The Bus Stop Farce

[Bill Brown]

How far into the room (away from the windows) do you loose sight of the bus stop? I know that that would depend on where along the front wall one is. So lets specify along a perpendicular line to the front wall at that runs to the back of the end of the couch seat closest to the front wall. I believe that the angle to the right edge of the window nearest the TV from that spot is very close to the angle to the bus stop. Also, do we know the bus stop was at the same exact location in 1963 as it is now?

This is so typical for you. You clearly have never been to the rooming house yourself, yet you "believe" that Roberts was sitting on the couch when Oswald walked out. Why do you believe that? The answer is simple; so you can argue that she would have had a good look at Oswald as he walked out. You now have two people, who have actually been there, telling you that she couldn't have seen the bus stop from the couch, yet instead of accepting that, you are still desperately looking for a way to keep Roberts on the couch anyway. This happens all the time with you. You prefer what you believe over factual information time after time.

Well, let me tell you this; if you are now looking for a way to place Roberts on the couch seat closest to the front wall, so that she could somehow see the bus stop, the consequence is that you put Roberts on the couch at a location where Oswald would have passed behind her on his way to the front door.

You really need to think things through in the future.....

What are you two arguing about here?  Regarding Oswald walking out the front door, what does it matter whether Roberts was in front of the TV or on the couch?

[Bill Brown]

I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember seeing a photo or video frame of an officer examining a jacket at the scene where it was found (the parking lot behind the building on Jefferson). But if I understand your theory correctly, LHO would have left CE 162 in Irving.

A still frame from the Ron Reiland film footage (the same cameraman who captured the wallet footage).

[Bill Brown]

There is indeed a photo of an officer holding a jacket, flapping in the wind, at a parking lot near the Tippit scene.

It's not a photo.  You're referring to a still frame from Ron Reiland's film footage.

[Bill Brown]

You're quite fond of estimations, aren't you.
1:06 - 1:07 qualifies as 'just after 1pm' imo

Markham could have meant the time she left the house
We all know her roundabout way of attaching her responses to questions
that seem to confuse her

Let's see where Markham's time is corroborated
She seems ti be in the same boat as Earlene in that department

Nobody had to wait for the news at 1PM
The CBS bulletin came on at 12:40pm



And are you sure Bowley's watch was of good quality?


Maybe closer to Mickey than Rolex..

Classic Chapman, go after one detail and ignore the rest. The irony is that I am simply using the testimony of the WC star witness in the Tippit case and Chapman is questioning it with another one of his "could have" games. Go figure....

I have explained all this to you several times, but you simply ignore and dismiss it only to start again with the same challenge of one detail out of a coherent timeline.

It doesn't make any significant difference if Markham meant the time she left her house on 9th street because it only took one block, or around 2 minutes, to walk to the junction of 10th and Patton, which means she would have arrived there at 1.08 and she would be at the bus stop on Jefferson at no later than 1.11. In other words, if Tippit was killed at 1.14 or 1.15, Markham would not have been there. She would have been at the bus stop instead.

Another pathetic argument. Earlene Roberts wasn't waiting for the news at 1 pm. She said that a friend told her about the assassination so she wanted to watch the 1 pm news. There is a difference, but it will probably go over your head.

In any event, the WC presented a timeline which has Oswald arriving at the rooming house just before 1 pm and when he walked in Roberts was trying to get the television to work.

Just keep throwing things against the wall, hoping something will stick, but the timeline I have presented in it's combined form makes it highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Bowley's watch to be wrong by much.

If you want to make a case, in which Markham's estimate is off and Bowley's watch was wrong, then all you have to do is provide an alternative timeline that fits all the known facts. And exactly that is your biggest problem. You can't, which is why you keep attacking individual points of the timeline.

There is only one question you need to answer to understand what really happened; Why did the investigators and the WC ignore Bowley completely? One of the main witnesses in the Tippit case, the one who called the DPD dispatcher, the one who - together with Callaway - helped put Tippit in the ambulance.....They completely erased him from the case. He is not mentioned in the WC report at all..... Now, why do you think is that?

Classic Chapman, go after one detail and ignore the rest. The irony is that I am simply using the testimony of the WC star witness in the Tippit case and Chapman is questioning it with another one of his "could have" games. Go figure....

You're being a bit hypocritical here.  You claim you're "simply using the testimony", yet you ignore the portion of that same testimony which tells you that Oswald was the cop-killer.

[Bill Brown]

There is only one question you need to answer to understand what really happened; Why did the investigators and the WC ignore Bowley completely? One of the main witnesses in the Tippit case, the one who called the DPD dispatcher, the one who - together with Callaway - helped put Tippit in the ambulance.....They completely erased him from the case. He is not mentioned in the WC report at all..... Now, why do you think is that?

Because he (Bowley) didn't see the killer flee.

[Bill Brown]

Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.

BTW, in 1963, people's lives ran to the pulse of mechanical and electromechanical timepieces that were set using other mechanical clocks as a reference. A few nerdy types might periodically dial into the National Bureau of Standards' time broadcast on shortwave and sync to that, but very few made that level of effort.  As such, any randomly-selected timepiece would commonly be expected to be as much as five minutes off of some reference time; any two clocks could be off by as much as ten minutes. This expected discrepancy was the basis for the old advice to always try to be ten minutes early to any appointment. You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast. And it explains why the timing arguments regarding the Tippit shooting tend to be an asinine waste of everyone's time.

You're using way too much common sense for some.  Stop it.

[Bill Brown]

No, the real fact of the matter is that Markham your star eyewitness positively identified Oswald as the man who killed Tippit. Try again!

JohnM

"Was there a number two"   

Absolutely unrelated to her positive identification of Oswald during the lineup she attended on 11/22/63.

[Martin Weidmann]

Time to get real.
Tippit evidence relevance based on a scale of ONE to TEN.

Discarded shells at the crime scene as seen being discarded by Oswald, exclusively matched to Oswalds revolver. TEN
Oswald being arrested and trying to kill more Policemen with the above revolver. TEN
A dozen postitive identifications of Oswald. TEN
A wide variation of time guesses. ONE

JohnM

I thought you said you wanted to "get real"