The LHO Escape -- Panic and Shock

[Zeon Mason]

Was Oswald dumb enough to hand write the fake name A.Hidell, and so stupid as to have that fake name  attached to his own real name Oswald  P.O.box?

And so retarded as to carry his fake ID on day of the assassination , in his wallet , and drop his wallet at the Tippit scene( or where ever  it was eventually found).

Possible alternatives:

A. Oswald shot both JFK and Tiipit and was incredibly that stupid.
B. Oswald shot both JFK and Tippit and thought up this complicated idea of how he could leave evidence in such a way that he would have a good argument that he was set up, In this way , able to get the trial of fame, get exonerated, and write a book and so forth.
C. Oswald was set up before the assassination
D. Oswald was set up immediately after the assassination

If C. Then Oswald could have been partially involved indirectly , was not the JFK shooter but was  possibly the Walker shooter, and was paid to deliver a package to the TSBD. The MC rifle and revolver had been given to Oswald by conspirator handlers/  ex BOP CIA possibly whom Oswald may have worked with and may have been seen with ( Sylvia Odios apartment)

D. To set up Oswald after the fact would require post planting MC rifle on the 6th floor TSBD and getting a revolver into the hand of Oswald so that his hand would test positive. Would require making a bag and getting  one Oswald palm print on it. A paper trail, and fake ID and PO Box set up within a day or 2. Someone else whom was similar looking to Oswald had to have shot Tippit or else the set up of Oswald post JFK shooting starts  just after Oswald shot Tippit out of panic.

[Richard Smith]

Was Oswald dumb enough to hand write the fake name A.Hidell, and so stupid as to have that fake name  attached to his own real name Oswald  P.O.box?

And so retarded as to carry his fake ID on day of the assassination , in his wallet , and drop his wallet at the Tippit scene( or where ever  it was eventually found).

Possible alternatives:

A. Oswald shot both JFK and Tiipit and was incredibly that stupid.
B. Oswald shot both JFK and Tippit and thought up this complicated idea of how he could leave evidence in such a way that he would have a good argument that he was set up, In this way , able to get the trial of fame, get exonerated, and write a book and so forth.
C. Oswald was set up before the assassination
D. Oswald was set up immediately after the assassination

If C. Then Oswald could have been partially involved indirectly , was not the JFK shooter but was  possibly the Walker shooter, and was paid to deliver a package to the TSBD. The MC rifle and revolver had been given to Oswald by conspirator handlers/  ex BOP CIA possibly whom Oswald may have worked with and may have been seen with ( Sylvia Odios apartment)

D. To set up Oswald after the fact would require post planting MC rifle on the 6th floor TSBD and getting a revolver into the hand of Oswald so that his hand would test positive. Would require making a bag and getting  one Oswald palm print on it. A paper trail, and fake ID and PO Box set up within a day or 2. Someone else whom was similar looking to Oswald had to have shot Tippit or else the set up of Oswald post JFK shooting starts  just after Oswald shot Tippit out of panic.

There is so much evidence against him that we must conclude he is innocent. 

[Mitch Todd]

Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades.

So you haven't got any evidence and are just making hollow statements... Got it

You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return. So far, all you've done is make a baseless unsupported claim, then turn around and claim that you never said it.

But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.

True, but you have not demonstrated that this has anything to do with Klein's. You just assume it has, just like you assume that this was the only purpose of the Department number.

Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.

If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.

My past experiences with you make it clear that it would be futile.

It's only futile for you because you have no argument to make.

[Martin Weidmann]

Give it up Martin, you are starting to look a desperate Fool!

JohnM

So, you can't answer my question? Go it!

[Martin Weidmann]

You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return. So far, all you've done is make a baseless unsupported claim, then turn around and claim that you never said it.

Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.

It's only futile for you because you have no argument to make.

You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return.

Hang on, it was you who said "Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads". It was your claim, not mine!

You also said; "this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades". If that were true, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong, but instead you play the weak "I don't owe you anything in return" card.

The obvious truth is clearly different;

First you claimed falsely that the department number did not appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, which was somehow to prove that Klein's didn't use the department number on the ad to identify a particular item.

Then, after John Mytton obviously told you in a PM that you were wrong, you shifted to "it's faint" (on Waldman 7) and "set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are."

You are clearly making stuff up as you go along. I've seen you do this several times before, in other threads. That's why it's such a waste of time to talk to you.
 

Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.

Says who? Regardless of whatever you make up, by way of excuses, the Department number does show up on the Order blank. If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.

[Zeon Mason]

WC theory is  Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor at the SW window and then “escaped” from 6th floor , using the staircase, to be seen IN the 2nd floor lunchroom not later than 90 secs post shots.

That insistence that 90 secs is a fixed time that cannot be exceeded causes a problem due to the witnesses like Garner, Adams, Jackson and Couch.

Adams/Stiles (A/S)left the open window on the 4th floor office not later than  15 sec post shots and more likely 5 secs post shots, such that she and reached the ground floor by 60 secs post shots.

The Dillard photo taken of the TBDS approx 10 sec post shots shows an  open window at 4th floor office and there is no one in the window. This is a possible confirmation that A/S did in fact leave the office window by 10 sec post shots.

Dorothy Garner, is a problem, because , she stated she followed A/S “almost immediately” and was “right behind them”
She originally had stated that she “saw” the girls going down, but in an interview with Barry  Ernest, she amended that to “heard them” on the stairs.

Never the less, “hearing them” still means that Garner must have exited the 4th floor office door by approx not later than 40 sec post shots to have had a reasonable probability of hearing A/S voices/heels on the staircase , since it would be take about  10 sec more for Garner to walk about another 60 ft to be standing near the the stairs at a west window.

Beyond 50 secs post shots, it’s improbable that Garner would have heard any voices/heels or any other noise on the staircase because of 2 floors of separation and the nature of the dogleg type stair that is NOT  a continuous “well” type volume as in a parallel staircase.

Also, there is  no way that Garner could have seen Baker/Truly (B/T)ascending up to the 4th floor via the staircase after having just seen A/S leave the office and Garner hearing them going down the stairs when she was standing by the west window near the stairs.

The 60 sec time that Adams estimated of reaching the ground floor therefore is probably correct because that’s the only way that A/S and B/T miss seeing each other and also went down before Garner saw B/T ascending up using the stair.

Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch are tge  other 2 witness who mess up the WC  not later than 90 sec absolute time stamp.

Jackson’s WC testimony is that it took approx 3 secs post shots before he saw a rifle sticking out the 6th floor SW window of TSBD.

Jackson then stated he said “I see a gun”, then heard someone (Couch? ) ask “”where” and then Jackson pointed to the SW window and stated “in that window”.

Malcolm Couch was probably the one in the same car with Jackson who had asked “where”

Both Jackson and Couch then saw the rifle slowly withdrawn from the window.(3secs?)

The problem caused here is that this adds an approx extra 15 secs of time required for the 6th floor SW gunman/rifle displayer. to exit out from the barricaded SN. ( via Tom Aleya, the boxes originally barricaded the SN so tightly they had to move the boards to get into the SN).

When added to the time required to double time jog (8ft/sec) across 180 ft distance and while simultaneously wiping prints of the rifle, then hiding the rifle between the rows of boxes, Oswald would likely have started down the stairs until approx 50 secs post shots .

Since it has not been demonstrated that a person could go down the dog leg 18 steps staircase and cross about 20 ft of landing any faster than 10 secs/floor, then Oswald could not have started down the 4th floor staircase any sooner than approx 70 secs post shots.

Therefore Dorothy Garner would have to change her statement about following A/S “ almost immediately “ ( 30 sec or less) to something like “Maybe it was more like about 1 min and 15 secs before I came out of the office.

Even if Garner could change that time, however, Oswald still cannot get to the 2nd floor landing any sooner than approx 85 secs post shots a bit to be IN the 2nd floor lunchroom not later than 90 sec post shots.

Conclusion: To make the WC  “escape” via staircase theoretically work , without having to completely ignore or dismiss Garner, Adams , Jackson and Couch, requires 2 changes:

1. Mrs Garners statement of time has to be changed from “almost immediately” or the statement must be interpreted to mean a period of time that was at least 1min 15sec.

2.  Baker/Truly have to take slightly longer (about 10 secs more) to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom, so the 90 sec time should be considered only an approximation and not as an absolute maximum as the WC seems to suggest.

[Mitch Todd]

You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return.

Hang on, it was you who said "Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads". It was your claim, not mine!

No sooner did Mytton show that c20-t750 was used for 40" rifles as well as 36" ones, you immediately started to hem and haw that Klein's would have shipped a 36" rifle, based on the department number on the order coupon. That is to say, you started this little diversion. And in support of your assertion, you've given us (drum roll please) ....nothing whatsoever.  If you want to claim that the department number would have made a difference in fulfilling the order, it's up  to you to make a case for it, instead of the usual empty blurts of hot air you tend to regurgitate.

You also said; "this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades". If that were true, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong, but instead you play the "I don't owe you anything in return".

It's definitely has been argued over for decades, in internet forums, on the old JFKA BBSes, and even in the earlier age when people argued via newsletters glorified into "research journals". I've seen a lot of it, and participated in some.

And, yes, we owe you nothing, since (again) you've signally failed to do anything support your opening assertion to begin with.

The obvious truth is clearly different;

First you claimed falsely that the department number did not appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, which was somehow to prove that Klein's didn't use the department number on the ad to identify a particular item.

Then, after John Mytton obviously told you in a PM that you were wrong, you shifted to "it's faint" (on Waldman 7) and "set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are."

You are clearly making stuff up as you go along. I've seen you do this several times before. That's why it's such a waste of time to talk to you.

You're now down to trying to arguing by adverb and sprinkling in "obvious" as a substitute for substantiating your assertions. Like when you falsely claimed that there "needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail."

Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.

Says who? Regardless of whatever you make up, by way of excuses, the Department number does show up on the Order blank. If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.

If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.

Says who? You are clearly making stuff up as you go along.

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Klein's did use the department number on the ads to identify a particular stock item and that the number tucked away ion an odd spot on the order form is "358." Now we have a situation where the fulfilment workers in the warehouse have to take the c20-t750 item identifier, then cross reference it against a list of department numbers built from a matrix of publications and months in order to identify the particular item to ship. That situation lends itself to mistakes, like sending a 40" rifle instead of a 36" rifle and vice versa. So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".