JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on March 24, 2022, 02:34:44 PM
-
Pages 213 and 214 of the book "Final Disclosure" by David Belin tells us:
"However, when Oswald was apprehended , he had a bus transfer. Shortly after the assassination, he boarded a bus, and when the bus stalled in traffic, he left it and hailed a cab. As Oswald left the bus, he asked for a transfer.
Why did he ask for the transfer? Was there some nearby bus-transfer point toward which Oswald was walking when he was stopped by Tippit? There was.
Evidence is circumstantial, but it is likely Oswald was fleeing to Mexico City when he encountered Tippit. While in the marines, Oswald once told a buddy, Nelson Delgado, that if he were ever trying to escape law enforcement authorities in the United States, he would try to get to Mexico and from there go to Russia via Cuba. "This is the way I would go about it."
From Oswald's rooming house, where he had stopped to pick up his gun, the nearest boarding point for use of the transfer was at Jefferson and Marsalis, and he had almost arrived there when he was stopped by Tippit.
The first southbound bus Oswald could have taken after the assassination left downtown Dallas at 3:15 p.m. and made a flag stop at Lisbon, which was part of the metropolitan area of Dallas. The Lisbon stop could be reached through the bus transfer, and the intersection of Jefferson and Marsalis streets was the only transfer point in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas where Oswald could have used his transfer. [emphasis added by me] Oswald had almost arrived at that transfer point when he was stopped by Tippit, no doubt because Oswald's description matched the description broadcast over the Dallas police radio after the assassination.”
-
I have yet to see any credible evidence that LHO was in the proximity of the Tippit murder location at the estimated time of the murder. A very credible witness (Roberts) swore LHO only left the Beckley rooming house at a time that was mere moments before the shooting occurred, and he was observed heading in the opposite direction. The timeline of LHO getting to the shooting location almost a mile away by foot doesn't add up (just like most of the so-called evidence implicating him for JFK murder).
I haven’t seen any credible evidence that you even have a clue!
-
Pages 213 and 214 of the book "Final Disclosure" by David Belin tells us:
"However, when Oswald was apprehended , he had a bus transfer. Shortly after the assassination, he boarded a bus, and when the bus stalled in traffic, he left it and hailed a cab. As Oswald left the bus, he asked for a transfer.
Why did he ask for the transfer? Was there some nearby bus-transfer point toward which Oswald was walking when he was stopped by Tippit? There was.
Evidence is circumstantial, but it is likely Oswald was fleeing to Mexico City when he encountered Tippit. While in the marines, Oswald once told a buddy, Nelson Delgado, that if he were ever trying to escape law enforcement authorities in the United States, he would try to get to Mexico and from there go to Russia via Cuba. "This is the way I would go about it."
From Oswald's rooming house, where he had stopped to pick up his gun, the nearest boarding point for use of the transfer was at Jefferson and Marsalis, and he had almost arrived there when he was stopped by Tippit.
The first southbound bus Oswald could have taken after the assassination left downtown Dallas at 3:15 p.m. and made a flag stop at Lisbon, which was part of the metropolitan area of Dallas. The Lisbon stop could be reached through the bus transfer, and the intersection of Jefferson and Marsalis streets was the only transfer point in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas where Oswald could have used his transfer. [emphasis added by me] Oswald had almost arrived at that transfer point when he was stopped by Tippit, no doubt because Oswald's description matched the description broadcast over the Dallas police radio after the assassination.”
Interesting report on the Dallas bus routes:
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0393/23811297.pdf
-
Interesting report on the Dallas bus routes:
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0393/23811297.pdf
Thanks Richard, that’s some good information that expands on the description that I posted from Belin’s book!
-
Evidence is circumstantial, but it is likely Oswald was fleeing to Mexico City...
Evidence is non-existent [as usual] with your hypothetical tales.
If Oswald was on the run to Mexico he would not have wasted time meandering all over Oak Cliff.
He would have not left all his money with Marina.
He would have gone directly to the Trailways/Greyhound station some 4 or 5 blocks from the TSBD and boarded the first bus out of town headed south.
So try it again with gusto señor.
-
Evidence is non-existent [as usual] with your hypothetical tales.
If Oswald was on the run to Mexico he would not have wasted time meandering all over Oak Cliff.
He would have not left all his money with Marina.
He would have gone directly to the Trailways/Greyhound station some 4 or 5 blocks from the TSBD and boarded the first bus out of town headed south.
So try it again with gusto señor.
Who the heck do you think you are talking to? ???
David Belin died in 1999, those are words that he wrote in his book. I don’t think that he will be responding back to you.
-
I have yet to see any credible evidence that LHO was in the proximity of the Tippit murder location at the estimated time of the murder.
So this must mean you have totally dismissed as incorrect the positive identification of Oswald put forth by several witnesses who said they saw LHO either on 10th Street, Patton Avenue, or Jefferson Boulevard either at the precise moment of J.D. Tippit's murder or just seconds or minutes after the murder (witnesses such as Callaway, Scoggins, Markham, B. Davis, V. Davis, among others). Is that correct?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit
-
David Belin died in 1999, those are words that he wrote in his book. I don’t think that he will be responding back to you.
You repeated them as if they were gospel. I merely successfully [apparently] refuted them. Get over it.
So this must mean you have totally dismissed as incorrect the positive identification of Oswald...
That record still skipping is it?
That stuff discredited in this thread from forum past---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.0.html
-
You repeated them as if they were gospel. I merely successfully [apparently] refuted them.
I merely successfully [apparently] refuted them.
Only in your own mind, wouldn't you agree?
-
I merely successfully [apparently] refuted them.
Only in your own mind, wouldn't you agree?
I suppose yeah...one of us has one and that would be me.
-
I merely successfully [apparently] refuted them.I suppose yeah...one of us has one and that would be me.
If you do indeed “have one”, I suggest that you might want to learn how to use it. At the beginning of that chapter David Belin states that: “Oswald is dead, and no one can prove why he did what he did. But a person can speculate.” Belin then goes on to speculate why he believes Oswald did some things, including where Belin thought Oswald was headed when he encountered Tippit.
On the other hand, you state the following:
Evidence is non-existent [as usual] with your hypothetical tales.
If Oswald was on the run to Mexico he would not have wasted time meandering all over Oak Cliff.
He would have not left all his money with Marina.
He would have gone directly to the Trailways/Greyhound station some 4 or 5 blocks from the TSBD and boarded the first bus out of town headed south.
So try it again with gusto señor.
It is stated as if you think that you “know” what Oswald would have done. But really you don’t know those things, now do you? They are only speculations and they only reflect your thinking, and have nothing at all to do with reality.
-
LUCY YOU GOT SOME "SPLAINING TO DO!! :D
Indeed you do, how about we look at the actual eyewitnesses who encountered the murdering Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The eyewitnesses who confirmed he was carrying a gun.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with killer Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
You don't empty shells out of an automatic.
Thumb1:
Yes, excellent point!
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. In other words, he didn't go all the way on the sidewalk. He just cut across the yard.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he when you saw him throwing shells? Had he already started across the yard?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir. He had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first one and when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard. He just sort of cut across.
Mr. BELIN - Now you saw him throw two shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You saw where he threw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.
Mr. BELIN - A chrome looking shell?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - About how long did it take you to locate the shells once you stared looking for them?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Just a minute. I mean not very long at all. Just walked directly to them.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was emptying it?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open and he had his hands cocked like he was emptying it.
JohnM
-
In addition, DPD officer Roger Craig wrote Weisberg that the Tippit shooting occurred at 1:05 pm.
Cue the b.s. Nutter catterwalling in 3-2-1...
Apparently you're unaware that Roger Craig is a proven liar.
In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting. Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45.
Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15. Craig responded with "Oh? Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory)
The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.
Then years later, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff. In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.
Move on from Roger Craig, already.
-
We already know from many of your past posts you engage in "selective memory" so spare us the B.S.
Whatever you may think of Bill's memory, he's right about what Craig said. This is the section of the LAFP interview:
FP: Do you know what time he was killed?
RC: It was about 1:40—
PJ: No, I think It was a little before 1:15.
RC: Was it?
That isn't the only reference to the time of the murder:
FP: How did you become aware of the Tippit killing? Where were you?
RC: I was in front of the Depository. I went upstairs with the first bunch, and then just a little bit later I was back downstairs. They sent me to get some lights to examine the dark corners. And I passed a patrol car on the street and heard the radio.
Compare this to what he would write a few years later in When They Kill a President:
At that exact moment [when Craig claimed that Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser] an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m. A token force of uniformed officers was left to keep the sixth floor secure and Fritz, Day, Boone, Mooney, Weitzman and I left the building.
So, which of Craig's stories is the right one? They can't both be true. The LFP one? The later WTKaP one? Or maybe neither? The world wonders!
-
OK I guess I am just a TERRIBLE judge of character. Shame on me for believing that Roger Craig!
So who else described timing of the events of the day?
Mrs. Frank Wright called in the shooting at 1:07 p.m. (so the shooting was no later than 1:06 pm)
T.F. Bowley used Tippit's radio to call in the shooting at 1:09 p.m.
Also it is well documented that the ambulance arrived by 1:15 p.m.
The timeline does not work to get LHO from standing at the bus stop near his rooming house to the murder scene a mile away in a couple minutes and do the dirty deed in that time as well.
Well, you seem to be a terrible judge of most things. Mrs Wright never said what that she called. The DPD radio dispatcher doesn't mention her address, 501 E 10th, until after 1:19. Bowley's radio call doesn't occur until right about the tip of 1:18. Given Callaway's testimony, the ambulance arrives about 1:20. What do you use for sources, or do you just make it up as you go alaong?
-
Poor little gullible Mitch seems to have full confidence in the DPD doctored radio logs.
Gullible much Mitch? Or are you on the government payroll? :D
You have nothing to counter what I said about Mrs Wright.
I use the Russ Shearer Channel 1 transcript, which was taken from a recording of the channel one dictabelt. It was created independently of the DPD, SS, or FBI transcripts. I also have a copy of the Dix channel one recording. You'll have to reach further down in your Big Bag of Bogus BS for your next attempt at a rebuttal. As for Mrs Wright, I've already pointed out that she didn't say when she called the DPD, so your reference to her is puzzling. You're unable to source your claim, so apparently you're even more puzzled than I about the issue.
-
T.F. Bowley AFFIDAVIT OF FACT: "I stopped my car and got out to go to the scene. I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 p.m."
Your Bowley call at 1:18 is total garbage. Give it up bud
Bowley himself has said that his watch could be 5 minutes off of standard time, which would be expected uncertainty for the average Joe's watch in 1963.
Simulcast transmissions broadcast on both DPD channels show that channel one time and channel two time are within one minute of each other. the "12:30 KKB" transmission on channel two lies between Cussy's "approaching triple underpass" and "go to the hospital" transmissions, placing the assassination at 12:30 channel two time. The McIntire photo shows the Hertz clock displaying "12:30" as the limousine passes the lead car between the TP and the I335E ramp. The watches of Kellerman, Dave Powers, and Sorrels also put the assassination at 12:30. From this, channel one is within one minute of channel two, and channel two is within one minute of standard time.
Putting this all together, If Bowley's watch is 5 minutes slow and channel one time is two minutes fast, then the two can coincide. Bowley looked at his watch at some short amount of time before he picked up the mic in car #10, which would account for any remaining discrepancy.
You are way behind the curve.
-
I am not confused but its obvious you are.
You're operating on a combination of bad information, faulty logic, and ill-advised smugness.
-
I use the Russ Shearer Channel 1 transcript, which was taken from a recording of the channel one dictabelt. It was created independently of the DPD, SS, or FBI transcripts. I also have a copy of the Dix channel one recording. You'll have to reach further down in your Big Bag of Bogus BS for your next attempt at a rebuttal. As for Mrs Wright, I've already pointed out that she didn't say when she called the DPD, so your reference to her is puzzling. You're unable to source your claim, so apparently you're even more puzzled than I about the issue.
I use the Russ Shearer transcripts as well. What Mongo doesn't realize is that the time stamps were voice call outs. Or maybe he does realize it and he's just being dishonest.
-
Well, you seem to be a terrible judge of most things. Mrs Wright never said what that she called. The DPD radio dispatcher doesn't mention her address, 501 E 10th, until after 1:19. Bowley's radio call doesn't occur until right about the tip of 1:18. Given Callaway's testimony, the ambulance arrives about 1:20. What do you use for sources, or do you just make it up as you go alaong?
Another reliable eyewitness is Cab Driver Scoggins who was in the middle of his work day and on his lunch break, so would have been especially aware of the time and he says about "1:20".
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Scoggins struggles to get through to dispatch and then speaks for a couple of minutes and about this time the Ambulance arrives, meanwhile dispatch records the time at 1:23.
Mr. DULLES. What did you tell your dispatcher?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I told him there had been a policeman shot at 10th and Patton, and you see they have a number of cars they are talking to, you know, and I had to holler about three or four times before I got his attention, and then I seen I wasn't going to get through to him, so I just hollered there had been a policeman shot at 10th and Patton, and then they went to talking to me then.
Mr. DULLES. What did they say to you then?
Mr. SCOGGINS. The first thing they says is do they need an ambulance, and I says, "Sure." And they wanted to know the exact location, and I said right off east of 10th and Patton, and the ambulance was only a block and a quarter or so from the scene, you see, and they just come on right around there.
Mr. DULLES. And this conversation took you a minute or two, would you estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, a couple of minutes, I would say. It was pretty close
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not your dispatcher recorded any time on his sheets as to the time you called in after the Tippit shooting?
Mr. SCOGGINS. When I was down there giving my statement to my supervisor, he asked me what time it was, and I said I don't have any idea, so he picked up the phone and called the dispatcher, and he said it was 1:23.
Mr. BELIN. That is the time that he recorded it?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. He must have recorded it up there because he said it was 1:23 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. When you called in after the shooting?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
JohnM
-
According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater,
Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.
Lets see wasn't there a cop killing going on about that time in Oak Cliff?
Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I was----I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast.
Mr. BALL. They asked you if you had seen a man come in there without a ticket?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I said, "I haven't seen him myself. He might have, but I didn't see him when he came in. He must have sneaked in and run on upstairs before I saw him."
Btw it's interesting in later interviews that Butch still isn't sure of the exact time of Oswald's entrance but randomly picks a timeframe that specifically ends with 1:07?
JohnM
-
blah blah If ifs and buts were candy and nuts :D
You tried to claim that Bowley broke the DPD timeline. I demonstrated how the two are still consistent. Your response was to emulate a nine-year old. Good job!
-
According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater,
Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.
Lets see wasn't there a cop killing going on about that time in Oak Cliff?
In '63/'64, he said he didn't see the man who snuck into the theater. Twenty five years later his memory mysteriously improved.
-
Margie Higgins was watching television at her house in Oak Cliff. She heard the TV announcer say it was 1:06. She checked her clock and it said 1:06. She said "at that point I heard shots." She told Barry Ernest she saw a man running away. "He definitely was not the man they showed on television." The Warren Commission evidently thought Mrs. Higgins testimony would be of no value as they did not call her. She did not help with the desired story.
The TV stations and networks kept video of that day's broadcasts. Guess what doesn't appear in any of them at 1:06.
-
The TV stations and networks kept video of that day's broadcasts. Guess what doesn't appear in any of them at 1:06.
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bvbt2VB8/Higgins-Tippit-1-06.jpg)
Dale K Myers Without Malice
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXMB9PP6/ernest-higgins.jpg)
Barry Ernest girl on the stairs
On the WFAATV coverage @34:00 in this video(which for some reason age restricted) there is a time check "it's 3 minutes after 1 o'clock". It's also interesting that both newsmen insisted that they heard three shots and they don't seem to say that any shots were especially close together. These men were trained journalists and were acutely aware of insignificant details.
Btw if you read the original piece written by Ernest it's obvious that Higgins thought Ernest was a nut and just wanted him to go away.
JohnM
-
Actually I was emulating you. I did not know you were nine but congratulations?
So your best response is to dig deeper into childhood with a version of "I know you are, but what an I?"
Thanks for confirming that my faith in you has not been misplaced. Stay classy!
-
Funny how you know when somebody is telling the truth and when they aren't (HINT: If what they say doesn't match your fantasy narrative, they must be lying!)
Funny how the only good witnesses are the ones who scream "Oswald did it" ::)
There are three witnesses involved in Oswald's entry into the Texas Theatre: Julia Postal, Johnny Calvin Brewer, and Butch Burroughs. Burroughs original testimony is consistent with the statements of Postal and Brewer; however, Burrough's latter ramblings contradict theirs. That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.
-
Stay ignorant... and gullible!
I'm not the one whose stopped discussing the realities of the case. That's you. Then again, your 'facts' been shown to be phantoms that have evaporated under the cold light of day.
-
You have nothing to offer and never did.
You can't make the facts go away by attacking me no matter how you try.
I have brought up plenty of "realities of the case" and "facts" in numerous threads but you ignored them so therefore you don't recall any of them.
You seem to be the one who has been sidetracked lately.
You've "brought up" a few factoids that demonstrate your shallow understanding of the issues involved. Where I've chosen to correct your understanding with a more complete picture of the evidence, you've been able to put up no resistance. At best, you try to bring up some non-sequitur or change the subject. Other than that, once the mystery of your shibboleths are stripped away to reveal the cornpone carnie behind the curtain, you have nothing left.
-
There are three witnesses involved in Oswald's entry into the Texas Theatre: Julia Postal, Johnny Calvin Brewer, and Butch Burroughs. Burroughs original testimony is consistent with the statements of Postal and Brewer; however, Burrough's latter ramblings contradict theirs. That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.
That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.
So, the majority is always right? Is that what you are saying?
-
That makes his later statements the odd man out, and thus the version that should be discarded.
So, the majority is always right? Is that what you are saying?
I'll put it to you the way I put it to ....:
You have a guy who gives out one story soon after the fact. 2-3 decades later, he starts telling a very different, more involved (and jucier) story about the same event. You know that the other witnesses to the same event told a story that was consistent with the guy's first story, but contradicts his later one. The question to you is, which of the guy's two stories do you choose as most likely to be correct?
-
I'll put it to you the way I put it to ....:
You have a guy who gives out one story soon after the fact. 2-3 decades later, he starts telling a very different, more involved (and jucier) story about the same event. You know that the other witnesses to the same event told a story that was consistent with the guy's first story, but contradicts his later one. The question to you is, which of the guy's two stories do you choose as most likely to be correct?
Well, if you are used to jumping to conclusions, then of course you are right. Burroughs' later version does differ from his original one.
But there's also another way of looking at things. Life's experiences have taught me that where humans are involved things sometimes get very complicated very quickly. For one thing, it hardly ever happens that a witness to an event will instantly tell you the whole story of what they saw in a concise manner. They normally forget details, which they will remember (differently) later, or leave out things they consider not to be relevant, even though they may actually be extremely relevant. Time is also a factor, as people caught up in a stressful situation, when it happens, may well tell a different story, from their original one, when they had a possibility to take a step back and quietly process the information. Obviously, this doesn't mean that their memory improves with time and there will always be bad actors who purposely change their story, but to simply dismiss later recollections is not credible is once again the same as jumping to conclusions.
The mere fact that Burroughs later recalled things that Postal and/or Brewer never confirmed doesn't automatically mean that Burroughs' recollections are false. And even if his earlier statements are similar to those of Postal and/or Brewer (which is a judgment call by itself) that still doesn't mean that he told the entire story soon after the fact.
-
Johnny Brewers story also changed through the years.
Even his original version was bogus.
-
You tried to claim that Bowley broke the DPD timeline. I demonstrated how the two are still consistent. Your response was to emulate a nine-year old. Good job!
The fact that Bowley said that his watch could be five minutes off, doesn't mean it was.
Btw where did you get that quote from Bowley? I haven't seen or read that anywhere, so I would be interested to know where it came from.
-
Johnny Brewers story also changed through the years.
Even his original version was bogus.
The shoe store guy was "in" on the plot? And his role was to get a job at the shoe store and hope Oswald passed it on the way to the movies after assassinating JFK so that he could direct the authorities to him? Amazing foresight by the conspirators. Was there anyone in Dallas other than Oswald who was not involved in the assassination?
-
The shoe store guy was "in" on the plot? And his role was to get a job at the shoe store and hope Oswald passed it on the way to the movies after assassinating JFK so that he could direct the authorities to him? Amazing foresight by the conspirators. Was there anyone in Dallas other than Oswald who was not involved in the assassination?
Amazing exaggeration and a pathetic strawman. Typical Richard Smith material
-
Amazing exaggeration and a pathetic strawman. Typical Richard Smith material
Typical Martin contrarian material lacking any substance. How about explaining to us what is being suggested then? Jerry indicated that Brewer's "original version was bogus." Why would Brewer make a "bogus" report to the authorities under these circumstances? What exactly was "bogus" about it and why would he make "bogus" statements. What he indicated is fairly straightforward. He saw a man who he believed was acting suspiciously. He followed that man a short distance. That man went into the TT. The police found that man in the TT. That man was Oswald.
-
Typical Martin contrarian material lacking any substance. How about explaining to us what is being suggested then? Jerry indicated that Brewer's "original version was bogus." Why would Brewer make a "bogus" report to the authorities under these circumstances? What exactly was "bogus" about it and why would he make "bogus" statements. What he indicated is fairly straightforward. He saw a man who he believed was acting suspiciously. He followed that man a short distance. That man went into the TT. The police found that man in the TT. That man was Oswald.
Typical Martin contrarian material lacking any substance.
Which only tells us that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contrarian".
There was nothing contrarian about my factual statement that you exaggerated, as per usual, and resorted to a strawman.
How about explaining to us what is being suggested then?
Why in the world should I explain something I have not suggested?
-
Typical Martin contrarian material lacking any substance. How about explaining to us what is being suggested then? Jerry indicated that Brewer's "original version was bogus." Why would Brewer make a "bogus" report to the authorities under these circumstances? What exactly was "bogus" about it and why would he make "bogus" statements. What he indicated is fairly straightforward. He saw a man who he believed was acting suspiciously. He followed that man a short distance. That man went into the TT. The police found that man in the TT. That man was Oswald.
"He saw a man who he believed was acting suspiciously. He followed that man a short distance. That man went into the TT. The police found that man in the TT. That man was Oswald. "
"Acting suspiciously"..... ???
"That man went into the TT." ...... Brewer did not see the man enter the theater....He saw him enter the vestibule, and assumed that he had entered the theater.....
The police found that man in the TT. ....... No ...The police found Lee Oswald.... Just as intended.
Three FBI agents were there in the theater, to ensure the cops arrested the patsy.
-
"He saw a man who he believed was acting suspiciously. He followed that man a short distance. That man went into the TT. The police found that man in the TT. That man was Oswald. "
"Acting suspiciously"..... ???
"That man went into the TT." ...... Brewer did not see the man enter the theater....He saw him enter the vestibule, and assumed that he had entered the theater.....
The police found that man in the TT. ....... No ...The police found Lee Oswald.... Just as intended.
Three FBI agents were there in the theater, to ensure the cops arrested the patsy.
Far out. So Brewer was "in" on the conspiracy in your opinion? And his role was to work at a shoe store waiting for Oswald to pass so that he could call the cops? Interesting. Did he have a secret signal like the red rings?
-
Shots fired, but a beautiful day in the neighbourhood if you're an Oswald arse kisser
To wit:
1) Nothing illegal about buggering off from work without first asking permission
2) Nothing illegal about ducking out of sight when poor dumb cops run their sirens in your direction
3) Nothing illegal about looking suspicious
4) Nothing illegal about looking like yourself (unless you mow down a poor dumb cop in cold blood)
Oswald: I'm innocent
CT Judge: Ok, you can go
Oswald: [SMIRK]
-
Far out. So Brewer was "in" on the conspiracy in your opinion? And his role was to work at a shoe store waiting for Oswald to pass so that he could call the cops? Interesting. Did he have a secret signal like the red rings?
Brewer simply wanted his moment of fame.... He saw a man who imagined looked "suspicious" and decided that there was a connection between that man and the police cars who passed by with sirens wailing.
-
Brewer simply wanted his moment of fame.... He saw a man who imagined looked "suspicious" and decided that there was a connection between that man and the police cars who passed by with sirens wailing.
Wow. What are the odds that someone would randomly pick Oswald (of all the people in Dallas) for this purpose? The exact same guy who worked in the TSBD and your fantasy conspirators had decided to frame for the assassination. And it would turn out that he had a revolver and the same two different brands of ammo used to kill Tippit. So much bad luck for Oswald that day! And EVEN if your nutty explanation were correct - so what? Whether Oswald was acting "suspicious" or not doesn't really make any difference. It doesn't change the evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt.
-
Wow. What are the odds that someone would randomly pick Oswald (of all the people in Dallas) for this purpose? The exact same guy who worked in the TSBD and your fantasy conspirators had decided to frame for the assassination. And it would turn out that he had a revolver and the same two different brands of ammo used to kill Tippit. So much bad luck for Oswald that day! And EVEN if your nutty explanation were correct - so what? Whether Oswald was acting "suspicious" or not doesn't really make any difference. It doesn't change the evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt.
" Whether Oswald was acting "suspicious" or not doesn't really make any difference."
Oswald?? How do you know that the man that Brewer saw "acting suspicious" was the same man that Old Mc Donald socked in the Theater? Brewer didn't see the man enter the theater, so why do you assume that the man did enter the theater, and that man was Lee Oswald?
Sitting quietly in his seat and watching the police questioning other patrons in the theater, is suspicious activity...???
-
" Whether Oswald was acting "suspicious" or not doesn't really make any difference."
Oswald?? How do you know that the man that Brewer saw "acting suspicious" was the same man that Old Mc Donald socked in the Theater? Brewer didn't see the man enter the theater, so why do you assume that the man did enter the theater, and that man was Lee Oswald?
Sitting quietly in his seat and watching the police questioning other patrons in the theater, is suspicious activity...???
We are going to need more tin foil. This is going to the bottom of the rabbit hole. Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre. So he must have entered it. Good grief. Brewer confirmed that Oswald was the guy who was acting suspiciously. Again, though, it makes no difference as to Oswald's guilt whether he was acting suspiciously or even, as you crazily suggest, was not the person Brewer was following. The only importance of Brewer is that he directed the police to the location where Oswald was apprehended. Oswald was sitting quietly in his seat? When they approached him, instead of just asking what was going on and cooperating like everyone else, he draws his gun and engages in a struggle.
-
We are going to need more tin foil. This is going to the bottom of the rabbit hole. Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre. So he must have entered it. Good grief. Brewer confirmed that Oswald was the guy who was acting suspiciously. Again, though, it makes no difference as to Oswald's guilt whether he was acting suspiciously or even, as you crazily suggest, was not the person Brewer was following. The only importance of Brewer is that he directed the police to the location where Oswald was apprehended. Oswald was sitting quietly in his seat? When they approached him, instead of just asking what was going on and cooperating like everyone else, he draws his gun and engages in a struggle.
he draws his gun
No wonder you're so screwed up..... You believe fairy tales. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that Lee pulled out a gun"
Use your head.... You believe that Lee shot Tippit without a moments hesitation ...and yet he withheld pulling a gun and having it cocked and ready when Old Mc Donald approached.
-
he draws his gun
No wonder you're so screwed up..... You believe fairy tales. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that Lee pulled out a gun"
Use your head.... You believe that Lee shot Tippit without a moments hesitation ...and yet he withheld pulling a gun and having it cocked and ready when Old Mc Donald approached.
Not a scintilla of evidence? Well, except for the police officers who were there and arrested him. He certainly had the revolver in his possession. Oswald didn't shoot Tippit "without a moments hesitation" as you suggest. Rather, he tried to bull his way out of the situation when Tippit pulled over to speak to him. When they didn't work and Tippit got out of the car, Oswald shot him. Same deal in the TT. Oswald simply waited to play his hand out. Maybe hoping the police would bypass him since they weren't approaching everyone. Once they approached him, he went for the gun (i.e. it's all over now). Almost identical scenarios.
-
Not a scintilla of evidence? Well, except for the police officers who were there and arrested him. He certainly had the revolver in his possession. Oswald didn't shoot Tippit "without a moments hesitation" as you suggest. Rather, he tried to bull his way out of the situation when Tippit pulled over to speak to him. When they didn't work and Tippit got out of the car, Oswald shot him. Same deal in the TT. Oswald simply waited to play his hand out. Maybe hoping the police would bypass him since they weren't approaching everyone. Once they approached him, he went for the gun (i.e. it's all over now). Almost identical scenarios.
This timemachine of yours, can it be used to go anywhere or is it only limited to Dallas on 11/22/63?
-
This timemachine of yours, can it be used to go anywhere or is it only limited to Dallas on 11/22/63?
Everything is documented. Just like posts on this forum. Someone could, for example, go back to the time you challenged Bill Brown to a debate and when he accepted you ran like a small child. Completely hysterical with all your fake "conditions" including flying to Europe during the pandemic. What an embarrassment. Even I almost felt bad for you. That was pathetic.
-
Everything is documented. Just like posts on this forum. Someone could, for example, go back to the time you challenged Bill Brown to a debate and when he accepted you ran like a small child. Completely hysterical with all your fake "conditions" including flying to Europe during the pandemic. What an embarrassment. Even I almost felt bad for you. That was pathetic.
Aha... another pathetic attempt at distraction by a false ad hom attack. Now, that's really pathetic.
The fact is that Bill Brown was the one who chickened out. He "accepted" only an on line debate (which would have given him opportunities to manipulate the conversation) instead of the face to face one I proposed. Earlier he did a similar thing by accepting Barry Krusch's challenge and then finding excuses for not following through. You only have to watch his videos and you know that Brown is somebody who loves to hear himself talk and it's pretty obvious to me - from the way he ran from our conversation about Callaway and Bowley helping to load Tippit into the evidence - that he can't handle any kind of challenge.
And btw, Brown didn't have to fly to Europe, but you could have when you made a bunch of false claims, including that I wasn't in Europe. I offered you to pay for the flight and accomodation, so you could come and see for yourself, on the condition that you would reimburse me fully when the lies you told about me were exposed for the BS they are. You didn't know just how to run fast enough to get away from that one, because it also would have exposed your true identity.
Far safer to just write some lies on a forum, right "Richard"?
Everything is documented.
Not everything that's documented is actually true, although some gullible individual like you might think it is... :D
-
Aha... another pathetic attempt at distraction by a false ad hom attack. Now, that's really pathetic.
The fact is that Bill Brown was the one who chickened out. He "accepted" only an on line debate (which would have given him opportunities to manipulate the conversation) instead of the face to face one I proposed.
And Brown didn't have to fly to Europe, but you could have when you falsely claimed that I wasn't in Europe. I offered you to pay for the flight and accomodation on the condition that you would have to reimburse me fully when the lies you told about me were exposed for the BS they are. You didn't know just how to run fast enough to get away from that one, because it also would have exposed your true identity.
Far safer to just write some lies on a forum, right "Richard"?
Everything is documented. Just like posts on this forum.
Not everything that's documented is actually true, although some gullible individual like you might think it is... :D
In terms of debating, what's the difference between a real-time online debate and a face-to-face debate?
-
You tried to claim that Bowley broke the DPD timeline. I demonstrated how the two are still consistent. Your response was to emulate a nine-year old. Good job!
I demonstrated how the two are still consistent.
Actually, you only "demonstrated that they could be consistent if you take all the other elements out of the equation.
-
In terms of debating, what's the difference between a real-time online debate and a face-to-face debate?
You need to ask?
During a face to face debate the people involved are in the same room together. There's no running away from answering a hard question. There is of course no problem with checking one's notes, but it happens all in the open.
During an on line debate, when a hard question comes up, there suddenly might be a power cut or bad connection. Also, there might be people behind the camera, feeding information to the person doing the debate.
It's a massive difference.
-
You need to ask?
During a face to face debate the people involved are in the same room together. There's no running away from answering a hard question. There is of course no problem with checking one's notes, but it happens all in the open.
During an on line debate, when a hard question comes up, there suddenly might be a power cut or bad connection. Also, there might be people behind the camera, feeding information to the person doing the debate.
It's a massive difference.
A power cut?? People behind the camera??
:D :D :D
Doesn't your tinfoil hat ever make your head itch?
Everyone knows that the difference between an online and a face-to-face debate is that an online debate is really easy to organise. That's the massive difference. And it's clearly something you need to avoid. ;)
-
A power cut?? People behind the camera??
:D :D :D
Doesn't your tinfoil hat ever make your head itch?
Everyone knows that the difference between an online and a face-to-face debate is that an online debate is really easy to organise. That's the massive difference. And it's clearly something you need to avoid. ;)
I knew this kind of pathetic response would be coming from somebody who has now been exposed as a die hard "c.y.a. and always protect your own", LN.
It's exactly why you simply can not trust (or have confidence in) any LN.
For what it's worth, there was no problem organizing a face to face debate. I invited Brown to the debate at any time convenient for him. All travel arrangements would have been taken care off. Brown, who claimed to be self employed even confirmed that he could be available for a three day period without great difficulty. But when it came down to it.... hot air!
But why am I saying this to a guy who has made it his quest to defend the undefendable?
-
Not a scintilla of evidence? Well, except for the police officers who were there and arrested him. He certainly had the revolver in his possession. Oswald didn't shoot Tippit "without a moments hesitation" as you suggest. Rather, he tried to bull his way out of the situation when Tippit pulled over to speak to him. When they didn't work and Tippit got out of the car, Oswald shot him. Same deal in the TT. Oswald simply waited to play his hand out. Maybe hoping the police would bypass him since they weren't approaching everyone. Once they approached him, he went for the gun (i.e. it's all over now). Almost identical scenarios.
Oswald didn't shoot Tippit "without a moments hesitation" as you suggest. Rather, he tried to bull his way out of the situation when Tippit pulled over to speak to him.
Lee wasn't even at the scene of Tippits murder....But don't let substantiated facts interfere with your dream....
-
In terms of debating, what's the difference between a real-time online debate and a face-to-face debate?
In this context, the primary difference is that the latter allows Martin to run away. He knows it is ridiculous for someone to fly to "Europe" to debate some unknown person about the JFK assassination. He wants no part of Bill Brown curb stomping his contrarian nonsense.
-
In this context, the primary difference is that the latter allows Martin to run away. He knows it is ridiculous for someone to fly to "Europe" to debate some unknown person about the JFK assassination. He wants no part of Bill Brown curb stomping his contrarian nonsense.
the latter allows Martin to run away
Just another one of Richard Smith's typical lies and distortions to make an utterly invalid point.
The only minor problem with Smith stupid claim is that it wasn't the latter option. It was the first one! I offered a face to face debate and if Brown had accepted it would have happened. But he didn't. Instead he wanted to determine the rules, knowing full well that I wouldn't play his game.
He knows it is ridiculous for someone to fly to "Europe" to debate some unknown person about the JFK assassination.
It's only "ridiculous" to somebody who needs an excuse to run away. There was never any flying to Europe involved. You made that up, of course.
He wants no part of Bill Brown curb stomping his contrarian nonsense.
We've seen a good example of that so-called "curb stomping" when Brown ran from the discussion we had about Callaway and Bowley helping to load Tippit into the ambulance after Callaway made his radio call. Despite all the conclusive evidence against it, Billy argued - to explain away a 2 minute gap in the timeline - that Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call, which by it itself is idiotic as the presence of the ambulance would have made Callaway's radio call superfluous. When asked for evidence to back up his silly claim all he could say was that it was in the transcripts (which it wasn't), just before he ran away from the conversation. :D
-
the latter allows Martin to run away
Just another one of Richard Smith's typical lies and distortions to make an utterly invalid point.
The only minor problem with Smith stupid claim is that it wasn't the latter option. It was the first one! I offered a face to face debate and if Brown had accepted it would have happened. But he didn't. Instead he wanted to determine the rules, knowing full well that I wouldn't play his game.
He knows it is ridiculous for someone to fly to "Europe" to debate some unknown person about the JFK assassination.
It's only "ridiculous" to somebody who needs an excuse to run away. There was never any flying to Europe involved. You made that up, of course.
In which we learn that Martin doesn't understand the concept of "former" and "latter." The face-to-face option was the "latter" option in the quoted sentence. If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US? Even if they were in different localities in the US, there would still be unnecessary travel for a face to face debate. For safety and common sense reasons, no sane person would travel to meet an unknown person from an Internet forum for a face to face to debate. That is just a silly excuse to run away.
-
In which we learn that Martin doesn't understand the concept of "former" and "latter." The face-to-face option was the "latter" option in the quoted sentence. If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US? Even if they were in different localities in the US, there would still be unnecessary travel for a face to face debate. For safety and common sense reasons, no sane person would travel to meet an unknown person from an Internet forum for a face to face to debate. That is just a silly excuse to run away.
If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US?
Why do you place Europe in brackets? Do you think it doesn't exist or what?
Of course there would always be flying involved, fool. But when this played out I wasn't in Europe all the time. What was being discussed was a location in the US and I would provide travel for Bill to get there or travel to where he was.
Even if they were in different localities in the US, there would still be unnecessary travel for a face to face debate.
I don't care what you think is unneccessary. Only individuals like you, who have something to hide (true identity, perhaps?) would object to a face to face meeting.
For safety and common sense reasons, no sane person would travel to meet an unknown person from an Internet forum for a face to face to debate.
Common sense and sanity are things you know very little about, but "For safety"? What a joke! It reveals more than I need and want to know about your warped mindset.
Brown does fly to Dallas to meet his Facebook buddies, or didn't you see the videos on You Tube? So, why would this be any different?
-
If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US?
Why do you place Europe in brackets? Do you think it doesn't exist or what?
Of course there would always be flying involved, fool. But when this played out I wasn't in Europe all the time. What was being discussed was a location in the US and I would provide travel for Bill to get there or travel to where he was.
Even if they were in different localities in the US, there would still be unnecessary travel for a face to face debate.
I don't care what you think is unneccessary. Only individuals like you, who have something to hide (true identity, perhaps?) would object to a face to face meeting.
For safety and common sense reasons, no sane person would travel to meet an unknown person from an Internet forum for a face to face to debate.
Common sense and sanity are things you know very little about, but "For safety"? What a joke! It reveals more than I need and want to know about your warped mindset.
Brown does fly to Dallas to meet his Facebook buddies, or didn't you see the videos on You Tube? So, why would this be any different?
Such hostility. And you want people to travel to "Europe" to meet you face to face? And can't imagine why that is a bad idea? You sound unhinged. You also indicated in your last post that flying would not be necessary ( i.e. "There was never any flying to Europe involved. You made that up, of course.") but now there would "always be flying involved'? You are really losing it. Why does anyone have to travel at all - by air or otherwise - when this could be done online? I know the topic of debating Bill Brown makes you hysterical but that is downright strange.
-
Such hostility. And you want people to travel to "Europe" to meet you face to face? And can't imagine why that is a bad idea? You sound unhinged. You also indicated in your last post that flying would not be necessary ( i.e. "There was never any flying to Europe involved. You made that up, of course.") but now there would "always be flying involved'? You are really losing it. Why does anyone have to travel at all - by air or otherwise - when this could be done online? I know the topic of debating Bill Brown makes you hysterical but that is downright strange.
Such hostility.
If you can't handle it, stop provoking it with your lies and false accusations.
And you want people to travel to "Europe" to meet you face to face?
Said the idiot, who keeps on repeating something that was never discussed. You really need to get over your obsession with where and how I live. It's not good for your sanity and, let's face it, I can't be blamed for your miserable living conditions. Envy will never get you anything similar to my lifestyle. Get over it, will ya!
You also indicated in your last post that flying would not be necessary ( i.e. "There was never any flying to Europe involved. You made that up, of course.") but now there would "always be flying involved'? You are really losing it.
Are you under the impression that there are no flights within the US? Talk about losing it.... you've lost both; the argument and your mind!
Btw, you do understand that people can read for themselves what I actually wrote, don't you?
I said there would not be any flying to Europe involved, not that flying "would not be necessary" as you falsely claimed.
Why does anyone have to travel at all - by air or otherwise - when this could be done online?
Already answered over and over again. I'm sorry that you lack the brain capacity to understand it. Why does Brown fly to Dallas to meet his Facebook buddies?
I know the topic of debating Bill Brown makes you hysterical
Says the guy who actually believes he can read people's minds... :D
-
If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US?
Why do you place Europe in brackets? Do you think it doesn't exist or what?
Of course there would always be flying involved, fool. But when this played out I wasn't in Europe all the time. What was being discussed was a location in the US and I would provide travel for Bill to get there or travel to where he was.
Even if they were in different localities in the US, there would still be unnecessary travel for a face to face debate.
I don't care what you think is unneccessary. Only individuals like you, who have something to hide (true identity, perhaps?) would object to a face to face meeting.
For safety and common sense reasons, no sane person would travel to meet an unknown person from an Internet forum for a face to face to debate.
Common sense and sanity are things you know very little about, but "For safety"? What a joke! It reveals more than I need and want to know about your warped mindset.
Brown does fly to Dallas to meet his Facebook buddies, or didn't you see the videos on You Tube? So, why would this be any different?
Of course there would always be flying involved, fool.
Really??..... I've not seen a ship with wings.....
-
Of course there would always be flying involved, fool.
Really??..... I've not seen a ship with wings.....
Why would you need a ship to get from one airport in the US to another airport in the US?
-
Why would you need a ship to get from one airport in the US to another airport in the US?
If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US?
How about sea travel?....
-
We've seen a good example of that so-called "curb stomping" when Brown ran from the discussion we had about Callaway and Bowley helping to load Tippit into the ambulance after Callaway made his radio call. Despite all the conclusive evidence against it, Billy argued - to explain away a 2 minute gap in the timeline - that Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call, which by it itself is idiotic as the presence of the ambulance would have made Callaway's radio call superfluous. When asked for evidence to back up his silly claim all he could say was that it was in the transcripts (which it wasn't), just before he ran away from the conversation. :D
I did not run from anything. When one has to lie to make their point seem more valid, he loses credibility. Regarding Callaway and the ambulance, I stood by my position then and I do now. It is not my problem that Weidmann has no idea how to decipher the police tapes.
As for a debate, if Weidmann was not afraid, he'd simply agree to a debate on Skype (or something similar) one evening this week. Period.
-
I did not run from anything. When one has to lie to make their point seem more valid, he loses credibility. Regarding Callaway and the ambulance, I stood by my position then and I do now. It is not my problem that Weidmann has no idea how to decipher the police tapes.
As for a debate, if Weidmann was not afraid, he'd simply agree to a debate on Skype (or something similar) one evening this week. Period.
Regarding Callaway and the ambulance, I stood by my position then and I do now. It is not my problem that Weidmann has no idea how to decipher the police tapes.
And there he goes again; he makes up a bogus story about how Callaway was wrong during his testimony and that he actually helped to load Tippit in the ambulance prior to making his radio call, when all available evidence says otherwise, and when asked to provide evidence to back up his fairytale all he does is claim falsely that I can't decipher the police tapes. Pathetic.
And yes, you did run from the conversation after that. You always do that after you have dug yourself a hole you can't get out of; you back off and hope the thing will blow over.
As for a debate, if Weidmann was not afraid, he'd simply agree to a debate on Skype (or something similar) one evening this week. Period.
I made you an offer and you ran from it, just like you ran from Barry Krusch's challenge, with another dumb excuse. Period
-
If Martin is in "Europe" how can there be a face-to-face debate without any flying involved when Bill lives in the US?
How about sea travel?....
I think you are misreading the original post. It was that clown "Richard Smith" who falsely claimed I had invited Bill Brown to come to Europe for a debate, when in fact I proposed a location in the US.
-
And yes, you did run from the conversation after that.
No. You are confusing my loss of interest with running, apparently.
-
I think you are misreading the original post. It was that clown "Richard Smith" who falsely claimed I had invited Bill Brown to come to Europe for a debate, when in fact I proposed a location in the US.
For once, stop acting childish. This whole face to face debate thing of yours is nonsense.
-
No. You are confusing my loss of interest with running, apparently.
Aha... so, when you can't present conclusive evidence you just "lose interest" and stop posting.... but that isn't running away :D
Just how senile do you think the readers of this forum are to believe that BS
For once, stop acting childish. This whole face to face debate thing of yours is nonsense.
Only one way to find out... accept the face to face debate and see what happens. I would love to see you "lose interest" in a live face to face debate.
-
Only one way to find out... accept the face to face debate and see what happens. I would love to see you "lose interest" in a live face to face debate.
As I told you before...
Let me know the next time you're in the States. (yeah right)
-
The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt the determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house.
Based on McWatters' statement of where it was that Oswald boarded the bus (we know Oswald boarded that bus because he had McWatters' specific bus transfer and McWatters said he issued that transfer to only one woman and only one man), Oswald walked about seven blocks east (into the downtown area) after he left the Depository within three minutes of the shooting.
"So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks (back) asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did. It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street." -- Cecil McWatters
They concluded, based on what McWatters told them (along with the Secret Service agents and FBI agents walking the route in an average time of six and a half minutes), that Oswald boarded the bus around 12:40 near the intersection of Field St. and Elm St. and then, after being on the bus for no more than four minutes, Oswald got off the bus near Lamar St. and Elm St. (asking for the transfer as he got off the bus).
So now we have Oswald leaving the bus around 12:44.
Oswald then walked three to four short blocks to the Greyhound station where he boarded Whaley's cab. This has Oswald entering the cab around 12:48.
They then, with Whaley, reconstructed the cab ride from the Greyhound to the intersection of Beckley and Neely (Oswald got out of the cab on Beckley just north of the intersection with Neely). They concluded (using a stopwatch) that the cab ride took five minutes and thirty seconds.
So now we have Oswald exiting Whaley's cab on Beckley at 12:53-12:54.
Still using the stopwatch, they concluded that it was a five minute and forty-five second walk from the point Oswald exited the cab back to the rooming house.
I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00 and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door, zipping up the jacket as he went out the door.
-
Nah. The whole thing is stupid. Weidmann is only grandstanding and, according to all the comments I've read, almost everyone knows it.
Weidmann: "Hey Brown, fly halfway across the world. I'll reimburse you when you get here. Trust me. What's that? You don't trust me? Awww, you're just afraid of me."
Lame.
It's worse than Lame, it's absolutely psychotic!
(https://c.tenor.com/MdLNN93OjCcAAAAC/rage-angry.gif)
I experienced "globetrotting" Weidmann when he pretended to come to Australia, I initially told him "I would love to meet you while you are in Sydney" and actually I was looking forward to having a beer and showing off the best and prettiest city in the World but alas he was full of his usual BS.
(https://the3df.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3206-3.gif)
Now with Weidmann's excuses and continually shifting the goal posts in the rules of this "face to face" Bill Brown vs Martin Weidmann debate just shows his utter desperation in avoiding this confrontation, it's as if he lives in a cocoon and can't see that nobody here takes him even in the slightest bit seriously and everyone is just laughing at him. Watching Weidmann squirm his way out of the debate by making more and more ridiculous demands was pure comedy gold.
And the weak excuses for avoiding an online debate don't even make sense, like as if Bill would have or even need a JFKA specialist or a team of specialists just off camera to feed Bill information but if it was really necessary it would be easy enough to prove that Bill was alone, it's just a cowards way of avoiding the debate.
And the flying halfway across the World and then expecting Weidmann to be there with a cheque to pay you back is the cherry on top of this hilarious masterpiece, it's so diabolical, it just might work!? Muhahaha!
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/674x400/Clinton-conspiracy-earpiece-708716.jpg)
JohnM
-
Nah. The whole thing is stupid. Weidmann is only grandstanding and, according to all the comments I've read, almost everyone knows it.
Weidmann: "Hey Brown, fly halfway across the world. I'll reimburse you when you get here. Trust me. What's that? You don't trust me? Awww, you're just afraid of me."
Lame.
Just what I thought. Running away as fast as you can.
Nobody asked you to fly halfway across the world, nor did I say anything about you having to pay anything up front.
But I understand you need to invent stuff to chicken out....
-
I experienced "globetrotting" Weidmann when he pretended to come to Australia, I initially told him "I would love to meet you while you are in Sydney" and actually I was looking forward to having a beer and showing off the best and prettiest city in the World but alas he was full of his usual BS.
JohnM
Let's get the story right, shall we? Yes, you said you would meet me but you never provided me with a phone number to contact you and did not respond to my PM on the old board. When I then tried to get your contact information through other means it turned out there wasn't a John Mytton registered anywhere in the entire greater Sydney area.
-
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/l2QDTqHp9W7WIJXlC/giphy.gif?cid=790b76117041c62c2847510c77487648e93377438499fd3d&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
JohnM
-
Just what I thought. Running away as fast as you can.
Nobody asked you to fly halfway across the world, nor did I say anything about you having to pay anything up front.
But I understand you need to invent stuff to chicken out....
Why don't you go to Bill?
-
Such hostility.
If you can't handle it, stop provoking it with your lies and false accusations.
And you want people to travel to "Europe" to meet you face to face?
Said the idiot, who keeps on repeating something that was never discussed. You really need to get over your obsession with where and how I live. It's not good for your sanity and, let's face it, I can't be blamed for your miserable living conditions. Envy will never get you anything similar to my lifestyle. Get over it, will ya!
You also indicated in your last post that flying would not be necessary ( i.e. "There was never any flying to Europe involved. You made that up, of course.") but now there would "always be flying involved'? You are really losing it.
Are you under the impression that there are no flights within the US? Talk about losing it.... you've lost both; the argument and your mind!
Btw, you do understand that people can read for themselves what I actually wrote, don't you?
I said there would not be any flying to Europe involved, not that flying "would not be necessary" as you falsely claimed.
Why does anyone have to travel at all - by air or otherwise - when this could be done online?
Already answered over and over again. I'm sorry that you lack the brain capacity to understand it. Why does Brown fly to Dallas to meet his Facebook buddies?
I know the topic of debating Bill Brown makes you hysterical
Says the guy who actually believes he can read people's minds... :D
Imagine meeting a guy this angry guy face-to-face? Your silly excuses about Bill getting "help" from someone during an online debate is paranoid and ridiculous. And why care? This would not be a competition between yourself and Bill but a debate of the facts and information relating to the JFK assassination. Why would it matter to you whether that information came from Bill or some mysterious person whispering in his ear? You have all the canned contrarian responses from your endless time spent on this forum. Just repeat over and over that any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt is just "assumptions" and "opinions." That has been the totality of your contribution to this forum.
-
"take on" -- ROFL
Do you live in "Europe" as well? ROFL.
-
Imagine meeting a guy this angry guy face-to-face? Your silly excuses about Bill getting "help" from someone during an online debate is paranoid and ridiculous. And why care? This would not be a competition between yourself and Bill but a debate of the facts and information relating to the JFK assassination. Why would it matter to you whether that information came from Bill or some mysterious person whispering in his ear? You have all the canned contrarian responses from your endless time spent on this forum. Just repeat over and over that any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt is just "assumptions" and "opinions." That has been the totality of your contribution to this forum.
This would not be a competition between yourself and Bill but a debate of the facts and information relating to the JFK assassination.
That's what it should be, but Bill Brown seems to disagree;
But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.
-
Why would that help him in any way when I've destroyed him repeatedly online?
Sprechen sie deutsch? Take up the cause then since Martin has run away and debate Bill online. Maybe Roger Collins can help you prep with his extensive legal background.
-
More demented BS.
Why would I need "legal background" to destroy Billy Bob any day of the week on the forum?
BTW, have you worked out why Oswald jumped on the Marsalis bus to get to North Beckley?
Good it's settled then. Contact Bill and tell him you are ready to debate.
-
Good it's settled then. Contact Bill and tell him you are ready to debate.
Why would he contact Bill after he ran away again?
Why don't you debate Otto yourself instead of trying to manipulate a confrontation, or are you too much of a coward, weasel?
-
Sprechen sie deutsch? Take up the cause then since Martin has run away and debate Bill online. Maybe Roger Collins can help you prep with his extensive legal background.
Sprechen sie deutsch?
You clearly don't.
Take up the cause then since Martin has run away
Usually you whine about my presence on this board (which btw is no different that yours) and now you make a fuss because I haven't posted for a few hours.... Pathetic.
-
Maybe Bill would take on yourself, Otto, Roger Collins, and Martin in one debate. I bet it would even be easy to get all of you together in one place.
:D :D :D
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8dIAAOSwwl5huh~m/s-l600.jpg)
JohnM
-
Sprechen sie deutsch?
Do you speak German?
Sprichst du Deutsch?
Do you speak in German?
-
Bowley himself has said that his watch could be 5 minutes off of standard time, which would be expected uncertainty for the average Joe's watch in 1963.
Simulcast transmissions broadcast on both DPD channels show that channel one time and channel two time are within one minute of each other. the "12:30 KKB" transmission on channel two lies between Cussy's "approaching triple underpass" and "go to the hospital" transmissions, placing the assassination at 12:30 channel two time. The McIntire photo shows the Hertz clock displaying "12:30" as the limousine passes the lead car between the TP and the I335E ramp. The watches of Kellerman, Dave Powers, and Sorrels also put the assassination at 12:30. From this, channel one is within one minute of channel two, and channel two is within one minute of standard time.
That doesn't follow. We don't know the accuracy of the Hertz clock or the other watches any more than we know the accuracy of Bowley's watch, Markham's clock, or the clock at Methodist Hospital. As for the "simulcasts", there are two problems. The transcripts of the two channels in CE 1974 are not word-for-word the same for these alleged simulcasts, and even if they were, we still only have the time check for one of the dispatchers at that time, not the other. Furthermore. the recordings were not continuous, have been spliced and edited, and the recording devices were known to be prone to both forward and backward skips, so you cannot even guarantee the order that two separate announcements were made in real time.
-
Imagine meeting a guy this angry guy face-to-face? Your silly excuses about Bill getting "help" from someone during an online debate is paranoid and ridiculous. And why care? This would not be a competition between yourself and Bill but a debate of the facts and information relating to the JFK assassination. Why would it matter to you whether that information came from Bill or some mysterious person whispering in his ear? You have all the canned contrarian responses from your endless time spent on this forum. Just repeat over and over that any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt is just "assumptions" and "opinions." That has been the totality of your contribution to this forum.
Says the guy with the fake name who does nothing but repeat assumptions and opinions over and over.
-
Good it's settled then. Contact Bill and tell him you are ready to debate.
What are you, his agent now?