Ignoring Evidence in Favor of Oswald

[Bill Chapman]

Since I've checked back, let's see what Chapman will come up with 'on the fly' to get rid of this statement from Guinyard:

Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. Helped put him in the ambulance.
Mr. BALL. You stayed there until the ambulance came?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were you there when the truck came up that was driven by Benavides?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He came up right after this?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he came up from the east side---going west.

Distraction, as in: What's that got to do with my point.. y'know.. the 10ft-55ft-Guinyard-Callaway-Oswald thing.

[Bill Chapman]

Another half-cocked argument from Chapman, no surprises as this was the original claim:

On your face, again, LOL.

He even deliberately dropped (allegedly) evidence (shells) to be traced to his gun, ROFL.

He testified to 10 feet under oath, no different from Callaway.

Based on nothing but school merits to get rid of Guinyard.

Trust me, nobody gives a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about your little trophy file.

'Trust me'
> You wish

'Based on nothing but school merits to get rid of Guinyard'.
> LOL! Guinyard ID'd Oswald, fool. No way would I 'get rid' of him

'He testified to 10 feet under oath, no different from Callaway'
> Except that Callaway said 55 feet

'He even deliberately dropped (allegedly) evidence (shells) to be traced to his gun, ROFL'
> The Davis sisters also testified under oath, Rolfie.

'On your face, again, LOL.'
> In your face again, hahaha

[Bill Chapman]

I edit on the fly. Period.
How is that even supposed to make any sense, LOL.

You post your nonsense and THEN try to fix it, otherwise the edits weren't time stamped.

Not my bad if you lot just can't seem to wait for my attention.
Who told you that?

I had no idea that Guinyard was a man of color until you brought it up via your 'race card' slur.
That could have some truth to it considering how bad you are with the evidence.

Or, you simply made that up 'on the fly'.

Thanks for the heads up.
You're welcome, the information has only been out there for 50+ years.

How is that even supposed to make any sense, LOL
> Your grade8 is showing

You post your nonsense and THEN try to fix it, otherwise the edits weren't time stamped
> I post YOUR nonsense and fix it, like your 'race card' denial.

That could have some truth to it considering how bad you are with the evidence.
> You lot keep claiming there's no evidence. Now there is? What took you so long?

Or, you simply made that up 'on the fly'.
> Keep guessing

'You're welcome, the information has only been out there for 50+ years.'
> I had no idea that Guinyard's skin color was that important to the assassination

---------------------
BONUS EDITS FOR
HIGH SCHOOL
DROP OUTS 
---------------------
> bolded text for easier
reading (it's a graphic
designer thing)
1:42AM EST
> cropped page in the
interest of bandwidth
conservation (it's a web
site designer thing)
1:46AM EST
> checked spelling,
grammar & sentence
construction (its a
writer and graphic
designer thing)
2:03AM EST
> added 'skin' to colour
re Guinyard and changed
'colour' to 'color' (English to
'American') for the education
deprived amongst us (aka CTers)
2:54AM EST
> accrued a number of time stamps,
which are a 'moveable feast'* (if you will)
amongst those who edit-on-the-fly.
(It's a professional writer thing)
OPEN-ENDED AM EST

*Cite Ernest Hemingway

[John Mytton]

or something,
I detect confusion, what's new?

but you fail to acknowledge all the other eyewitnesses who identified Oswald or an armed gunman moving in the same direction.
I failed to see indication of east/west sidewalk.

I detect confusion, what's new?

You got that right, the CT's view on what happened on the 22nd is the epitome of "confusion".

I failed to see indication of east/west sidewalk.

This is getting very tedious, what this tells me is that;
 It's another example where evidence wasn't altered by the FBI/WC.
 That Callaway and Guinyard didn't fraudulently collaborate on their observations.
 That 5 months later Guinyard was a little confused about what side of the road, big deal!
 That the totality of the eyewitnesses all essentially agree with each other.

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

@ Oswald lovers

A post-in-the-life of an
'edit on-the-fly' writer

---------------------
BONUS EDITS FOR
HIGH SCHOOL
DROP OUTS 
---------------------
> bolded text for easier
reading (it's a graphic
designer thing)
1:42AM EST
> cropped page in the
interest of bandwidth
conservation (it's a web
site designer thing)
1:46AM EST
> checked spelling,
grammar & sentence
construction (its a
writer and graphic
designer thing)
2:03AM EST
> added 'skin' to 'colour'
re Guinyard and changed
'colour' to 'color' (English to
'American') for the education
deprived amongst us (aka CTers)
2:54AM EST
> accrued a number of time stamps,
which are a 'moveable feast'* (if you will)
amongst those who edit-on-the-fly.
(It's a professional writer thing)
OPEN-ENDED AM EST

*Cite Ernest Hemingway

[John Mytton]

You mean like Whaley ID'd Oswald by picking the wrong guy?

Sorry, no.

Mr. BALL. Did Whaley say anything to you personally?
Mr. LEAVELLE. To me personally?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. LEAVELLE. Well, of course, I asked him if he---if the man that he remembered or saw there, whatever he was identifying him for there was up there and he said "Yes, the man in the T-shirt." Whether he was doing all the talking or not wouldn't make any difference, he still knew him.



JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

OK, so let's consolidate the latest stupidity cranked out by Chapman.

'Based on nothing but school merits to get rid of Guinyard'.
> LOL! Guinyard ID'd Oswald, fool. No way would I 'get rid' of him

You mean like Whaley ID'd Oswald by picking the wrong guy?

Mr. BALL. Do you remember where he was standing in the lineup--what number he was?
Mr. GUINYARD. I don't know what his number was, but I can tell you where he was Standing at.
Mr. BALL. Where was he standing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He was standing--the second man from the east side, and that lineup was this way [indicating] and he was the second man from that there end.

'He testified to 10 feet under oath, no different from Callaway'
> Except that Callaway said 55 feet

So which was it?

'He even deliberately dropped (allegedly) evidence (shells) to be traced to his gun, ROFL'
> The Davis sisters also testified under oath, Rolfie.

But one of them lied.

Anyway, assuming shells were dropped makes your claim that Oswald was concerned with witnesses even more ridiculous.

How is that even supposed to make any sense, LOL
> Your grade8 is showing

So Chapman's school grade theory is "progressing" but still some blanks to fill in:

Grade6 ~ no good

Grade8 ~ no good

2 Years college ~ fine.

You post your nonsense and THEN try to fix it, otherwise the edits weren't time stamped
> I post YOUR nonsense and fix it, like your 'race card' denial.

Um, don't recall a denial but we can check your race obsession box by now.

That could have some truth to it considering how bad you are with the evidence.
> You lot keep claiming there's no evidence. Now there is? What took you so long?

Double your dose and try again.

Or, you simply made that up 'on the fly'.
> Keep guessing

A qualified guess considering how you make things up 'on the fly'.

'You're welcome, the information has only been out there for 50+ years.'
> I had no idea that Guinyard's skin color was that important to the assassination

Callaway was his boss, worth considering, especially given your race obsession.

(bandwidth conservation -- ROFL)

(professional writer thing -- ROFL)

Your Grade-8 is showing, Rolfie.