Oswald killed Tippit -- Helen Markham confirms her ID on CBS 1964

[Martin Weidmann]

1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?

It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?

Your theory cannot be proved. You're suggesting Tenth & Patton was Oswald's destination: You have no evidence for that.

There you go again. Turning a simple question into a so-called theory, when there isn't one. But a strawman is easier to attack than answering a simple question, right

There is no theory that needs to be proven, nor am I making any suggestions.

I am asking you; "What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could?"

and as predicted, you can't provide a plausible answer and are playing games again.

I'm not convinced that Oswald was given a lift part of the way from North Beckley to Tenth & Patton. I mentioned that "possibility" to counter the argument that the journey was "impossible" in the time (approximate) Oswald had available. Oswald was not observed all the way from the rooming house to Tenth and Patton. He might have run part of the way. It's reasonable to assume that Oswald wanted to get to his destination as quickly as possible. My theory (for which I have no proof): Oswald was going to Redbird Airport to hijack a light-plane.

It's reasonable to assume that Oswald wanted to get to his destination as quickly as possible.

No, it is not reasonable at all to assume that since you don't know what his destination was. En route to the roominghouse he offered his taxi to a woman. That doesn't sound like somebody who is in a hurry to get somewhere fast.

All we know is that according to the narrative Oswald ended up at 10th/Patton where nobody saw him running.

You think it is possible that Oswald was running or was given a lift (for neither exists any evidence) but you simply can not give a plausible reason from him being in a hurry to get to 10th/Patton or where ever else he was going!

2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.

These "do-not-knows" are designed to permit you to "sit on the fence". You are simply avoiding offering any speculative opinion that would be open to scrutiny by other members of this forum. 

Again, more evasiveness, a personal attack and deflection.... everything except an answer.

This of course justifies the conclusion that you can not prove that the revolver Hill produced at the police station some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest was in fact the same revolver that was taken from Oswald.

Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?[/i]

It's overwhelmingly likely that the revolver is the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. For it not to be requires a massive conspiracy that involved police officers such as Gerald Hill. When you invoke a preposterous theory implying Hill got another revolver from somewhere else, you need to explain a plausible series of events to explain that.

It's overwhelmingly likely that the revolver is the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.

Nope.. It's overwhelmingly wishful thinking on your part. But by making this comment you are actually confirming that it is only your assumption that the revolver Hill brought into the police station and had marked by a few cops there was the same one as the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.

Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!

I was busy with other matters that were more important.

Yeh, so you said... but you were not so busy to write other posts on the forum and.... you still haven't even tried to answer the two questions...

Bottom line; you can't give any plausible reason for why Oswald would be in such a hurry to get to 10th/Patton that he needed to run and you only assume that the revolver Hill entered into evidence did indeed belong to Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's not my fault that Gary Craig did not make his opinion more clear.

So you were the only one on the forum who did not understand, is that what you are saying?

[Martin Weidmann]

"I do not need to prove anything" is your "contrarian" technique. You imply all sorts of theories without any proof and then accuse others of exhibiting bad character for doing the same thing.

It seems you still don't understand the difference between a question being asked and a claim (implied or not) being made.

[Walt Cakebread]

Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.

So you're a ballistics expert, now, Walt?

Your "theory" is that every witness who contributes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald is a liar. That's all you've got. How about some evidence that somebody else killed Officer J.D. Tippit? Not "thumb-suckers': Identification of an alternative shooter and physical evidence is required. Over to you... genius.

I clearly stated that this mendacious man can fool an ignoramus.....Just as a snake oil salesmen can fool ignorant people.

What size was the bore diameter of the revolver ?..... What was the diameter of the projectile?   How long was the barrel?
What was the composition of the projectile metal?    What was the melting point?    What was the temperature of the gasses blowing by the projectile? What was the velocity of the hot gasses blowing past the projectile?

Please answer the above questions.

[Ross Lidell]

Yes, it is vague. It's obvious to anybody who watches them. Nothing in these videos are conclusive to confirm Oswald killed Tippit.

Yes, it is vague. It's obvious to anybody who watches them.....

No it is not vague. The man takes 70 seconds to explain the difficulty of the ballistics match of the projectiles.

I'm not going list all the points he made. You need to rebut Joseph D. Nichols conclusions point-by-point: Otherwise you're just another contrarian.

Incidentally, your brief, incorrect statement is actually "vague" too. What irony!

Nothing in these videos are conclusive to confirm Oswald killed Tippit.

The Video concludes with text stating: "Joseph D. Nicol's expert ballistics evidence SUPPORTS other evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit".

Have you ever heard of the legal term "probative"?

[Bill Chapman]

"I do not need to prove anything" is your "contrarian" technique. You imply all sorts of theories without any proof and then accuse others of exhibiting bad character for doing the same thing.

It's called JAQing
A chicken-spombleprofglidnoctobuns troll method

[Ross Lidell]

I clearly stated that this mendacious man can fool an ignoramus.....Just as a snake oil salesmen can fool ignorant people.

What size was the bore diameter of the revolver ?..... What was the diameter of the projectile?   How long was the barrel?
What was the composition of the projectile metal?    What was the melting point?    What was the temperature of the gasses blowing by the projectile? What was the velocity of the hot gasses blowing past the projectile?

Please answer the above questions.

Not necessary. You're demanding an unrealistic standard of evidence.

I'm not required to be a ballistics expert. I posted a video of someone who was (1964).

Your demands: The first 3 are known. The last 3 are not used in ballistics identification. Explain why the last 3 would be tested for.

If you think they are relevant: Explain how they disprove the conclusions of Joseph D. Nicol.

[Gary Craig]

When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
> Thanks for reminding us that Callaway ID'd Oswald as the guy with the gun.

And raising one's eyebrows does not require rolling one's eyes.

"Thanks for reminding us that Callaway ID'd Oswald as the guy with the gun."

Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's car, within 15 feet, when he was shot. He got the best view of Tippit's murderer and he described a oerson who doesn't match Oswald.

The closest Calloway got to the guy with the gun was 56 feet and the guy was running. Considering the evidence against Oswald I can see why you're grasping at straw though.