The Patsy

[Bill Brown]

Actually, yes. Listen to what he says before the patsy line. He's clearly referring to his stint in the USSR.

That's exactly right, Sean.

You have to look at the patsy statement in it's entirety.

"They have taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." -- Lee Oswald

Oswald is clearly claiming that the Dallas Police Department is picking on him because he once tried to defect to Russia. He is not saying anything about mythical conspirators who are attempting to frame him for the assassination.

[Bill Chapman]

Cool 

It would be better for you if the shooter were wearing clothes that Oswald actually owned, but he wasn't, demonstrating Oswald was not the man on the 6th floor.

Come on, Bill:
"I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window."

Euins sees a bald spot on top of the shooter's head. Demonstrating it wasn't Oswald

"And can you confirm that Oswald watched long enough to see them 'go through the underpass'

Yes, I can:

Even as I hit the ground, my first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor. “Was he going to fire again?” I wondered. By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President’s car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn’t appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do. He seemed pleased that no one had realized where the shots were coming from. Then he did something that puzzled me. Very slowly and deliberately he set the rifle on its butt and just stayed there for a moment to savor what he had done, like a hunter who has “bagged his buck.” Then, with no sense of haste, he simply moved slowly away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision.

Eyewitness to History, by Howard L. Brennan, with J. Edward Cherryholmes
Were they listening for the bolt action of the rifle or the shells hitting the floor? No, but these things were still heard. As Brennan points out, the shooter was in no rush, just standing there, admiring his handiwork. That's why they didn't hear the gunman rushing away -because he didn't rush away. The three men stayed where they were long enough to hear anyone who might be rushing away but they didn't hear anything.
Conversely, the men running across to the west end of the building was heard by an office worker on the fourth floor.
Go figure.

Was she actually listening for Adams and Styles running down the stairs? No, but she still heard them.
Was she watching for Truly and Baker coming up the stairs? No, but she still saw them.
So she was in a position to see and hear all this activity on the stairs but no sign of Oswald or anyone coming down the stairs in between Adams/Styles going down and Baker/Truly coming up. Demonstrating Oswald never rushed down the stairs for his rendezvous with Baker in the second floor lunchroom.

So did Jarman and Norman, confirming the only time and place he could have seen them was on the first floor minutes before the shooting. Demonstrating Oswald was not the shooter.

Really?
Isn't Oswald supposed to be hiding in the SN at this time while BRW has his lunch?
Oh, that's right - BRW was having his lunch in the SN at this time. How inconvenient.

He did indeed.

Just sayin'.
It fits with the known facts.

Who? Me?

The idea that seeing things in sunlight bleaches out the colour of everything is patently ridiculous.
Sunlight highlights colours.
Of course a colour becomes darker in the shadows, but to imagine it then becomes almost white in the sunlight is misguided, to say the least.
Try it next time you're out and about. See how daylight emphasises colour.

My image of Oswald at the window shows rich colour and could also pass for 'light clothing' especially as contrasted against the darker interior

Cherryholmes wrote a lot of things. Especially in his book written years after Brennans death (Thus no Brennan around to proofread)... a book that practically makes Brennan look like a philosopher-poet, ffs. Re colour people will argue endlessly about, for instance, whether a given colour is blue-green or green-blue. And Oswald's hair was thinning and combed over. I have shown images of his head with flash pictures taken during capture revealing what his noggin might show in harsh, direct sunlight. Face it: His hair was in retreat.


Meantime:


billchapman

Now keep in mind that Euins was corrected by Ball changing Euin's erroneous use of 'bald spot' to 'white spot' because the area I've indicated in 'Spot this' (above) is not technically a bald spot given that it is not completely encircled by hair. Now tell us why Ball would make that distinction if Euins was describing an isolated, actual bald spot on TOP of the head.

[Dan O'meara]

My image of Oswald at the window shows rich colour and could also pass for 'light clothing' especially as contrasted against the darker interior

Cherryholmes wrote a lot of things. Especially in his book written years after Brennans death (Thus no Brennan around to proofread)... a book that practically makes Brennan look like a philosopher-poet, ffs. Re colour people will argue endlessly about, for instance, whether a given colour is blue-green or green-blue. And Oswald's hair was thinning and combed over. I have shown images of his head with flash pictures taken during capture revealing what his noggin might show in harsh, direct sunlight. Face it: His hair was in retreat.


Meantime:


billchapman

Over-exposed pics have no bearing on what we see in real life.
Daylight enhances colour.
The open-necked shirt is described as being so light coloured it's almost white by three of the witnesses. Edwards just describes it as white.
Oswald's brown shirt would be seen as such. In no way could it be described as being almost white.

Brennan's affidavit:

"Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry."

Now keep in mind that Euins was corrected by Ball changing Euin's erroneous use of 'bald spot' to 'white spot' because the area I've indicated in 'Spot this' (above) is not technically a bald spot given that it is not completely encircled by hair. Now tell us why Ball would make that distinction if Euins was describing an isolated, actual bald spot on TOP of the head.

Not sure when Ball changed Euin's use of "bald spot".
Specter questioned him for the WC hearings.

"Now tell us why Ball would make that distinction if Euins was describing an isolated, actual bald spot on TOP of the head."

If Ball did make this distinction it would be because he knew Oswald didn't have a bald spot and Euins was unequivocal that the shooter had a bald spot. Nowhere does he mention a receding hairline and I'm pretty sure he could've discerned between the two.
It's cool you don't seem to question the notion of Ball telling a witness what he actually saw, rather than the other way round.

The couple of points you raise against the list of evidence pointing away from Oswald being the shooter have been adequately dealt with.
Does this not give you pause for thought - that all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald?
In the "Patsy" model I'm proposing Oswald supplied the rifle, which was the main piece of evidence that tied him to the crime. That was the purpose of the MC - to incriminate Oswald. But he did not take the shots, as the evidence seems to confirm.

[Bill Chapman]

Over-exposed pics have no bearing on what we see in real life.
Daylight enhances colour.
The open-necked shirt is described as being so light coloured it's almost white by three of the witnesses. Edwards just describes it as white.
Oswald's brown shirt would be seen as such. In no way could it be described as being almost white.

Brennan's affidavit:

"Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry."

Not sure when Ball changed Euin's use of "bald spot".
Specter questioned him for the WC hearings.

"Now tell us why Ball would make that distinction if Euins was describing an isolated, actual bald spot on TOP of the head."

If Ball did make this distinction it would be because he knew Oswald didn't have a bald spot and Euins was unequivocal that the shooter had a bald spot. Nowhere does he mention a receding hairline and I'm pretty sure he could've discerned between the two.
It's cool you don't seem to question the notion of Ball telling a witness what he actually saw, rather than the other way round.

The couple of points you raise against the list of evidence pointing away from Oswald being the shooter have been adequately dealt with.
Does this not give you pause for thought - that all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald?
In the "Patsy" model I'm proposing Oswald supplied the rifle, which was the main piece of evidence that tied him to the crime. That was the purpose of the MC - to incriminate Oswald. But he did not take the shots, as the evidence seems to confirm.

_I thought to do this: Ball(?) because I wasn't sure who was questioning Euins
_I just checked and see that Euins straightened up the 'white spot' origin somewhat
_The circle in my graphic is meant to make it clear that it is 'ground zero' regarding the arguments about the exact definition of 'bald spot'

If you are going to isolate the rest of the assassination from the 6th floor fun, then no pause at all from me

[Dan O'meara]

_I thought to do this: Ball(?) because I wasn't sure who was questioning Euins
_I just checked and see that Euins straightened up the 'white spot' origin somewhat
_The circle in my graphic is meant to make it clear that it is 'ground zero' regarding the arguments about the exact definition of 'bald spot'

If you are going to isolate the rest of the assassination from the 6th floor fun, then no pause at all from me

I'm not sure what the "rest" of the assassination is beyond who took the shots on the 6th floor, the "fun", as you call it.
If you are referring to things like Oswald's purchase of the rifle or his going on the run and shooting Tippit, these things cannot be isolated from the actual assassination. The narrative I am working on must include all of these aspects but also include why all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald - something your narrative does not do.
It must also include an explanation for why almost every man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to the authorities. Again, this is something your own narrative fails to cover.
The Patsy narrative covers all of these aspects.

[Bill Chapman]

I'm not sure what the "rest" of the assassination is beyond who took the shots on the 6th floor, the "fun", as you call it.
If you are referring to things like Oswald's purchase of the rifle or his going on the run and shooting Tippit, these things cannot be isolated from the actual assassination. The narrative I am working on must include all of these aspects but also include why all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald - something your narrative does not do.
It must also include an explanation for why almost every man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to the authorities. Again, this is something your own narrative fails to cover.
The Patsy narrative covers all of these aspects.

I guess you missed my telegram, but at the end of the day (well at least at 12:30pm and 1:15pm-ish), Oswald wound up doing the most important 'pointing' actually.

CTers are awfully quick to call people liars; in fact one of your ilk insists that if somebody turns out to be wrong about something he truly believes then he is a liar (instead of just wrong).

Tell us why any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody. Is everything in life sinister to you people?

[Dan O'meara]

I guess you missed my telegram, but at the end of the day (well at least at 12:30pm and 1:15pm-ish), Oswald wound up doing the most important 'pointing' actually.

CTers are awfully quick to call people liars; in fact one of your ilk insists that if somebody turns out to be wrong about something he truly believes then he is a liar (instead of just wrong).

Tell us why any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody. Is everything in life sinister to you people?

First of all, Bill, you can cut it out with the "your ilk" and "you people".
I've made a solid argument about the evidence concerning who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination and, for whatever reason, you're getting personal.

"Tell us why any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody. Is everything in life sinister to you people?"

You're completely missing my point.
It is a fact that nearly everyone on the 6th floor that day lies in their various statements to the authorities regarding their actions around the time of the assassination.
You have to deny this inconvenient fact but I'm not in a position to do so.
I am compelled to ask myself "what the f%ck is going on here?".

You asked the question - why [would] any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody?
You tell me because it's something you have to account for in your own narrative.
And if you want to get into a debate about whether they indeed lied or not, that's fine by me.