JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on April 05, 2022, 03:19:28 AM
-
Oswald said he was a " Patsy " and he was one of the only people telling the truth after the assassination of JFK . Those who know what really happened could not get enough of how many went down that rabbit hole thinking that LHO was a lone assassin capable of killing the President all by himself . There are those who directed their attention to the most likely suspects and have put a lot of the pieces of this puzzle together . The problem about this case lies in the fact that we are fighting each other over what happened to JFK that we can't see the forest for the trees . Some of what is thought to be a fact in this case simply doesn't add up . Just think if we were to come together and do what is right in front of us and get rid of the roadblocks , maybe we would put this case to bed .
-
Oswald said he was a " Patsy " and he was one of the only people telling the truth after the assassination of JFK . Those who know what really happened could not get enough of how many went down that rabbit hole thinking that LHO was a lone assassin capable of killing the President all by himself . There are those who directed their attention to the most likely suspects and have put a lot of the pieces of this puzzle together . The problem about this case lies in the fact that we are fighting each other over what happened to JFK that we can't see the forest for the trees . Some of what is thought to be a fact in this case simply doesn't add up . Just think if we were to come together and do what is right in front of us and get rid of the roadblocks , maybe we would put this case to bed .
Hi Mike, my own examination of the evidence in this case has led me to conclude that Oswald was a "Patsy". Unfortunately, by default this classifies me as a Conspiracy Theorist, which I find quite embarrassing. Many people think the truth has yet to come out about this case because of a concerted effort by a variety of agencies to cover-up the truth. This is not the case, the truth has yet to come out about this case because of the CT "community" who don't give a f%ck about the truth and who are little more than a collection of mental health issues posing as real people.
The power of the LNer position is that they have a narrative for the events of the day. Collectively, there is enough knowledge and expertise within the CT "community" to create a more powerful narrative but it is in the hands of a bunch of losers whose only interest is to bolster their fragile egos - they truly do not give a f%ck about the truth. In my time on this forum I have yet to see any CT change their mind over the tiniest detail, even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence.
" Just think if we were to come together and do what is right in front of us and get rid of the roadblocks , maybe we would put this case to bed ."
I find this statement really powerful and would wish it had even the remotest possibility of coming true. It would be a truly awe-inspiring thing.
But it ain't gonna happen.
I guarantee you that every single CT reading that statement will automatically be thinking - "Yeah, let's all come together and look at things they way I do."
Just for the sake of argument, how would you propose to start removing these "roadblocks". In theory, what would that look like.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/44rXbv5r/WHAT-TOO-SOON.png)
billchapman
-
I don't know what LHO was thinking on 11/22/63; nobody was following him around all day up until around 1:45 who can say what he did or did not do. However, there is entirely too much duplicity and unreliable witness statements concerning the majority of the so-called "evidence" that LHO was the shooter. So the evidence just does not convict him.
His rifle was left at the scene of the assassination. Witnesses saw a rifle pointed at the motorcade from that location. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window. Oswald's prints were found on the boxes by that window. A long bag with Oswald's prints were also found at that location. Oswald's rifle was missing and cannot be accounted for except as the rifle found on the 6th floor (as confirmed by the serial number of the rifle sent to him by Klein's). He fled the scene (his place of employment) without bothering to ask his boss for permission or even ask what was going on. He is the only person on Planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the time of the assassination and pass the scene of the Tippit murder. He was identified by several witnesses as the person with a gun at the Tippit scene. He had the same two brands of ammo in his possession that were used to kill Tippit. Other than that I guess you are right. LOL.
-
Hi Mike, my own examination of the evidence in this case has led me to conclude that Oswald was a "Patsy". Unfortunately, by default this classifies me as a Conspiracy Theorist, which I find quite embarrassing. Many people think the truth has yet to come out about this case because of a concerted effort by a variety of agencies to cover-up the truth. This is not the case, the truth has yet to come out about this case because of the CT "community" who don't give a f%ck about the truth and who are little more than a collection of mental health issues posing as real people.
The power of the LNer position is that they have a narrative for the events of the day. Collectively, there is enough knowledge and expertise within the CT "community" to create a more powerful narrative but it is in the hands of a bunch of losers whose only interest is to bolster their fragile egos - they truly do not give a f%ck about the truth. In my time on this forum I have yet to see any CT change their mind over the tiniest detail, even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence.
" Just think if we were to come together and do what is right in front of us and get rid of the roadblocks , maybe we would put this case to bed ."
I find this statement really powerful and would wish it had even the remotest possibility of coming true. It would be a truly awe-inspiring thing.
But it ain't gonna happen.
I guarantee you that every single CT reading that statement will automatically be thinking - "Yeah, let's all come together and look at things they way I do."
Just for the sake of argument, how would you propose to start removing these "roadblocks". In theory, what would that look like.
Hi Dan, I admire your intelligence and ability to see a major problem ( The fact that there are some really irrational people ( screwballs) in the CT contingent ) and those screwballs keep presenting irrational theories into the quagmire. However I believe you are dead wrong in believing that all CT's are screwballs...
I concur completely that Lee Oswald was simply a patsy ( A naive and trusting sucker who allowed himself to be framed by trusting FBI agents who had ulterior intentions )
And therein lies the problem.....A very high percentage of researchers simply can't accept that there was a cabal of crooked FBI agents involved in the coup d'etat.....
-
Hi Dan, I admire your intelligence and ability to see a major problem ( The fact that there are some really irrational people ( screwballs) in the CT contingent ) and those screwballs keep presenting irrational theories into the quagmire. However I believe you are dead wrong in believing that all CT's are screwballs...
I concur completely that Lee Oswald was simply a patsy ( A naive and trusting sucker who allowed himself to be framed by trusting FBI agents who had ulterior intentions )
And therein lies the problem.....A very high percentage of researchers simply can't accept that there was a cabal of crooked FBI agents involved in the coup d'etat.....
A very high percentage of researchers simply can't accept that there was a cabal of crooked FBI agents involved in the coup d'etat.....
The conspirators ( SOME FBI) truly believed that JFK was a real threat to "the American way" ... ( the good ol US of A as they knew it) They considered themselves to be true patriots and they were ridding the country of a "commie" who was cooperating with Khrushchev and pushing integration.
-
The power of the LNer position is that they have a narrative for the events of the day. That is correct. Too bad it is a false narrative.
Then what's the "true" narrative?
Without this there can be no real challenge to the LNer position.
Without a genuine counter-narrative there can be no challenge to the status quo.
Blanket statements like "too bad it's a false narrative" or "it's a coup d'etat" mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Nit-picking individual pieces of evidence to the nth degree means nothing. This has been proven over 6 decades.
Something very specific happened that day and it happened in a specific way.
For those of us who don't accept it's as simple as "a lone nutter did it", how do we get to that "truth" when we can't even agree on something as basic as the amount of shots fired?
I'd like to propose a starting point for those interested in constructing some kind of counter-narrative:
There are two broad elements-
1) The inception and execution of the actual assassination
2) The "cover up" that followed
What consensus can be reached about how the assassination took place? What was the nature of the cover up? How are the two elements interlinked?
As far as consensus is concerned I'd also like to propose the following starting point - that Oswald was a "Patsy". He was deeply involved in he events of that day but was unaware he was going to be taking the rap for it. As such, Oswald was not involved in the actual shooting of JFK.
-
What consensus can be reached about how the assassination took place? What was the nature of the cover up? How are the two elements interlinked? The assassination was probably dreamt up by Texas right wingers mixed in with anti Castro Cubans and rogue Intelligence operatives. They had to get a go ahead from somebody very powerful and connected. Who was this "somebody"? Not sure at this point. One of the Intelligence guys probably served as Project Manager.
The cover-up was definitely orchestrated from somebody high up, likely either J Edgar, LBJ or both. They probably knew about the hit ahead of time, otherwise the coverup would not have gone so smooth.
That's quite a fairy fable. A CTer word salad of (probably) bad guys "anti-Castro Cubans," "rogue Intelligence operatives" and "J. Edgar." But even then you are still not sure "at this point". How much longer will it take for you to become sure? It's only been nearly 60 years.
-
What consensus can be reached about how the assassination took place? What was the nature of the cover up? How are the two elements interlinked? The assassination was probably dreamt up by Texas right wingers mixed in with anti Castro Cubans and rogue Intelligence operatives. They had to get a go ahead from somebody very powerful and connected. Who was this "somebody"? Not sure at this point. One of the Intelligence guys probably served as Project Manager.
The cover-up was definitely orchestrated from somebody high up, likely either J Edgar, LBJ or both. They probably knew about the hit ahead of time, otherwise the coverup would not have gone so smooth.
BRAVO!! Mr K..... I believe that you're 100% and firing on eight cylinders....
Of course I'd say that, because what you've written could have come from my hand....
Common sense dictates that someone in a key powerful position had to have control. That person was J. Edgar Hoover.
I'm certain that Hoover with his vast network of agents and informers knew precisely who was planning the assassination, and he actively supported the plotters. That makes him an accessory before the fact, and it's obvious that he had a heavy hand in controlling the "investigation" afterwards, which makes him an accessory after the fact.
Hoover may not have known that some of his FBI agents in the south, were members of the KKK, but I doubt that he would have reprimanded them if he had known.
-
What consensus can be reached about how the assassination took place? What was the nature of the cover up? How are the two elements interlinked? The assassination was probably dreamt up by Texas right wingers mixed in with anti Castro Cubans and rogue Intelligence operatives. They had to get a go ahead from somebody very powerful and connected. Who was this "somebody"? Not sure at this point. One of the Intelligence guys probably served as Project Manager.
The cover-up was definitely orchestrated from somebody high up, likely either J Edgar, LBJ or both. They probably knew about the hit ahead of time, otherwise the coverup would not have gone so smooth.
The assassination was probably dreamt up by Texas right wingers mixed in with anti Castro Cubans and rogue Intelligence operatives.
What makes you think this?
The cover-up was definitely orchestrated from somebody high up, likely either J Edgar, LBJ or both. They probably knew about the hit ahead of time, otherwise the coverup would not have gone so smooth.
What, specifically, was covered up? What clear examples are there of the cover up you envisage?
-
The assassination was probably dreamt up by Texas right wingers mixed in with anti Castro Cubans and rogue Intelligence operatives.
What makes you think this?
The cover-up was definitely orchestrated from somebody high up, likely either J Edgar, LBJ or both. They probably knew about the hit ahead of time, otherwise the coverup would not have gone so smooth.
What, specifically, was covered up? What clear examples are there of the cover up you envisage?
Dan, You and I talked about the position of the Carcano when it was first discovered. I don't believe you understand the ramifications of the fake photos that were presented as evidence of the scene where the carcano was found. It is obvious to me that the DPD created fake photos because the original photos and the photos of Tom Alyea proved that a fleeing Lee Oswald could not have left the carcano beneath the boxes where it was found by Seymour Weitzman , and Eugene Boone.
-
SMH. When he said "I'm just a patsy," he didn't mean he was set up for the crime. He meant that the only reason they were interested in him was because of his connection to the Soviet Union.
-
SMH. When he said "I'm just a patsy," he didn't mean he was set up for the crime. He meant that the only reason they were interested in him was because of his connection to the Soviet Union.
I know what you're referring to Sean but I'm "misusing" the word as I believe Oswald did not take the shots from the SN but was set up as the gunman. I could say "fall guy" or "scapegoat" but Oswald provided a better word for what I have in mind - Patsy - someone manipulated/used unbeknownst to themselves (although I do bristle at the slight anti-Irish connotations).
-
How many shots were taken and from where?
I'll go first - 3 shots from the SN.
-
Top three witnesses who should've been called before the WC.
I'll go first:
1) George Lumpkin
2) Sandra Styles
3) Gloria Calvary
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6FhVtWJ/HE-DID-IT-NERDS-TOO-SOON.png)
billchapman
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6FhVtWJ/HE-DID-IT-NERDS-TOO-SOON.png)
billchapman
It is the great weakness of the LNer narrative that almost every piece of evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
Four of the five witnesses describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear that day and didn't own.
Euins describes a "bald spot" Oswald didn't have.
Brennan describes a man with a squarer jaw than Oswald who appeared to be at least 5 years older than Oswald and who stood at the window admiring his handiwork as the limo drove through the underpass when the WC has Oswald rushing away from the SN to make his rendezvous with Baker with three seconds to spare.
The three men on the 5th floor don't hear anyone rushing about inches above their heads.
The perfectly positioned Garner doesn't see Oswald supposedly rushing down the stairs.
Oswald places himself in the Domino Room at the time of the shooting which is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman entering the TSBD and making their way round to the west elevator.
Rowland spots the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor when he's supposed to be hiding in the SN.
But he can't be in the SN because Rowland spots a black male in the SN window at a time when BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor, the remains of which are found on top of the SN (eight officers confirming the lunch remains were found at the SN).
This black male disappears a few minutes before the motorcade arrives mirroring BRW's known movements.
Got a graphic for that Bill?
-
If there are solutions for the problems of the rusty barrel MC rifle and Mrs Garner on the 4th floor, and the uncertain PrayerMan=Oswald? , then it would be possible to offer a theory that Oswald pre-planted an MC rifle on Nov 21/ 63 under a wooden pallet stacked full with boxes on the 6th floor.
Then on Friday morning Nov 22/63 , Oswald brought in a semi auto rifle disassembled that fit in a 24” bag so that Frazier would see the bag and note how Oswald carried it between arm pit and cup of his hand.
Then the anomalies of rifle mail order Paper trail and the fake ID dropped at the Tippet scene and the apparent impossibility of Oswald traveling 0.9 mile in only 4-5 minutes, may also be purposefully planned to make it appear Oswald was being set up.
If Oswald had accomplice(s) it gets even easier to resolve some of these anomalies.
If Oswald had a near double counterpart as his accomplice then even PM = Oswald is possible while the other Oswald does the shooting on the 6th floor.
Getting the semi auto rifle out of the TSBD would not be difficult if the rifle had folding stock and short barrel as it could be hidden under a jacket or behind the back underneath a loose long sleeve shirt using a sling.
The matter of Mrs Garner by the 4th floor staircase could be resolved if Mrs Garners perception of how quickly she followed Adams and Styles was longer (ie: >65sec) and that the noise she heard on the staircase was actually Oswald.(or other shooter)
The reason for this complicated plan was because Oswald wanted the fame as a suspect assassin, defended by a famous attorney in a lengthy trial( probably televised) during which the entire world would see Oswald as a patsy, who was acquitted. Oswald would then sue the authorities , gaining himself even more fame as well as potential fortune.
-
SMH. When he said "I'm just a patsy," he didn't mean he was set up for the crime. He meant that the only reason they were interested in him was because of his connection to the Soviet Union.
Agreed. He said something to the tune of 'They brought me in because I've lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a PATSY'.
Of course CTers get all excited, wetting themselves while desperately attempting to rip the patsy thing away from what Oswald actually meant with the Soviet Union reference.
-
It is the great weakness of the LNer narrative that almost every piece of evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
_Oswald pointed himself out the door immediately and created the evidence as he went along
Four of the five witnesses describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear that day and didn't own.
_Thank god he wore some clothes. I can see the headlines: 'Pervert Snuffs President'
Euins describes a "bald spot" Oswald didn't have.
_'White spot'
Brennan describes a man with a squarer jaw than Oswald who appeared to be at least 5 years older than Oswald and who stood at the window admiring his handiwork as the limo drove through the underpass when the WC has Oswald rushing away from the SN to make his rendezvous with Baker with three seconds to spare.
_I missed the memo on the 'squarer jaw'. And Oswald was not exactly fresh-faced to begin with. And can you confirm that Oswald watched long enough to see them 'go through the underpass' from this: Brennan-"He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.”
The three men on the 5th floor don't hear anyone rushing about inches above their heads.
_Were they actually listening for somebody 'rushing'? (Btw, how high were those ceilings?) The 3 Amigos seemed more interested in getting over to the west window.
The perfectly positioned Garner doesn't see Oswald supposedly rushing down the stairs.
_Then Oswald fooled her. And was she actually listening or watching for somebody coming down the stairs? Did she know enough about what was going on to expect an appearance by a shooter?
Oswald places himself in the Domino Room at the time of the shooting which is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman entering the TSBD and making their way round to the west elevator.
_Oswald said a lot of things
Rowland spots the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor when he's supposed to be hiding in the SN.
_Seems Oswald took a last check of shooting-position choice
But he can't be in the SN because Rowland spots a black male in the SN window at a time when BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor, the remains of which are found on top of the SN (eight officers confirming the lunch remains were found at the SN).
_Rowland said a lot of things
This black male disappears a few minutes before the motorcade arrives mirroring BRW's known movements.
_'Dun-dun-dun' (cue dramatic music)
Got a graphic for that Bill?
_Got a word-salad for that, Dan?
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2MR7xnB/71-3-AMIGOS-Omen.png)
billchapman
Let there be light
(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf83DM2h/68-OSWALD-ALL-LIT-UP-OMEN.png)
billchapman
-
It is the great weakness of the LNer narrative that almost every piece of evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
_Oswald pointed himself out the door immediately and created the evidence as he went along
Cool 8)
Four of the five witnesses describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear that day and didn't own.
_Thank god he wore some clothes. I can see the headlines: 'Pervert Snuffs President'
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.
Euins describes a "bald spot" Oswald didn't have.
_'White spot'
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
Brennan describes a man with a squarer jaw than Oswald who appeared to be at least 5 years older than Oswald and who stood at the window admiring his handiwork as the limo drove through the underpass when the WC has Oswald rushing away from the SN to make his rendezvous with Baker with three seconds to spare.
_I missed the memo on the 'squarer jaw'. And Oswald was not exactly fresh-faced to begin with. And can you confirm that Oswald watched long enough to see them 'go through the underpass' from this: Brennan-"He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.”
"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
The three men on the 5th floor don't hear anyone rushing about inches above their heads.
_Were they actually listening for somebody 'rushing'? (Btw, how high were those ceilings?) The 3 Amigos seemed more interested in getting over to the west window.
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.
The perfectly positioned Garner doesn't see Oswald supposedly rushing down the stairs.
_Then Oswald fooled her. And was she actually listening or watching for somebody coming down the stairs? Did she know enough about what was going on to expect an appearance by a shooter?
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.
Oswald places himself in the Domino Room at the time of the shooting which is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman entering the TSBD and making their way round to the west elevator.
_Oswald said a lot of things
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.
Rowland spots the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor when he's supposed to be hiding in the SN.
_Seems Oswald took a last check of shooting-position choice
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.
But he can't be in the SN because Rowland spots a black male in the SN window at a time when BRW is having his lunch on the 6th floor, the remains of which are found on top of the SN (eight officers confirming the lunch remains were found at the SN).
_Rowland said a lot of things
He did indeed.
This black male disappears a few minutes before the motorcade arrives mirroring BRW's known movements.
_'Dun-dun-dun' (cue dramatic music)
Just sayin'.
It fits with the known facts.
Got a graphic for that Bill?
_Got a word-salad for that, Dan?
Who? Me?
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2MR7xnB/71-3-AMIGOS-Omen.png)
billchapman
Let there be light
(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf83DM2h/68-OSWALD-ALL-LIT-UP-OMEN.png)
billchapman
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.
-
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.
-
Cool 8)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1mvKHZf/145-SPOT-THIS.png)
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.
-
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1mvKHZf/145-SPOT-THIS.png)
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.
-
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
-
_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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
The power of the LNer position is that they have a narrative for the events of the day.
There's nothing particularly "powerful" about making up a narrative that they cannot substantiate with reliable evidence.
As far as consensus is concerned I'd also like to propose the following starting point - that Oswald was a "Patsy". He was deeply involved in he events of that day but was unaware he was going to be taking the rap for it. As such, Oswald was not involved in the actual shooting of JFK.
Sure. All it takes to get there would be to demonstrate that Oswald was deeply involved in the events of that day.
-
Actually, yes. Listen to what he says before the patsy line. He's clearly referring to his stint in the USSR.
Two separate sentences. LN evangelists always think that their subjective assumptions are "clear".
-
Cherryholmes wrote a lot of things. Especially in his book written years after Brennans death (Thus no Brennan around to proofread)
More Chapman BS. You don't know when the book was written.
-
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).
Says the guy who accuses Frazier and Randle of lying about the length of the package.
-
Sure. All it takes to get there would be to demonstrate that Oswald was deeply involved in the events of that day.
Great point John.
To be honest, it's an assumption I'm making that I link to him being a patsy. It's never crossed my mind to consider Oswald a completely innocent bystander and I can see that is an assumption that has just crept into my thinking.
In this thread I've presented an argument that the evidence relating to who the man on the 6th floor was just before, during and after the assassination, points away from Oswald.
Can we start from this point - that the shooter was not Oswald?
-
With LHO being given the " We have to make the people believe that Oswald was a lone assassin " tag from J. Edgar Hoover & Nicholas Katzenbach then it became clear that the wheels of injustice were starting to turn at a high rate of speed . LHO said he was a " Patsy " and there are many who believe just that ! The chain of evidence never existed in the murder of JFK .
-
Great point John.
To be honest, it's an assumption I'm making that I link to him being a patsy. It's never crossed my mind to consider Oswald a completely innocent bystander and I can see that is an assumption that has just crept into my thinking.
In this thread I've presented an argument that the evidence relating to who the man on the 6th floor was just before, during and after the assassination, points away from Oswald.
Can we start from this point - that the shooter was not Oswald?
Yes! The rational approach is to start with the null hypothesis until conclusive evidence demonstrates otherwise.
-
Great point John.
To be honest, it's an assumption I'm making that I link to him being a patsy. It's never crossed my mind to consider Oswald a completely innocent bystander and I can see that is an assumption that has just crept into my thinking.
In this thread I've presented an argument that the evidence relating to who the man on the 6th floor was just before, during and after the assassination, points away from Oswald.
Can we start from this point - that the shooter was not Oswald?
the shooter was not Oswald?
Captain Fritz:--- Where were you when the president went by the book depository? ( time 12:30)
Lee Oswald--- I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom.
Lee told Fritz that he saw two fellow employees walk by the 1st floor lunchroom as he was eating his lunch. James Jarman and Harold Norman verified Lee's statement.... They swore that they had in fact walked by the 1st floor lunchroom just a couple of minute before the motorcade arrived. Jarman said that after walking by the 1st floor lunchroom and taking the west elevator to the 5th floor they arrived on the 5th flor at 12:28. Therefore Lee Oswald must have seen Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom at 12:26.... He couldn't have been on the sixth floor at 12:30....
-
The only reason for Oswald to have named Norman and Jarman would be that the time must have been 12:25 or later and the place being the drowns floor. This gives Oswald a plausible alibi.
Oswald MAY have seen Carolyn Arnold at 12:15 but maybe he did not name her because it did not provide an adequate alibi. In fact it would be of no help for Oswald to mention seeing ANYONE from 12:00-12:20.
There is an official recorded statement from Carolyn Arnold of seeing Oswald in the front lobby ground floor at 12:25 while she was out front of the TSBD on the sidewalk by Elm st.
Imo this statement is NOT a contrived FBI record since it provides Oswald a very strong alibi.which is contrary to the Hoover directive and the LBJ pressure that Oswald must be “our man”
IF Oswald said he was “out front” to watch the P.parade, per the Hosty recorded notes, then it’s even more improbable that some FBI agent would fabricate a Carolyn Arnold sighting of Oswald at 12:25 on the ground floor front lobby..
Therefore the timeline is as follows:
12:15 - Oswald gets a coke from the 2nd floor lunchroom machine. He is sighted here by Carolyn Arnold. Oswald does not name Arnold as a witness to Fritz as it does not provide him an alibi
12:20 Oswald is in the Domino room alone.
12:23-Oswald sees Norman passing by the Domino room. Oswald names them specifically to Fritz because of the time being late enough to establish a plausible alibi for Oswald.
12:25 Oswald had moved to the front lobby and looking out the glass partition. Carolyn Arnold seeds Oswald AGAIN.
12:29 Oswald moves out to the front landing (with unfinished coke in hand) and selects the only available spot to stand on the crowded top landing which is the west corner.
12:30: Oswald is captured in the Weigman film raising a coke bottle to his mouth as he stands in the ‘em west corner in shadow.
12::30:05-12:31:30, Oswald supposedly has an encounter with Baker and Truly somewhere between the front entrance door to the 4th floor given the various versions of Baker notes, affidavits , newspaper accounts and WC statements.
-
The only reason for Oswald to have named Norman and Jarman would be that the time must have been 12:25 or later and the place being the drowns floor. This gives Oswald a plausible alibi.
Oswald MAY have seen Carolyn Arnold at 12:15 but maybe he did not name her because it did not provide an adequate alibi. In fact it would be of no help for Oswald to mention seeing ANYONE from 12:00-12:20.
There is an official recorded statement from Carolyn Arnold of seeing Oswald in the front lobby ground floor at 12:25 while she was out front of the TSBD on the sidewalk by Elm st.
Imo this statement is NOT a contrived FBI record since it provides Oswald a very strong alibi.which is contrary to the Hoover directive and the LBJ pressure that Oswald must be “our man”
IF Oswald said he was “out front” to watch the P.parade, per the Hosty recorded notes, then it’s even more improbable that some FBI agent would fabricate a Carolyn Arnold sighting of Oswald at 12:25 on the ground floor front lobby..
Therefore the timeline is as follows:
12:15 - Oswald gets a coke from the 2nd floor lunchroom machine. He is sighted here by Carolyn Arnold. Oswald does not name Arnold as a witness to Fritz as it does not provide him an alibi
12:20 Oswald is in the Domino room alone.
12:23-Oswald sees Norman passing by the Domino room. Oswald names them specifically to Fritz because of the time being late enough to establish a plausible alibi for Oswald.
12:25 Oswald had moved to the front lobby and looking out the glass partition. Carolyn Arnold seeds Oswald AGAIN.
12:29 Oswald moves out to the front landing (with unfinished coke in hand) and selects the only available spot to stand on the crowded top landing which is the west corner.
12:30: Oswald is captured in the Weigman film raising a coke bottle to his mouth as he stands in the ‘em west corner in shadow.
12::30:05-12:31:30, Oswald supposedly has an encounter with Baker and Truly somewhere between the front entrance door to the 4th floor given the various versions of Baker notes, affidavits , newspaper accounts and WC statements.
The only reason for Oswald to have named Norman and Jarman would be that the time must have been 12:25 or later and the place being the drowns floor. This gives Oswald a plausible alibi.
Lee didn't "name" Jarman and Norman..... He didn't know their names. He did know that the two colored men were fellow employees there at the TSBD. And he knew that the older one was called "junior, and the younger one was a short statured man.
That information was enough for the investigators to track down Junior Jarman and Harold Norman and question them. Both Jarman and Norman confirmed that they had in fact walked by the 1st floor lunch room at about 12:26 / 12:27.
Lee Oswald was NOT on the sixth floor at the time the motorcade past by the TSBD......BUT there was someone there behind that sixth floor window at circa 12:15 / 12: 25 , because spectators on the street saw that person.
-
The only reason for Oswald to have named Norman and Jarman would be that the time must have been 12:25 or later and the place being the drowns floor. This gives Oswald a plausible alibi.
Lee didn't "name" Jarman and Norman..... He didn't know their names. He did know that the two colored men were fellow employees there at the TSBD. And he knew that the older one was called "junior, and the younger one was a short statured man.
That information was enough for the investigators to track down Junior Jarman and Harold Norman and question them. Both Jarman and Norman confirmed that they had in fact walked by the 1st floor lunch room at about 12:26 / 12:27.
Lee Oswald was NOT on the sixth floor at the time the motorcade past by the TSBD......BUT there was someone there behind that sixth floor window at circa 12:15 / 12: 25 , because spectators on the street saw that person.
Lee didn't "name" Jarman and Norman..... He didn't know their names. He did know that the two colored men were fellow employees there at the TSBD. And he knew that the older one was called "junior," and the younger one was a short statured man.
That information was enough for the investigators to track down Junior Jarman and Harold Norman and question them. Both Jarman and Norman confirmed that they had in fact walked by the 1st floor lunch room at about 12:26 / 12:27.
Lee Oswald was NOT on the sixth floor at the time the motorcade past by the TSBD......
This alibi is a FACT is probably the piece of information that sealed Lee Oswald's doom. Had this information been presented in a trial no jury in the world would have convicted Lee Oswald.
-
I suppose if we were to put this “case to bed”...
1) It would be helpful to begin investigating the corruption of J. Edgar Hoover...
2) From there it would be helpful to take a “jury's and judge’s” view of Hoover’s plan stated in his memo to convince the public of Oswald’s guilt as a lone assassin... within 48 hours of the assassination...
3) From there we would need to give consideration, as Jefferson Morley contends, that the CIA is still lying to the public about the amount of information they had collected on Oswald... (SEE C-SPAN interview at 9:10 & 18:00 https://www.c-span.org/video/?516751-3/washington-journal-jefferson-morley-discusses-release-jfk-assassination-records )
4) Then give consideration to the fact that Jackie Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy both believed that JFK was killed by his “domestic enemies”...
5) Then give a credible explanation as to why evidence, etc. has been classified for decades...
-
Says the guy who accuses Frazier and Randle of lying about the length of the package.
If they truly believed their own estimations then they are not liars
-
More Chapman BS. You don't know when the book was written.
Brennan died in 1983
The book was published in 1987
You don't know if the writer didn't edit the book in the ensuing time lag
-
Brennan died in 1983
The book was published in 1987
You don't know if the writer didn't edit the book in the ensuing time lag
The story in ("Brennan's" book?) bears little resemblance to what he swore to on the afternoon of 11-22-63.
Brennan had learned that it was safer and more profitable to go along with the official tale.
-
Brennan died in 1983
The book was published in 1987
You don't know if the writer didn't edit the book in the ensuing time lag
You don’t know that he did. But that didn’t stop you from stating it as fact.
-
You don’t know that he did. But that didn’t stop you from stating it as fact.
Show us my direct wording.
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
Cherryholmes wrote a lot of things. Especially in his book written years after Brennans death (Thus no Brennan around to proofread)
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
Where did I call him a liar
My statement suggests that he had an opportunity
For instance in testimony Brennan said he couldn't see the head at impact,
while in the book it was described in some detail apparently
What are you trying to achieve with this by the way
-
You stated as a fact that it was written after Brennan’s death. As I said, you don’t know that.
-
You stated as a fact that it was written after Brennan’s death. As I said, you don’t know that.
Show us where I stated that the book was written after Brennan's death.
The book was written by Brennan and his pastor.
And is there something about Brennan's life beyond 11.22.63 that makes him a candidate for a best-seller?
As I said, the pastor had an opportunity.
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
Especially in his book written years after Brennans death
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
A typo on my part.
Should have said 'published' not 'written'
After all, I've known for at least 4years that Brennan wrote the book thanks to your sarcasm about him writing an 128-page book about a six-second experience*
*Exactly: Enter Cherryholmes ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTNSTq7P/brennan-book.png)
-
A typo on my part.
LOL
-
LOL
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK2sGyCv/Pure-Evil-logo.png)
billchapman