Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Time for Truth  (Read 34434 times)

Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #424 on: October 29, 2023, 04:24:39 PM »
Advertisement
"It's quite irritating to have to post the same thing again but here goes.
You posted the following:" dan o meara

its not much either being told i made stuff up .


"oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop" fergus obrien

"When you post that Roberts "got up" you are implying she was sat down watching TV.
Oswald leaves the house - Roberts is sat down watching TV "for a spell longer"
She "apparently was curious" so she "got up" and "went to her window".
She looks out the window and sees Oswald "by the bus stop".

This scenario is not supported by Roberts' testimony." dan o meara

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had
a friend that said, “Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot,” and I said,
“Oh, no.” She said, “Turn on your television,” and I said “What are you trying
to do, pull my leg?” And she said, “Well, go turn it on.” I went and turned
it on and I was trying to clear it upI could hear them talking but I couldn’t
get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, “Oh, you are
in a hurry.” He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and
stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don’t remember. I didn’t pay that much attention for I was
interested in the television trying to get it fixed.


so what are you saying here ? you dispute any notion she was sitting ? . above i posted two relevant segments of her testimony re her tv . nowhere there does she say she stood the whole time fixing her tv and also while watching . but i will grant you she does not say she sat either while fixing or watching her tv . but most normal people do sit while watching tv . so how about this , on this matter let us  agree whether she sat or stood that she worked on her tv and watched her tv over the period of time before oswald arrived , while he was there and after he left . and i am willing to stipulate if you are that she neither said she sat or stood while doing this . but your argument in essence appears to be that if a person didnt specifically say they sat or they stood that they did neither , i find that a bit silly . but no matter what you assert , whether sat down or stood up she was working on and watching her tv set while oswald left , and a short time later she stopped and then went to her window and looked out and saw oswald still standing there.i am also considering she was an elderly lady who was not in the best of health .

"She was still "trying to find out about President Kennedy" when Oswald left the house.
After a "moment" she went to the window and looked out.
No sitting down watching TV for a spell longer. " dean omeara

see above reply .

"Why is such a seemingly trivial important?
Because the timeline we're dealing with is so tight and every minute counts.
When Roberts says a "moment" she could mean 2 minutes or 3 minutes, but she could also mean 20 seconds." dean omeara

true , she said a moment and i quoted her saying exactly that as i recall . i know what some people consider a moment , and its anything in line with the numbers you mentioned just above . i have not tried to say it was this long or that long because its an unknown . but what ever it was we have to add that to the time he was in his room , and the time he was at the bus stop .we simply cannot put an exact time on that .just as we cant know sadly how long more he was outside at the bus stop after roberts decided to stop looking .

"You're looking at this the wrong way.
All I'm saying is that claims it had to be 1pm or later when Oswald entered the rooming house are very questionable.
Roberts is clearly guessing at the time when Oswald came in, what she makes clear is that the news about Kennedy has come on the TV by the time Oswald enters the house.
As demonstrated, the bulletin Roberts almost certainly sees is the one beginning around 12:48pm [she is already watching "As The World Turns" when it comes on].
12:48pm marks the earliest possible time Oswald could have come in and that's all. I'm not saying Oswald entered the rooming house at that time.
What I am definitely saying is, just because news of Kennedy's shooting was on the TV doesn't automatically mean it was 1pm or later." dean omeara

on the contrary as i have said i am trying to take in to consideration as much information as is possible . there is zero proof that oswald walked out the front door at 12.33 ZERO . this nonsense that reporters (the names elude me now sorry ) unknowingly spoke to oswald who directed them to a phone is worthless . even the reporters didnt say they say oswald , they were told they may have .cops were out side the door , tv and private cameras recording , as were quite a few of his fellow depository workers , including his pal wes frazier .plus one  howard brennan who identified jarmin / norman and williams immediately to cops . NOT A ONE OF THESE SAW OSWALD WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR at any time . its more likely then that he left via the rear door .all be it we cant prove that either .but it is the more logical in my opinion . that leaves us with what time he left ? , that is a bit of an unknown . but if he did indeed get on the bus , then we can work out how long roughly it took to walk to the bus stop , if for example we can assume he entered the bus at 12.40 then we can subtract the time it takes to walk the distance from the TSBD to the bus from 12.40 .then we have a rough time line , not precise but if you will a good estimate .if that says that he left at about 12.33 so be it .in fact wes frazier all be it belatedly told gary mack that he saw oswald having left via the rear door between 5 and 10 minutes after the shots and wearing a jacket .

you are assuming that she had to have been watching the 12.48 bulletin , or should i say listening to it as it was audio not video .you could be right . but as i have proven that bulletin went on right up 1pm . but the commission (if they were interested in the truth ) should have clarified this with her .

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #424 on: October 29, 2023, 04:24:39 PM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3091
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #425 on: October 29, 2023, 11:16:18 PM »
"It's quite irritating to have to post the same thing again but here goes.
You posted the following:" dan o meara

its not much either being told i made stuff up .


"oswald emerges from his room and leaves . she watches tv for a spell longer . then apparently was curious and got up and went to her window and sees oswald still outside by the bus stop" fergus obrien

"When you post that Roberts "got up" you are implying she was sat down watching TV.
Oswald leaves the house - Roberts is sat down watching TV "for a spell longer"
She "apparently was curious" so she "got up" and "went to her window".
She looks out the window and sees Oswald "by the bus stop".

This scenario is not supported by Roberts' testimony." dan o meara

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had
a friend that said, “Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot,” and I said,
“Oh, no.” She said, “Turn on your television,” and I said “What are you trying
to do, pull my leg?” And she said, “Well, go turn it on.” I went and turned
it on and I was trying to clear it upI could hear them talking but I couldn’t
get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, “Oh, you are
in a hurry.” He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and
stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don’t remember. I didn’t pay that much attention for I was
interested in the television trying to get it fixed.


so what are you saying here ? you dispute any notion she was sitting ? . above i posted two relevant segments of her testimony re her tv . nowhere there does she say she stood the whole time fixing her tv and also while watching . but i will grant you she does not say she sat either while fixing or watching her tv . but most normal people do sit while watching tv . so how about this , on this matter let us  agree whether she sat or stood that she worked on her tv and watched her tv over the period of time before oswald arrived , while he was there and after he left . and i am willing to stipulate if you are that she neither said she sat or stood while doing this . but your argument in essence appears to be that if a person didnt specifically say they sat or they stood that they did neither , i find that a bit silly . but no matter what you assert , whether sat down or stood up she was working on and watching her tv set while oswald left , and a short time later she stopped and then went to her window and looked out and saw oswald still standing there.i am also considering she was an elderly lady who was not in the best of health .

"She was still "trying to find out about President Kennedy" when Oswald left the house.
After a "moment" she went to the window and looked out.
No sitting down watching TV for a spell longer. " dean omeara

see above reply .

"Why is such a seemingly trivial important?
Because the timeline we're dealing with is so tight and every minute counts.
When Roberts says a "moment" she could mean 2 minutes or 3 minutes, but she could also mean 20 seconds." dean omeara

true , she said a moment and i quoted her saying exactly that as i recall . i know what some people consider a moment , and its anything in line with the numbers you mentioned just above . i have not tried to say it was this long or that long because its an unknown . but what ever it was we have to add that to the time he was in his room , and the time he was at the bus stop .we simply cannot put an exact time on that .just as we cant know sadly how long more he was outside at the bus stop after roberts decided to stop looking .

"You're looking at this the wrong way.
All I'm saying is that claims it had to be 1pm or later when Oswald entered the rooming house are very questionable.
Roberts is clearly guessing at the time when Oswald came in, what she makes clear is that the news about Kennedy has come on the TV by the time Oswald enters the house.
As demonstrated, the bulletin Roberts almost certainly sees is the one beginning around 12:48pm [she is already watching "As The World Turns" when it comes on].
12:48pm marks the earliest possible time Oswald could have come in and that's all. I'm not saying Oswald entered the rooming house at that time.
What I am definitely saying is, just because news of Kennedy's shooting was on the TV doesn't automatically mean it was 1pm or later." dean omeara

on the contrary as i have said i am trying to take in to consideration as much information as is possible . there is zero proof that oswald walked out the front door at 12.33 ZERO . this nonsense that reporters (the names elude me now sorry ) unknowingly spoke to oswald who directed them to a phone is worthless . even the reporters didnt say they say oswald , they were told they may have .cops were out side the door , tv and private cameras recording , as were quite a few of his fellow depository workers , including his pal wes frazier .plus one  howard brennan who identified jarmin / norman and williams immediately to cops . NOT A ONE OF THESE SAW OSWALD WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR at any time . its more likely then that he left via the rear door .all be it we cant prove that either .but it is the more logical in my opinion . that leaves us with what time he left ? , that is a bit of an unknown . but if he did indeed get on the bus , then we can work out how long roughly it took to walk to the bus stop , if for example we can assume he entered the bus at 12.40 then we can subtract the time it takes to walk the distance from the TSBD to the bus from 12.40 .then we have a rough time line , not precise but if you will a good estimate .if that says that he left at about 12.33 so be it .in fact wes frazier all be it belatedly told gary mack that he saw oswald having left via the rear door between 5 and 10 minutes after the shots and wearing a jacket .

you are assuming that she had to have been watching the 12.48 bulletin , or should i say listening to it as it was audio not video .you could be right . but as i have proven that bulletin went on right up 1pm . but the commission (if they were interested in the truth ) should have clarified this with her .

Elsewhere you posted this:

we know she said she heard the news and was working on her tv , and then oswald walked in . so from that we can pretty much establish that oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after .

It was this statement I felt needed clarification.
How can we establish "from that", that Oswald "came home at 1pm or shortly there after".
The answer is - we can't establish that Oswald came home at 1pm or shortly there after "from that".
As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm.
It doesn't mean he actually did arrive before 1pm, I'm simply saying this possibility can't be disregarded.

Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #426 on: October 30, 2023, 02:40:20 AM »
Oswald had to get to
10th and Patton by 1:06-1:07 because of Benavides  waiting a couple of minutes (his estimate)after the shooter left the scene  before  Benavides went to Tippits police car and tried using the radio.

1:06-1:07 is also the time Markam
estimated 1st seeing the shooter.

Bowley checked his watch which was 1:10pm when he arrived to see Benevides
in Tippits car trying to operate the radio.

Markam said that Tippit followed the shooter for some distance and then there was a brief conversation between the shooter and Tippit, so that could be 30 secs, 45 secs, or 60 secs of time preceding the shooting.

The bus ride is suspect because McWatters did  not actually ID Oswald and Bledsoe cannot possibly have seen a hole in Oswald’s shirt because he hadn’t changed into that shirt yet.

If the bus ride is out, then Oswald could have easily made it to Whaleys taxi by 12:38 if he left TSBD by 12:33, and he doubletimed jogged part of the way. (6-7 blocks in 4-5 minutes)

Since whatever Will Fritz claims Oswald said, is suspect, then Oswald may never have said anything about getting on a bus

Because Buell W. Frazier thinks he saw Oswald near the Elm st/Houston st intersection just before Frazier went  back inside TSBD BEFORE the front door was locked by DPD officer Barnett (approx not later than 3 minutes post shots,)then there  is some probability that Oswald left the TSBD  front steps by 2 min 45 sec post shots.

Timeline for Oswald therefore could possibly be:
12:38-12:47 taxi ride.
12:47-12:50 doubletime jogged the 5 blocks from taxi boarding room
12:50-12-54 changes clothes, exits house
12:54-1:07 (11 minutes) walked quickly (possible some jogging) arrives at 1:06-1:07 to 10th  and Patton.

But theres still ONE BIG problem that messes this up and its that Earlene Roberts the  landlady remembers the jacket that she thought Oswald was zipping up as he went out , was a darker color than light gray.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #426 on: October 30, 2023, 02:40:20 AM »


Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #427 on: October 31, 2023, 05:01:54 PM »
"As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm." dean o meara

you demonstrated ? just how did you do that ? . claiming and proving are not the same thing . your demonstration starts with the official OSWALD LEFT THE DEPOSITORY VIA THE FRONT DOOR AT 12.33 scenario of which there is no proof . in fact the evidence IE known witnesses on the steps and outside the building etc would tend to dispute such a notion .i asked you already about this , and you did not answer . what proof can you provide ? .

as i have said now several times i am going by what roberts said and by looking at all the evidence post 12.30 , and the warren commissions time trials etc .

yes its not unreasonable for you to say ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that he can have arrived pre 1pm .but how probable is it ? . and does such an assertion go with facts and evidence ? .


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3091
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #428 on: October 31, 2023, 06:42:05 PM »
"As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm." dean o meara

you demonstrated ? just how did you do that ? . claiming and proving are not the same thing . your demonstration starts with the official OSWALD LEFT THE DEPOSITORY VIA THE FRONT DOOR AT 12.33 scenario of which there is no proof . in fact the evidence IE known witnesses on the steps and outside the building etc would tend to dispute such a notion .i asked you already about this , and you did not answer . what proof can you provide ? .

as i have said now several times i am going by what roberts said and by looking at all the evidence post 12.30 , and the warren commissions time trials etc .

yes its not unreasonable for you to say ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that he can have arrived pre 1pm .but how probable is it ? . and does such an assertion go with facts and evidence ? .

claiming and proving are not the same thing

I've never claimed to have proved anything. You are introducing this concept of proof.
I posted a "thought experiment", a series of reasonable assumptions based on Oswald leaving the TSBD as a desperate man on the run. He may have been an innocent man going to watch the movies but that is not what my thought experiment was about.
There is zero proof for what time Oswald left the TSBD building, or for what time he might have caught the bus or the taxi [if he did].
Equally, there is zero proof that Oswald reached the rooming house after 1pm as you keep asserting.
Roberts was guessing at the time and she says as much.
I have not proven anything but I have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible that Oswald reached the rooming house before 1pm.

You might not accept this as it may suit you not to do so. That's none of my business.
But at least you now concede that it is possible Oswald reached the rooming house before 1pm.
That's all I was trying to illustrate.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #428 on: October 31, 2023, 06:42:05 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4262
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #429 on: November 07, 2023, 12:38:44 PM »
to mr mytton

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, Sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

quite extraordinary testimony above from a woman you say identified oswald . how does a woman not identify a man , not identify them by clothing ,  not identify their face , in fact not recognize or know anyone of 4 men in a line up AND STILL BE LISTED AS A WITNESSES WHO IDENTIFIED OSWALD ?. now ok i know ball then led her and got her to remember what he needed her to say and say she picked a number 2 man . but how can any witness be asked such simple and clear questions and answer NO to all of them ? . i mean if she had indeed seen oswald ? . she is on film saying tippits killer STOOD IN FRONT OF HER LOOKING HER IN THE EYE . so its amazing she replied NO to not knowing any one of 4 men by their faces .

Seriously?

Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
Markham does go on to confirm that a few hours later she identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.

Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.




JohnM
« Last Edit: November 07, 2023, 12:54:29 PM by John Mytton »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #430 on: November 07, 2023, 03:15:31 PM »
Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.

"clearly".  LOL.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #430 on: November 07, 2023, 03:15:31 PM »


Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
Re: Time for Truth
« Reply #431 on: November 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM »
Seriously?

Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
Markham does go on to confirm that a few hours later she identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.

Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.




JohnM

she said there was a number two man only after she was led  by mr ball , a man who would later call her an utter screwball . the questions were very clear , she attended a line up  , what did she do that for ? to see if she could identify anyone .she appeared at the commission , why ? , to be deposed about what she said she saw and naturally also about the line up . and still this woman says NO NO NO NO , i didnt recognize nor know anyone in the line up , not even by their clothes , not by their face NOTHING . i am certain given that she was caught in deception in her testimony (saying she never spoke to mark lane when she did , even denying her own voice on a tape played to her ) that ball and the commission would not have relied upon her word if they had had another better witness . well that is one that would point the finger at oswald , that they would never have relied on her and possibly never even called her .

this is the same woman that gave hug aynesworth a description of the killer on or near the scene , a description that did not fit oswald . this is the very reason lane called her , so speak to her about this description . a description lone nutters say LANE OUT IN HER MOUTH . no he did not , that description came from her own mouth to aynesworth . she would give agent odum a description very different again , of a young man about 18 with dark or black hair .

so you think she is an honest and reliable witness and this credible ? . well i would think the above would say otherwise . she said the shooting took place in and around about 1.07 or 1.08 . she said so based on leaving home at her normal time for work and walking her usual route having walked about a block when she arrived at the corner of 10th and patton . and in addition based on the time she got her usual  bus to work on jefferson . do you agree with her about this time ? , or is she now suddenly unreliable ? . even the man whos photo you have as an avatar had the good sense to back away from citing or relying upon  a nutty witness .