wearing the day the FBI visited them in order to photograph them.
Conspiracy Kooks who either don't know any better or are lying then take that photo and doctor it be placing Oswald among them, though Oswald had been dead for six months by the time the photo was taken.
Zeon, your first mistake is trusting guy like Gil Jesus. He's dishonest.
That "lineup" photo you speak of has most definitely been faked; it's not a real photo.
I agree Thumb1:
-
I have used the photo and it's important to tell the reader what it is. A composite.
More so, because it demonstrates the stark contrast between the men in the first of several unfair & prejudice lineups.
These are the actual men that were used. The first one wore a suit jacket - and a collared shirt. another guy wore a red vest and
collared shirt. The last guy actually wore what he wore 11/22 - when he testified. They look very nice
Here is a better look at it - This was part of what Markham - Brennen and Callaway saw
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7689
"We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President.
But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."
-
The first report on the shooting by Merriman Smith/UPI was sent out by UPI at 12:34. Smith, riding in the fourth car behind the presidential limo, said after hearing the shots that he grabbed the radio telephone from Jack Bell, the AP reporter riding with him, and contacted the UPI offices. He gave his report to the UPI Division Editor, Jack Fallon, and asked him to read it back to him. Fallon said that due to the static on the phone he asked Smith to repeat it three times.
Next, UPI bureau Staff Editor Don Smith typed out the first bulletin while Fallon talked, or tried to, with Smith. The bulletin was then handed to teletype operator Jim Tolbert, who keyed the words onto perforated paper tape that fed the teletype machines where it then went out to the various news organizations around the country.
So how much time is that between Smith hearing the last shot, calling it in, connecting with his editor, giving his report, having it checked, and then going out over the teletype? Four minutes? Three? Two? If the Hertz clock was off it wasn't by much. Unless one wants to argue the UPI clock was also well off.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11382402135/Keyxigdl35i906b/upi report.JPG)
Story details: https://www.upi.com/Archives/2003/11/14/UPIs-Pulitzer-winning-coverage-of-JFK/4008667018804/
Great point, Steve.
-
In which we learn that because a wrong like double murder was committed in the past it is not a big deal. Poor Oswald. So many people are still picking on him. Hitler and Jack the Ripper must welcome this interpretation of history. Everyone should just leave them alone and get over it. It happened in the past. HA HA HA. Comedy gold.
Martin's reply says a lot about the cold, twisted thinking processes of a Conspiracy Theorist, and in direct contrast, the perverted irony that 60 years later, people like Martin still fight with every fiber of their existence for Oswald's innocence, Go Figure!
Then without any human sympathy, go on to claim that caring about family members, many of which are still alive today, should be seen as a forgotten relic of the past??
JohnM
-
That’s a biased opinion from JohnM about the nature/mind of conspiracy theorists (imo) 🙃
-
That’s a biased opinion from JohnM about the nature/mind of conspiracy theorists (imo) 🙃
Oh Really?
Based on the evidence, LNers believe that on the 22nd, Oswald killed two men. End of story.
On the other hand by definition, CT's have to accuse vast numbers of innocent people of the evil conspiring to kill Kennedy and Tippit and thus forever ruining these guiltless women/men's illustrious reputations/careers and by extension their poor suffering families who are aware of the unproven demented accusations, have to endure a lifetime of unwarranted heartache.
Zeon, I hope you are proud of yourself!
JohnM
-
Oh Really?
Based on the evidence, LNers believe that on the 22nd, Oswald killed two men. End of story.
On the other hand by definition, CT's have to accuse vast numbers of innocent people of the evil conspiring to kill Kennedy and Tippit and thus forever ruining these guiltless women/men's illustrious reputations/careers and by extension their poor suffering families who are aware of the unproven demented accusations, have to endure a lifetime of unwarranted heartache.
Zeon, I hope you are proud of yourself!
JohnM
Based on the evidence, LNers believe that on the 22nd, Oswald killed two men. End of story.
It is not based on the evidence at all.
It is based on what the Warren Commission told you to believe. End of story.
Your perverse defence of the sick joke that was supposed to pass as an unbiased investigation of the facts surrounding this case is the cause of any continued suffering.
The evidence that this investigation was profoundly incompetent is overwhelming.
The evidence that this investigation was corrupt is equally overwhelming.
Your wilfully blind defence of this investigation is an insult to anything even remotely representing justice or truth.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
The Conspiracy Theorist "community" is an embarrassment to rationality, sanity and common sense. The extreme nature of nearly all proposed theories is disturbing, to say the least, and this forum often feels like a home for the mentally ill.
I wish there was a way to discuss the troubling issues that surround this case without being lumped in with these lunatics but it is a convenient way for Nutters to avoid having to answer the countless issues that plague this case.
The great irony is that Nutters have exactly the same mentality as Tinfoilers - There is no reasoning with it. There is no evidence, no argument that can ever change it.
Nutters should be every bit as ashamed as Tinfoil dickheads for their contribution to understanding this case.
-
Based on the evidence, LNers believe that on the 22nd, Oswald killed two men. End of story.
It is not based on the evidence at all.
It is based on what the Warren Commission told you to believe. End of story.
Your perverse defence of the sick joke that was supposed to pass as an unbiased investigation of the facts surrounding this case is the cause of any continued suffering.
The evidence that this investigation was profoundly incompetent is overwhelming.
The evidence that this investigation was corrupt is equally overwhelming.
Your wilfully blind defence of this investigation is an insult to anything even remotely representing justice or truth.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
The Conspiracy Theorist "community" is an embarrassment to rationality, sanity and common sense. The extreme nature of nearly all proposed theories is disturbing, to say the least, and this forum often feels like a home for the mentally ill.
I wish there was a way to discuss the troubling issues that surround this case without being lumped in with these lunatics but it is a convenient way for Nutters to avoid having to answer the countless issues that plague this case.
The great irony is that Nutters have exactly the same mentality as Tinfoilers - There is no reasoning with it. There is no evidence, no argument that can ever change it.
Nutters should be every bit as ashamed as Tinfoil dickheads for their contribution to understanding this case.
It is not based on the evidence at all.
Well actually Dan, Oswald's guilt is and always will be based on the evidence and the fact that you deny this solid evidence is your problem.
It is based on what the Warren Commission told you to believe.
You do realize that the Dallas Police charged Oswald with the murders of Kennedy and Tippit on the very first weekend and then the WC confirmed this fact and then 15 years the HSCA determined that Oswald killed Kennedy.
Conclusions regarding the Kennedy assassination
On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
[1]Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Your perverse defence of the sick joke that was supposed to pass as an unbiased investigation of the facts surrounding this case is the cause of any continued suffering.
Calm down, it's been 60 years and there still is no evidence whatsoever that anybody but Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. But if you are willing to tell me who or what pulled the trigger then I may listen! Heck, if you could tell me who was the mastermind behind the conspiracy, then you may have something but something tells me you ain't got nothing but some vague doubt based on some unsubstantiated suspicion. Don't worry many keen conspiracy theorist's with a lot more time on their hands than you have looked into every aspect of this case and collectively they are no closer to solving this "conspiracy" than they were on day 1 of their endless pursuit!
The evidence that this investigation was profoundly incompetent is overwhelming.
There is certain aspects of this case that with hindsight I would have handled differently, sure, but there is nothing specifically that casts a shadow of a doubt that Oswald was the only guilty party.
The evidence that this investigation was corrupt is equally overwhelming.
Wow, who do you believe was "corrupt", what's your proof and what do you believe was their motivation?
Your wilfully blind defence of this investigation is an insult to anything even remotely representing justice or truth.
Blind? I'm looking at the exact same evidence as you!!
Oswald defected to the enemy.
Oswald against his usual procedure, goes home mid week.
Oswald tells Frazier that he was picking up curtain rods but tells the Police he only had his lunch.
Oswald tells the Police that he kept his lunch with him in the front seat yet Frazier questions Oswald about the long package on the back seat of his car.
No curtain rods are ever found.
A long empty package with Oswald's prints is recovered in the Sniper's nest.
The shells from Oswald's rifle are found on the floor of the Sniper's nest.
The recovered fragments recovered from the Limo are exclusively matched to Oswald's rifle.
There is still no evidence that Oswald's' rifle was planted.
Oswald uncharacteristically leaves behind his wedding ring.
Oswald leaves the majority of his money with Marina.
Oswald walks uncharacteristically 50 feet ahead of Frazier as the walk to the depository.
Oswald has no alibi at the time of the shots.
Oswald's relatively fresh prints are on the rifle rest and the box used as a seat in the snipers nest.
Oswald who was a political fanatic and supposedly liked Kennedy said he was in the lunchroom and didn't ask anyone what happened.
Outside there was screaming and commotion yet at that precise point in time, Oswald wants a coke?
Oswald flees the scene within a few minutes.
Instead of waiting at the bus stop at Houston and Elm, Oswald in his frenzied flight walks past the bus stop and bashes on a door of a bus stuck in traffic.
Oswald continues his panicked flight as gets on and off a bus stuck in traffic.
Oswald gets out of Whaley's cab way past his Rooming house.
Oswald's leaves his rooming house zipping up a jacket, Oswald is arrested without his zipper jacket?
A jacket which Marina says is Oswald's jacket is recovered from a car park which Oswald is seen entering.
Oswald who looks like he's been running and looks like he's scared to Shoe store Manager Johnny Brewer and appears to be hiding in the shoe store lobby as Police sirens can be heard and as the sirens grew fainter, Oswald looks over his shoulder and leaves.
Oswald enters the Texas Theatre without paying.
Oswald punches the Police Officer in the Texas Theatre.
Oswald for some reason is carrying his revolver in the middle of the day in the Texas Theatre and tries to pull the trigger.
Oswald the devout Marxist holds up his fist to reporters.
Oswald refuses a lie detector test.
Oswald lies about ownership of the Murder Weapon.
Oswald lies about holding the Murder weapon in the Neely Street backyard photos and says that someone put his head on someone else's body.
Oswald leaves out Neely street as a place he rented and alters the date of the previous rental to fit.
Oswald's handwriting is on the Money Order for an amount equalling the price of the rifle plus postage.
Kliens has completed internal paperwork for a rifle(C2766) being sent to Oswald's PO Box.
Oswald receiving a 40 inch Italian Carcano and being photographed with a 40 inch Italian Carcano not long after.
Marina sees the butt of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage which is not there when checked on the afternoon of the assassination.
Frazier in his testimony states numerous times that he never paid attention to a long package that Oswald took to work.
The same rifle that Kliens sent to Oswald's PO box was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace.
Howard Brennan's description in his affidavit on the day of the assassination is a close match to Oswald.
Lt. Day testifies that he removed Oswald's palm print from the Barrel of Oswald's rifle.
The FBI takes a print from the same section of Oswald's rifle and the area matches the same area that is on Day's palm print card.
The Conspiracy Theorist "community" is an embarrassment to rationality, sanity and common sense. The extreme nature of nearly all proposed theories is disturbing, to say the least, and this forum often feels like a home for the mentally ill.
I wish there was a way to discuss the troubling issues that surround this case without being lumped in with these lunatics but it is a convenient way for Nutters to avoid having to answer the countless issues that plague this case.
The great irony is that Nutters have exactly the same mentality as Tinfoilers - There is no reasoning with it. There is no evidence, no argument that can ever change it.
Nutters should be every bit as ashamed as Tinfoil dickheads for their contribution to understanding this case.
Oh I see, this is the crux of the matter, you're some sort of special investigator with unique insights, who intuitively knows way more than everyone else combined, fair enough, good luck to you!
JohnM
-
Sadly, anyone who disagrees with Dan’s opinions (most everyone) gets his emotional tirades where he tries to Pooh Pooh on them. It is no wonder he has difficulty finding anyone who is willing to try to discuss the case with him.
(https://i.vgy.me/bkxkAF.jpg)
-
Well, Lt.Day apparently either forgot to tell FBI agent Drain about the palm print or Drain did not hear Lt.Day say anything about it.
Drain was willing to sign an affidavit stating he was not told about the print, while Day decided not to sign one affirming Day had informed Drain about the print.
The FBI examined the rifle and found no prints on it nor even any signs the rifle had been dusted.
The FBI did not become aware that a print had supposedly been lifted by Day until about a week later after Oswald was dead and his body was at the morgue.
It was at that time that According to the attending mortician , 2 FBI agents visited the morgue and when they left, the mortician noticed Oswald’s hands had been covered with black ink.
There is a part of Tom Aleyas film that shows Lt. Day using a brush on the rifle but it’s uncertain if there’s actually dust on the barrel or the brush nor is Day actually shown applying tape and lifting a print with the tape.
There is no recording of the rifle being disassembled and then Day dusting the rifle and then applying tape and then lifting and applying the tape to a card to transfer the print.
This raises suspicion because it’s similar to not recording by film or tape recorder the process of interrogating Oswald which could have easily been done also.
Its like the inability to allow Aleya to film the paper bag that was allegedly found in the SN or at least photograph the bag in place before the SN was rearranged several times.
It’s like the inability to at least have neutral 3rd parties like an attorney and stenographer present while Oswald was being questioned by Fritz.
So yes, while I might agree with SOME of the evidence that JohnM and Bill Brown very astutely illustrate and with SOME points of their logical construction of a time line for Oswald, I still have issues with what appears to be a very sloppy process by DPD/FBI of attaining and documenting the evidence. The failure to record the most important interrogation of Oswald is the most crucial point of all that basically denies due process and thus introduces reasonable doubt about the veracity of the evidence.
-
Well, Lt.Day apparently either forgot to tell FBI agent Drain about the palm print or Drain did not hear Lt.Day say anything about it.
Drain was willing to sign an affidavit stating he was not told about the print, while Day decided not to sign one affirming Day had informed Drain about the print.
The FBI examined the rifle and found no prints on it nor even any signs the rifle had been dusted.
The FBI did not become aware that a print had supposedly been lifted by Day until about a week later after Oswald was dead and his body was at the morgue.
It was at that time that According to the attending mortician , 2 FBI agents visited the morgue and when they left, the mortician noticed Oswald’s hands had been covered with black ink.
There is a part of Tom Aleyas film that shows Lt. Day using a brush on the rifle but it’s uncertain if there’s actually dust on the barrel or the brush nor is Day actually shown applying tape and lifting a print with the tape.
There is no recording of the rifle being disassembled and then Day dusting the rifle and then applying tape and then lifting and applying the tape to a card to transfer the print.
This raises suspicion because it’s similar to not recording by film or tape recorder the process of interrogating Oswald which could have easily been done also.
Its like the inability to allow Aleya to film the paper bag that was allegedly found in the SN or at least photograph the bag in place before the SN was rearranged several times.
It’s like the inability to at least have neutral 3rd parties like an attorney and stenographer present while Oswald was being questioned by Fritz.
So yes, while I might agree with SOME of the evidence that JohnM and Bill Brown very astutely illustrate and with SOME points of their logical construction of a time line for Oswald, I still have issues with what appears to be a very sloppy process by DPD/FBI of attaining and documenting the evidence. The failure to record the most important interrogation of Oswald is the most crucial point of all that basically denies due process and thus introduces reasonable doubt about the veracity of the evidence.
On the following Monday, the Chicago Tribune reported that on Sunday the 24th, Dallas County Officials disclosed that Oswald's palm print was discovered on the barrel of the rifle!!
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=10766&id=374790272&clippingId=23469458&width=820&height=1192&crop=0_0_5602_8149&rotation=0)
Obtaining prints from deceased individuals is done for many reasons and in this case wouldn't you want to be sure that you're 100% positive that the man shot by Ruby and the body in the Morgue was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald? Because you know how suspicious Conspiracy Theorists are? Right? LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/9QscHpFj/obtain-finger-prints-from-deceased-individuals.jpg)
The FBI confirmed beyond all doubt that Oswald palm touched the rifle and since dead people don't sweat, I think we can safely say the Oswald touched the rifle while still alive.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p1g0Djz/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
Oswald's paper sack that was found in Oswald's sniper's nest and photographed here a few hours later is the right size to carry Oswald's broken down rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJrnzFh6/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnsPxpdT/osw-ald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXffgMjB/Osw-ald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
JohnM
-
On the following Monday, the Chicago Tribune reported that on Sunday the 24th, Dallas County Officials disclosed that Oswald's palm print was discovered on the barrel of the rifle!!
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=10766&id=374790272&clippingId=23469458&width=820&height=1192&crop=0_0_5602_8149&rotation=0)
Obtaining prints from deceased individuals is done for many reasons and in this case wouldn't you want to be sure that you're 100% positive that the man shot by Ruby and the body in the Morgue was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald? Because you know how suspicious Conspiracy Theorists are? Right? LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/9QscHpFj/obtain-finger-prints-from-deceased-individuals.jpg)
The FBI confirmed beyond all doubt that Oswald palm touched the rifle and since dead people don't sweat, I think we can safely say the Oswald touched the rifle while still alive.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p1g0Djz/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
Oswald's paper sack that was found in Oswald's sniper's nest and photographed here a few hours later is the right size to carry Oswald's broken down rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJrnzFh6/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnsPxpdT/osw-ald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXffgMjB/Osw-ald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
JohnM
The theory that Day would fabricate this print after Oswald was already dead and the authorities were satisfied of his guilt is laughable. There is zero incentive to do so. There was ample evidence to link Oswald to the rifle in the absence of any print. There are a multitude of reasons for Day not to do so including losing his job, humiliation, and possibly prison. And I thought the CTer view was that the FBI was in on the framing of Oswald. But they won't confirm his print on the rifle? Why claim there was only one if the DPD is making this up? Why not go all out and say his prints are all over the rifle and the FBI confirms as part of their role in framing Oswald?
-
The theory that Day would fabricate this print after Oswald was already dead and the authorities were satisfied of his guilt is laughable. There is zero incentive to do so. There was ample evidence to link Oswald to the rifle in the absence of any print. There are a multitude of reasons for Day not to do so including losing his job, humiliation, and possibly prison. And I thought the CTer view was that the FBI was in on the framing of Oswald. But they won't confirm his print on the rifle? Why claim there was only one if the DPD is making this up? Why not go all out and say his prints are all over the rifle and the FBI confirms as part of their role in framing Oswald?
Zeon is like most modern CT's because they fully know there isn't a speck of evidence that anybody but Oswald did it, so they become anomaly hunters and without a shred of logical deductive reasoning they will throw anybody under a bus in hopes of sustaining their pointless suspicions, for example the interrogations are all lies except when they're not, the FBI altered evidence except when they didn't, key eyewitnesses cannot be trusted except when they can, and on and on it goes.
Anyway here's an interesting little titbit I found within some conspiracy literature, which according to the official timeline seems to be accurate.
1. Oswald's body was released from Parkland at around 11PM on Sunday night.
2. In the early hours of Monday, Secret Agents came and took Oswald's prints, and as I previously postulated this would be a forensic necessity in a case of this importance.
But here's the zinger, as posted above from the front page of the Chicago Tribune, it was reported that the Dallas Police disclosed the "Palmprint on the rifle barrel" way earlier than when the Secret Agents had access to Oswald's body?!?
Now wait for it, 3..2..1.. here comes the cries from the devoted, of yet another piece of official misinformation! Yawn!
In 1963 Paul Groody was employed at the Miller Funeral
Home in Fort Worth, where Oswald’s corpse was received from
Parkland Hospital in nearby Dallas at around 11 pm on 24
November, to be embalmed and prepared immediately for a
hasty viewing and burial the next day. In the early hours of 25
November Mr Groody’s work on Oswald’s corpse was
interrupted by the arrival of two ‘agents’. Mr Groody is now
dead but he did record statements to the effect that he didn’t
know whether the ‘agents’ were from the FBI or the Secret
Service.8 We can therefore infer with confidence that the two
men were formally attired rather than in any kind of uniform.
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/lob69-jfk-assassination.pdf
JohnM
-
You guys are making it very difficult for me to remain a loyal dedicated CT so I am going to remain merely as a skeptic just to give you loyalist WC devotees some kind of reason to continue posting here on the forum, even if it’s to 🙄 at old school Zeons questions. 🙂
-
You guys are making it very difficult for me to remain a loyal dedicated CT so I am going to remain merely as a skeptic just to give you loyalist WC devotees some kind of reason to continue posting here on the forum, even if it’s to 🙄 at old school Zeons questions. 🙂
Your questions are beyond valid, Zeon.
If the case against Oswald was solid, they would not have the need for "evidence" suddenly showing up, whenever it was convenient.
Never mind that most of it had no chain of custody to actually place it at the scene of the crime to begin with..... Thumb1:
For that they rely on all sorts of weak explanations, ignoring the simple fact that conclusive evidence and a solid chain of custody do not need any explanation at all.
The harder they try to explain things that are clearly questionable the weaker the "evidence" they are using becomes.
-
How the palmprint can be accepted as evidence is truly baffling.
According to FBI agent Vincent Drain, it was the opinion of his colleagues dealing with the palmprint that Day had faked it using one of the many palmprints that was taken from Oswald during the brief time he was in custody. I assume it is usual to take one set of prints from a suspect but it seems the DPD couldn't get enough of Oswald's prints.
It is the case that Day had an Oswald palmprint and the rifle in his possession on the evening of the assassination.
It is also the case that when the FBI received the rifle there was no sign of any fraction of a palmprint on the rifle. Not only that, there was no sign that the barrel of the rifle had even been processed for prints!!
There are two reasons why this would be the case:
1] The barrel of the rifle was never processed for prints.
2] The barrel was wiped spotlessly clean before the rifle was handed over to the FBI.
If Drain and his colleagues are correct it was probably option #2. After placing a fresh palmprint taken from Oswald on the barrel of the rifle, it was given time to dry and it was this fake print that was lifted from the barrel, after which the barrel was wiped clean.
What is the evidence that supports this sequence of events (other than the expert opinion of the FBI print specialists)?
1] NO PHOTO WAS TAKEN OF THE PALMPRINT
I imagine that in the very first lesson, on the very first day of fingerprint school, the students are taught this absolutely fundamental lesson - BEFORE A PRINT IS LIFTED IT IS PHOTOGRAPHED.
It is one of the most basic rules of finger-printing.
It is done because, very often, when a print is lifted it can be damaged or even destroyed by the actual act of lifting it. So a photo is taken first because it is non-invasive. It causes no damage to the print.
It can then act as a back up if the lifted print is compromised in any way.
It is beyond comprehension that Day, the fingerprint expert for the Dallas Police Department, did not take a photo first.
His excuse, that he didn't have enough time to photograph it but he did have enough time to lift it, is laughable. It cannot be taken seriously (but it is by those who need to believe).
His neglect in not taking the photo cannot be put down to gross incompetence. He was aware he should have taken the photo and we are supposed to believe he just decided not to.
The real reason he never took a photo is because there was no palmprint on the barrel of the rifle to take a print of.
2] DAY NEVER PASSED THE PRINT ON TO THE FBI ON THE 22ND
The DPD was ordered to hand over the evidence to the FBI on the night of the assassination.
The most important evidence was not the shells found on the 6th floor indicating where the shots were taken from. It was not even the rifle, the murder weapon itself. The most important piece of evidence was the palmprint Day was supposed to have taken from the barrel of the rifle.
This piece of evidence directly tied Oswald to the murder weapon. The palmprint taken from the rifle could be examined against the palmprint of Oswald the second it was lifted, wrapping the case up there and then.
Let's not forget, this is the most important piece of evidence in the most important case in U.S. history. The murder of the President.
Not only did Day forget to hand this unimaginably important piece of evidence over to the FBI, he forgot to mention he had it!
And not only that, we are being asked to believe that in the hours and days that followed the assassination Day was too busy to compare the palmprint to Oswald's!
We are being asked to believe that, not only did he neglect to give this evidence to the FBI so they could identify the print, he couldn't even be bothered doing it himself.
If it was true, that he really had lifted a palmprint from the barrel of the rifle, it would have been immediately recognised as the most important piece of evidence collected that day and there would have been a team working on it around the clock until an identification had been made.
It would not have been put in his drawer and forgotten about ::)
3] THERE WAS NO PRINT ON THE RIFLE WHEN IT ARRIVED AT THE FBI LAB
As I've said, the reason a photo is taken is to act as a back up in case the print is damaged or destroyed in the process of lifting the print.
According to Day's bogus story, he never took a photo and he did damage the print.
He would have us believe that after he lifted the print some stuck to the tape and some stayed on the rifle, irrevocably damaging the original print. However, according to Day, when he examined the print still left on the barrel of the rifle he felt that this was the better part of the damaged print and that the FBI would have no problem identifying the print. It must be remembered that a print that cannot be removed by the tape is really stuck on the barrel. Yet, when the rifle reached the FBI there was not even the tiniest fraction of print left on the barrel.
Where did it go?
Where did the print, that couldn't be removed by tape, go?
Could every single trace of a print that couldn't be removed by tape be rubbed off in transport?
How could that be the case if the wooden stock was put back on protecting the print?
Seriously, what is the excuse given for the disappearance of this print? How is it possible?
Unless, of course, the barrel of the rifle was thoroughly wiped clean before it was handed over to the FBI and that when it left the DPD there wasn't even a speck left to show that processing (or forgery) had even taken place.
The fingerprint experts at the FBI believed Day had faked the palmprint.
If we accept that, then all these other 'mysteries' are solved.
-
Substitute CT for Calvin and this is what it is like to listen to their ideas:
(https://i.vgy.me/lS4QbT.jpg)
-
How the palmprint can be accepted as evidence is truly baffling.
According to FBI agent Vincent Drain, it was the opinion of his colleagues dealing with the palmprint that Day had faked it using one of the many palmprints that was taken from Oswald during the brief time he was in custody. I assume it is usual to take one set of prints from a suspect but it seems the DPD couldn't get enough of Oswald's prints.
It is the case that Day had an Oswald palmprint and the rifle in his possession on the evening of the assassination.
It is also the case that when the FBI received the rifle there was no sign of any fraction of a palmprint on the rifle. Not only that, there was no sign that the barrel of the rifle had even been processed for prints!!
There are two reasons why this would be the case:
1] The barrel of the rifle was never processed for prints.
2] The barrel was wiped spotlessly clean before the rifle was handed over to the FBI.
If Drain and his colleagues are correct it was probably option #2. After placing a fresh palmprint taken from Oswald on the barrel of the rifle, it was given time to dry and it was this fake print that was lifted from the barrel, after which the barrel was wiped clean.
What is the evidence that supports this sequence of events (other than the expert opinion of the FBI print specialists)?
1] NO PHOTO WAS TAKEN OF THE PALMPRINT
I imagine that in the very first lesson, on the very first day of fingerprint school, the students are taught this absolutely fundamental lesson - BEFORE A PRINT IS LIFTED IT IS PHOTOGRAPHED.
It is one of the most basic rules of finger-printing.
It is done because, very often, when a print is lifted it can be damaged or even destroyed by the actual act of lifting it. So a photo is taken first because it is non-invasive. It causes no damage to the print.
It can then act as a back up if the lifted print is compromised in any way.
It is beyond comprehension that Day, the fingerprint expert for the Dallas Police Department, did not take a photo first.
His excuse, that he didn't have enough time to photograph it but he did have enough time to lift it, is laughable. It cannot be taken seriously (but it is by those who need to believe).
His neglect in not taking the photo cannot be put down to gross incompetence. He was aware he should have taken the photo and we are supposed to believe he just decided not to.
The real reason he never took a photo is because there was no palmprint on the barrel of the rifle to take a print of.
2] DAY NEVER PASSED THE PRINT ON TO THE FBI ON THE 22ND
The DPD was ordered to hand over the evidence to the FBI on the night of the assassination.
The most important evidence was not the shells found on the 6th floor indicating where the shots were taken from. It was not even the rifle, the murder weapon itself. The most important piece of evidence was the palmprint Day was supposed to have taken from the barrel of the rifle.
This piece of evidence directly tied Oswald to the murder weapon. The palmprint taken from the rifle could be examined against the palmprint of Oswald the second it was lifted, wrapping the case up there and then.
Let's not forget, this is the most important piece of evidence in the most important case in U.S. history. The murder of the President.
Not only did Day forget to hand this unimaginably important piece of evidence over to the FBI, he forgot to mention he had it!
And not only that, we are being asked to believe that in the hours and days that followed the assassination Day was too busy to compare the palmprint to Oswald's!
We are being asked to believe that, not only did he neglect to give this evidence to the FBI so they could identify the print, he couldn't even be bothered doing it himself.
If it was true, that he really had lifted a palmprint from the barrel of the rifle, it would have been immediately recognised as the most important piece of evidence collected that day and there would have been a team working on it around the clock until an identification had been made.
It would not have been put in his drawer and forgotten about ::)
3] THERE WAS NO PRINT ON THE RIFLE WHEN IT ARRIVED AT THE FBI LAB
As I've said, the reason a photo is taken is to act as a back up in case the print is damaged or destroyed in the process of lifting the print.
According to Day's bogus story, he never took a photo and he did damage the print.
He would have us believe that after he lifted the print some stuck to the tape and some stayed on the rifle, irrevocably damaging the original print. However, according to Day, when he examined the print still left on the barrel of the rifle he felt that this was the better part of the damaged print and that the FBI would have no problem identifying the print. It must be remembered that a print that cannot be removed by the tape is really stuck on the barrel. Yet, when the rifle reached the FBI there was not even the tiniest fraction of print left on the barrel.
Where did it go?
Where did the print, that couldn't be removed by tape, go?
Could every single trace of a print that couldn't be removed by tape be rubbed off in transport?
How could that be the case if the wooden stock was put back on protecting the print?
Seriously, what is the excuse given for the disappearance of this print? How is it possible?
Unless, of course, the barrel of the rifle was thoroughly wiped clean before it was handed over to the FBI and that when it left the DPD there wasn't even a speck left to show that processing (or forgery) had even taken place.
The fingerprint experts at the FBI believed Day had faked the palmprint.
If we accept that, then all these other 'mysteries' are solved.
“How the palmprint can be accepted as evidence is truly baffling.”
Because the FBI identified the palmprint, CE 2637, taken from LHO's rifle as having the irregularities associated with the barrel of the rifle and these irregularities from the barrel were present on the palmprint taken by Day.
CE 2637 proved the palmprint was taken from the barrel of the rifle.
-
“How the palmprint can be accepted as evidence is truly baffling.”
Because the FBI identified the palmprint, CE 2637, taken from LHO's rifle as having the irregularities associated with the barrel of the rifle and these irregularities from the barrel were present on the palmprint taken by Day.
CE 2637 proved the palmprint was taken from the barrel of the rifle.
If you'd bothered to read my post Jack, I agree that the print was lifted from the barrel of the rifle and that is why the irregularities of the rifle barrel are on the palmprint in evidence.
The part you would like to ignore is that, according to FBI agent Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI fingerprint experts that it was Day who had put the print on the rifle barrel before it was lifted.
So your so called proof doesn't really stack up to what you imagine it does.
And, as I say in the rest of the lengthy post (that you haven't mentioned so I assume you agree with it), the mystery of why there was no print on the barrel of the rifle when it got to the FBI is solved. The mystery of why there was no sign that the barrel was even processed for prints is solved. The mystery of why Day never took a photo of the print before attempting to lift it is solved. The mystery of why Day never handed the print to the FBI along with the rest of the evidence is solved.
Unless, of course, you have different solutions to these mysteries.
And I'm glad you agree that if Day had indeed lifted Oswald's palmprint from the barrel it would have been considered the most important piece of evidence collected that day.
The mystery as to why this most important piece of evidence was treated as if it were irrelevant is also solved.
Day was the fingerprint expert for the Dallas Police Department.
The FBI thought he'd faked the print.
Do you really think he wouldn't have realised he needed to make it look as though the palmprint actually came from the barrel of the rifle?
Do you really think he wouldn't know how to do it?
Do you have any kind of rational, credible explanation for the "mysteries" surrounding the palmprint.
If so, please share.
-
If you'd bothered to read my post Jack, I agree that the print was lifted from the barrel of the rifle and that is why the irregularities of the rifle barrel are on the palmprint in evidence.
The part you would like to ignore is that, according to FBI agent Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI fingerprint experts that it was Day who had put the print on the rifle barrel before it was lifted.
So your so called proof doesn't really stack up to what you imagine it does.
And, as I say in the rest of the lengthy post (that you haven't mentioned so I assume you agree with it), the mystery of why there was no print on the barrel of the rifle when it got to the FBI is solved. The mystery of why there was no sign that the barrel was even processed for prints is solved. The mystery of why Day never took a photo of the print before attempting to lift it is solved. The mystery of why Day never handed the print to the FBI along with the rest of the evidence is solved.
Unless, of course, you have different solutions to these mysteries.
And I'm glad you agree that if Day had indeed lifted Oswald's palmprint from the barrel it would have been considered the most important piece of evidence collected that day.
The mystery as to why this most important piece of evidence was treated as if it were irrelevant is also solved.
Day was the fingerprint expert for the Dallas Police Department.
The FBI thought he'd faked the print.
Do you really think he wouldn't have realised he needed to make it look as though the palmprint actually came from the barrel of the rifle?
Do you really think he wouldn't know how to do it?
Do you have any kind of rational, credible explanation for the "mysteries" surrounding the palmprint.
If so, please share.
IIRC, It was just one FBI agent, Vince Drain, who wasn't part of the fingerprint and ID division. Drain's explanation was that the DPD was "getting a lot of heat by Sunday night." But Drain took possession of the rifle about 11:45PM on the 22nd, so there's no way that Drain's scenario works if the print was taken from the rifle.
-
If you'd bothered to read my post Jack, I agree that the print was lifted from the barrel of the rifle and that is why the irregularities of the rifle barrel are on the palmprint in evidence.
The part you would like to ignore is that, according to FBI agent Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI fingerprint experts that it was Day who had put the print on the rifle barrel before it was lifted.
So your so called proof doesn't really stack up to what you imagine it does.
And, as I say in the rest of the lengthy post (that you haven't mentioned so I assume you agree with it), the mystery of why there was no print on the barrel of the rifle when it got to the FBI is solved. The mystery of why there was no sign that the barrel was even processed for prints is solved. The mystery of why Day never took a photo of the print before attempting to lift it is solved. The mystery of why Day never handed the print to the FBI along with the rest of the evidence is solved.
Unless, of course, you have different solutions to these mysteries.
And I'm glad you agree that if Day had indeed lifted Oswald's palmprint from the barrel it would have been considered the most important piece of evidence collected that day.
The mystery as to why this most important piece of evidence was treated as if it were irrelevant is also solved.
Day was the fingerprint expert for the Dallas Police Department.
The FBI thought he'd faked the print.
Do you really think he wouldn't have realised he needed to make it look as though the palmprint actually came from the barrel of the rifle?
Do you really think he wouldn't know how to do it?
Do you have any kind of rational, credible explanation for the "mysteries" surrounding the palmprint.
If so, please share.
Do you really think he wouldn't know how to do it?
How about you showing us an example where anyone actually has done it!
-
If you'd bothered to read my post Jack, I agree that the print was lifted from the barrel of the rifle and that is why the irregularities of the rifle barrel are on the palmprint in evidence.
The part you would like to ignore is that, according to FBI agent Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI fingerprint experts that it was Day who had put the print on the rifle barrel before it was lifted.
So your so called proof doesn't really stack up to what you imagine it does.
And, as I say in the rest of the lengthy post (that you haven't mentioned so I assume you agree with it), the mystery of why there was no print on the barrel of the rifle when it got to the FBI is solved. The mystery of why there was no sign that the barrel was even processed for prints is solved. The mystery of why Day never took a photo of the print before attempting to lift it is solved. The mystery of why Day never handed the print to the FBI along with the rest of the evidence is solved.
Unless, of course, you have different solutions to these mysteries.
And I'm glad you agree that if Day had indeed lifted Oswald's palmprint from the barrel it would have been considered the most important piece of evidence collected that day.
The mystery as to why this most important piece of evidence was treated as if it were irrelevant is also solved.
Day was the fingerprint expert for the Dallas Police Department.
The FBI thought he'd faked the print.
Do you really think he wouldn't have realised he needed to make it look as though the palmprint actually came from the barrel of the rifle?
Do you really think he wouldn't know how to do it?
Do you have any kind of rational, credible explanation for the "mysteries" surrounding the palmprint.
If so, please share.
Oh, I did read it all and do not agree with any of it. Nothing else matters beyond the authentication of the palmprint. The FBI certainly felt it to be authentic. Only SA Drain expressed any doubts.
Vincent Drain was not an authority or expert in fingerprint analysis. His role in the investigation of the JFK assassination was for an agent stationed in Dallas to be placed on an airplane where he delivered evidence to the FBI crime lab and then waited for the results and then returned the evidence to Dallas.
Is it even possible to artificially place a fingerprint on a curved surface? Fingerprints adhere to a surface, how is it unadhered and then placed onto another surface? On a curved surface which is the most difficult surface to retrieve a fingerprint from in the first place. Obviously not with tape.
“SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:”
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
Is this kind of thinking why SA Drain was left sitting in Washington DC during the investigation?
-
Oh, I did read it all and do not agree with any of it. Nothing else matters beyond the authentication of the palmprint. The FBI certainly felt it to be authentic. Only SA Drain expressed any doubts.
Vincent Drain was not an authority or expert in fingerprint analysis. His role in the investigation of the JFK assassination was for an agent stationed in Dallas to be placed on an airplane where he delivered evidence to the FBI crime lab and then waited for the results and then returned the evidence to Dallas.
Is it even possible to artificially place a fingerprint on a curved surface? Fingerprints adhere to a surface, how is it unadhered and then placed onto another surface? On a curved surface which is the most difficult surface to retrieve a fingerprint from in the first place. Obviously not with tape.
“SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:”
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
Is this kind of thinking why SA Drain was left sitting in Washington DC during the investigation?
Is it even possible to artificially place a fingerprint on a curved surface? Fingerprints adhere to a surface, how is it unadhered and then placed onto another surface? On a curved surface which is the most difficult surface to retrieve a fingerprint from in the first place. Obviously not with tape.
I'd like to know myself, because if it is relatively easy or even possible to place a suspects fingerprints wherever you like then all fingerprint gathering since day 1 has to be suspect and if so, some clever/sleazy/manipulative lawyer would have come forth and disputed his clients prints at some crime scene and this action would forever set a legal precedent and the FBI and crime agencies around the world would be forced to readjust their thinking.
Personally I can't see how to do what Dan suggests but perhaps he has thought this procedure through and can explain his methodology?
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtGjvGDk/palm-print-a.jpg)
JohnM
-
Further to my last post, upon close inspection of the actual dusted print, a couple of things become apparent.
1. The dusting as expected isn't absolutely uniform with a number of random darker patches where there is an accumulation of powder
2. Between the ridges of Oswald's palm print at certain points have additional amounts of powder which could be caused by simply the placement of the powder into the ridge valleys and/or the random amount of sweat left at certain parts.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtGjvGDk/palm-print-a.jpg)
The actual hand print of Oswald shows the relative even spread of ink across the entire palm area, which in my opinion would make the random covering of built up powder in various spots and then having to merge the two images with the correct scale into a forensically indistinguishable piece of evidence, a very very difficult process to duplicate.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZv9rxFK/metapth49515-xl-91-001-309.jpg)
The FBI took a print of Oswald's rifle in the exact same area as Day's first day dusted print and the FBI confirmed that Day's print of the rifle perfectly matched the exact same random blemishes as their own.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p1g0Djz/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Conclusion
I'm no fingerprint recovery expert but on the face of it, the difficulty of reproducing a valid non-detectable substitute of an authentically produced print of a finger/palm print on some random surface is going to be practicably impossible!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwu-Ump0BZ2rKDchPio0Grpr80cSUHhBqsTw&s)
JohnM