Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?  (Read 285489 times)

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #294 on: September 16, 2018, 07:24:12 PM »
Then explain why CE 573 isn't relevant.
Again, I didn't say that. You're trying to force your own baggage on what I said without actually thinking about what I wrote.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #295 on: September 16, 2018, 08:09:27 PM »
Mitch Todd: The route that was chosen is simply a fact of history. The various rationales, policies, arguments, the whos, hows, and whys were aired out years ago in the various official investigations. You don't need me to explain them, if you've done your homework.  That being said, if you want to argue about it, you need to produce a good supporting arguments for your conclusions. So far, you've never gotten further than saying that you think that a straight-Elm route would allow the limousine go faster than the Main-Houston-Elm route. But you've never shown that any of the organizers, up to and including the President himself, had the proverbial need for speed, or that they would have taken the Elm route faster than the Main-Houston-Elm one. It has already noted that, were high security that important, they would have skipped downtown altogether and done the Mockingbird-Harry Hines run. You've been shown via news film that motorcades in other cities ran slowly. After all, in politics, visibility is an incalculable asset, and it's hard to be visible if you're zooming by at 60mph. You've been pointed to Greer's testimony that the limo slowed down to 15mph once it got to the crowds downtown. I've even shown you via Alvarez that the limo ran at a steady 12mph from Z160 until Greer let off the gas. Given that evidence, there's little room to argue that the Elm-direct route would have resulted in a faster limousine.

Which is why you ignore all that, try to turn the argument around, and have everyone else rehash what was committed to the page decades ago. You're MO is well known, and you really aren't that clever about it, at that.


Like his twin he uses a ton of verbiage, but doesn't explain why the two turns were needed when there were two other viable options. No surprise there.
You have yet to make a case that the straight-down-Elm really was a better path. Being "viable" doesn't cut it; you have to show that it would be clearly superior. Clearly superior, that is, on the basis of 1963 political considerations rather than what you'd like to think. 

I've already noted  that "there's little room to argue that the Elm-direct route would have resulted in a faster limousine," and I've provided the evidence for this. You can't deal with any of it, so you ignore it.

Offline Mike Orr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #296 on: September 16, 2018, 08:19:46 PM »
Walt , I have not been scolded like that since the 3rd grade . Thanks for bringing those facts up to me . I should know better .

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #297 on: September 16, 2018, 08:26:22 PM »
Again, I didn't say that. You're trying to force your own baggage on what I said without actually thinking about what I wrote.

You asked me if you had ever said that CE 573 was relevant. I can't remember and I have been trying to get you to say what you mean to no avail.

Spit it out. Is CE 573 relevant to you or not?

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #298 on: September 16, 2018, 08:33:00 PM »
You have yet to make a case that the straight-down-Elm really was a better path. Being "viable" doesn't cut it; you have to show that it would be clearly superior. Clearly superior, that is, on the basis of 1963 political considerations rather than what you'd like to think. 

I've already noted  that "there's little room to argue that the Elm-direct route would have resulted in a faster limousine," and I've provided the evidence for this. You can't deal with any of it, so you ignore it.

Why wouldn't it be a better path? It connected directly to the Stemmons Freeway.

You are the new game player on here as Brown has taken a hiatus. The WC claimed in 1964.that Main Street was better and that the two turns were needed, but they FAILED to support these claims.

Now, in 2018, you are trying to get me to disprove their claims when they NEVER supported them let alone proved them. It won't work. Elm Street was as wide as Main Street and connected directly to Stemmons Freeway, thus, it was the better option. Live with it.

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #299 on: September 16, 2018, 08:35:56 PM »
Walt , I have not been scolded like that since the 3rd grade . Thanks for bringing those facts up to me . I should know better .

Just beware Mike as "facts" and Walt don't go together. He believes the nonsense that the WC gave us, but with a twist. It was all a hoax supposedly.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3723
Re: Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?
« Reply #300 on: September 16, 2018, 10:00:31 PM »
Main Street was better and that the two turns were needed, but they FAILED to support these claims.
RC...as much as I hate to, I must agree with the hyenas on this one. In the history of Dallas, every parade that the city has ever had, came up or down down Main St. That is why they call it 'Main St' it is the main street of the city.
The Cotton Bowl parade...up Main...the Shriner's parade...the Veterans Day Parade...Main St.
The turn was perfect for the gunmen and BINGO.