Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Dan O'meara]

Finally!

Alan had been going on about the Wiegman shadow because, as he explains it, the film had been tampered with to disguise the fact Lovelady was wearing a long-sleeved shirt. Why did this need disguising? Because, according to Alan, the Altgens 6 pic he posted below shows Oswald's arm holding a bottle of coke:



For many reasons I wasn't going anywhere near this but I note, in your role as self-appointed, self-anointed fact-checker, you didn't have a word to say about this lunacy, revealing (as if it needed revealing) your stinking bias and hypocrisy.
To me it looked like the shadow of the wall was being cast on Lovelady, no mystery, and Alan's explanation was beyond bizarre so I wasn't getting drawn into that particular fantasy.
But Alan wouldn't let it go so I checked it out just to shut him up and came across this Allen pic:



The officer on the left on the top step with the white, rounded helmet is stood approximately where I imagined Lovelady to be.
He is clearly in sunlight with no shadow from the wall being cast on him.
I realised I was wrong and, not being a coward or a hypocrite, immediately posted Alan to tell him I'd checked it out and that I agreed something was weird about the Wiegman pic.

You have felt it necessary to post one of your snide remarks even though I have done what anyone researching this case should do - discover something that contradicts their belief then change that belief accordingly (like that happens a lot around here).

Get back under your stone.

[John Iacoletti]

For many reasons I wasn't going anywhere near this but I note, in your role as self-appointed, self-anointed fact-checker, you didn't have a word to say about this lunacy, revealing (as if it needed revealing) your stinking bias and hypocrisy.

Maybe because "lunacy" isn't defined as "Dan O'Meara disagrees".

To me it looked like the shadow of the wall was being cast on Lovelady, no mystery, and Alan's explanation was beyond bizarre so I wasn't getting drawn into that particular fantasy.

Well then you weren't paying much attention, because he asked you repeatedly to account for how that wall could cast a shadow on that spot.  Hence my observation of "finally".  Maybe you're too busy posturing to bother to try to absorb what it is you're responding to.

[Alan Ford]

Now!

From Captain Fritz's interrogation 'notes'--------------



4706? Wrong number!

From Agent Bookhout's interrogation report--------------



4706? Wrong number! But not just that.................. This is the same wrong number as in Captain Fritz's 'notes'! Gee whizz, the fact that Captain Fritz reproduces Agent Bookhout's exact error would almost make a soul think Captain Fritz's notes must derive their contents from Agent Bookhout's report..............

But wait! All this shows is Mr Oswald gave the wrong number in interrogation (the wily commie scoundrel). Right?

Wrong! From Inspector Kelley's report on the same interrogation session-------------



4907? Right number!

Sorry to break Lunchroom Derangement Syndrome hearts here, but Captain Fritz's 'notes' are just scribblings based on Agent Hosty's reports. Their independent evidentiary value is ZILCH 

[Dan O'meara]

Now!

From Captain Fritz's interrogation 'notes'--------------



4706? Wrong number!

From Agent Bookhout's interrogation report--------------



4706? Wrong number! But not just that.................. This is the same wrong number as in Captain Fritz's 'notes'! Gee whizz, the fact that Captain Fritz reproduces Agent Bookhout's exact error would almost make a soul think Captain Fritz's notes must derive their contents from Agent Bookhout's report..............

But wait! All this shows is Mr Oswald gave the wrong number in interrogation (the wily commie scoundrel). Right?

Wrong! From Inspector Kelley's report on the same interrogation session-------------



4907? Right number!

Sorry to break Lunchroom Derangement Syndrome hearts here, but Captain Fritz's 'notes' are just scribblings based on Agent Hosty's reports. Their independent evidentiary value is ZILCH 

Also from the Kelley report:

"I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..."

 

[Alan Ford]

Also from the Kelley report:

"I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..."

 

Inspector Kelley is lying here. But he has no cause to lie about Mr Oswald's N.O. address.

Do you believe that both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout independently misheard the number 4907 as 4706? Or that Mr Oswald gave the wrong number, then corrected himself---------but both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout failed to notice the correction and so stuck with the original error?

[Dan O'meara]

Inspector Kelley is lying here. But he has no cause to lie about Mr Oswald's N.O. address.

Do you believe that both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout independently misheard the number 4907 as 4706? Or that Mr Oswald gave the wrong number, then corrected himself---------but both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout failed to notice the correction and so stuck with the original error?

I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.

[Alan Ford]

I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.

Well, it means that Captain Fritz's "claims 2nd Fl Coke when off came in" cannot be used as independent corroboration of Agent Bookhout's solo-report claim as to what Mr Oswald said----------------as it's actually derived from same.