The first 2 Paraffin tests were Spectrographic analysis & Neutron Activation analysis. The first is a basic test considered reliable for all criminal investigations. The second test is even more reliable since it's capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities too small to be captured by spectrographic analysis. That test required the use of a nuclear reactor, thus was carried out for the FBI at a reactor owned by the Atomic Energy Commission. The results of that test were hidden until two decades after the assassination, and were only made public as the result of a court case, (Weisberg v. ERDA and the Department of Justice, Civil Action 75–226). Those results are in the Harold Weisberg archive.
The absence of residue on Oswald's face meant he had not fired a rifle that day.
The other reason is because it not only proves Oswald innocence, but add it to all the other things the FBI & Police stated & used to show guilt, it reveals just how far these men of law went to frame an innocent man, American citizen and United States Marine.
The third Paraffin test was done on 7 marksmen who fired similar rifles to that of the 6th floor one. And all 7 showed substantial traces of residue on both their hands and cheeks.
There's a strange trend among LN's, which is to ignore all the evidence in favor of Oswald's innocence, in favor of pegging Oswald as the killer. That makes no sense at all. Especially when there's more evidence in support of innocence than guilt. In fact, it's safe to say the majority of evidence for guilt shows signs of being planted /fabricated.
So let's look at evidence that exonerated Oswald and has been habitually ignored by so many people, including the Warren Commission, in favor of making Oswald.the assassin. And maybe we can figure out why so many people are willing to betray their own common sense to believe ridiculous nonsense and impossibilities.
To believe Oswald was the assassin is to believe he wanted to be caught, since he worked a lot harder to leave evidence everywhere than he did trying to escape. He may as well have left an admission written on his birth certificate along with everything else. But did the evidence really stack up against him?
1. Testing of the 6th floor rifle by Army marksmen and FBI experts.
The marksmen & experts who tested the rifle both came to the same conclusion, that the rifle was UNUSABLE. Here's what they had to say.
Warren Commission Hearings, vol 3, page 405.
The FBI specialist said... “Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.”
Warren Commission Hearings, vol 3, page 443.
“They [the US Army marksmen] could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation.”
Warren Commission Hearings, vol 3, page page 449.
Problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism: “There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.”
Warren Commission Hearings, vol 3, page 451.
“The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.”
That might not seem like important evidence to some, but if you were being accused of murder you didn't commit, would you want that evidence ignored? Especially since it shows the improbability of firing that gun 3 times in 8.31 seconds accurately. That's a big deal if you're the accused.
2. The Paraffin tests that proved Oswald's innocence.
Why would anyone ignore this evidence? Would you be comfortable with it if you were wrongly accused or framed for murder? Evidence showing you never fired a gun would be pretty important to your case, wouldn't it?
The first 2 Paraffin tests were Spectrographic analysis & Neutron Activation analysis. The first is a basic test considered reliable for all criminal investigations. The second test is even more reliable since it's capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities too small to be captured by spectrographic analysis. That test required the use of a nuclear reactor, thus was carried out for the FBI at a reactor owned by the Atomic Energy Commission. The results of that test were hidden until two decades after the assassination, and were only made public as the result of a court case, (Weisberg v. ERDA and the Department of Justice, Civil Action 75–226). Those results are in the Harold Weisberg archive.
Why would the FBI want to hide those results from the public? Does anyone think the FBI would have hidden them if it had proved his guilt?
Barium & Antimony are two substances authorities look for when testing for gunpowder residue. According to an FBI memo, “The results show Punctate traces of nitrate found in the paraffin on the right and left hands consistent with that of a person who handled or fired a firearm. The paraffin of right check [sic] showed no traces of nitrate.” File # 62-109060-8 FBI HQ JFK Assassination.
Ah, so it sounds like he was guilty. But what the FBI failed to mention was that barium and antimony are also found in several common substances such as printing ink used for books. And Oswald most certainly handled books on the morning of the assassination. So the presence of those substances on his hands wasn't sufficient evidence of having fired a gun, but their absence on his cheek was sufficient evidence of having not fired a gun.
The absence of residue on Oswald's face meant he had not fired a rifle that day. And that would be the most important piece of evidence you could hope for if you were wrongly accused of murder. To have the FBI ignore and hide it in favor of manufacturing guilt is most certainly a crime, as well as an obstruction of justice. And it's one of the only reasons the FBI wanted to hide that test.
The other reason is because it not only proves Oswald innocence, but add it to all the other things the FBI & Police stated & used to show guilt, it reveals just how far these men of law went to frame an innocent man, American citizen and United States Marine.
The third Paraffin test was done on 7 marksmen who fired similar rifles to that of the 6th floor one. And all 7 showed substantial traces of residue on both their hands and cheeks.
Those facts alone are enough to absolve anyone of a crime, including you. And for anyone to ignore them for any reason, let alone the sake of being right, is a travesty. Furthermore, it should have never been ignored by the WC or the ARRB, but is, even til this day. That speaks volumes.
3. Run in with officer Baker on 2nd floor
This one should be common sense. In officer Baker's own testimony to the Warren Commission, he ran into in Oswald roughly 1 minute 20 seconds after the shooting on the 2nd floor, also noting that Oswald wasn't out of breath.
The TSBD is a seven floor building w/ roof access from both inside and outside. The stairwell is located in the northwest corner with each floor containing 25 feet of stairs. (7 floors = 175 ft)
The alleged snipers nest is on the 6th floor at the southeast corner, approximately 100 feet from the stairwell, and also contained significant obstacles in between, such as stacks of books & boxes.
Now a person could descend 5 flights of stairs (125ft) in 50 to 60 seconds at a fast pace, but not without exhibiting significant signs of heavy breathing. Adrenaline is also a major factor in increasing breath & heart rate.
Having just shot a president from a visible position with crowds of onlookers would trigger a rush of adrenaline before running across 100 feet of obstacles to carefully hide a weapon and run down 5 flights of stairs at top speed. Vital signs would be significantly raised to a visible state (e.g. heart rate, breath, sweat).
The claim that Oswald was able to fire an unusable gun 3 times in 8.31 seconds accurately, run through 100 feet of obstacles, hide the rifle, descend 125 feet of an old world staircase without being seen by any other co-workers, run another 15 feet to the break room, then encounter officer Baker in less than 1 minute 30 seconds without exhibiting any signs of adrenaline, heavy breathing, or sweating, and without accumulating so much as a single spec of gunshot residue on his cheeks… it just isn’t feasible. Not by any means.
And for anyone to ignore their common sense in favor of believing that nonsense is not only an insult to their own intelligence but damage to their credibility. We're all adults, and fairy tales should be left to kids.
If anyone would like to see how ridiculous other claims were I'll leave this valuable information to use. Keep in mind this doesn’t account for any obstacles such as red lights, which usually take 60 to 90 seconds. Encountering a red light at any or every block could add 1 to 10 minutes of extra time. Crowds of people would significantly slow a person down as well.
Walking Distance & Times
½ block = 0.025 miles (132 ft / 0.04 km) 30 seconds
1 block = 0.05 miles (264 ft / 0.08 km) 1 minute
5 blocks = 0.25 miles (1320 ft / 0.4 km) 5 minutes
10 blocks = 0.50 miles (2,640 ft / 0.8 km) 10 minutes
20 blocks = 1.0 mile (5,280 ft / 1.6 km) 20 minutes
FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified:
"I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person’s right
cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that . . . the cartridge itself is
sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon
firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it
up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your
face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on
the right cheek of a shooter."
Jevons to Conrad FBI memo, 2/21/64:
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime. He inquired if any information could be furnished him relating to the actual casts from Oswald. He stated he read about those casts in the newspapers but has no way to confirm the stories. SA Gallagher advised he was not at liberty to discuss this matter. Dr. Guinn asked who in Dallas might be knowledgeable on this subject. He was advised that he could not be given any information relative to these casts at this time."
So your way of dealing with a reasoned sourced response in which a LNer paid you some attention and addressed some specifics (sorry, only had time for the paraffin-test section) is to paste some laundry lists that you hope will serve as deflection?In other words, when you respond to a post from someone you disagree with anyway ...you are going out of your way to 'be nice' but regard this someone as best spending their time by going out and feeding the pigeons or something?
Maybe you think your laundry lists are "clever" and "oh so witty", and you just wanted to share this as much as possible with a world eager for your effusive repartee. But somehow it strikes me as being the equivalent of sitting on a park bench ranting to passing squirrels.
In other words, when you respond to a post from someone you disagree with anyway ...you are going out of your way to 'be nice' but regard this someone as best spending their time by going out and feeding the pigeons or something?
The poster was just pointing out the obvious and to sum it up...no one [in all the annals of crime] has ever left so many dozens of clues [that even a blind man could follow]... that say "I did it, come get me" than Lee Harvey Oswald.
The more experts and science they threw at their case...the less I believed it.
That's just it...no one knows more than experts and scientists, that why they really work in a pinch huh?
Of course. You "know" more than the experts and science. You're like Trump and his assumption of superior wisdom.
Four of the seven members of the commission, Boggs, Cooper, McCloy, and Russell, had serious doubts regarding the conclusions of the commission that the President and Governor Connally were both wounded by the "magic bullet" and regarding the view that Oswald had acted alone.[30][31] In the years following the release of its report and 26 investigatory evidence volumes in 1964, the Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for some of its methods, important omissions, and conclusions.[32]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism
In 1992, following popular political pressure in the wake of the film JFK, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created by the JFK Records Act to collect and preserve the documents relating to the assassination. In a footnote in its final report, the ARRB wrote: "Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert F. Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings."[31]
That's just it...no one knows more than experts and scientists, that why they really work in a pinch huh?
Now.. "I am like Trump" you say. Is that a jab at my feelings or something? A) I am not a Republican...B) I am not a Trump supporter.
I wonder why--- You are so obsessed with Donald Trump. You are Canadian? Why then, give a crying crap about Trump.
Trudeau is just as bad if not worse.
What a strawman answer that was :DQuoteI wonder why--- You are so obsessed with Donald Trump. You are Canadian? Why then, give a crying crap about Trump.Why does America give a hoot about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, "caravans" from Central America? Trump is the leading edge of fascism. Biden didn't really stop him; he's still a threat. I can't speak for them all, but Canadians don't want fascism on the continent.
In other words, when you respond to a post from someone you disagree with anyway ...you are going out of your way to 'be nice' but regard this someone as best spending their time by going out and feeding the pigeons or something?
The poster was just pointing out the obvious and to sum it up...no one [in all the annals of crime] has ever left so many dozens of clues [that even a blind man could follow]... that say "I did it, come get me" than Lee Harvey Oswald. The more experts and science they threw at their case...the less I believed it.
And the movie attendant who sees him calls the cops. The same cops that just happen to be in the middle of searching for an assassin who just murdered the president of the united states. But when the cops hear about a movie sneaker they decide to stop searching for the assassin and go handle the movie sneaker instead. Why? Because a movie sneaker is far more important and dangerous than a presidential assassin and a cop killer. And so naturally the police race to the movie theater as fast they can.
Oswald was smart enough to know that if he assassinated the President of the United States in broad daylight in the presence of a crowd and many law enforcement members, that he was not going to escape arrest or death.
Having made it all the way back to the rooming house without a glitch, if Oswald was that smart he would have sat down with Earlene Roberts, and a glass of sweet milk, and watched the show on TV.
Running around Oak Cliff with a gun is pure lunacy, even by LN standards.
Some acronyms there I'm not familiar with...Visual Aid for Dummies...
| (https://www.abbreviations.com/images/45974_SOP.png) | (https://www.abbreviations.com/images/1761494_MAGA.png) |
Oswald was smart enough to know that if he assassinated the President of the United States in broad daylight in the presence of a crowd and many law enforcement members, that he was not going to escape arrest or death.
Having made it all the way back to the rooming house without a glitch, if Oswald was that smart he would have sat down with Earlene Roberts, and a glass of sweet milk, and watched the show on TV.
Running around Oak Cliff with a gun is pure lunacy, even by LN standards.
Oswald was probably as surprised as anyone that he got out of the TSBD. What exactly was he supposed to do after assassinating the President? A guy who didn't own a car and had almost no money. What was his play at that point? Sitting at his boarding house waiting for the FBI to say wait a second we know the guy who is missing from the TSBD defected to the USSR? What a coincidence. LOL. Oswald was making tracks in the time honored tradition of desperate criminals. He knew the FBI would be on his arse soon like blackface on Trudeau. He wasn't going to wait for the DPD to come knocking. He wasn't "running" around Oak Cliff. He panicked when he saw a police car and drew the attention of a hero police officer. After that he was toast.
Oswald was probably as surprised as anyone that he got out of the TSBD. What exactly was he supposed to do after assassinating the President? A guy who didn't own a car and had almost no money. What was his play at that point? Sitting at his boarding house waiting for the FBI to say wait a second we know the guy who is missing from the TSBD defected to the USSR? What a coincidence. LOL. Oswald was making tracks in the time honored tradition of desperate criminals. He knew the FBI would be on his arse soon like blackface on Trudeau. He wasn't going to wait for the DPD to come knocking. He wasn't "running" around Oak Cliff. He panicked when he saw a police car and drew the attention of a hero police officer. After that he was toast.
Oswald was probably as surprised as anyone that he got out of the TSBD.
Time to kick his feet up and celebrate, all that sweet milk in the fridge, yummy!
What was his play at that point? Sitting at his boarding house waiting for the FBI to say wait a second we know the guy who is missing from the TSBD defected to the USSR?
Nobody knew his Beckley address. Otherwise cite.
What a coincidence. LOL.
Um...?
Oswald was making tracks in the time honored tradition of desperate criminals.
No desperation whatsoever detected by Truly and Baker, you made that up.
He knew the FBI would be on his arse soon like blackface on Trudeau.
Why?
He wasn't going to wait for the DPD to come knocking.
Why not? Fritz sent his boys to Irving to pick him up -- ROFL
He wasn't "running" around Oak Cliff.
Then specify destination.
He panicked when he saw a police car and drew the attention of a hero police officer.
He wasn't there, sorry.
After that he was toast.
Sure as Sunday, but your canned LN BS still makes no sense.
Are you really suggesting that if Oswald assassinated the President of the United States that his best move to escape detection was to sit at the Beckley boardinghouse because no one knew the address! HA HA HA. Then what? Let's see. The FBI was already keeping track of him even before the assassination. They were already aware of his defection to the USSR and that he was a political nut. They would shortly come to realize that he worked in the TSBD and was missing. Someone would find his rifle at the crime scene. For all Oswald knew, there were witnesses on the street who saw him fire the shots and the police were already searching for him (per his panic when he saw Tippit's car). A cop had already pulled a gun on him. His wife had the phone number. It wouldn't take the FBI and DPD very long to find him. There were no good options but what you have suggested is idiotic and hilarious. Keep them coming. How about this? If Oswald didn't assassinate JFK, then he would have done what other TSBD employees did. Hang around until he was sent home. But your hero was making tracks.
Are you really suggesting that if Oswald assassinated the President of the United States that his best move to escape detection was to sit at the Beckley boardinghouse because no one knew the address!
You entirely missed the point, again: He wasn't detected, even Truly vouched for him -- DOH
HA HA HA.
The joke is on you in case you haven't noticed.
Then what? Let's see. The FBI was already keeping track of him even before the assassination. They were already aware of his defection to the USSR and that he was a political nut.
So what?
They would shortly come to realize that he worked in the TSBD and was missing.
Wrong, Hosty already knew where he worked. Missing, so what?
For all Oswald knew, there were witnesses on the street who saw him fire the shots and the police were already searching for him (per his panic when he saw Tippit's car).
Not if he was on the couch with Earlene.
A cop had already pulled a gun on him.
Who?
His wife had the phone number.
So what?
It wouldn't take the FBI and DPD very long to find him.
So what?
There were no good options but what you have suggested is idiotic and hilarious.
Explain how running around Oak Cliff (allegedly) with a gun would improve his odds.
Keep them coming.
You bet, every time your confused rants show up.
How about this? If Oswald didn't assassinate JFK, then he would have done what other TSBD employees did. Hang around until he was sent home.
How about it? Oswald didn't do what everyone else did anyway. How many TSBD employees had defected and brought back a Russian wife?
But your hero was making tracks.
Wrong again, he's not my hero.
Oswald was probably as surprised as anyone that he got out of the TSBD.
Time to kick his feet up and celebrate, all that sweet milk in the fridge, yummy!
What was his play at that point? Sitting at his boarding house waiting for the FBI to say wait a second we know the guy who is missing from the TSBD defected to the USSR?
Nobody knew his Beckley address. Otherwise cite.
What a coincidence. LOL.
Um...?
Oswald was making tracks in the time honored tradition of desperate criminals.
No desperation whatsoever detected by Truly and Baker, you made that up.
He knew the FBI would be on his arse soon like blackface on Trudeau.
Why?
He wasn't going to wait for the DPD to come knocking.
Why not? Fritz sent his boys to Irving to pick him up -- ROFL
He wasn't "running" around Oak Cliff.
Then specify destination.
He panicked when he saw a police car and drew the attention of a hero police officer.
He wasn't there, sorry.
After that he was toast.
Sure as Sunday, but your canned LN BS still makes no sense.
Are you really suggesting that if Oswald assassinated the President of the United States that his best move to escape detection was to sit at the Beckley boardinghouse because no one knew the address! HA HA HA. Then what? Let's see. The FBI was already keeping track of him even before the assassination. They were already aware of his defection to the USSR and that he was a political nut. They would shortly come to realize that he worked in the TSBD and was missing. Someone would find his rifle at the crime scene. For all Oswald knew, there were witnesses on the street who saw him fire the shots and the police were already searching for him (per his panic when he saw Tippit's car). A cop had already pulled a gun on him. His wife had the phone number. It wouldn't take the FBI and DPD very long to find him. There were no good options but what you have suggested is idiotic and hilarious. Keep them coming. How about this? If Oswald didn't assassinate JFK, then he would have done what other TSBD employees did. Hang around until he was sent home. But your hero was making tracks.
He wouldn’t have necessarily known that for certain
He would have been quite certain since he couldn't remember the address himself.
He said he was going to the movies
Via 10th & Patton?
Seems staying at least outwardly calm worked
Indeed, would have boosted his inward calmness.
Um…?
Did notice how quickly you abandoned Guinyard and the 6th grade thing.
Actually expected to see the race card played next to dismiss him.
Desperate times calls for desperate measures.
Actually expected to see the race card played next to dismiss him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsSBc4DF/TROLLFACE.png)
Chappie Ol Chum,..... Don't you ever get tired of portraying yourself as an utter moron?
Don't you ever get tired of portraying yourself as an utter moron?
Says the utter moron.
Witty comeback there!
(https://media.tenor.com/images/22dd74772eb8a2eb0dac0df0fd071655/tenor.gif)
"Witty comeback there!"
Did you expect more from the utter moron, Jerry?
No doubt about it. With your combined wit, Freeman and you will be heading for the Borscht Belt. :D
Psssst!..... I'm not here to be witty...... I'd like to prod readers to THINK. The coup de e'tat in Dallas isn't a great mystery. The truth is crystal clear..... But alas...many refuse to SEE.
Hey, 'thinker'.. if you're going to claim a coup d'état, at least spell it correctly.
No coup needed. No plan needed other than to recoup the Carcano from Paine's garage, haul it in to work Friday morning, poke it out the window Friday afternoon, land a couple of rounds on Kennedy.
Easy as pie.
Simple solution..... Simpletons revel in simple solutions.
Gun in blanket: no supporting evidence.
Gun in bag: no supporting evidence.
Wanna try again?
Gun in blanket: no supporting evidence.
Gun in bag: no supporting evidence.
Wanna try again?
"Gun in blanket: no supporting evidence."
The FBI Lab found not a single fiber from the blanket on the carcano..... How's that possible if the rifle had been wrapped in that blanket in New Orleans and transported from N O to Dallas and stored in Mike Paine's garage for two montha. ??? C'mon Lil Chappie answer the question.....
"Gun in bag: no supporting evidence."
The FBI lab reported that they found a SINGLE (ONE) blanket fiber on the paper bag, and there was not a trace of gun oil or any other indication that the carcano had ever been ib that paper sack that was too small to contain the rifle. How do you explain that , lil Chappie?
"Gun in blanket: no supporting evidence."
The FBI Lab found not a single fiber from the blanket on the carcano..... How's that possible if the rifle had been wrapped in that blanket in New Orleans and transported from N O to Dallas and stored in Mike Paine's garage for two montha. ??? C'mon Lil Chappie answer the question.....
"Gun in bag: no supporting evidence."
The FBI lab reported that they found a SINGLE (ONE) blanket fiber on the paper bag,
and there was not a trace of gun oil or any other indication that the carcano had ever been ib that paper sack that was too small to contain the rifle. How do you explain that , lil Chappie?
Li'l Lee lovingly wrapped the gun so nothing would snag.
If plenty of fibers were found, you would say they were planted.
What makes you think there would be fresh oil on a stored rifle? Is there some law?
What about the weird indents on the paper bag? The shapes near the midpoint of the bag where the trigger-guard and bolt would have been.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/metapth184769_xl_1989_100_0023.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/35/35/3535fd35-2fb0-4cd6-b710-afc60adcf422/be025673.jpg)
These delusions do not affect the evidence.
What is your problem?
"Gun in blanket: no supporting evidence."
The FBI Lab found not a single fiber from the blanket on the carcano..... How's that possible if the rifle had been wrapped in that blanket in New Orleans and transported from N O to Dallas and stored in Mike Paine's garage for two montha. ??? C'mon Lil Chappie answer the question.....
"Gun in bag: no supporting evidence."
The FBI lab reported that they found a SINGLE (ONE) blanket fiber on the paper bag, and there was not a trace of gun oil or any other indication that the carcano had ever been ib that paper sack that was too small to contain the rifle. How do you explain that , lil Chappie?
"If plenty of fibers were found, you would say they were planted."
B.S.!!! I'm not an Lner..... I accept the facts and the physical evidence..... Unlike a gutless LNer who's mantra is denial.....
This would be the same FBI who have been accused of (or were in cohorts with) doctoring the backyard photos, planting the pristine CE399 bullet on the stretcher, confiscating and "losing" cameras and photos of the assassination, murdering witnesses, etc, etc, and basically doing all they can to cover up any conspiracy theories connected to the assassination?
It's funny how they were capable of doing all of the above but weren't capable of planting a few blanket fibres on a rifle.
What is even funnier is how you probably dismiss the FBI's conclusion on all of the aforementioned and the fact that they concluded that Oswald acted alone after undertaking more than 25000 interviews and tens of thousands of investigative leads, and yet you are so quick to take their word as gospel and use it as 100% reliable evidence on this matter when it suits your narrative of events.
Um.. Cakebread is a CTer..
I know, that was my point.
I was highlighting the fact that CTers often accuse the FBI of wrong doing or planting evidence when it goes against their bs theory but as soon as a finding by the FBI fits their argument (in this case no evidence linking the Carcano to the blanket) they present it is bona fide gospel
Let's not bicker.... Let's simply face the FACTS.... The FBI Lab reported that there were NO blanket fibers on the carcano.
Can you explain how that could be possible if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket for two months ???
It could quite easily have been wrapped in something else before it was wrapped and hidden in the blanket in question.
I quite often double wrap things if I'm putting them away in storage, so its not exactly an absurd notion especially if it's an item that he probably didn't want discovered. In fact the more I think about it the more logical it would have been to have actually wrapped it in multiple layers.
More to the point, how would you explain the single blanket fibre the FBI found on the paper bag? It might be just a mere single fibre but do you not find it a bit strange that a fibre from a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage found turned up at the TSBD?
Mr Baxter, You really need to study the case.....There are photos that show the blanket and the bag touching while lying on a table in the DPD on the evening of 11/22/63.....BEFORE the FBI examined the evidence.
[how would you explain the single blanket fibre the FBI found on the paper bag? It might be just a mere single fibre but do you not find it a bit strange that a fibre from a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage found turned up at the TSBD?/quote]
It could quite easily have been wrapped in something else before it was wrapped and hidden in the blanket in question.
I quite often double wrap things if I'm putting them away in storage, so its not exactly an absurd notion especially if it's an item that he probably didn't want discovered. In fact the more I think about it the more logical it would have been to have actually wrapped it in multiple layers.
More to the point, how would you explain the single blanket fibre the FBI found on the paper bag? It might be just a mere single fibre but do you not find it a bit strange that a fibre from a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage found turned up at the TSBD?
Could have, would have -- LOL
Michael Paine reported no crinkling.
Your idea is as dead now as it was 50 years ago.
Most likely cross-contamination as already suggested.
So you're saying there is conclusive evidence that Oswald did NOT double wrap the rifle in anything other than that blanket in question?
Or are you just dismissing that because you choose to?
EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? (To quote your favourite response to practically every post on this forum).
Its funny how you insist that nothing anyone else says is fact unless there's hard evidence to prove it yet you're happy to conclude and dismiss anyone else's theory about the single fibre on the basis that it was "Most likely cross-contamination" of which you have no proof of.
Your ridiculous notion of demanding proof for everything works both ways so unless you can prove the fibre wasn't picked up from Ruth Paine's garage then it still raises considerable doubts
The amount of nonsense you're telling never stops.
Rather arrogant to insist that all 12 jurors would adopt your delusional view of the evidence.
BTW, face-palms would likely be seen once you're witnesses were cross-examined.
Let's not bicker.... Let's simply face the FACTS.... The FBI Lab reported that there were NO blanket fibers on the carcano.
Can you explain how that could be possible if that rifle had been wrapped in that blanket for two months ???
Say "please" -- LOL
Why would I "bugger off" when I'm having so much fun exposing your lies?
Judging from your increasingly unhinged rants I'm on the right track.
Here's one, highlighted:
Here's one:
Easy.
Stombaugh can and did:
"The blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off " Paul Stombaugh
"One would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis." Paul Stombaugh
Any hints in there for ya, thinker?
Stombaugh did not explain what Walt asked you to explain.
You lied misrepresenting evidence.
A rant is a rant whether it's needed or not.
Lil Chappie, I'm not surprised that you accept and believe this obvious BS....... Simpleton's will believe the most outrageous BS.....
Stombaugh can and did:Bill: Re the absence of fibers on the rifle. This is from "Marina and Lee". After being informed by Ruth about the news on the TV reporting that JFK had been shot, Marina:
"The blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off " Paul Stombaugh
"One would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis." Paul Stombaugh
Any hints in there for ya, thinker?
No, I'm saying there is no evidence of Oswald double wrapping anything.
It's called burdon of proof.
Your claim, you back it up with evidence or STFU.
No, I dismissed that since you provided no supporting evidence
The FBI concluded as they did and you refuse to accept.
I offered you a plausible explanation for your fibers and you start whining.
Burden of prof is on you, I'm not obliged to prove anything to counter your unsupported claim.
I'm surprised you still don't get it.
Bill: Re the absence of fibers on the rifle. This is from "Marina and Lee". After being informed by Ruth about the news on the TV reporting that JFK had been shot, Marina:
"Crept into the garage, to the place where Lee kept his rifle wrapped in paper inside the heavy blanket, a green and brown wool blanket of East German make that he had bought in Russia...."
"Wrapped in paper inside the heavy blanket." From this account the rifle was wrapped in paper and then placed inside the blanket. So that would prevent/stop fibers from the blanket being attached/clinging to the rifle.
On the other hand, Marina testified that she looked inside the blanket one time and saw the wood stock of the rifle. So if it was wrapped in paper why would she be able to see the stock?
Except it wasn't exactly my "claim". Cakebread asked for an explanation as to how the rifle had no fibres from the blanket and I merely put forward a possible explanation. I wasn't saying it was FACT and that that was exactly what happened. It was a logical explanation that could have been the reason why though.
But because there is no hard evidence this happened (and more importantly because it doesn't fit in with your version of the events) you immediately disregard it and insist it's wrong.
Marina said the rifle was in the garage and that it was wrapped in the blanket but as far as I know she never stated it was wrapped in that blanket and that blanket alone. So how are you so certain that it wasn't double wrapped if there's no evidence to suggest otherwise?
So now you want us to take the FBI's conclusions as the final word?
The FBI also concluded that Oswald acted alone and yet you refuse to accept that.
Make up your mind.
"Whining"? Hahaha!
I don't recall any whining. This reminds me of your claim that Bill Chapman was having a rant when he clearly wasn't.
If you want to act all high and mighty and holier than thou you should maybe learn the definition of some of the words you're using before throwing accusations about.
But then of course its totally OK for you to make statements that aren't backed up by EVIDENCE or FACTS like your claim on this thread that Oswald was certain nobody else knew his address. Where's your evidence to back this statement up? No evidence clearly means your proclamation is wrong (or at least according to you it does).
I totally get it. I'm well aware there are so many unanswered questions to this case that currently has no evidence whatsoever to lead to a definite conclusion, and probably never will have. Thats the whole point of this forum; to discuss things like that.
You're happy to make unsupported statements in order to score a point in a petty argument (as we've just seen). You're happy to conveniently ignore a statement that may be unsupported by evidence when it fits your argument but as soon as someone suggests something otherwise you pipe up with the tiresome "EVIDENCE or didn't happen" demand.
I wouldn't mind if you even did it with wit or was an obvious troll just looking for a reaction on here but on the whole your posts are just so boring.
Because nobody has produced any evidence of Oswald taking a spombleprofglidnoctobuns during the last week of his life you'd argue that anyone who suggested that he must of done is obviously wrong.
2) Stombaugh showed how that 'could be possible'.
You're trying too hard.
He 'showed' nothing in relation to the transfer of fibers.
Well, once again you fail miserably -- ROFL
Dumping his best friend on the garage floor -- ROFL
Your prediction was false.
We have it on record.
Your knickers in a bunch.
Any chance the paper was dishevelled or torn slightly, enough to see the wood?Yes, that makes sense. The wood stock/end of the rifle would stick out from the paper or not be completely covered by it. And it's why he made a new bag to completely cover it when he took it to work. The paper he was using exposed part of the rifle.
It makes sense to wrap the rifle with paper first; then wrap the threadbare blanket around it in a kind of Marine-indoctrination 'this is my rifle this is my gun' best-friend thing.
Full Metal Jacket
Wonderful to watch your desperation progress: he did, showed, self-explanatory.
Now you're stuck with the fibers in the bag.
Carry on.
Ever heard of Occam's razor
This is how it works: The rifle was never in that blanket.
Your prediction and my reply are both on record for everyone to check.
Result: Chapman FAILS.
As for your arse-kisser obsession: I would advise everyone around you to watch their back.
Never heard of it, why would anyone even care?
Yes, that makes sense. The wood stock/end of the rifle would stick out from the paper or not be completely covered by it. And it's why he made a new bag to completely cover it when he took it to work. The paper he was using exposed part of the rifle.
It also makes sense that he would wrap it in paper to protect any oil from leaking onto the blanket and floor and also prevent fibers from the blanket potentially clogging up firing mechanism/getting stuck.
In any case, the paper explanation certainly could explain the lack of fibers on it.
What made me laugh SO hard was that you started out "It makes sense".
Everybody who has read your posts (any of them) knows what's coming!
No disappoint this time either: Oswald's best, and (now) only friend is left on the garage floor to get kicked around....(cough)
Doesn't this count as a rant?
Why would anyone care whether it was or wasn't?
Why would anyone care whether it was or wasn't?
Stop dodging the fact that you don't know a spoof
Coming from you, why would anyone care?
or are being mocked, for that matter
Coming from you, why would anyone care?
Watch me post a spoof from The Onion for instance, and see your fellow fringers take it seriously.
If only you knew your onions.
Chapman on the run, sweet.
"The blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off " Paul Stombaugh
Now,
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine whether any debris was present?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. I scraped the blanket and removed all the foreign textile fibers and hairs and placed them into a pillbox.
and
Mr. EISENBERG. And what type of debris did you find, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, as well as a number of limb and pubic hairs.
Which shows there was plenty of stuff on the blanket even though it was worn.
"One would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis." Paul Stombaugh
This quote is entirely related to the true distribution of blanket fibers.
Did you really think you could get away with misrepresenting evidence to support your fantasy?
LN congregation bankruptcy for everyone to enjoy!
I'm not part of that group, thus no fear, you fail again.
Stombaugh's testimony is evidence.
You kooked up a false the claim that Stombaugh explained why no fibers were stuck to the rifle by quoting him although the quotes in no way support your claim.
That's misrepresenting evidence.
"You lot", try to keep up.
The fear is all in your head.
You failed again.
So, I'm destroying you faster than you can edit....
1) Oswald was seen shooting Tippit
Allegedly, but witness stories do not stack up.
2) Oswald #owns#Ulot
#Ufail (again)
Oswald buys some guns out of a magazine from another state, even though there was a huge sporting goods store and a bunch of pawn shops right down the street from his work. Why? For evidence that leads back to him of course.
What's so odd about making a mail order purchase? People have done it for decades. Now they buy items online even when they have stores in their town.
The quoted part is unrelated to what you're saying so who's confused?
Quote him saying that.
Speculation.
The only thing frying around here is your brain.
Gyinyard, just to mention one.
It's all in the record.
Learn the case.
"you lot".
On record.
You're busted once again.
"Known Movements"
"Assumed Movements"
ROFL
Guinyard & Callaway, right there on the map.
East sidewalk.
You have the measurements?
Testimonies?
No, I'm saying there is no evidence of Oswald double wrapping anything.
It's called burdon of proof.
Your claim, you back it up with evidence or STFU.
No, I dismissed that since you provided no supporting evidence
See above, it's call "burden of evidence".
Wouldn't you insist on hard evidence being presented if you were accused of murder?
...if not backed up with evidence.
The FBI concluded as they did and you refuse to accept.
I offered you a plausible explanation for your fibers and you start whining.
Maybe you should question why Montgomery has rammed his arm up the bag if it's evidence.
Raising doubts with you, so what?
Burden of prof is on you, I'm not obliged to prove anything to counter your unsupported claim.
I'm surprised you still don't get it.
'It's called burdon of proof'
LOL. Eric Burdon has something to prove?
Learn to spell. And edit.
Yes, Burdon didn't want to be "misunderstood". :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/d0/b8/83/d0b883e4384e005a6c2f2d5e3b4cfc29.jpg)
So, you have proved you can spell.
But haven't got a clue what it means.
Genius?
Two years wasted.
Makes sense, so where does this leave our genius?
Another tantrum coming?
Oswald coming down east sidewalk, no way.
Too difficult to measure?
I did notice your posts got a good cleaning....
While we're waiting, how does "grade 8" rate on your scale?
Who heard Callaway 'holler'?
BTW, why did you dodge my question about your grade system?
Happened once before.
Oswald coming down east sidewalk, no way.
Too difficult to measure?
I did notice your posts got a good cleaning....
While we're waiting, how does "grade 8" rate on your scale?
Name guy.
3rd dodge.
Pattern?
No amount of poetry will get you out of this mess.
Witnesses were evidently not a problem for the shooter (ask Markham).
Another fail.
BS.
Guinyard also testified under oath and had no (apparent) reason to lie.
Your continued streak of failures - - LOL
Cite.
Why would a genius not own up to his own class grade theory?
So, it doesn't cover grade 8 yet?
From Britannica:
Henry Ford, (born July 30, 1863, Wayne county, Michigan, U.S.—died April 7, 1947, Dearborn, Michigan), American industrialist who revolutionized factory production with his assembly-line methods.
Ford attended a one-room school for eight years when he was not helping his father with the harvest.
Why would I waste time flipping cars when I can OWN my own car factory?
Another epic Chapman FAIL, sweet.
No amount of poetry will get you out of this mess.
Witnesses were evidently not a problem for the shooter (ask Markham).
Another fail.
BS.
Guinyard also testified under oath and had no (apparent) reason to lie.
Your continued streak of failures - - LOL
Cite.
Why would a genius not own up to his own class grade theory?
So, it doesn't cover grade 8 yet?
BS.
No amount of poetry will get you out of this mess.
Witnesses were evidently not a problem for the shooter (ask Markham).
Another fail.
BS.
Guinyard also testified under oath and had no (apparent) reason to lie.
Your continued streak of failures - - LOL
Cite.
Why would a genius not own up to his own class grade theory?
So, it doesn't cover grade 8 yet?
Wow, same bad attitude, same subject interests it's like Weidmann never left. LMFAOYFD!
JohnM
Chapman has a file on me....AWESOME.
Now that I've busted his attempt to spin his school grade thing as being about job opportunities, we're back to what it's about: Cherry picking witnesses.
Let's watch our self-proclaimed genius explain why trashing a witness based on school grade is different from trashing a witness based on color.
Thank you for your feedback, because it is appreciated. And after all, this is a place to discuss these things. And I respect your opinions. But the fact you only focused on the Paraffin aspect seems a little odd to me.
What about everything else that poses a problem for a guilty verdict? Surely it's important and well worth discussing. Did you intentionally ignore it because of the problems it poses, or were you just not interested in reading about those things? I certainly wouldn't blame you for wanting to stay away from discussing those types of things if you're one of the people willing to ignore his own common sense in favor of believing a habitual lying government... Just saying.
we're back to what it's about: Cherry picking witnesses.
Get over yourself: where did I indicate I had a file on you in particular? On the contrary, I don't have even one folder with your name on it.
That seriously hurt, but I'll get over it in a couple of days.
Bottom line is that I outed you on your "race card" denial.
No doubt you're far out somewhere with your race obsession.
Period.
I'm not too concerned, likely a handful of edits in the pipeline, I'll check back.
Your argument is moot, but comes as no surprise.
If witnesses were a problem the ones watching the actual shooting could have been eliminated but they weren't.
Neither was Guinyard passed at 10 feet, you FAIL again.
Get over yourself: where did I indicate I had a file on you in particular? On the contrary, I don't have even one folder with your name on it.
That seriously hurt, but I'll get over it in a couple of days.
Bottom line is that I outed you on your "race card" denial.
No doubt you're far out somewhere with your race obsession.
Period.
I'm not too concerned, likely a handful of edits in the pipeline, I'll check back.
Since I've checked back, let's see what Chapman will come up with 'on the fly' to get rid of this statement from Guinyard:
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. Helped put him in the ambulance.
Mr. BALL. You stayed there until the ambulance came?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were you there when the truck came up that was driven by Benavides?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He came up right after this?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he came up from the east side---going west.
Another half-cocked argument from Chapman, no surprises as this was the original claim:
On your face, again, LOL.
He even deliberately dropped (allegedly) evidence (shells) to be traced to his gun, ROFL.
He testified to 10 feet under oath, no different from Callaway.
Based on nothing but school merits to get rid of Guinyard.
Trust me, nobody gives a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about your little trophy file.
I edit on the fly. Period.
How is that even supposed to make any sense, LOL.
You post your nonsense and THEN try to fix it, otherwise the edits weren't time stamped.
Not my bad if you lot just can't seem to wait for my attention.
Who told you that?
I had no idea that Guinyard was a man of color until you brought it up via your 'race card' slur.
That could have some truth to it considering how bad you are with the evidence.
Or, you simply made that up 'on the fly'.
Thanks for the heads up.
You're welcome, the information has only been out there for 50+ years.
or something,
I detect confusion, what's new?
but you fail to acknowledge all the other eyewitnesses who identified Oswald or an armed gunman moving in the same direction.
I failed to see indication of east/west sidewalk.
I detect confusion, what's new?
I failed to see indication of east/west sidewalk.
You mean like Whaley ID'd Oswald by picking the wrong guy?
OK, so let's consolidate the latest stupidity cranked out by Chapman.
'Based on nothing but school merits to get rid of Guinyard'.
> LOL! Guinyard ID'd Oswald, fool. No way would I 'get rid' of him
You mean like Whaley ID'd Oswald by picking the wrong guy?
Mr. BALL. Do you remember where he was standing in the lineup--what number he was?
Mr. GUINYARD. I don't know what his number was, but I can tell you where he was Standing at.
Mr. BALL. Where was he standing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He was standing--the second man from the east side, and that lineup was this way [indicating] and he was the second man from that there end.
'He testified to 10 feet under oath, no different from Callaway'
> Except that Callaway said 55 feet
So which was it?
'He even deliberately dropped (allegedly) evidence (shells) to be traced to his gun, ROFL'
> The Davis sisters also testified under oath, Rolfie.
But one of them lied.
Anyway, assuming shells were dropped makes your claim that Oswald was concerned with witnesses even more ridiculous.
How is that even supposed to make any sense, LOL
> Your grade8 is showing
So Chapman's school grade theory is "progressing" but still some blanks to fill in:
Grade6 ~ no good
Grade8 ~ no good
2 Years college ~ fine.
You post your nonsense and THEN try to fix it, otherwise the edits weren't time stamped
> I post YOUR nonsense and fix it, like your 'race card' denial.
Um, don't recall a denial but we can check your race obsession box by now.
That could have some truth to it considering how bad you are with the evidence.
> You lot keep claiming there's no evidence. Now there is? What took you so long?
Double your dose and try again.
Or, you simply made that up 'on the fly'.
> Keep guessing
A qualified guess considering how you make things up 'on the fly'.
'You're welcome, the information has only been out there for 50+ years.'
> I had no idea that Guinyard's skin color was that important to the assassination
Callaway was his boss, worth considering, especially given your race obsession.
(bandwidth conservation -- ROFL)
(professional writer thing -- ROFL)
You got that right, the CT's view on what happened on the 22nd is the epitome of "confusion".
This is getting very tedious, what this tells me is that;
It's another example where evidence wasn't altered by the FBI/WC.
That Callaway and Guinyard didn't fraudulently collaborate on their observations.
That 5 months later Guinyard was a little confused about what side of the road, big deal!
That the totality of the eyewitnesses all essentially agree with each other.
JohnM
the CT's view on what happened on the 22nd is the epitome of "confusion".
Pssst This will surely be a surprise to you.....But Ct's are NOT like LNer's.... CT's do not al sing in harmony....( in fact very few CT's sing from the same song book)...Unlike the simple minded LNer's who all sing the praises from their hymnal ( The Warren Report)
So since the Ct's are not of one accord..... If you had a functioning brain you'd realize why they seem confused to you.....
But Ct's are NOT like LNer's....
CT's do not al sing in harmony....
Unlike the simple minded LNer's
No kidding, Sherlock.
Why not, it only happened one way.
Hang on, if you claim that CT's have a multitude of theories, shouldn't the "Oswald theory" which is actually based on the same evidence, simply be another theory that should be accepted?
JohnM
CT's do not al sing in harmony....
Why not, it only happened one way.
Why Not??? CT's do not sing in harmony...... But they all recognize that the official US govt approved version is pure BS..... LNer's aren't smart enough to use their tiny little brains and see that the WR is a pile of lies.....
CT's do not sing in harmony...... But they all recognize that the official US govt approved version is pure BS.....
That was quick, so what was the grade6 BS all about?
And then you kept stating he picked the #2 guy, need quotes?
Wow, that needed A LOT of explaining considering your academic superiority!
Nothing like Chapman getting inside Oswalds head: Knowing he WILL be captured, drops shells to make sure he WILL be tied to the gun, awesome!
"Oswald's" cross-over was prior to any hollering, DOH.
Keep the fails coming, genius.
RE academic capability, see above.
Still choking on that bait, sweet!
More like struggling to keep up.
I'm not aware of professional writers who continuously publish drafts.
Interesting, so in other words what's motivating Ct's has never been about the evidence but instead is some deeply ingrained paranoia of the Government. Got it!
JohnM
This is getting very tedious, what this tells me is that;
Certainly must be tedious having your bluff called again and again.
It's another example where evidence wasn't altered by the FBI/WC.
OK, I can guess what's coming...
That Callaway and Guinyard didn't fraudulently collaborate on their observations.
Or, some collaboration was clearly lacking...
That 5 months later Guinyard was a little confused about what side of the road, big deal!
There was no sign of confusion in his testimony, you made that up as usual. No person in their right mind, even grade 6, would misjudge a person parsing them by 45 feet. That's LN Lunacy right there in print.
That the totality of the eyewitnesses all essentially agree with each other.
So, if evidence NOT lining up is proof of evidence not being altered by FBI/WC then the totality of evidence essentially agreeing must mean that the evidence essentially is altered.
That's LN stupidity right there, folks!
So, if evidence NOT lining up is proof of evidence not being altered by FBI/WC then the totality of evidence essentially agreeing must mean that the evidence essentially is altered.
No, since I know the case, but you're in need of a reminder, evidently:
Diploma-boy, clueless when it comes to the evidence, priceless.
Anyway, whoever Whaley picked doesn't really matter because his trip sheet totally sinks the WC cabbie fantasy.
You really should have paid attention to Mytton being DESTROYED on this very topic.
So why pick Grade8 on the fly?
You didn't, following the Nutter template: Oswald was smart enough to do "X", then he did "Y" because he was a nut.
Worth considering if that "diploma" is fake...
Wow, talk about bottom line, diploma-boy on his face again: When he was hollered at, he had no other option than simply continue. Again, since Oswald cross the street even before Callaway had a reason to holler (btw, unsupported claim) your argument has totally collapsed.
That's for reminding me, why Grade8?
See above.
Trolling not required to lay out bait. Exposing Lone Nutter morons is a valid purpose.
Your record of failures shows differently.
Obviously where you should have stayed also.
We've obviously entered the 'broken record' stage of deflection:
Whaley ID'd Oswald.....crack.....Whaley ID'd Oswald.....crack.....Whaley ID'd Oswald.....crack.....Whaley ID'd Oswald.....crack.....
If true, let's pause for a second and explore why someone holding a diploma would post this if Oswald was the #3 guy:
Anyone?
OK, on to side B of Chapman's Loony Tunes hit single:
Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....
Time to definitively sink the Whaley cab ride. This FBI report shows that the 12:45 time in Whaley's trip sheet was set by watch. Allowing for a slow watch, Oswald enters the cab 12:37 at the earliest. That's before he has even reached the bus, the WC sunk by their own evidence.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=356
OK, on to side B of Chapman's Loony Tunes hit single:
Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....
Time to definitively sink the Whaley cab ride. This FBI report shows that the 12:45 time in Whaley's trip sheet was set by watch. Allowing for a slow watch, Oswald enters the cab 12:37 at the earliest. That's before he has even reached the bus, the WC sunk by their own evidence.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=356
There's no opinion involved.
It's logic, the WC timeline is bust.
Time to return your diploma.
Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot.....crackle, crackle.....Whaley said Lee Harvey Oswald was the guy he hauled from the bus depot....crackle.....
And furthermore Mr Whaley swore that his passenger was wearing BLUE workman's type clothing.....Which included a BLUE jacket that matched the BLUE trousers the man was wearing. (It is a FACT that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing any BLUE workman's type clothing, because he didn't even own any clothing of that kind....and none was found in his boarding house room. And Mr Whaley testified that the man who was wearing the BLUE clothing gave him a dollar bill when he left his cab..... Lee Oswald told the interrogators hat he paid 85 cents to the driver of the taxi.....
If he had paid a dollar he would surely have told them that he had paid a dollar......And what's more 85 cents is the correct fare from the bus depot, to the intersection of Beckley at Zangs..... Whereas the fare from the bus depot to Neely at Beckley was 95 cents. Lee Oswald was NOT Whaley's passenger.