If there is one constant in this labyrinthine mess it is the almost universal description of Oswald as a quiet loner who didn't talk and when he did it was a barely audible mumble.
But now we're supposed to believe that, because it was a sunny day and the President was passing by, Oswald was out on the steps with the rest gang chatting away with his good buddy William Shelley:
I get the impression Oswald was utterly contemptuous of his work colleagues who he believed were all beneath him.
We are? Who suggested that Oswald was "chatting away with his good buddy William Shelley"?
I've noticed you are really pedantic about little details and I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of sarcasm.
If you were to approach a work colleague and said "Good Morning" in a friendly way and that person, even though they heard you, didn't react in any way. They just blanked your existence. What word do you use for that? I use 'contempt'.
You believe the testimonies of all those work colleagues are describing a shy person? If a person is shy you use the word 'shy' to describe them. Show me one example, from the copious amount of testimony about Oswald, where one of his colleagues uses the word 'shy'.
Apart from Frazier, who doesn't use the word 'shy', which of those people in your list are his colleagues, as I specifically stated - "Show me one example ... where one of his colleagues uses the word 'shy'."
Everything about my original post was about how his work colleagues described him, how antisocial almost everyone found him to be (not that anyone used the word 'antisocial', that is my own interpretation of how he is being described).
The point I was clearly making is that Oswald was highly unlikely to be out front with his colleagues as he clearly did not enjoy their company (to put it mildly).
The context concerned Oswald and his relationship with his colleagues in general. Once again you appear to have heard what you want to hear, twisted it around to suit your own purposes and 'scored a point' in an argument you have invented.
Is it only me you do this to because it is starting to get bothersome? I don't mind being critiqued, challenged and shown where I'm going wrong but there's something unsettling about your attention.
As for your use of the word 'shy' in relation to Oswald, I find that contemptuous.
By the way, which of the many witnesses on the TSBD steps places Oswald there?
"Yeah, he worked with us and he didn't associate with us too much. He was kind of quiet. He didn't like to talk too much to us or anything...
We all eat lunch together in this little domino room. We play dominoes and eat our lunch. He might walk in and lay around with us and he would walk out. He didn't stay in there too long. I guess he didn't like crowds." Danny Arce
"...he was awful quiet." Mrs D. Baker
"Well, I'll be frank with you, Mr. Ball, I don't believe nobody knew him too well.
You might say he wouldn't have too much to say to anybody. He just stayed all to hisself..." Jack Dougherty
"Well, he was a fellow that kept pretty much to himself. He never had too much to say." Charles Givens
No. Just knew his name. I mean, you know, he wouldn't talk to anybody so I didn't. Harold Norman
If there is one constant in this labyrinthine mess it is the almost universal description of Oswald as a quiet loner who didn't talk and when he did it was a barely audible mumble. Someone who hated being with other people and when he was would have his head buried in a newspaper as a way of avoiding unnecessary contact with those around him. To most he was just quiet and withdrawn but to anyone who tried to interact with him he was extremely anti-social:
"Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to Oswald ?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever speak to you?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. He never replied to you?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Would you say he was unfriendly?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I would."
"Every time I went by him I would speak to him, say "Good morning" and he would never catch or meet my gaze..." Geneva Hine
Imagine trying to interact with someone who refuses to acknowledge your existence. How insulting and aggressive is that? Even when he did respond it would be as inaudible mumble:
"Mr. BALL. Did he ever speak to you, say "Hello" or anything of that sort?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir; if he did, you hardly ever heard him.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to him
Mr. PIPER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever reply to you that you can remember?
Mr. PIPER. If he did, I didn't ever hear him. He mumbled something and he would just keep walking." Eddie Piper
It was generally agreed he wasn't a "People Person"
"At times I would go down to Mr. Truly's office for some business. I would see him across the floor, but he paid no attention to you and there were times, the few times, he ate lunch up there but he never talked to anyone." Mrs Robert Reid
But now we're supposed to believe that, because it was a sunny day and the President was passing by, Oswald was out on the steps with the rest gang chatting away with his good buddy William Shelley:
"Mr. BALL - Did you ever talk to him?
Mr. SHELLEY - Not too much; he wasn't too talkative. If I had something I wanted him to do, I would tell him and he usually did it." William Shelley
I get the impression Oswald was utterly contemptuous of his work colleagues who he believed were all beneath him. So much so he wouldn't even pretend to make so much as the slightest effort to show any mannersl. He was so convinced of his superiority he could treat those around him like the dirt he thought they were. Ironically, his quietness didn't make him invisible, quite the contrary, in the tight-knit, gossip-prone, enclosed world of the TSBD he would have stood out head and shoulders above everyone else.
To believe this socially incompetent, arrogant loner would spend one second in the company of his work colleagues if he didn't have to is absurd. If Oswald watched the motorcade it was from some dark quiet corner where nobody else would think to be.
::)
Does it have some kind of relevance that it's people he works with? What, he was only an "contemptuous, arrogant loser" while working?
Oswald's antisocial behaviour made him stand out in the TSBD. He wasn't some invisible figure standing behind everyone (how do you know where he was standing by the way?) and you completely ignore all the people coming up the steps because it suits you to do so.
My point, all along, was that I felt it very unlikely the antisocial and unfriendly Oswald would join his colleagues on the steps. The fact that not one witness places him there strengthens this observation. Oswald was not invisible, his antisocial behaviour made him stand out.
Officer Baker charged up those front steps barely half a minute after the last shot. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous figure dashing past them, right?
Can you give us their names?
Mr Roy Truly charged up the steps after Officer Baker. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous boss-man dashing past them, right?
Can you give us their names?
While you're at it, perhaps you can also give us the names of the many people congregated at the front entrance who noticed the 'not invisible' Mr Oswald leaving the building several minutes after the assassination? If you can't, then do you conclude that he never left the building?
Yes John, the whole point I'm making revolves around the relationship between Oswald and his work colleagues as revealed in the various testimonies. He is not stood on the steps with friends from his school days or old teachers. He is not stood on the front steps with old army buddies or family. In the scenario being suggested he is stood outside with work colleagues, specifically Bill Shelley, watching the motorcade pass by. The point I was making referred to the unlikelihood Oswald would have joined in with such a thing (obviously you twisted it into me saying it couldn't possibly have happened but this has become a feature of your campaign to misrepresent what I'm saying).
I use the word 'antisocial' to describe Oswald's behaviour and you accuse me of 'projecting my attitudes'. Here is the dictionary definition of the word 'antisocial' -"not sociable or wanting the company of others". And you don't think that describes your friend Oswald?
These quotes, and others, from his work colleagues clearly describe someone who is unsociable and not "wanting the company of others" but I have no doubt in your twisting misrepresentation you will find a way to disagree. I stand by the use of the word 'antisocial', not as something I'm projecting but as an accurate description of Oswald's behaviour as described by his work colleagues. I don't expect you to retract your accusation.
No John, not one of his colleagues used the words 'contemptuous' or 'arrogant' to describe him. But I never said they did, those are my words to describe him (more misrepresentation). I was struck by the testimony of Geneva Hines, who specifically describes Oswald as 'unfriendly', and in which she described trying to interact with him by saying "Good Morning" or "Hello", the usual pleasantries normal people use on a daily basis, and how he would literally blank her existence, as if she wasn't worth responding to.
I used the word 'contempt' to describe this behaviour.
I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of 'contempt'. It appears not.
It seems you would like to believe Oswald's unwillingness to talk to people makes him invisible
but this is not the case. In her excellent 'Living History' interview, Karen Westbrook Scranton makes the following point:
"He wasn't terribly friendly but we, being teenagers, we saw this guy, all alone and we felt sorry for him. We just thought 'He doesn't have any friends' or 'He doesn't make friends very easily', so he was very much in our scope even though there wasn't any kind of a friendship between any of us." (13:22 to 13:41)
Oswald's antisocial behaviour made him stand out in the TSBD. He wasn't some invisible figure standing behind everyone (how do you know where he was standing by the way?)
and you completely ignore all the people coming up the steps because it suits you to do so.
You seem determined to place him on the steps for the motorcade, you must have some very strong evidence for doing so. I will keep looking until I find it.
This "stuff" about Oswald being "shy" is pure Baloney. Oswald was on RADIO extolling his political opinions along with standing on street corners handing out controversial literature to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crossed his path. Oswald was Not "Shy". Oswald was Verbose whenever he wanted to be and also made his presence Known at a time and place of his choosing. Stop with this Dr Phil routine.
I didn’t accuse you of saying that it was impossible — I’m pointing out that your claim that it is “unlikely” is unfounded.
Must be more of that famous Storing “inside information”. Never mind the 7 or so people who actually knew him describing him as shy.
Guess I somehow missed your disputing Oswald being on Radio and standing on street corners buttonholing passersby with leaflets.And even I know about 'shy' Oswald's TV interview extolling the virtues of his own particular views on Marxism.
And even I know about 'shy' Oswald's TV interview extolling the virtues of his own particular views on Marxism.
In Reply #4 you state the following:
"Yes, but I read your "sarcastic" screed as trying to make the case that Oswald couldn't possibly be standing out front ..."
In my response to your inability to understand the simple point I make in my original post I lay it out in a way anyone can understand - the numerous testimonies, plus others I didn't use, documenting Oswald's antisocial behaviour towards his work colleagues makes it unlikely he would join them outside to watch the motorcade pass by. You completely ignore my comprehensive explanation (as usual) and twist my word "unlikelihood" into "it couldn't possibly have happened". When I protest that you have yet again twisted and misrepresented my words and that I didn't say "it couldn't possibly have happened" you then twist and misrepresent your own twisted misrepresentation by saying I used the word "impossible".
In two steps I go from saying 'unlikely' to' impossible'. The rest of your response is the usual twisted garbage but, even by your intensely low standards, the deliberate "misremembrance" that both Shelley and Lovelady witnessed Baker at the TSBD steps is stunning. I know for a fact you are aware of their testimonies.
I don't know why you've singled me out for your campaign of misrepresentation but I've had enough and find I'm spending way too much time responding to your unsavoury attentions. I don't know if there's a protocol for complaining about these issues, instead I will post the following message to future attacks;
:-X POST IGNORED DUE TO PREVIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS . SEE REPLY #15 "They Went Outside To Watch The P. Parade" THREAD (Part 2)
I have been wondering about why you are victimising me. As a newcomer to all this I've noticed there are various factions (Lone Assassin/Prayer Man/ Two Oswalds etc) with each defending their own 'turf' because each is utterly convinced they have the answer. I don't know what faction you belong to but, as I fumble along through this maze, I'm assuming I've said something you find threatening to you beliefs (and they are beliefs). I'm still near the start so I've not 'found my faction' yet and it may be the case that the evidence leads me to see things the way you do but I'll let my best interpretation of the evidence guide me there, not your bullying tactics.
Looking through my posts I find your only objection based on anything remotely rational is to my stating as fact that Shelley and Lovelady lied in their testimonies. The following image proves for a fact that Lovelady was lying:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx0Z2F99/Lovelady-outside-TSBD.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In his HSCA testimony Lovelady is shown this still (or one very similar) and recognises himself. Towards the end he finally admits he didn't go back inside until much later than he'd previously stated.
Don't bother responding, you will only be ignored.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTTThc6d/Calvery-misidentification-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You completely ignore my comprehensive explanation (as usual)
and twist my word "unlikelihood" into "it couldn't possibly have happened".
When I protest that you have yet again twisted and misrepresented my words and that I didn't say "it couldn't possibly have happened" you then twist and misrepresent your own twisted misrepresentation by saying I used the word "impossible".
In two steps I go from saying 'unlikely' to' impossible'. The rest of your response is the usual twisted garbage but, even by your intensely low standards, the deliberate "misremembrance" that both Shelley and Lovelady witnessed Baker at the TSBD steps is stunning.
I have been wondering about why you are victimising me.
Looking through my posts I find your only objection based on anything remotely rational is to my stating as fact that Shelley and Lovelady lied in their testimonies. The following image proves for a fact that Lovelady was lying:
Guess I somehow missed your disputing Oswald being on Radio and standing on street corners buttonholing passersby with leaflets.
(1) Though you have done it previously, "disputing" a Fact is just dumb.
(2) Yeah. Someone that goes out of their way to be on Radio and Confront people on street corners is NOT Shy.
(1) Though you have done it previously, "disputing" a Fact is just dumb. (2) Yeah. Someone that goes out of their way to be on Radio and Confront people on street corners is NOT Shy.
(1) Though you have done it previously, "disputing" a Fact is just dumb. (2) Yeah. Someone that goes out of their way to be on Radio and Confront people on street corners is NOT Shy.
Officer Baker charged up those front steps barely half a minute after the last shot. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous figure dashing past them, right?
Can you give us their names?
Mr Roy Truly charged up the steps after Officer Baker. Presumably lots of people noticed this highly visible and conspicuous boss-man dashing past them, right?
Can you give us their names?
While you're at it, perhaps you can also give us the names of the many people congregated at the front entrance who noticed the 'not invisible' Mr Oswald leaving the building several minutes after the assassination? If you can't, then do you conclude that he never left the building?
Thumb1:
Bumped for Mr O'Meara! Thumb1:
Marlborough Lights and Gucci
It’s easy to make claims.
:D very good Martin but I think this would've been more appropriate
Off the top of my head and without really looking into it - Truly, Shelley, Lovelady and Pauline Sanders.
How many are we looking for?
Oh yeah - Oswald must have seen him as well as he was stood right by the entrance fishing some cigarettes out of his handbag but that's in Fritz's 'missing notes' 8)
Well, we can strike Messrs Shelley & Lovelady off your extremely short list of those who noticed Officer Baker & Mr Truly run into the building------------as you yourself believe that they did not look back and see what they say they saw from where they place themselves (in their WC testimonies) some 3+ minutes (!) after the shooting. Or do you believe Officer Baker & Mr Truly did not in fact run up those steps just after Darnell's camera stops filming them?
Calm down Alan, ranting only makes you say stupid things. Baker didn't disappear into thin air when he reached the steps. Both Shelley and Lovelady testified to seeing Baker approaching the steps, that I think they lied about how long it took Baker to get there doesn't matter and the reason "they did not look back" is because they are not the individuals identified walking away in Darnell, the film that shows Baker running at speed towards the steps.
Now for your list of all the people who noticed our inconspicuous nobody leaving the building several minutes after the shooting:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
I think you'll find this is a list of all those who place your conspicuous creep on the steps. And breathe out 8)
:D :D
You're not very good at this, are you, Mr O'Meara?
You can't name anyone who saw Mr Oswald leave the building. Therefore-----------by your logic not mine-----------he never left the building! Maybe you think he's still there? :D
:D
Your desperation is showing, Mr O'Meara!
You believe this is Mr Lovelady and Ms Calvery in Darnell, right?---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/pnb5FTn.jpg)
Now! Tell us where exactly you think Officer Baker and Mr Truly are at this same moment. That way, we can see how credible the WC testimony of your star co-witness Mr Lovelady re. his sighting of Officer Baker and Mr Truly is! Thumb1:
You think?
Looks like?
Hmmmmmm
Please excuse the interruption gentlemen...just in briefly to record some notes for follow up reference/post later this weekend when I have more time.
*Ms/Mrs. Hendrix's Commission Exhibit 1381 Statement (page 18, right-hand column)
*Compare Gloria Calvery's wedding picture height with woman climbing steps w/woman in white. Use the photo image at the Tire Dealership Ad as well.
*Compare Ms/Mrs. Hendrick's timeline dash to Marrion Baker's ----->
Ms/Mrs. Hendrix was 51 years old. Roy Truly was 56 years old on Friday, November 22, 1963 (IF he can handle rushing up five flights of stairs, she could handle a short distance sprint back to the building per her CE 1381 Statement.
Dear Alan, (~snip snip~)
Thank you for this error-riddled essay, Mr O'Meara, which amounts to little more than an extended exercise in missing the point! Thumb1:
We agree that Mr Lovelady can be seen in Darnell, talking to (probably) Ms Calvery--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/yWqvCLLf/Lovelady-on-steps.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NbMzp45/Gloria-Calvery-close-up-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Now for the problems!
1. Sorry, but this large man is not Mr Shelley--------------
(https://i.imgur.com/Qap7yjQ.gif)
-------------try as you might to convince yourself that it is by restricting yourself to a frame showing him profile... (nice try though!)
2. Mr Shelley's own same-day affidavit says he ran into Ms Calvery (whom he knew well BTW!) at the "corner" of the "park". This would put him away from the steps by the time of Darnell, and would (if he's telling the truth in that affidavit) explain why he's nowhere to be found there. (And no, "Multiple witnesses" do NOT "have him at the steps around this time.") What's certain is that he's lying in his WC testimony.
Conclusion? Both Mr Lovelady and Mr Shelley are lying in their WC testimonies with respect to their sighting of Officer Baker and Mr Truly's dash into the building. Which leaves you with a grand total of zero credible witnesses to both men's dash into the building.
Does that mean they didn't dash into the building? No! It just means your argument that the much more inconspicuous Mr Oswald's going unnoticed by most folk on the steps for the v. short time he was out there means he can't have been out there is pitifully weak------------as have all the arguments we've heard to date from Team Keep LHO Away From The Front Entrance!
But now to the question--------------Why would Messrs Lovelady and Shelley lie about their immediate post-assassination movements?
Mr Lovelady's reason is easy to establish, Mr Shelley's not so easy.
Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.
That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony).
Mr Oswald told the truth about his movements in these minutes. What has come to light about what he said in custody offers a compelling counter-narrative to the official story. He really did visit the second-floor lunchroom for a coke before the assassination; he really did return to the first floor, where he saw Messrs Jarman and Norman re-enter the building by the back; he really did go outside to watch the P. parade; and he really did have an encounter involving an officer and Mr Truly at the front entrance. The 'investigating' authorities knew all this within hours of the assassination, and they got to work quickly to bury their suspect's alibi.
The reasons you have thus far put forward for disallowing Mr Oswald's own claims and siding with the cover-up are predicated on making him Mr Conspicuous when you need him to be Mr Conspicuous, and Mr Invisible when you need him to be Mr Invisible. Not gonna wash!
Thumb1:
??? I won't even ask you to provide one scrap of evidence to support this psychedelically wild pile of tripe. Which reminds me, where's the self-anointed fact-checker in residence?
Says the whiner who can't stand having his mistakes corrected.
Maybe because the "psychedelically wild pile of tripe" is your identifications of Shelley, Lovelady, and Calvery.
Oh Alan, (~snip snip~)
When you misrepresent the timeframe of Mr Molina's interaction with Ms Calvery in the vestibule, you oh-so-smugly make a fool of yourself.
The Identification of Shelley, Lovelady and Calvery is sound. Not once have you tried to take it on, just your usual nit-picking and empty observations. Why don't you put up your identification of Calvery and we'll argue it out (something I know for a fact won't be happening.) You talk about "mistakes corrected" and let this garbage sail on through -
"Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.
That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony)."
Oh, the hypocrisy, and you have the audacity to refer to the opinions of others as 'biased'. I see what you are now John, a defender of your own faith, constantly sniping at those who have a different opinion and never actually adding anything to the conversation (unless, of course, you are renowned for some big advance in the JFK case that I'm unaware of).
Having all the details at your fingertips is useless if you only use them as ammunition.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CM48crcN/Calvery-misidentification-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The Identification of Shelley, Lovelady and Calvery is sound. Not once have you tried to take it on, just your usual nit-picking and empty observations.
"Mr Lovelady is hiding the fact-------which he was not yet so anxious to hide when he spoke with Mr Jarman shortly after the assassination---------that he witnessed the encounter at the front door between Officer Baker, Mr Oswald and Mr Truly.
That's right-----------------the encounter which DPD were happily telling the world about later that day (before everyone realized that it gave Mr Oswald an alibi and needed to be swapped out with a makey-uppey lunchroom encounter)! Yep, the selfsame encounter which Mr Oswald was telling Captain Fritz about in custody (as per Postal Inspector Holmes' testimony)."
Oh, the hypocrisy, and you have the audacity to refer to the opinions of others as 'biased'. I see what you are now John, a defender of your own faith
When you loudly proclaim that this hulk is Mr Bill Shelley------------
------------you make a fool of yourself.
Bull. I told you in great detail what was wrong with this "sound" argument. It is based entirely upon Graves imagining that he sees "stripes" on black-blob on the steps in the Darnell frame and a whole bunch of handwaving.
Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz a man with a crewcut came in the front door, waved his credentials and asked him for the nearest telephone. Do you believe Mr Oswald made this incident up?
Mr. Ford at his optimal best, what an uncanny knack he has for honing in on pertinent details amid his keenly discerning research methodology.
That said, good morning gentlemen. In briefly to expound upon the notes I left earlier this week:
*For years it was common knowledge within the research community that Gloria Jean Calvery was "Running Woman". Given the actual physique of Running-Woman, many researchers over time--with good reason--begin to question the notion that Running-Woman was the noticeably more pudgy Calvery (G-d bless her anyway as her physique doesn't define her inner-beauty as a valued member of the human race).
A couple of years ago, while reading through the statements within Commission-Exhibit 1381, I came across a more likely candidate for Running-Woman: Miss Georgia Ruth Hendrix. Unlike anyone else interviewed, she actually shares how she fled back into the building (her first-hand account is on page 18 on the right column) ---->
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf
In respect to my other notes, specifically a reminder to compare Gloria Calvery's (RIP) wedding photograph and now the images we have courtesy of the SFM, I am not convinced she is the MUCH taller amazon woman in plaid captured in the respective photos of Mr. Zapruder & Mr. Betzner . In the SFM photo within this thread she is the third tallest female, yet somehow she suddenly dwarfs both her two taller coworkers and even the men standing there alongside her on lower Elm Street?
In her wedding photo her husband is much taller than she is (even standing there in her high-heels). So, when did this sudden growth spurt occur?
This inquiry & these questions are merely an observation. It is not to serve as an attack upon the good-faith research of others contrary to my views. It is merely done in the spirit of avoiding the possibility of another long-term instance where the research community needs to update, reset and start all over again as was the experience with the initial identification of "Running-Woman".
Perhaps not wholly unrelated question!
Mr Ronald Fischer states this in his 11/22/63 affidavit------------
"I do remember one peculiar thing happened just at the time I saw the man up there (-------> i.e. just before the motorcade turned the corner onto Houston Street, A.F.). There was a girl walked in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a rather tall girl, and looked to me like she might be an employee of that building. She was walking in while everyone else had been coming out."
Assuming Mr Fischer didn't hallucinate this "girl"--------------and why should we think he did?----------------who might she have been?
Thumb1:
Thanking you kindly, sir! Several fascinating lines of inquiry being pursued here, all converging on those all-important front steps that hold the key to Mr Oswald's alibi Thumb1:
Well! I asked a question a while back and no one did offer an answer. So-----------I'll ask it again........
In Mr Dom Bonafede's 24 May 1964 article on Mr Billy Lovelady in the New York Herald Tribune, we get the following re. the Altgens photograph:
"Lovelady maintains it is he standing in the doorway at the moment of the assassination. 'I was standing on the first step,' he told me when I interviewed him in Dallas two weeks ago. 'Several people saw me. That lady shielding her eyes works here on the second floor.'"
Here is Commission Exhibit 203---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/alKkCnU.jpg)
Which female employee from the second floor, shielding her eyes in the photograph, is Mr Lovelady pointing to as he confidently makes the statement quoted above?
Can't be Ms Maddie Reese (GREEN arrow) (----------------->does NOT work on second floor!)
Can't be Ms Ruth Dean (PINK arrow) (---------------->does NOT work on second floor!)
(https://i.imgur.com/nGMYml2.jpg)
So---------------who does Mr Lovelady mean----------------and: where in the Altgens photograph is she??
Thumb1:
You previously Believed that the Shadow was applied to the Wiegman Film in order to Hide/Cover Oswald. Do you Now believe the Purpose of the Shadow is to hide Ms Arnold?
Most of us come here to Learn. Just admit you have Changed your position as to the Primary Reason for the shadow. No big deal.
Now!
Who is this (focus on YELLOW BOX------------please DISREGARD red arrow!) in the Towner film, standing on a lower step very close to Mr Carl Edward Jones, and enthusiastically waving something at the limousine?
(https://i.imgur.com/u8kebNM.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/IYFlKYk.gif)
Thumb1:
The person gets cut off at the splice. Convenient.
Perfectly happy to admit that, Mr Storing. All I care about here is getting to the truth, one way or the other! Thumb1:
For some time now I have believed that BLUE arrow is Mr Oswald (i.e. Prayer Man), YELLOW arrow Mr Shelley (just behind Mr Lovelady)----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/pjUnXgy.jpg)
I tried (harder perhaps than anyone!) to find a credible counter-candidate for Prayer Man, but I got precisely nowhere. It's looking more and more to me like Prayer Man really is Mr Oswald.
The way I see it, Mr Oswald-------------after his visit to the second floor lunchroom--------------stays indoors on the first floor, keeping an eye out (through the glass front door) for the motorcade. Not being one for mingling or small talk, he waits until the latest possible moment to pop outside. He takes up his position over by the west wall of the entrance. He's holding his coke & sandwich/apple.
Just before the motorcade enters Dealey Plaza, i.e. just before Mr Oswald steps outside, Ms Arnold spots him standing behind the glass door. She does not notice him after that.
The person gets cut off at the splice. Convenient.
The way I see it, Mr Oswald-------------after his visit to the second floor lunchroom--------------stays indoors on the first floor, keeping an eye out (through the glass front door) for the motorcade. Not being one for mingling or small talk, he waits until the latest possible moment to pop outside. He takes up his position over by the west wall of the entrance. He's holding his coke & sandwich/apple.
Just before the motorcade enters Dealey Plaza, i.e. just before Mr Oswald steps outside, Ms Arnold spots him standing behind the glass door. She does not notice him after that.
Here's Mr Lovelady in Hughes, standing right behind Mr Carl Edward Jones----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/YyXV3Ox.gif)
A few seconds later, in Towner, Mr Lovelady appears to be in the same spot (YELLOW arrow)-----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/OAxE0EF.jpg)
So who's the person below and just east of Mr Lovelady (PINK arrow) waving something enthusiastically at JFK and Ms Kennedy?
(https://i.imgur.com/UtqdFHh.gif)
I believe it may be Ms Carolyn Arnold, who has just arrived at those steps----------her arrival noticed by both Mr Lovelady and Mr Shelley.
Thumb1:
What are you talking about, Mr Down? ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/TeOsZUP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fPavxgG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Hr3tkst.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iFTwFqC.jpg)
My proposed solution:
Who does Mr Lovelady point to in the Altgens photograph when he tells Mr Bonafede: "That lady shielding her eyes works here on the second floor"? Why, Ms Carolyn Arnold----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/5ktI8Nf.jpg)
Where in the Altgens photograph is she? Why, just below him, shielding her eyes------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/zZOB1AE.gif)
She's the reason for that ludicrous, physically impossible shadow artificially added down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/Ve8lufE.jpg)
Ms Arnold's presence on those steps was erased from history. Because she told the 'investigating' authorities she noticed Mr Lee Harvey Oswald when she went back to that front entrance just before the Presidential parade arrived. (Unlike those already on the steps, she was facing in that direction before she reached them.) They took her statement and distorted it beyond recognition. They made her think her story had gone into the official record. That story also included a sighting of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom shortly before the motorcade-------------a story which chimed perfectly with what Mr Oswald had claimed in custody, despite the fact that Ms Arnold was not privy to any of the interrogations.
Ms Arnold was, in short, the witness from hell. And so she wasn't called before the Warren Commission.
Years later, Mr Earl Golz and Mr Anthony Summers contacted Ms Arnold. When she was told what was in her FBI interview report, she reacted very defensively to any suggestion she spotted Mr Oswald behind the front glass door. But she protested a little too much... Why, researchers had to wonder, would the FBI have concocted an Oswald sighting at the front door? Must have come from somewhere! The rational answer: They took what she told them and changed the timeframe, made her location vague enough-----and put words of doubt as to the identification into her mouth...
(https://i.imgur.com/heUcVA0.jpg)
This provided insulation against the eventuality of Ms Arnold's going public with her sighting. 'Oh, that's not quite what the young lady told us. See for yourself--here's the official interview report.'
By 1978, Ms Arnold no longer wished to tell her story-------------or at least: she now was only prepared to talk about the lunchroom part. Understandable!
However, if I've got this right, then I hope that, while there's still time, she decides to reveal the truth. Because along with Mr BW Frazier (and possibly Mr Roy Edward Lewis), she may be the only living witness left who can finally confirm Mr Oswald's alibi.
In the meantime, thank you, Mr Lovelady!
Thumb1:
The pregnant lady in the middle of this pic is thought to be Carolyn Arnold being moved away from the TSBD steps minutes after the assassination:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9QQ0KpWg/Carolyn-Arnold-Johnston-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/vcCG65x5)
She is identified as the lady on the far right of the steps as we look at them:
(https://i.postimg.cc/D0cfYWRK/Carolyn-Arnold-in-Darnell-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
An excellent find there, Mr. Ford, regarding Bill Shelley's 3/18/64 interview report confirming Ms. Arnold's close proximity to the unfolding action from her vantage point upon the front entrance stairs. Speaking of Ms. Arnold, and taking Mr. O'meara's photo bearing her name into account, I have a question for you. No rush making a response as I'm off for work until next weekend. Just the same sir., with that photo in mind, In your opinion is the figure standing there to Mr. Frazier's left possibly a heavy-set woman? Could she be in excess of 300lbs?
That said, now moving along to Mr. Roy Edward Lewis, given Mr. Frazier's height & the other folks standing there outside just beyond the glass doors where he says he viewed the P-parade from the inside, In your opinion, Would it have been much easier for him to have viewed the action from behind Prayer Man's position, where it is less densely crowded? That said, am left to wonder if he is being fully truthful about who & what he observed out there that afternoon?
Good afternoon Mr. Ford,
I realize I am a bit late to the party so to speak, and that the thread has moved forward from the Hosty note to photographs of the front entrance of the TSBD, but hope you could answer the following questions:
1) When was the note discovered?
2) Who discovered it?
3) Where was it found?
Thanks in advance.
Yeah, there is a possible Head Bob. Problem is, when lighting a cigarette back in "63" when there was Not Bic Lighters emitting a Blow Torch Flame, people normally used matchbook matches and covered/cupped the flame and cigarette with Both Hands. The covering of the Flame/Cigarette with the hands would Not permit a camera from capturing the Flame/Glow on film.The size of the flame is an artefact of enhancement and the cupping issue was dealt with. Read the post. What's your take on the light source?
And you're right, they didn't have Bic lighters in '63. They had serious lighters:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gky767cG/cigarette-lighters.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yeah, these are the lighters that Bogey made famous back when he was lighting up Bacall. Some were stand alone eye catchers that sat on a coffee table. The flame emitted by these lighters is Minimal in Height as well as Brightness. I will say this in your favor, IF someone that was employed in the TSBD had a lighter such as You have displayed, it would be a Woman and when Not in use it would rest inside her purse with her Compact. Knockarounds like Lovelady, Frazier, etc did Not carry lighters like this around.
There has been so much manipulation of the JFK Assassination images in general, I kinda shake my head at the brightness your whatever that image you proffered shows. When I look at that image undoctored, my thought is I am seeing a White Styrofoam cup. These throwaway cups were usually stacked next to the large coffee pots that used to sit in break rooms, lobby's, cafeterias, etc. A person drinking coffee out of a White Styrofoam Cup would also account for the head tilting back and forth.I had thought of something along those lines originally but was dissuaded by two things - when the 'cup' is held to the face the head is tilted forward (not a natural drinking position) and when it is in the lower position the hand holding it would obscure it.
It could be a smoker, yes. I use both hands to light up, indoors or out.
Back then, almost everybody smoked, but Oswald didn't. Does the light suddenly disappear in the rest of the footage, i.e. the lighter was switched off?
The head bobs down. I think he's taking a picture. People bob their head down when putting a camera up to their face.
Nice one Joffrey, I hadn't actually thought of that. The Gif I posted is, I believe, taken from Wiegman. The following pic is from Darnell a matter of seconds later and in it there is no light source:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfrpVtxH/Shadow-Person-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This strongly argues for the light source being something that can 'on or off'. If it is an object such as a cup or a bottle then where does it go in Darnell just seconds later?
Those forearms look to me to be too slim for Ms Stanton, who (besides) would have been further back in the shadows alongside Mr Frazier. I think this also rules out Ms Sanders, who was standing beside Ms Stanton. Best bet would be either Ms Avery Davis or Ms Judy McCully (neither of whom worked on the second floor).
(Interesting Sidebar! Mr B. Kamp spoke with Ms McCully's daughter in 2018. She said her mom told her she was actually on the 4th floor at the time of the shooting...)
Mr Lewis gave a radio interview a while back in which he claimed to have been out on the steps (and not behind the front door). At one point, he let the interviewer persuade him he was the figure in Altgens we know to be Mr Carl Edward Jones-----------------not exactly a point in favor of Mr Lewis's credibility!
His March '64 description of his whereabouts at the time of the assassination? 'I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository...'
I believe he was behind that glass door----------------and saw Mr Oswald go through that door and out on to the steps.
Can't help wondering also is Mr Jones over by the (indoor) west wall in Darnell, messing with our perception of Prayer Man's posture?
Thumb1:
My proposed solution:
Who does Mr Lovelady point to in the Altgens photograph when he tells Mr Bonafede: "That lady shielding her eyes works here on the second floor"? Why, Ms Carolyn Arnold----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/5ktI8Nf.jpg)
Where in the Altgens photograph is she? Why, just below him, shielding her eyes------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/zZOB1AE.gif)
She's the reason for that ludicrous, physically impossible shadow artificially added down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/Ve8lufE.jpg)
Ms Arnold's presence on those steps was erased from history. Because she told the 'investigating' authorities she noticed Mr Lee Harvey Oswald when she went back to that front entrance just before the Presidential parade arrived. (Unlike those already on the steps, she was facing in that direction before she reached them.) They took her statement and distorted it beyond recognition. They made her think her story had gone into the official record. That story also included a sighting of Mr Oswald in the second floor lunchroom shortly before the motorcade-------------a story which chimed perfectly with what Mr Oswald had claimed in custody, despite the fact that Ms Arnold was not privy to any of the interrogations.
Ms Arnold was, in short, the witness from hell. And so she wasn't called before the Warren Commission.
Years later, Mr Earl Golz and Mr Anthony Summers contacted Ms Arnold. When she was told what was in her FBI interview report, she reacted very defensively to any suggestion she spotted Mr Oswald behind the front glass door. But she protested a little too much... Why, researchers had to wonder, would the FBI have concocted an Oswald sighting at the front door? Must have come from somewhere! The rational answer: They took what she told them and changed the timeframe, made her location vague enough-----and put words of doubt as to the identification into her mouth...
(https://i.imgur.com/heUcVA0.jpg)
This provided insulation against the eventuality of Ms Arnold's going public with her sighting. 'Oh, that's not quite what the young lady told us. See for yourself--here's the official interview report.'
By 1978, Ms Arnold no longer wished to tell her story-------------or at least: she now was only prepared to talk about the lunchroom part. Understandable!
However, if I've got this right, then I hope that, while there's still time, she decides to reveal the truth. Because along with Mr BW Frazier (and possibly Mr Roy Edward Lewis), she may be the only living witness left who can finally confirm Mr Oswald's alibi.
In the meantime, thank you, Mr Lovelady!
Thumb1:
The head bobs down. I think he's taking a picture. People bob their head down when putting a camera up to their face.
An interesting assessment.
Conjures up thoughts about the small spy camera found within the possessions of the wrongly accused by DPD Detective Gus Rose ----->
A camera smaller than a cigar and weighing less than a cigarette lighter. -- *This description of the original Minox camera is taken from German manufacturer-company literature
An interesting assessment.
Conjures up thoughts about the small spy camera found within the possessions of the wrongly accused by DPD Detective Gus Rose ----->
A camera smaller than a cigar and weighing less than a cigarette lighter. -- *This description of the original Minox camera is taken from German manufacturer-company literature
The position of Both Hands at roughly chest height would be highly unusual for a smoker holding a lighted cigarette in only 1 hand. Based on the position of Both hands, what I see is more along the lines of a beverage/coffee? CUP. Suppose someone, (possibly a female), quickly ducked out of their office while carrying their coffee filled Personal Coffee Cup with them? Their intention was to catch a quick glimpse of Jackie/JFK cruising by the TSBD and then quickly get back to work inside.I agree, it would be highly unusual to hold a cigarette with both hands. So unusual it seems like a ridiculous point to make.
I agree, it would be highly unusual to hold a cigarette with both hands. So unusual it seems like a ridiculous point to make.
Both hands to hold a cup? What's it made of? Solid gold?
The right arm is in a perfectly natural position to be holding a cigarette, if the person is holding something else in their other hand it might explain the position of the left arm but this position doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the right arm. Your assumption that both hands are being used to hold an object is nothing more than that.
How is this cup generating light in the Wiegman Gif when the sun isn't reflecting off it? How is it generating light when the hand would be obscuring it in the lower position? If the object being held in the hand is something to drink out of why is the head tilted downward? This is not the way to drink anything.
Why is this person getting back to work when its the lunch break? There's still about a quarter of an hour to go before anyone has to get back inside to work.
This is obviously not something you've given much thought to. The idea that it is someone lighting a cigarette answers all these questions and more.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjK7BxbD/Shadow-Person-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Nice one Joffrey, I hadn't actually thought of that. The Gif I posted is, I believe, taken from Wiegman. The following pic is from Darnell a matter of seconds later and in it there is no light source:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfrpVtxH/Shadow-Person-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This strongly argues for the light source being something that can 'on or off'. If it is an object such as a cup or a bottle then where does it go in Darnell just seconds later?
You are Failing to account for the time span Between the Images. If someone is lighting a cigarette, the flame is extinguished Immediately After the cigarette is lit. There is a Time Gap between the Images we are comparing, yet this Illumination Persists. This Time Gap eliminates a cigarette lighter or match being the cause of the illumination/Glow.
No takers, eh?
I'll describe what I'm seeing, see if it rings any bells with you smokers out there. The Shadow Person is, as the name would suggest, a person stood completely in the shadows, no part of their body is being hit by sunlight.
I think a Coke bottle is the most likely explanation.
Fred
We mutually agree on that point, quote ---->
I believe he was behind that glass door----------------and saw Mr Oswald go through that door and out on to the steps.
Am sitting here pondering how many times--prior to February 1964--he was making every good faith attempt to share his personal experience, and subsequent observations of the wrongly-accused standing right out there on those front entrance steps...which somehow fell upon deaf ears even within his own community. Considering his young age (17), perhaps many of his much older & wiser elders considered he was full of foolish talk. It wouldn't have been the first time, nor the last, when a young person will be largely ignored about their "perception" of an important event.
Of course, less than 48 days after November 22, 1963, his alarming-ramblings somehow made their way out of the comfy confines of his own community back down to the authorities who paid him a little visit ---->
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339197/m1/1/
From that day forward, I believe young Mr. Lewis saw the "light" and knew precisely which way the wind was blowing. We can add Mr. Molina & Mr. Frazier to the club as well.
*Sidebar: Though Mr. Lewis is listed in most documents as 17, the above document incorrectly aged him 4 years in merely a two month period.
You are Failing to account for the time span Between the Images. If someone is lighting a cigarette, the flame is extinguished Immediately After the cigarette is lit. There is a Time Gap between the Images we are comparing, yet this Illumination Persists. This Time Gap eliminates a cigarette lighter or match being the cause of the illumination/Glow.
You are Failing to account for the time span Between the Images. If someone is lighting a cigarette, the flame is extinguished Immediately After the cigarette is lit. There is a Time Gap between the Images we are comparing, yet this Illumination Persists. This Time Gap eliminates a cigarette lighter or match being the cause of the illumination/Glow.
How do you know this?
The time gap is approximately four seconds between the images which is a perfectly normal time to light a cigarette then hold the light away before extinguishing, particularly if it's a match and not a lighter. No-one is trying to break cigarette-lighting records here. It's a casual action, not necessarily immediate. Of course a cigarette can be lit in less than four seconds before extinguishing the light but this time gap is in no way abnormal. The point is this - if the gap were, say 10 seconds, then I would agree it would rule out a cigarette being lit but the fact is the time-gap factor (something I'd not actually thought about) is within perfectly normal parameters, which only strengthens the argument I'm putting forward.
It's very possible, Mr Clements. According to Mr James Hackerott, who has viewed the version of the Darnell film in the Sixth Floor Museum, this dark line is very obvious-----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/Gl4BBQZ.gif)
He suggests it's something being worn around a (lady's) neck. I think it is more likely to be a Coca Cola bottle in a (man's!) hand.
If so, then its brightness in Wiegman would be due to its catching some direct sunlight.
Thumb1:
An alleged "4 second" time gap is disputable. We frequently hear about JFK Assassination eyewitnesses being in shock or just standing in place wondering what exactly has gone down with the JFK Limo speeding away, SA Hill mounting the trunk, etc. The Darnell image shows people Streaming into the TSBD. Time has obviously passed. Getting back to the actual figure, I think a woman wearing Short White Gloves ending at the Wrists is another possibility for the Illumination. She could be holding a Coke Bottle or a Cup of Joe, but short White Gloves could be the source for the Illumination/Glow.if I'm understanding you correctly it highlights how poor your contribution to this particular aspect of things has been. The point you raised about the time difference between the two images in the Gif I posted is totally valid. If the gap between the two images is too long my proposal of the images showing someone lighting a cigarette fails. It's a good test of the proposal.
if I'm understanding you correctly it highlights how poor your contribution to this particular aspect of things has been. The point you raised about the time difference between the two images in the Gif I posted is totally valid. If the gap between the two images is too long my proposal of the images showing someone lighting a cigarette fails. It's a good test of the proposal.
Here's where things start to fall down. I'm talking about the time difference between these two images from Wiegman:
(https://i.postimg.cc/htyhhqJG/Prayer-Man-Light.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I used the Wiegman film to locate these two frames and roughly measure the difference between them which turned out to be approximately 4 seconds, a perfectly reasonable time to light a cigarette. But you disputed this 'alleged' timing arguing "Time has obviously passed" because of the "people Streaming into the TSBD". I looked at the images but couldn't understand what you meant. Then it dawned on me - you're talking about the time difference between the Wiegman and Darnell images!!!
WTF ???
And now you're just making the first thing that comes into your head about what the light source might be. White gloves? Really? Why is it glowing? Why aren't both hands glowing? Why has it stopped glowing in the Darnell clip?
Maybe it's Michael Jackson with a single sequined glove on?
Doesn't it look like someone lighting a cigarette and blowing out smoke?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5WQNr7h/Shadow-Person-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Without getting Nasty, I think we are getting back into whatever "augmentation" has been inflicted on these still frames. The Brightness/Glow we are seeing radically contrasts with Everything else in the image. Also, if you believe that person is Standing atop the Landing and is close to the Wall on the immediate (R), that area is Totally immersed in shadow as has been Photo Proven. This makes that extreme Brightness for an extended period of time further questionable. As to the time stamping of Images captured by Different sources, this also touches on the currently accepted Time Stamping of Lovelady and Shelly in contrast to their own Warren Commission Testimony. In general, I personally believe the Time Stamping of many JFK Assassination Images has intentionally been Manipulated/Coordinated to facilitate the manufactured WC story line.No-one's being nasty Royell. I was being incredulous. IMHO you're contribution to this aspect of things has been poor. I'm sorry but I think that's a fair enough statement. If you really were talking about the time difference between the Wiegmen and the Darnell clips I think this demonstrates how poor it's been. And you do seem to be randomly throwing in suggestions as to what the light source might be without thinking it through, leaving me to do your thinking through for you. I think that's a fair enough statement as well. I don't find your contributions on this particular aspect of things to be considered,
It's as though you're trying to be like John but you don't really know what you're doing. The answer "I'm using my eyes and I can see that the person is completely in shadow" is not going to cut it with someone asking this type of question. I'm sure you'll counter with "How do you know you're using your eyes?"
Is there any reason you might think the Shadow Person is not completely in shadow?
Then went outside to watch P. parade -- Lee Harvey Oswald
A more likely timeline sequence of actual events that afternoon:
12:25PM: The wrongly accused, from his vantage point in the downstairs lunchroom in the back of the building, observes Mr. Jarman & Mr. Norman retracing their steps back into the building.
12:28PM: Responsibly cleans up after himself in the downstairs lunchroom, then slips out front per his own admission, quote, Then went outside to watch P. parade
12:31-32PM: Returns inside the building, stands just outside the first-floor storage room, amid shock & disbelief about what just unfolded. Is noticed in this downstairs area by Mr. Campbell and his accompanying party as they return inside the building.
12:34PM: Comes to the aid of Inspector Sawyer ----->
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately went into---well, talked to some of the officers around there who told me the story that they had thought some shots had come from one of the floors in the building, and I think the fifth floor was mentioned, but nobody seemed to know who the shots were directed at or what had actually happened, except there had been a shooting there at the time the President's motorcade had gone by.
And I went with a couple of officers and a man who I believed worked in the building. The elevator was just to the right of the main entrance, and we went to the top floor, which was pointed out to me by this other man as being the floor that we were talking about. We had talked about the fifth floor. And we went back to the storage area and looked around and didn't see anything.
Mr. BELIN. Now you took an elevator up, is that correct?
Mr. SAWYER. That's right.
Mr. BELIN. The route that you took to the elevator, you went to the front door?
Mr. SAWYER. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. We got into the elevator. We run into this man.
Mr. BELIN. Well, when you say you got into the elevator, where was the elevator as you walked in the front door?
Mr. SAWYER. It was to the right.
Mr. BELIN. To the right?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
12:36PM: Comes to the aid of local newsman personality Mr. Allman (Pierce), directing him to where the phones are.
12:37PM: A short while later, Now comes to the aid of Mr. MacNeil (Robert) ---->
“As I ran up the steps, this young guy in shirt sleeves came out. I said, ‘where is there a phone?’ He said, ‘you better ask inside,” MacNeil said. “I didn’t register his face because I was obsessed with finding a phone. . . . Much later, it occurred to me that I was going in just about the time Oswald had been going out.”
"went outside and stood around for 5 or 10 minutes with Bill Shelley" -- The wrongly accused
Obviously Shelley would deny this. Obviously Inspector Sawyer couldn't identify "A Man", (nor dd WC counsel Belin seem interested in identifying, quote, This Man, either).
When we connect the dots from where the wrongly accused establishes his airtight alibi, quote, Then went outside to watch P. parade, it lines up rather cohesively with where he is later sighted at the downstairs storage room, then in close proximity to the first-floor elevators brb...more to follow...
Then when we take the bombshell revelation of Ms. Judith McCully into consideration, where she stands firm now that she was indeed upstairs in her office, which just so happens to be right off the elevator when Mr. Sawyer and "This man" disembark on the 4th floor, Did Ms. McCully's observations run counter to the hastily contrived script rearing its head two flights below and in the rear of the building as oppose to "A man"'s actual position? Did the authorities help Ms. McCully to see the "light" a couple of months later when she changed her initial statement? to comply with she couldn't have seen "This man" because she was downstairs all along...
Back next weekend G-d willing to reengage. Off here for now ladies & gentlemen, be safe everyone & stay healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
The simple addition of “in my opinion” would resolve a lot of these conflicts you keep having.You've obviously not noted how carefully worded my recent posts have been thanks to your meticulous scrutiny. What you do is important in a forum like this but it can go over the top.
Don't you think this really looks like someone lighting a cigarette 8)
Not particularly.Out of interest, what do you think it looks like?
Another interesting observation gentlemen (Messrs Clements & Ford) at possibility of a Coke bottle producing the light source.
Additionally, it just so happens that a Coke bottle was indeed captured on film trained upon the entrance landing (a William Allen photo if I'm not mistaken).
That particular Coke bottle was merely inches from Prayer Man's position.
Then went outside to watch P. parade -- Lee Harvey Oswald
If Oswald said that, then it must be true
Out of interest, what do you think it looks like?
A reflection.
From the sun? In both positions?
The Shadow Person is completely in shadow (please demonstrate otherwise if you believe that's not the case. All I can say is "I can see that with my eyes" which hardly constitutes proof) yet, you seem to be implying, they are holding something that the sun reflects off in both the higher and lower positions without ever having any part of their body in the sun.
What could the sun be reflecting off? Well, we can safely say it's not something you drink out of. The head tilted forward when the "reflection" is close to the face seems like a completely unnatural drinking position. We can also assume the Coke bottle on the steps is Lovelady's.
I wonder what you could be referring to?
If this is a bottle, then (as I see it)---------
When bottle is held near-vertically, some of its lower part is forward enough to catch some sunlight
When bottle is brought up to mouth, its underside is far forward enough to catch some sunlight, as is the man's right elbow.
The man's head does not tilt forward when he brings the bottle to his mouth. It tilts back!
(https://i.imgur.com/T6ekbea.gif)
I concede that the person's right elbow does indeed seem to catch the sunlight and humbly retract my earlier assertion that no part of the Shadow Person is in sunlight.
That said, I'm really struggling to see the head tilting backwards when the light source is at the face. I cannot get away from the distinct impression it is tilting forward, then straightening up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QpX9zL/Shadow-Person-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Looking at the hairline, you really think the head is tilting backwards?
Thumb1:
The shadow created by the West Wall and where that shadow Specifically falls at 12:30 on 11/22 is Well Documented. If You believe the Person-In-Question is standing: (1) atop the Landing + (2) close to the West Wall, = No Way In Hell the Sun is falling across ANY Portion of this Person-In-Question.
I don't understand the importance of Drinking Man. Y'all think it could be Oswald?
I concede that the person's right elbow does indeed seem to catch the sunlight and humbly retract my earlier assertion that no part of the Shadow Person is in sunlight.
That said, I'm really struggling to see the head tilting backwards when the light source is at the face. I cannot get away from the distinct impression it is tilting forward, then straightening up.
Looking at the hairline, you really think the head is tilting backwards?
Mr Storing, I do NOT believe Prayer Man is atop the landing------------his right elbow is way too close to the brick column:
(https://i.imgur.com/iCMPbGB.gif)
Mr Stancak has studied the shadowline VERY closely. While his reconstruction of Prayer Man's leg-posture is open to question, he has successfully shown how Prayer Man could have caught a little bit of direct sunlight:
(https://i.imgur.com/uQKEhNz.jpg)
Thumb1:
We can quibble as to where this Person-In-Question Might be positioned, but the muddled depiction of the West Wall Shadow as seen above is INCORRECT! The shadow was Photographed on 11/22 and that photo was posted on a different thread. That shadow extends about midway across the Glass Door. As I recall, that shadow across the glass door was roughly straight back from the overhead light above the landing. The above depiction of the shadow with the people further obscuring where the shadow Specifically Falls = INACCURATE.
Also, based on the shadow we see above, if you are going to move the Person-In-Question DOWN onto the steps, then you also Need to Move Lovelady Down below the Person-In-Question in order for Lovelady to have that shadow falling across Half of his body.
Is it my imagination or is the shadow line on the interior ceiling moving about in an unusual way? Has this been messed about with or am I having a 'senior moment'?
(https://i.postimg.cc/59GtBZgs/a-TSBD-GIF.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Is it my imagination or is the shadow line on the interior ceiling moving about in an unusual way? Has this been messed about with or am I having a 'senior moment'?
(https://i.postimg.cc/59GtBZgs/a-TSBD-GIF.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Yes! No other credible candidate has been put forward------------after 7 years of intensive effort to find one!
Thumb1:
The problem is that there is not a single witness who stated he/she saw Oswald outside, in front of the TSBD at the time of the assassination, right? If someone could have provided Oswald with an ironclad alibi I am sure at least one or perhaps a few would have spoken up, don't you? Especially his friend Frazier.
Dan, it looks like Lovelady moved down and to his right in succeeding photos.
Or! Not a single witness was willing or allowed to go on the record stating that they had seen Mr Oswald out there. His friend Mr Frazier was threatened with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK charge. So was another employee who happened to have been standing at that door: Mr Molina. If you were told that you or your family would not be safe in the event that you failed to keep your mouth shut, would you be quick to proclaim the truth to the world?
I have no doubt that Mr Oswald
1) went unsurprisingly unnoticed by most people out on those steps (he wasn't yet famous, remember!)
2) did not go unnoticed by (at a minimum tally) Messrs Frazier, Molina, Shelley, Truly & Officer Baker
Thankfully, we have ample evidence supporting the claim that Mr Oswald did indeed go out onto those steps to watch the motorcade:
a) Mr Oswald's own claim to that effect in custody ("Then went outside to watch P. parade")
b) The lies told about Mr Oswald's claim (=proof of cover-up)
c) The distortion(s) of Ms Carolyn Arnold's witness recollection
d) The proven impossibility of the 'shadow' down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film (---> what, if not something Oswald-related, did they want to hide??)
e) The Day-1 statements by DPD that Mr Oswald was seen at the front entrance immediately after the shooting
f) FBI agents' intense relief (as noted by Mr Billy Lovelady) when it turned out that the man in the doorway in Altgens was not Mr Oswald
g) the presence in both the Wiegman and the Darnell films of this guy standing over on his own by the west wall of the entrance, whom nobody for the life of them can explain away as someone other than Mr Oswald (and believe me they have tried!):
(https://i.imgur.com/NKbgFvd.gif)
It seems unlikely at this stage that Mr Frazier will ever find the courage to confirm that yes, his friend was out there. At least not verbally. However, I honestly believe he may have already come clean non-verbally---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/rkCVxEz.jpg)
Thumb1:
Not sure Why you are showing a Pic of the ALTERED TSBD Landing/Steps. All You are doing is further confusing people that are unaware that the Steps/Landing were Changed AFTER 11/22/63. At the time of the Assassination, that Landing was Less than 4 feet Deep, and people were actually able to lean against the West Wall due to there being No handrail on that side of the Steps.
Way to miss the point completely, Mr Storing!
I got your point. Other than showing the viewer Buell, that picture does More Damage than Good.
We just disagree. The Only thing putting Oswald outside the TSBD when the JFK Limo went by is Oswald himself claiming such. How can anyone believe what is coming outta the mouth of someone carrying 2 Different ID's in their pocket? That alone destroys Oswald's credibility.
We just disagree. The Only thing putting Oswald outside the TSBD when the JFK Limo went by is Oswald himself claiming such. How can anyone believe what is coming outta the mouth of someone carrying 2 Different ID's in their pocket? That alone destroys Oswald's credibility.
If anyone believes the Alek Hidell ID Card with Oswald's pic on it was planted, just say so.
The Warren Report records the Phony ID info. Guess the Thread doesn't matter. Dumb remains Dumb.
We just disagree. The Only thing putting Oswald outside the TSBD when the JFK Limo went by is Oswald himself claiming such.
So you also believe Oswald being Q/A'd about the phony ID is also fabricated?
Actually the famous wallet footage to me doesn't even look like a wallet. Its not Oswalds anyway cos as Dale Myers pointed out, small details are different on the wallet than the wallet Oswald owned.
Actually the famous wallet footage to me doesn't even look like a wallet. Its not Oswalds anyway cos as Dale Myers pointed out, small details are different on the wallet than the wallet Oswald owned.
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down.
This probably accounts for the coke bottle on the steps.
Then went outside to watch P. parade -- Lee Harvey Oswald
If Oswald said that, then it must be true
The mere fact that this note was hidden from public view for decades is enough to tell us something.
Fred
The mere fact that this note was hidden from public view for decades is enough to tell us something.
Fred
That is a possibility, Mr. O'meara, but given Mr. Lovelady's penchant for lying, and the fact his testimony came five months after the assassination ----->Without wanting to sound too harsh I find this to be Magical Thinking. Completely made up and based on nothing. I agree, Lovelady is a liar, but to imagine he is lying about such a trivial detail reveals a desperation to defend two very wrongheaded assumptions:
The testimony of Billy Nolan Lovelady was taken at 3:50 p.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Messrs. Joseph A. Ball and Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
it wouldn't surprise that the mechanisms by then to remove any trace of Prayer Man standing there out front in the entrance would already be well underway, thus his coke bottle morphs into yet another misleading falsehood to remove him from the scene.
Sorry about that, love Fido but his sense of timing, well that's another matter altogether. Rascal.I agree with all the statements Oswald makes in these videos. I don't believe he shot anybody. After seeing Jarman and Norman come in it seems more likely he went up to the second floor lunchroom. What is definite is that he didn't go outside to watch the parade (parade?) as we have video evidence of him specifically stating he was inside the building when the assassination took place. Something you have completely avoided dealing with.
Don’t know about anyone else, but where I come from no one in the front of a building six stories up can actually see anything, let alone anyone, in the back of the same building some five stories below, when s/he is supposed to be lurking in ambush five stories above in the front of the building.
There’s no way for the wrongly accused to know Mr. Jarman & Mr. Normsn were reentering the building between 12:25—12:28PM through a backdoor IF he really was anywhere near the front of the building, let alone up on the six floor, yet the wrongly accused described both these men reentering the building from the back via his vantage point in the first floor lunchroom.
90 seconds later per his own words he went outside just in time to view the P. parade. Nothing more, nothing less. The wrongly accused didn’t shoot anybody. Anybody ---->
I agree with all the statements Oswald makes in these videos. I don't believe he shot anybody. After seeing Jarman and Norman come in it seems more likely he went up to the second floor lunchroom. What is definite is that he didn't go outside to watch the parade (parade?) as we have video evidence of him specifically stating he was inside the building when the assassination took place. Something you have completely avoided dealing with.
(Fido sounds like a character, hope he's doing good)
'he was inside the building when the assassination took place'It's hard not to. Video evidence of Oswald specifically stating it is difficult to circumnavigate.
I agree
I agree with all the statements Oswald makes in these videos. I don't believe he shot anybody. After seeing Jarman and Norman come in it seems more likely he went up to the second floor lunchroom. What is definite is that he didn't go outside to watch the parade (parade?) as we have video evidence of him specifically stating he was inside the building when the assassination took place. Something you have completely avoided dealing with.
(Fido sounds like a character, hope he's doing good)
It's hard not to. Video evidence of Oswald specifically stating it is difficult to circumnavigate.
Mr. Chapman, please view the astute response by Mr. Ford in Reply No. 133 within this thread (pg 14)
On the contrary, I take the wrongly accused at his word, essentially believing that he indeed was in the building approaching the front door to head outside at the precise time of the shooting sequence. As he came completely through the door to take up his Prayer Man position Mr. Weigman (Dave) followed by Mr. Darnell (Jimmy, RIP) traveling multiples spots behind the presidential limousine in camera cars 10 & 11 respectively capture him on film after the shooting sequence. Nothing more, nothing less.Sorry Alan but once again this has the whiff of Magical Thinking. That is to say, something you are making up because you really want it to be true. But it does bring up an important point I'm unaware of which is how the Wiegman film is synchronised with the assassination. Let's have a look and see if your claim that Wiegman and Darnell " respectively capture him on film after the shooting sequence" holds up.
Oswald agreed that he was inside the building at the time. If he was outside with his workmates wouldn't he be screaming from the rooftops that he had an rock solid alibi? But obviously he knew he had no alibi because at the time he was on the 6th floor at the snipers nest window shooting Kennedy.
@1:14
JohnM
My look into this case has taken me in a completely different direction than John Mytton but this is not the first time he's stepped into a thread with something devastating. Here he presents video evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald placing himself inside the TSBD at the time of the assassination:
Oswald: I work in that building [the TSBD]
Reprter: Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.
There are so many good arguments against the identification of Oswald as the Shadow Person but none are definitive. This is definitive.
However, too many people have spent too much time defending this nonsense and have now painted themselves into a corner. I look forward to how Magical Thinking copes with definitive video evidence of Oswald placing himself inside the TSBD during the assassination. A record of the words coming out of his own mouth.
This should be entertaining 8)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJxChg5h/Shadow-Person-Gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The last tiny thread you are hanging on to is whether the Shadow Person is in position before the first shot. Even if this can be demonstrated to be the case (which I don't think it can) Oswald's own words, that he was in the building for the assassination, demonstrate he is not Prayer Man.
Now! Agent Hosty states clearly that Mr Oswald stated clearly that he 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Apart from the roof, there is literally only one place that can be said to be both in the Texas School Book Despository (i.e. part of the building, not part of the world beyond it) and outside... Have you guessed it yet, Mr Mytton?
That's right! The enclosed front entranceway!
:D
Poor Mr Mytton, your only resort is to trot out your old long-refuted Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Chestnut!
Mr Oswald never said he was inside the building. He answered in the affirmative when asked if he was 'in' the building. Every time you continue to put the word 'inside' in Mr Oswald's mouth, we see your shameless dishonesty! Thumb1:
Now! Agent Hosty states clearly that Mr Oswald stated clearly that he 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Apart from the roof, there is literally only one place that can be said to be both in the Texas School Book Despository (i.e. part of the building, not part of the world beyond it) and outside... Have you guessed it yet, Mr Mytton?
That's right! The enclosed front entranceway!
That's where Mr Oswald said he was, and the reason he said that was where he was was that that was where he in fact was. And! The reason Captain Fritz and his crooked pals pretended Mr Oswald said he was somewhere other than where he actually said he was..... was that they wanted to frame him for the shooting. And you're still falling for the scam, and devoting yourself to making others fall for it too!
The Hosty note destroys you, Mr Mytton! it's why you tried to argue that Mr Oswald only said he went out to watch the rest of the parade------i.e. the bits that came after JFK! (I am not making this up, folks, it's what poor Mr Mytton actually said!)
(https://i.imgur.com/RrTedsl.jpg)
:D
As for why Mr Oswald didn't scream his assassination-time location at the press, this too has been addressed-----------multiple times! But you, being a propagandist, pretend you never notice.
So! Once more for the benefit of He Who is Too Blind to See and Too Deaf to Hear:
Captain Fritz knows very early on that Mr Oswald was on the front steps. Under pressure to pin the shooting on his suspect, and not one to let trivial questions of basic justice get in the way, all he has to do is tell Mr Oswald: 'Look son, we know you didn't fire the actual shots. But we have you tied to the rifle. And that's what we're charging you with.'
Anyhoo, Mr Mytton, we look forward to seeing you pop up again in a few months with the same old easily-disposable garbage!
Thumb1:
Mr O'Meara, a lot of folks have looked at this Altgens-Wiegman synchronisation question very closely. Mr Mark Tyler's outstanding 'Motorcade 63' animated reconstruction is well worth checking out!
https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfXZxnnq/hosty-note.jpg)
Question What time did you go to lunch?
Oswald At noon.
Question Where did you go for lunch?
Oswald I went to the 2nd floor to get a coke then went back to the 1st floor to eat my lunch.
Question Then what happened?
Oswald I then went outside to watch the Presidents Parade.
Oswald was implying that he had no idea what was happening outside.
Btw under Ford's scenario even Oswald refers to being on the steps as being outside. OUCH that's gotta hurt!
Hahahahaha!
JohnM
As astute as ever, Mr. Ford, no great surprise considering the credible source, who always seems to have an uncanny knack for sharing exemplary research. Appreciate the timely reference material within your shared link.
That said, it's also interesting how you honed right in on semantics. Again, no great surprise given that critical-thinkers like you aren't beholden to tunnel-vision. Your reference to semantics conjured up memories of my youth, where depending upon what region of the country my pappy was working in, the locals would make reference to , quote, " a soft drink, a soda, a pop and/or a tonic" when speaking of Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, RC Cola, Root Beer, Vernon Ginger-Ale, etc. So your point at semantics is a valid one. It wouldn't surprise if there are other items out there in our world that are also subject to a matter/manner of speaking depending upon the speaker.
Lastly, an excellent point at no one, and I mean no one has be able to credibly put anyone else in Prayer Man's specific position. They have nothing. That's very telling, especially more so given the revealing revelation in Mr. Hosty's notes. I'm open-minded enough to change my contention that Prayer Mn is in fact the wrongly accused IF someone produces a credible candidate to account for his position.
Any takers up to this challenge?
Question: Am I in my house, when I'm out on a screened in porch-patio attached to the overall structure? I would say so as it is a part of the overall structure, where as someone else may come to the conclusion no I'm not because I'm not actually inside my house. Again, as Mr. Ford so aptly pointed out it's simply a case of semantics.
That said, Mr. Chapman, Are you up to the task of producing a candidate to account for Prayer Man's specific position?
Those of us reading along understand why if you cannot do so. There's a reason for that. The wrongly accused is right where he said he was (within the structure of the building outside).
Your hero said he was in the lunchroom (when the motorcade passed by)Was he in the lunchroom or inside the lunchroom?
But I'd say he had somewhat loftier ambitions that day.
The TSBD steps were not enclosed.
Some people were outside on the steps, not inside the building.
Definitly on the premises, though.
Which includes the Cuckoo's Nest, of course ;)
Your hero said he was in the lunchroom (when the motorcade passed by)
But I'd say he had somewhat loftier ambitions that day.
The TSBD steps were not enclosed.
Some people were outside on the steps, not inside the building.
Definitly on the premises, though.
Which includes the Cuckoo's Nest, of course ;)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/a3/3c/b0a33cb677e047af32d0250ec6f00827.jpg)
Too bad that the other people who were on the steps all refer to being on the OUTSIDE.
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not right then I didn't. I say, you know, he was supposed to come by during our lunch hour so you don't get very many chances to see the President of the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been down to Texas very much I went out there to see him and just like everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by
Sarah Stanton who was on the steps described to the FBI that after hearing the shots "immediately went into the building".
(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wcd_0089a-FBI-REPORT-November-23-1963..jpg?w=778)
Try again!
JohnM
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfXZxnnq/hosty-note.jpg)
Question What time did you go to lunch?
Oswald At noon.
Question Where did you go for lunch?
Oswald I went to the 2nd floor to get a coke then went back to the 1st floor to eat my lunch.
Question Then what happened?
Oswald I then went outside to watch the Presidents Parade.
Oswald was implying that he had no idea what was happening outside.
Btw under Ford's scenario even Oswald refers to being on the steps as being outside. OUCH that's gotta hurt!
CT Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald
Mr Oswald: I'm innocent
CT Judge: Okay, you can go
Mr Oswald: [SMIRK]
Captain Fritz: Where were you when the President passed the building?
Mr Oswald: I was outside.
WC counsel: Where did Oswald say he was when the President passed the building?
Captain Fritz: He said he was inside.
Good enough for Mr Chapman! :D
Oh noooo! Say it ain't so, Captain Fritz...amazing what some people will do & say for thirty pieces of silver. Thank goodness for all the honest to goodness Frank Serpicos who couldn't be bought.
Was he in the lunchroom or inside the lunchroom?
Was he in the lunchroom or inside the lunchroom?
I can't help wondering did Agent Hosty deliberately leave his draft report in his notes, secure in the knowledge that it would meet the daylight of day sooner or later... It is striking how he never backed up the claim that Mr Oswald talked about any post-assassination second-floor lunchroom encounter with a cop and Mr Truly.
Thumb1:
Captain Fritz: Where were you when the President passed the building?
Mr Oswald: I was outside.
WC counsel: Where did Oswald say he was when the President passed the building?
Captain Fritz: He said he was inside.
Good enough for Mr Chapman! :D
I guess when Ford is on the steps to his house, he's IN his house. Then when he actually unlocks the door and steps forward, he's INSIDE the house. ::)
This is the dimension of imagination, Welcome to the Twilight Zone!
JohnM
It's a simple matter of semantics, Oswald was well read and under the circumstances chose his words carefully.
Then I went outside to watch the parade. (Oswald here is using future tense to imply that he had no idea what was happening outside)
Or would Oswald use past tense to describe an action that he completed.
Then I went outside and watched the parade. (Oswald knew he couldn't say this because nobody could possibly see Oswald because he was in the building like he agreed to.
Men of honour have a way of appeasing the prevalent winds of their day while simultaneously leaving discreet clues to challenge treason when they witness it. Courage & integrity like theirs doesn't grow on trees.
Sdebar: Should you venture back this way Mr. Ford, no need to respond to this sidebar addendum, but for clarification sake and, of course, in fairness to you & those reading along just wanted you to be aware that my initial interest into the JFK assassination came about in May, 2014. In those days, I was able to register a forum membership in my name without the use of my middle initial. Though I was a young puppy then, I dared to jump over in the deep end of the pool so to speak. My avatar then featured Charlton Heston upon a horse drawn chariot right out of the movie Ben Hur. In those days, given my then puppy status I use to make some pretty wild statements like, quote, "Mr. Oswald couldn't even beat Barney Fife in an armed wrestling match let alone kill somebody". Of course, to their credit, the savvy veterans, especially the LNs who I respect nevertheless, would reign me in and place me on a tight leash so to speak, resulting in more than a few PM's in my box "setting me straight". The late Gary Mack (RIP) would remind me often how wrong I was, how clueless I was, etc, may he rest in peace anyway.
I ended up leaving this forum in early January, 2015 to write a book on a non-related subject. Long story short, several years later when I attempted to rejoin here, Mr. Ford, you had already signed on, thus I resorted to using my middle initial. If at any time you feel a tinge of discomfort with the similarities in our names posting on here, just PM me and I'll respectfully leave once again. At this point, I pretty much think everyone here knows my position anyway & where I stand on the innocence of the framed party. Whatever you decide no harm, no foul, I have complete trust in the direction your exemplary research is headed.
Signing off here for now. Best wishes to all to remain safe, well and healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges we are facing. Back next weekend G-d willing to reengage. Remember, Mr. Ford, just PM me and I'll take the necessary action moving forward, remaining here in spite of the similarities in our names or leave once again. Stay sharp, Cheers M8.
IOW:
Men of honour have a way of appeasing the prevalent winds of their day while simultaneously leaving discreet clues to challenge treason when they witness it. Courage & integrity like theirs doesn't grow on trees.
Sdebar: Should you venture back this way Mr. Ford, no need to respond to this sidebar addendum, but for clarification sake and, of course, in fairness to you & those reading along just wanted you to be aware that my initial interest into the JFK assassination came about in May, 2014. In those days, I was able to register a forum membership in my name without the use of my middle initial. Though I was a young puppy then, I dared to jump over in the deep end of the pool so to speak. My avatar then featured Charlton Heston upon a horse drawn chariot right out of the movie Ben Hur. In those days, given my then puppy status I use to make some pretty wild statements like, quote, "Mr. Oswald couldn't even beat Barney Fife in an armed wrestling match let alone kill somebody". Of course, to their credit, the savvy veterans, especially the LNs who I respect nevertheless, would reign me in and place me on a tight leash so to speak, resulting in more than a few PM's in my box "setting me straight". The late Gary Mack (RIP) would remind me often how wrong I was, how clueless I was, etc, may he rest in peace anyway.
I ended up leaving this forum in early January, 2015 to write a book on a non-related subject. Long story short, several years later when I attempted to rejoin here, Mr. Ford, you had already signed on, thus I resorted to using my middle initial. If at any time you feel a tinge of discomfort with the similarities in our names posting on here, just PM me and I'll respectfully leave once again. At this point, I pretty much think everyone here knows my position anyway & where I stand on the innocence of the framed party. Whatever you decide no harm, no foul, I have complete trust in the direction your exemplary research is headed.
Signing off here for now. Best wishes to all to remain safe, well and healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges we are facing. Back next weekend G-d willing to reengage. Remember, Mr. Ford, just PM me and I'll take the necessary action moving forward, remaining here in spite of the similarities in our names or leave once again. Stay sharp, Cheers M8.
:D
Poor Mr Mytton, your only resort is to trot out your old long-refuted Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-Chestnut!
Mr Oswald never said he was inside the building. He answered in the affirmative when asked if he was 'in' the building. Every time you continue to put the word 'inside' in Mr Oswald's mouth, we see your shameless dishonesty! Thumb1:
Now! Agent Hosty states clearly that Mr Oswald stated clearly that he 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Apart from the roof, there is literally only one place that can be said to be both in the Texas School Book Despository (i.e. part of the building, not part of the world beyond it) and outside... Have you guessed it yet, Mr Mytton?
That's right! The enclosed front entranceway!
That's where Mr Oswald said he was, and the reason he said that was where he was was that that was where he in fact was. And! The reason Captain Fritz and his crooked pals pretended Mr Oswald said he was somewhere other than where he actually said he was..... was that they wanted to frame him for the shooting. And you're still falling for the scam, and devoting yourself to making others fall for it too!
The Hosty note destroys you, Mr Mytton! it's why you tried to argue that Mr Oswald only said he went out to watch the rest of the parade------i.e. the bits that came after JFK! (I am not making this up, folks, it's what poor Mr Mytton actually said!)
(https://i.imgur.com/RrTedsl.jpg)
:D
As for why Mr Oswald didn't scream his assassination-time location at the press, this too has been addressed-----------multiple times! But you, being a propagandist, pretend you never notice.
So! Once more for the benefit of He Who is Too Blind to See and Too Deaf to Hear:
Captain Fritz knows very early on that Mr Oswald was on the front steps. Under pressure to pin the shooting on his suspect, and not one to let trivial questions of basic justice get in the way, all he has to do is tell Mr Oswald: 'Look son, we know you didn't fire the actual shots. But we have you tied to the rifle. And that's what we're charging you with.'
Anyhoo, Mr Mytton, we look forward to seeing you pop up again in a few months with the same old easily-disposable garbage!
Thumb1:
Thumb1:
When you're strange
Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange
No one remembers your name
When you're strange
When you're strange
When you're strange
Alright, yeah
JohnM
:D
No, Mr Mytton, he was stating that he went outside to watch the motorcade. Which is what he did---------which is why Captain Fritz and his pals hid his statement from the world!
On your rather desperate reading, Mr Oswald tells Captain Fritz: 'A cop came running into the room, stuck a gun in my belly and asked me if I worked there. Mr Truly told him I did and they went off running up the stairs. This happens to us employees most days around lunchtime, so I didn't think anything of it. Then I went downstairs, had lunch and went outside to watch the Presidential parade. Imagine my surprise when...'
Great theory you got there, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
What's gotta hurt, Mr Mytton, is that you can't for the life of you find a way to rebut the simple fact that there is only one place that can be said to be both 'in the building' and 'outside': the front entranceway!
Of course, had the reporter asked Mr Oswald, 'Were you inside the building at the time?', it's likely Mr Oswald would have answered a little more expansively along the lines, 'Well, sir, I was on the front steps of the building.' A pity that's not how it played out? Sure. But now----------thanks to the Hosty draft report that has broken your heart----------we know exactly where Mr Oswald claimed to have been. So... you lose------again! Thumb1:
'my initial interest into the JFK assassination'
> my initial interest IN the JFK assassination
There. Fixed it for ya. And proved you have no clue about upon which occasion to use either of the two. Like your struggles with in & inside.
And get another clue:
When one is behind the TSBD glass doors, one is indoors
When one is outside the glass doors, one is outdoors
you have no clue about upon which occasion to use either of the two. Like your struggles with in & inside.There is no struggle.
And the thought never crossed your mind that Oswald may have had the same struggle?
You are very good at destroying your own argument, aren't you?
There is no struggle.
Nobody in their right mind, stood on the steps in the full glare of the sun would consider themselves "in the building" (should that be inside their right mind). There is a door right there, on one side is 'in' on the other is'out' (I really can't believe I'm having to do this). Nobody is confused as to whether they are in or out.
The problem here is that we have video evidence of Oswald confirming he was in the building at the time of the assassination and the Prayer Man crew cannot accept that so they come up with this "is it 'in' or 'inside' insanity (or is that insideanity). That's fair enough, people have invested a lot of time and effort into believing this, "years of extensive research" I heard somewhere. I know hardly anything about this particular aspect of things as it never crossed my mind as a possibility for a number of reasons so I'd like to ask a couple of pretty straight-forward questions to those 'superfans' of this particular model of events:
1) What is the evidence Prayer Man is a man?
2) How many people are stood on the steps at the time of the assassination?
Two simple questions to start my education regarding the world of Prayer Man.
'Captain Fritz knows very early on that Mr Oswald was on the front steps'
> Captain Fritz knows very early on that Mr Oswald told him he was on the front steps
There. Fixed it for ya.
Oswwald states he was "upstairs" and then encounters Baker and Trully as he descends to the 2nd floor.
There is no struggle.
Nobody in their right mind, stood on the steps in the full glare of the sun would consider themselves "in the building" (should that be inside their right mind). There is a door right there, on one side is 'in' on the other is'out' (I really can't believe I'm having to do this). Nobody is confused as to whether they are in or out.
Thumb1:
When you're strange
Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange
No one remembers your name
When you're strange
When you're strange
When you're strange
Alright, yeah
JohnM
And Mr Mytton folds again. Happens every time! :D
Besides the other Alan Ford, LOL!, you have had absolutely no support whatsoever, so carry on champ.
JohnM
you have no clue about upon which occasion to use either of the two. Like your struggles with in & inside.
And the thought never crossed your mind that Oswald may have had the same struggle?
You are very good at destroying your own argument, aren't you?
Where are you getting this nonsense claim from, Mr Nessan? Source please! Thumb1:
So we agree that Mr Oswald did indeed tell Captain Fritz he was on the front steps when JFK passed the building. Excellent! Thumb1:
Therefore we also agree that your hero Captain Fritz and his pals lied about this! Excellenter! Thumb1: Thumb1:
Your hero said he was in the lunchroom (when the motorcade passed by)
But I'd say he had somewhat loftier ambitions that day.
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
The problem here is that we have video evidence of Oswald confirming he was in the building at the time of the assassination
Really? I would like to see that actual video, because it isn't in the clips that were posted earlier.
In one of the clips Oswald says "I work in that building" and then replies to a reporter asking "Were you in the building at the time" by saying "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir".
To construe from this exchange that Oswald confirmed he was in the building at the time of the assassination is reaching too far
And Mr Oswald was not confused either----------that's why he told Captain Fritz that he went outside to watch P. parade. If the reporter had asked him, 'Where were you when the shooting happened?', he would have said 'Out on the front steps' or 'Front entrance of the building'. If the reporter had asked him, 'Were you inside the building at the time?', he would have said, 'Well, sir, I was on the building's front steps.'What is the evidence that Prayer Man is a man?
Your explanation for the Hosty draft report seems to be that Agent Hosty was on hallucinogens at the time of Mr Oswald's first interrogation. Or that a trained FBI agent would completely misunderstand the suspect's answer to the single most crucial question of the case. Dream on!
Give us a single credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man. Go on, it should be easy! Thumb1:
I agree that people aren't always 100% correct in what they say but I disagree that i'm reaching too far interpreting Oswald's words as referring to the time of the assassination. The exchange in the video clip goes like this:
Reporter - Did you kill the President?
Oswald - No sir, I didn't. People keep asking me about that.
Reporter - Did you shoot the President?
Oswald - I work in that building
Reporter - Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald - Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.
The key phrase is 'at the time'. At what time? You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed. His previous questions make it abundantly clear he is asking whether Oswald was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed (assassinated). Oswald understands the question and what is meant by it and he answers in the affirmative twice ('Naturally' and yes sir')
I'd say that any other interpretation of this exchange was reaching too far.
Oswald is confirming he was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed.
Do you have an alternative interpretation?
I agree that people aren't always 100% correct in what they say but I disagree that i'm reaching too far interpreting Oswald's words as referring to the time of the assassination. The exchange in the video clip goes like this:Mr O'meara:
Reporter - Did you kill the President?
Oswald - No sir, I didn't. People keep asking me about that.
Reporter - Did you shoot the President?
Oswald - I work in that building
Reporter - Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald - Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.
The key phrase is 'at the time'. At what time? You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed. His previous questions make it abundantly clear he is asking whether Oswald was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed (assassinated). Oswald understands the question and what is meant by it and he answers in the affirmative twice ('Naturally' and yes sir')
I'd say that any other interpretation of this exchange was reaching too far.
Oswald is confirming he was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed.
Do you have an alternative interpretation?
You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed.So this is your alternative explanation!
Yes, I do. "At the time" can just as easily be interpeted as "where you there when the President was shot". Oswald had already said he worked in the building so his subsequent reply relates to that. If you say you work in a building and I ask you if you were there when the President was shot, you would also say something like "Of course, as I work there, I was there" or as Oswald answered; "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir"
To narrow it down to only one explanation when others are also possible is reaching too far.... even more so when this matter can not be resolved beyond speculation and opinion.
I have spent a great deal of my profesional life obtaining information from people and you wouldn't believe just how difficult it sometimes is for people to say exactly what they mean or to keep their story straight or to recall all the details at once.
This was a very short conversation and Oswald had hardly any time to consider the possible ramifications of his answer or even provide a more detailed answer.
Mr O'meara:
Oswald is being peppered with questions simultaneously by the large crowd of reporters, which may explain the odd responses.
So this is your alternative explanation!
"At the time" can easily be interpreted as "Around the time"
"Specific" can easily be interpreted as "vague"
Brilliant stuff.
You agree at least that 'the time' being referred to is the assassination, you just think that "At the time of the assassination" is open to interpretation.
I agree. Any phrase can be interpreted any way you want , from common sense to utter nonsense. I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.
So this is your alternative explanation!But isn't it reasonable to assume that by confirming he was in the building when the assassination occurred he knew exactly when it had occurred! And knew he was in the building when it happened.
No... I gave you no alternative explanation. I merely pointed out that your explanation was flawed.
I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.
I agree that that's what the reporter likely intended, but that isn't the issue... It's how Oswald understood the question.
As Oswald had already denied killing Kennedy, one can argue that he doesn't even know when exactly the President was killed and where exactly he was, so he goes with; "Yes I work in the building, so I was there"....
It's easy enough to understand. One of the biggest problems is that people place way too much value on the word choice of a witness, be it in testimony, in affidavit or in interviews.
There is a reason why lawyers always tell their clients (even the innocent ones) not to say anything to the police. The reason is, that once a statement is taken down it starts a life on it's own and very often what is said will be used against you later simply because you didn't say it completely or 100% accurate. In many case, when the police take a statement, you tell an officer what happened, that officer takes from that what he thinks he needs for a statement of possibly one or two A4 sheets, which he then puts in front of you to sign. Once you've signed it, you're stuck with it.
The problem with lying is remembering the other lies. Surprising he would place himself above the 2nd floor.
Never even heard the shooting. The rifle would have been right by his ear, you would think he would have heard it.
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
9:30 - 11:15 A.M., SUNDAY MORNING, NOV. 24,1963 Interrogation in Capt. Will Fritz's Office
"After the assassination, a policeman or some man came rushing into the School Book Depository Building and said, `Where is your telephone?' He showed me some kind of credential and identified himself, so he might not have been a police officer. . . . `Right there,' I answered, pointing to the phone. . . . `Yes, I can eat lunch with you,' I told my co-worker, `but I can't go right now. You go and take the elevator, but send the elevator back up.' [The elevator in the building was broken.] . . . After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what it was all about. A police officer and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building. . . . If you ask me about the shooting of Tippit, I don't know what you are talking about. . . . The only thing I am here for is because I popped a policeman in the nose in the theater on Jefferson Avenue, which I readily admit I did, because I was protecting myself. . . . I learned about the job vacancy at the Texas School Book Depository from people in Mrs. Paine's neighborhood. . . . I visited my wife Thursday night, Nov. 21, whereas I normally visited her over the weekend, because Mrs. Paine was giving a party for the children on the weekend. They were having a houseful of neighborhood children. I didn't want to be around at such a time. . . . Therefore, my weekly visit was on Thursday night instead of on the weekend. . . . It didn't cost much to go to Mexico. It cost me some $26, a small, ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night. . . . I went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by way of Cuba. . . . I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City. I went to the Russian Embassy to go to Russia by way of Cuba. They told me to come back in `thirty days.' . . . I don't recall the shape, it may have been a small sack, or a large sack; you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches. . . . The sack was in the car, beside me, on my lap, as it always is. . . . I didn't get it crushed. It was not on the back seat. Mr. Frazier must have been mistaken or else thinking about the other time when he picked me up. . . . The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was a loosely organized thing and we had no officers. Probably you can call me the secretary of it because I did collect money. [Oswald was the only member in New Orleans.] . . . In New York City they have a well-organized, or a better, organization. . . . No, not at all: I didn't intend to organize here in Dallas; I was too busy trying to get a job. . . . If anyone else was entitled to get mail in P.O. Box 6525 at the Terminal Annex in New Orleans, the answer is no. . . . The rental application said Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. Maybe I put them on there. . . . It is possible that on rare occasions I may have handed one of the keys to my wife to get my mail, but certainly nobody else. . . . I never ordered a rifle under the name of Hidell, Oswald, or any other name. . . . I never permitted anyone else to order a rifle to be received in this box. . . . I never ordered any rifle by mail order or bought any money order for the purpose of paying for such a rifle. . . . I didn't own any rifle. I have not practiced or shot with a rifle. . . . I subscribe to two publications from Russia, one being a hometown paper published in Minsk, where I met and married my wife. . . . We moved around so much that it was more practical to simply rent post office boxes and have mail forwarded from one box to the next rather than going through the process of furnishing changes of address to the publishers. . . . Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell were listed under the caption of persons entitled to receive mail through my box in New Orleans. . . . I don't recall anything about the A. J. Hidell being on the post office card. . . . I presume you have reference to a map I had in my room with some X's on it. I have no automobile. I have no means of conveyance. I have to walk from where I am going most of the time. I had my applications with the Texas Employment Commission. They furnished me names and addresses of places that had openings like I might fill, and neighborhood people had furnished me information on jobs I might get. . . . I was seeking a job, and I would put these markings on this map so I could plan my itinerary around with less walking. Each one of these X's represented a place where I went and interviewed for a job. . . . You can check each one of them out if you want to. . . . The X on the intersection of Elm and Houston is the location of the Texas School Book Depository. I did go there and interview for a job. In fact, I got the job there. That is all the map amounts to. [Ruth Paine later stated she had marked Lee's map.] . . . What religion am I? I have no faith, I suppose you mean, in the Bible. I have read the Bible. It is fair reading, but not very interesting. As a matter of fact, I am a student of philosophy and I don't consider the Bible as even a reasonable or intelligent philosophy. I don't think of it. . . . I told you I haven't shot a rifle since the Marines, possibly a small bore, maybe a .22, but not anything larger since I have left the Marine Corps. . . . I never received a package sent to me through the mailbox in Dallas, Box No. 2915, under the name of Alek Hidell, absolutely not. . . . Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got this mail, but it is possible she could have." Oswald was told that an attorney offered to assist him, and he answered, "I don't particularly want him, but I will take him if I can't do any better, and will contact him at a later date. . . . I have been a student of Marxism since the age of 14. . . . American people will soon forget the President was shot, but I didn't shoot him. . . . Since the President was killed, someone else would take his place, perhaps Vice-President Johnson. His views about Cuba would probably be largely the same as those of President Kennedy. . . . I never lived on Neely Street. These people are mistaken about visiting there, because I never lived there. . . . It might not be proper to answer further questions, because what I say might be construed in a different light than what I actually meant it to be. . . . When the head of any government dies, or is killed, there is always a second in command who would take over. . . . I did not kill President Kennedy or Officer Tippit. If you want me to cop out to hitting or pleading guilty to hitting a cop in the mouth when I was arrested, yeah, I plead guilty to that. But I do deny shooting both the President and Tippit."
Nope. Oswald told Fritz he went outside to watch the parade.
What is the evidence that Prayer Man is a man?
How many people on the steps at the time of the shooting?
You must surely know the answer to the second question as so much research has been done specifically about this (I assume)
Mr O'meara:
Oswald is being peppered with questions simultaneously by the large crowd of reporters, which may explain the odd responses.
you have had absolutely no support whatsoever
What support have you had, "John"?
Nobody in their right mind, stood on the steps in the full glare of the sun would consider themselves "in the building" (should that be inside their right mind). There is a door right there, on one side is 'in' on the other is'out'
You get no debate from me.
My argument with Ford where I said the steps are outside and the other side of the door is inside, was supported by you. Oops!
JohnM
But isn't it reasonable to assume that by confirming he was in the building when the assassination occurred he knew exactly when it had occurred! And knew he was in the building when it happened.
Are you so desperate that you need to misrepresent what I said?
My unwillingness to debate an issue doesn't mean that you are correct.
Who cares what you'd say? Once you resort to "hero" rhetoric, you've already lost.
:D
That's not an actual source, Mr Nessan---------do your homework before spouting nonsense claims!
No I don't think so {~snip snip!~}
Start with what looks exceedingly like a receding hairline. How many women have one of those?
1. Mr Frazier
2. Mr Shelley
3. Mr Lovelady
4. Ms Stanton
5. Ms Sanders
6. Ms Reese
7. Ms McCully
8. Mr Molina
9. Mr Williams
10. Ms Davis
11. Mr Lewis (? probably inside the front door)
12. Ms Dean
13. Mr Oswald
Thumb1:
Oswald combed his hair over to the left exposing his receding hair on the right. You're saying the Shadow Person is receding on the left.
Oh dear, yet another nail in Prayer Man's coffin Thumb1:
Don't forget Carl Edward Jones
Weak, Mr O'Meara! Mr Oswald's hair receded on both sides. If your argument now rests on the assumption that Mr Oswald stood in front of a mirror with a comb just before going outside to watch the P. parade, then you've got nothing.(https://i.postimg.cc/cL0V2qwM/Oswald-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yes indeed, thank you-------Mr Jones comes in at #14, just after Mr Oswald!
Now! You asked for the list. What are you going to do with it?
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cL0V2qwM/Oswald-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
D'oh 8)
I can save you some time and trouble, Mr O'Meara, by telling you where this line of inquiry will lead:Not sure how any of this deals with the fact the single piece of "evidence" you put forward for "Prayer Man" being a man has been blown out of the water.
Either! Prayer Man is Mr Oswald, a quiet nondescript employee amongst a bunch of other employees, who told Captain Fritz that he "went outside to watch P. parade" and naturally enought went unnoticed by most of his fellow employees in the short time he was out there (though not unnoticed by Officer Baker, Mr Truly and Mr Lovelady)
Or! Prayer Man is a non-employee of the Depository alone amongst a bunch of employees, who went weirdly unnoticed by every single one of them.
Seems to me option 'Or' is a much bigger stretch than option 'Either'!
Alternatively----------can you find another, hitherto unmentioned Depository employee to put out on those steps in the Prayer Man spot?
Thumb1:
Not sure how any of this deals with the fact the single piece of "evidence" you put forward for "Prayer Man" being a man has been blown out of the water.
Have you got anything else? 8)
You don't think Mr Oswald's hair was receding on both sides? You're still running with this silly claim as a way of distracting from the fact that you still haven't been able to suggest a single credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man? Ho hum...At the moment I don't have anyone credible. But then again, neither do you!
(https://i.imgur.com/1uKYIl3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/CUz6y6K.jpg)
Looks like your knock-down argument has been knocked down! Thumb1:
So! Quit deflecting, Mr O'Meara, and tell us who you think Prayer Man might be.
Mr Nessan, I'll take this as your way of admitting you goofed up big-time! Thumb1:
Great, you actually do understand what Holmes stated in his testimony. Absolutely ends the speculation about LHO's whereabouts during the assassination. He was descending from the top floors to see about the "commotion", and obviously pretends he never heard a thing.
Oswald: , "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
LHO even trys to change the location of where Baker and Trully encounter him.
Great, you actually do understand what Holmes stated in his testimony. Absolutely ends the speculation about LHO's whereabouts during the assassination. He was descending from the top floors to see about the "commotion", and obviously pretends he never heard a thing.
Oswald: , "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
LHO even trys to change the location of where Baker and Trully encounter him.
At the moment I don't have anyone credible. But then again, neither do you!
This old dear is more credible than Oswald - note the hairline, the exposed arms, the classic Prayer Man pose and she's on the top step! 8)
(https://i.postimg.cc/4y1nknsQ/Prayer-Woman-2.gif)
Lovelady lied when he said he never saw Oswald!!
Great, you actually do understand what Holmes stated in his testimony. Absolutely ends the speculation about LHO's whereabouts during the assassination. He was descending from the top floors to see about the "commotion", and obviously pretends he never heard a thing.
When did Holmes say "from the top floors"?
Keep in mind that you are relying on specific details from the man who came up with this gem:
"But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke."
Lawyer Richard Dwyer speaks about Prayer Man.
Fred
Welcome Alan. Glad that you liked it.
Fred
Lawyer Richard Dwyer speaks about Prayer Man.
Fred
Mr. Nessan,
First, my apologies for the initial spelling of your name in my previous post (respecting it prompted me to do some due-diligence and get it correct before addressing you here in that follow up post I promised yesterday).
Please take the time to actually watch & listen to Mr. Dwyer's astute presentation to gain some invaluable insights into this case. That said, here are a few things to address with an open mind as well:
*Only one witness, just one, places Roy Truly near the elevator & stairs on the first-floor that afternoon during the aftermath of the assassination. Unfortunately for the hastily contrived script about a mad dash upstairs to confront the wrongly accused, this lone single witness merely places Roy Truly in the company of a male figure (note not an obviously dressed uniformed white helmeted motorcycle officer in loooong black boots) ----->
Mr. BALL. You mentioned you saw Truly?
Mr. PIPER. I don't know whether it was a policeman or FBI or who it was, but another fellow was with him.
Mr. BALL And where were you?
Mr. PIPER. Standing right there where they make coffee.
Mr. BALL. What did they do?
Mr. PIPER. He ran in and yelled, "Where is the elevator?" And I said, "I don't know, sir, Mr. Truly."
They taken off and went on up the stairway and that's all I know about that.
What's worse is the timing element in Mr. Piper's account as he shares further within his testimony that his encounter with Roy Truly came several minutes after the assassination. The hastily contrived script falsely leads us to believe that a few minutes later the tandem of Roy Truly and Marrion Baker have already encountered the wrongly accused and subsequently are charging up the backstairs to reach floors 3, 4, and 5 via foot.
I'm open to anyone sharing here one more witness besides Mr. Piper who actually saw Roy Truly near the backstairs on the first floor during the immediate aftermath of the assassination...
Moving along now, both Roy Truly and Marrion Baker in their sworn testimony make claims about their exploits upon an otherwise locked roof (from the inside) ------>
Back in 12-15mins to share supporting documentation revealing their outright lie about their exploits upon that otherwise Locked roof...
Piper immediately identifies the man with Truly as a policeman.
Mr. Ball: Tell me what you heard.
Mr.Piper..... "I seen the people all running and in a few minutes someone came in the building, and I looked up and it was the bossman and a policeman or someone.
Greetings there, Mr. Nessan
Appreciate your timely response. However, In your quote above, you do realize a few minutes is much later than the 90 secs the hastily contrived script wishes us to believe?
Also, Mr. Piper wouldn't describe a uniformed dressed white helmeted motorcycle officer as someone working with the FBI. Major difference between a well dressed FBI agent and a white helmeted motorcycle officer in long black boots sir.
-------------------------
Wiseman---" I went up the stairs to the 7th floor and started up into the attic and noticed that the door to the roof was locked on the inside with a gate type hook latch."
It was locked on the inside. Anyone on the inside could undo the lock open the door and go up onto the roof.
You're right about that if they had a key. However, lest any of us forget the lying tandem of Roy Truly & Marrion Baker per their own testimonies claim to be upon that otherwise Locked roof minutes before Mr. Wiseman discovered it Locked from the inside. So, How did Roy Truly & Marrion Baker access that otherwise Locked roof (from the inside). Even if the answer is Roy Truly had a key, there's not enough magic even in Disney World to convince critical-thinkers that Roy Truly was magical enough to lock it from the other side. Let alone magically unlock it when it was time to end their phantom exploits upon that otherwise Locked roof (from the inside).
----------------------
No, that is all wrong. Officer Baker's statement matches LHO's about the 2nd floor encounter.
Baker: . As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
Please read Baker's initial first day affidavit (will post it here for you over the next 12-15 minutes or so (please note precisely where the encounter takes place before the hastily contrived script rears its deceiving, misleading head.
Here is Oswald's final words on the subject. The statement, by Oswald himself, really calls into question the whole conspiracy theory.
Oswald: "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
Amid a hastily contrived script to sell to a then trusting, somewhat naive general public, we may never know precisely what the wrongly accused actually said and/or in which ordered sequence, but I do appreciate you sharing what you have learnt to date.
Notice LHO said "I went down"---meaning he was on a floor above the 2nd floor where the encounter took place. "I went down" --- so simple but very informative,
LHO: "I started to go out and see what it was all about"---- He is in the building not outside on the front steps
After firing the rifle, his rifle, "he went downstairs" where he encountered Truly and Baker on the second floor. He never was outside other than when he was fleeing the building.
No, that is all wrong. Officer Baker's statement matches LHO's about the 2nd floor encounter.
Baker: . As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
Here is Oswald's final words on the subject. The statement, by Oswald himself, really calls into question the whole conspiracy theory.
Oswald: "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
Notice LHO said "I went down"---meaning he was on a floor above the 2nd floor where the encounter took place. "I went down" --- so simple but very informative,
LHO: "I started to go out and see what it was all about"---- He is in the building not outside on the front steps
After firing the rifle, his rifle, "he went downstairs" where he encountered Truly and Baker on the second floor. He never was outside other than when he was fleeing the building.
Officer Baker's statement matches LHO's about the 2nd floor encounter.
No it doesn't. If you put value on what Oswald allegedly said, according to Holmes, you have to conclude that Baker stopped Oswald "just before I [Oswald] got to the front door", which is no way near the lunchroom and even less near the 3rd or 4th floor. In fact the front door is on the other side of the building!
Notice LHO said "I went down"---meaning he was on a floor above the 2nd floor where the encounter took place. "I went down" --- so simple but very informative,
Actually, it isn't informative at all. You just want it to be.... The fact is that if Oswald went outside he would have to go down to the first floor level in order to leave the building. Using the stairs at the entrance of the building would be going down. You attached way too much value to a comment that is merely attributed to Oswald by a third party without even knowing for sure if Oswald actually used those words verbatim. That, in my book, is making up a story based on speculation and not fact.
After firing the rifle, his rifle, "he went downstairs" where he encountered Truly and Baker on the second floor. He never was outside other than when he was fleeing the building.
Which is exactly the conclusion you wanted to arrive on. It is however not a conclusion supported by the known facts.
Lawyer Richard Dwyer speaks about Prayer Man.
Fred
The absolute truth always has a knack for standing all alone on its own, only lies need revisions,
Nicely said.
Oswald: "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
Notice LHO said "I went down"---meaning he was on a floor above the 2nd floor where the encounter took place. "I went down" --- so simple but very informative,
Without the original Darnell film, no definite conclusions can be made.
You ignored this the first time I asked. Let's see if you continue to ignore it.
How does going down to get to the front door mean "above the second floor"?
So we can't rule out Mr Oswald.Oh come on! Is that all you got out of my post?! Read it! Not one person who knew the anti-social Oswald through the experience of being snubbed by him when they would greet him on different occasions --or even Frazier who knew him personally--said they saw him during or after the assassination standing in the entrance way of the building . Had they, this would have instantly been an alibi for Oswald. This, in itself, is proof that the puke wasn't standing in the entrance of the the TSBD in the Darnell footage.
Now! Who------other than Mr Oswald-------can be ruled in, Mr Barber? Can you give us your list of credible candidates? Can you even give us one name?
Thumb1:
Oh come on! Is that all you got out of my post?! Read it! Not one person who knew the anti-social Oswald through the experience of being snubbed by him when they would greet him on different occasions --or even Frazier who knew him personally--said they saw him during or after the assassination standing in the entrance way of the building . Had they, this would have instantly been an alibi for Oswald. This, in itself, is proof that the puke wasn't standing in the entrance of the the TSBD in the Darnell footage.
This, in itself, is proof that the puke wasn't standing in the entrance of the the TSBD in the Darnell footage.
So if a witness does not see you (or does not say he saw you) it's proof you were not there....Is that what you are saying?
That's not all what I said--nor am saying. Frazier, Oswald's companion on the morning of 11/22/63, and co-worker, is standing in the entrance way of the book depository with a person certain buffs are saying is Oswald. Oswald became the most famous person in the world that day. So, are you going to tell me that if Frazier and Oswald are standing together--within inches of each other-within a minute of the last shot, and Frazier standing within inches of Oswald facing each other--wouldn't have come forward after Oswald was accused of killing the president--and told the authorities that Oswald was standing right there when the shots were fired, or was standing there too soon after the last shot-and therefore couldn't have been the assassin? You don't think Frazier would come to Oswald's rescue--and/or anyone else standing in that entrance who most certainly would have known Oswald was right there after his face is flashed all over the TV and newspapers? This whole thing is absurd.
That's not all what I said--nor am saying. Frazier, Oswald's companion on the morning of 11/22/63, and co-worker, is standing in the entrance way of the book depository with a person certain buffs are saying is Oswald. Oswald became the most famous person in the world that day. So, are you going to tell me that if Frazier and Oswald are standing together--within inches of each other-within a minute of the last shot, and Frazier standing within inches of Oswald facing each other--wouldn't have come forward after Oswald was accused of killing the president--and told the authorities that Oswald was standing right there when the shots were fired, or was standing there too soon after the last shot-and therefore couldn't have been the assassin? You don't think Frazier would come to Oswald's rescue--and/or anyone else standing in that entrance who most certainly would have known Oswald was right there after his face is flashed all over the TV and newspapers? This whole thing is absurd.
Oh come on! Is that all you got out of my post?! Read it! Not one person who knew the anti-social Oswald through the experience of being snubbed by him when they would greet him on different occasions --or even Frazier who knew him personally--said they saw him during or after the assassination standing in the entrance way of the building . Had they, this would have instantly been an alibi for Oswald. This, in itself, is proof that the puke wasn't standing in the entrance of the the TSBD in the Darnell footage.
That's not all what I said--nor am saying. Frazier, Oswald's companion on the morning of 11/22/63, and co-worker, is standing in the entrance way of the book depository with a person certain buffs are saying is Oswald. Oswald became the most famous person in the world that day. So, are you going to tell me that if Frazier and Oswald are standing together--within inches of each other-within a minute of the last shot, and Frazier standing within inches of Oswald facing each other--wouldn't have come forward after Oswald was accused of killing the president--and told the authorities that Oswald was standing right there when the shots were fired, or was standing there too soon after the last shot-and therefore couldn't have been the assassin?
:D
Can you or can you not offer a single credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man, Mr Barber?
If you're scared of the question, keep on not answering it! Thumb1:
Appreciate your patience there, Mr. Nessan, am not on my own computer at the moment, so had to actually go web surfing to find Baker's same day affidavit ---->
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Took the liberty of highlighting the points to ponder. Again, be wary of anything the lying rooftop tandem of Roy Truly and Marrion Baker say after this document. If you are honest as I suspect you are, Ask yourself How did an encounter outside of the lunchroom with an individual walking away from stairs now become amid a hastily contrived script about an encounter in a lunchroom? Please let that sink in a fair, objective manner sir.
Moreover, the wrongly accused, according to the authorities only weighed 131lbs on November 22, 1963, nowhere near 140lbs let alone 165.
Again, Mr. Nessan, be wary of the hastily contrived script that suddenly reared its falsehoods after Baker's same day affidavit. They willfully outright lied about their phantom exploits upon an otherwise Locked roof (from the inside). The wrongly accused didn't shoot anybody. Anybody.
You ignored this the first time I asked. Let's see if you continue to ignore it.
How does going down to get to the front door mean "above the second floor"?
LHO said "I went down"---meaning he was on a floor above the 2nd floor where the encounter took place. "I went down" can only mean he was located above the second floor and went down to the second floor.
LHO said "I went down"---meaning he was on a floor above the 2nd floor where the encounter took place. "I went down" can only mean he was located above the second floor and went down to the second floor.
Oh, pardon me! Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Ford! None of you conspiracy buffs say anything that "scare" me!
Your question is both ridiculous and stupid. You expect a person to name "a credible alternative" to "Prayer man", when none of us know what all of the men who worked at the depository looked like! Furthermore, no one knows whether "Prayer man" is an employee of the TSBD or someone off the street! So there's your answer! Like it or not!
The statement you are interpreting says nothing about the second floor.
Holmes:
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
The statement you are interpreting says nothing about the second floor.If Baker is telling the truth he confronted Oswald on the second floor.
Holmes:
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
If Baker is telling the truth he confronted Oswald on the second floor.
If the recorded words are true Baker confronted Oswald just as he reached the front door.
Either way, Oswald is inside the building at the time of the assassination
This is in accordance with the video evidence of Oswald saying exactly this. ("In" meaning "inside" in this case)
If Officer Baker is telling the truth in his 11/22/63 affidavit, he confronted a man walking away from the stairway on a floor higher than two! Why on earth should we favor months-later WC testimony over a same-day statement?
Now! As Officer Baker is giving this very affidavit, Mr Oswald is brought into the Homicide Office in front of his eyes-------------yet Officer Baker clearly doesn't recognize him as the man he had confronted... the affidavit makes no connection between the man just brought in and the man I caught walking away from the stairway. If he does recognize the man just brought in, then it will have been as the man he asked for help as he was entering the front door of the building. In which case it is perhaps already dawning on Officer Baker just what a tangled web he has gotten caught up in...
Slow down! Who is the 'he' in "as he reached the front door"? Officer Baker or Mr Oswald?
Officer Baker, in his 11/22/63 affidavit, tells us that as he was entering the front door he asked "several people" who were "standing around" where the stairs were. Who can these several people have been, and where exactly do you think they were standing---------inside or outside?
If it were "exactly this", you wouldn't need to change "in" to "inside"! And your switcheroo doesn't even begin to dispose of the Hosty draft report: "Then went outside to watch P. parade".
While you're there, Mr O'Meara, have you come up with a credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man yet? (Mr Barber seems to have run away!)
"If Officer Baker is telling the truth in his 11/22/63 affidavit, he confronted a man walking away from the stairway on a floor higher than two! Why on earth should we favor months-later WC testimony over a same-day statement?"
He was unfamiliar with the building and pumped full of adrenaline. In his statement he is very vague about where the confrontation took place,
possibly not realising it's importance. He doesn't say "a floor higher than two".
The re-enactment probably cleared things up if he hadn't already realised it was the second floor.
"Now! As Officer Baker is giving this very affidavit, Mr Oswald is brought into the Homicide Office in front of his eyes-------------yet Officer Baker clearly doesn't recognize him as the man he had confronted... the affidavit makes no connection between the man just brought in and the man I caught walking away from the stairway. If he does recognize the man just brought in, then it will have been as the man he asked for help as he was entering the front door of the building. In which case it is perhaps already dawning on Officer Baker just what a tangled web he has gotten caught up in... "
The usual fantasia Mr Ford
"Slow down! Who is the 'he' in "as he reached the front door"? Officer Baker or Mr Oswald?"
Read the post you're replying to.
"Officer Baker, in his 11/22/63 affidavit, tells us that as he was entering the front door he asked "several people" who were "standing around" where the stairs were. Who can these several people have been, and where exactly do you think they were standing---------inside or outside?"
This is what Baker actually stated: "As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were."
Do you see how you've twisted the original meaning?
Were they inside or outside? The clue is in the phrase "As I entered the front door". The front door delineates inside and outside. Isn't that obvious?
Who are these people? I thought you Prayer Man lot had accounted for where everyone was. Roy Lewis also talks about some women standing in this area. Who are they? Don't you know?
"If it were "exactly this", you wouldn't need to change "in" to "inside"! And your switcheroo doesn't even begin to dispose of the Hosty draft report: "Then went outside to watch P. parade"."
Erm...
"While you're there, Mr O'Meara, have you come up with a credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man yet? (Mr Barber seems to have run away!)"
The second you come up with anyone even remotely credible I'll give it some thought 8)
Mr. TRULY. I heard a policeman in this area along here make a remark, "Oh, goddam," or something like that. I just remember that. It wasn't a motorcycle policeman. It was one of the Dallas policeman, I think-- words to that effect.
I wouldn't know him. I just remember there was a policeman standing along in this area about 7, 8, or 10 feet from me.
But as I came back here, and everybody. was screaming and hollering, just moments later-I saw a young motorcycle policeman run up to the building, up the steps to the entrance of our building. He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the way. He pushed a number of people out of the way before he got to me. I saw him coming through, I believe. As he ran up the stairway--I mean up the steps, I was almost to the steps, I ran up and caught up with him. I believe I caught up with him inside the lobby of the building, or possibly the front steps. I don't remember that close.
The statement you are interpreting says nothing about the second floor.
Holmes:
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
Exactly, obviously he was not outside or even on the first floor during the parade. He was going down to the first floor, to check out the "commotion" downstairs. He either encountered Baker and Truly on the second floor as they state or the first floor as LHO stated. Either way according to his account he was descending from an even a higher floor and LHO makes the same reference to encountering Truly and Baker as do Truly and Baker. Just a different location but he was definitely in the building during the assassination.
Basically was LHO on the second floor or not when he encountered Baker and Truly.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----
Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say why he left the building?
Mr. HOLMES. No; other than just said he talked about this commotion and went out to see what it was about.
"Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building..."
"Up in the building"
Yet another statement Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting according to Oswald.
Funny how your response to a trained FBI agent's clearly worded draft official interrogation report 11/22/63 was: unless you can show me audio or footage of Mr Oswald actually saying this, I won't believe it... Whereas your response to Mr Holmes's clearly muddled WC testimony given months after the event is: we can safely bank this as a statement from Oswald.
Could you at least do a better job of pretending to be consistent, Mr O'Meara?
Also! Any progress on your alternative candidate for Prayer Man? Or are you coming around to the view that it's probably not a human being after all but a mere film artefact?
Thumb1:
All I'm saying is that Holmes confirms what came out of Oswald's mouth on video. Not really sure how Hosty's notes beat this.
I've noticed you've dropped the word 'credible', perhaps an admission of the status of you're own choice.
I must say, the more I look at Prayer Man, the fatter she gets! Must be my old tired eyes 8)
All I'm saying is that Holmes confirms what came out of Oswald's mouth on video. Not really sure how Hosty's notes beat this.
I've noticed you've dropped the word 'credible', perhaps an admission of the status of you're own choice.
I must say, the more I look at Prayer Man, the fatter she gets! Must be my old tired eyes
All you have on video, Mr O'Meara, is Mr Oswald confirming his location at the time of the assassination: Texas School Book Depository. He's happy to confirm that he was there and nowhere else.
Suppose the exchange with the reporter had gone as follows-------------
REPORTER: Where in the building were you at the time?
MR OSWALD: Front entrance steps.
Are you seriously suggesting Mr Oswald's response would have been incorrect or misleading, or that he should have gone into semantics with the reporter?
As for why the Hosty draft report beats a) your tendentious interpretation of Mr Oswald's actual response to the reporter + b) Mr Holmes' muddled recall months after the event, the answer is obvious:
The words "Then went outside to watch P. parade" are:
------------------matchlessly unambiguous (not "went outside to see what was happening/to see the commotion/excitement, etc")
------------------written on the back of a blank DPD affidavit form, i.e. while the memory of Mr Oswald's first interrogation is still fresh
------------------found on a page of an FBI agent's official draft report that contains plenty other information that no one is suggesting is erroneous
If you disagree with this last point, take a look at the page and tell us what else (other than the explosive "Then went outside to watch P. parade") you believe Agent Hosty hallucinated Mr Oswald as having said:
(https://i.imgur.com/4k9namT.jpg)
To suggest that Agent Hosty misheard or completely misunderstood what the suspect had to say about the single most critical question in the single most momentous case he or anyone else had ever been involved in is just fanciful in the extreme.
Not at all! Mr Oswald is the only credible candidate thus far put forward for Prayer Man. And you still can't come up with an alternative credible candidate! Thumb1:
Well, those same eyes were recently telling you Prayer Man was lighting a cigarette. How did that work out?
Admit it, Mr O'Meara, if it were possible to identify Prayer Man as Mr Billy Lovelady, you'd be enthusiastically backing that I.D. and telling us all how obvious it is that Prayer Man is a slim white male in worker's garb-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/a0QwrHZ.gif)
Unfortunately for you, and for all the other members of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps, Mr Lovelady is not available to make Prayer Man safe. And nor, it would appear from your responses to date, is anyone else! Thumb1:
Oswald is involved in the assassination and is giving a false alibi.
Exactly, obviously he was not outside or even on the first floor during the parade. He was going down to the first floor, to check out the "commotion" downstairs. He either encountered Baker and Truly on the second floor as they state or the first floor as LHO stated. Either way according to his account he was descending from an even a higher floor
Oswald is not even remotely credible. The single piece of evidence you have put forward for Prayer Man even being a man, let alone Oswald, is that the Shadow Person has a receding hairline. This is wrong. You are seeing what you want to see.
Lovelady is just in front of the Shadow Person listening to Gloria Calvery.
Doesn't the same go for your "fat woman lighting a cigarette"?Honestly John, I have no real desire or need to see a fat woman lighting a cigarette.
LOL
Let's cut to the chase, Mr O'Meara!
With respect to Agent Hosty's information that Mr Oswald said he "went outside to watch P. parade", you write-----------
And there we have it----------we cannot countenance Mr Oswald as Prayer Man because he needs to give a false alibi for the time of the shooting.
What makes you think Mr Oswald needs a false alibi for the time of the shooting? Where do you believe he actually was at the time in question?
And how do you explain the fact that those involved in his interrogation lied about what he claimed in custody? Why would they press mute on an alibi they knew to be false?
Thumb1:
Yes Mr Ford, let's cut to the chase.
I think Oswald needs an alibi because I think he's involved in the assassination.
Do you think he's involved or not?
8)
I have yet to see a compelling argument for Oswald's involvement in the assassination. Just a bunch of conjecture and handwaving.Oswald's palm print found on a rifle hid on the 6th floor, the very floor multiple witnesses state shots were fired from (Williams and co.).
If he was always going to be the Patsy, those running the show couldn't have him just running around
Yes Mr Ford, let's cut to the chase.
I think Oswald needs an alibi because I think he's involved in the assassination.
Do you think he's involved or not?
8)
Oswald's palm print found on a rifle hid on the 6th floor, the very floor multiple witnesses state shots were fired from (Williams and co.).
Oswald's palm print found on a rifle hid on the 6th floor, the very floor multiple witnesses state shots were fired from (Williams and co.).
That isn't a compelling argument Oswald was involved?
Or is it a compelling argument Oswald was set up?
Or does it mean nothing?
He was going down to the first floor, to check out the "commotion" downstairs.
Now you're getting it... and to go downstairs (meaning outside) he had to leave the building at the front door and go down the stairs.
He either encountered Baker and Truly on the second floor as they state or the first floor as LHO stated.
Oswald never stated that. According to Holmes he said he encountered Baker and Truly near the frontdoors on the second floor.
Either way according to his account he was descending from an even a higher floor
Well, ain't that a shame... You were doing so well, and now you've gone and spoil it. There is nothing in Oswald's (or rather Holmes') account that confirms he was descending from a higher floor.
LHO makes the same reference to encountering Truly and Baker as do Truly and Baker. Just a different location but he was definitely in the building during the assassination.
Wow, you've cracked the case.... You are right, Oswald was indeed guilty of being inside the building during the assassination. Thumb1:
Weidmann: "Wow, you've cracked the case.... You are right, Oswald was indeed guilty of being inside the building during the assassination. "
Congratulations, this is a first Martin. Usually you are off in a fantasy world making up your own times, witness statements, etc., but this time you are right LHO was in the building during the assassination. The interesting part is your posts show every indication that you weren't even tracking the discussion. You must feel very strongly about LHO not being Prayer Man.
Oswald's palm print found on a rifle hid on the 6th floor,
Btw, do you need reminding that the encounter with Baker and Truly (near the front door) took place after and not during the assassination?
Fun fact, friends, which I came across here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/page/87/
Back in 2013, when the Prayer Man issue first came to the fore, our very own Mr Steve Barber took one look at him and identified him as..... Mr Billy Lovelady! :D
Except for the small detail that neither Lovelady nor Shelley is there standing next to prayer-blob. But by all means, throw your lot in with the banned guy with 784 falsehoods and fabrications.So what do you think he means? Shelley and Lovelady aren't stood next to each other either.
So what do you think he means? Shelley and Lovelady aren't stood next to each other either.
Because there is no-one between Lovelady and Stanton he is quite right to say she was standing next to him. He could hardly say that if she was by the west wall of the entranceway.
Again, Stanton has herself, Lovelady and Shelley together.
Truth be told, we don't really know exactly where Shelley stood either.
He could say that if Stanton was between him and Sanders (ie. somewhere in the middle of the entranceway).
Everyone in the entryway was standing "together". It's not like it was some vast expanse of real estate.
It's also interesting to note what Stanton has to say in her 3/18/64 FBI statement:
"When President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mr. William Shelley...and Billy Lovelady... I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time."
You don't think the fat chap in the doorway is Shelley?
That has no bearing on the point I'm making. (wouldn't she be in Altgens 6)
Nice flip flop. A second ago no-one was standing next to prayer-blob as if it was some vast expanse of real estate, now everyone's together.
The two closest people to prayer-blob are Lovelady and Shelley.
Lovelady confirms she was over by the right (west) side.
The sarcasm of my remark went straight over your head, didn't it?
Btw, do you need reminding that the encounter with Baker and Truly (near the front door) took place after and not during the assassination?
Usually you are off in a fantasy world making up your own times, witness statements,
Show me one time where I made up my own times (whatever that means) or a witness statement! Ibetknow you can't.
You must feel very strongly about LHO not being Prayer Man.
Just a strongly as I feel for everything there isn't credible or sufficient evidence for, like - for instance - Oswald being any higher than on the 2nd floor when the shots were fired.
I'm not exactly sure what you hope to achieve by these "drive-by" posts, but I do understand why you are doing it. It's far easier to do, and maybe score some minor point to satisfy your ego, than have a proper discussion based on facts and evidence, isn't it?
He either encountered Baker and Truly on the second floor as they state or the first floor as LHO stated.
You weren't being sarcastic.
Here is your beliefs from the Martin Weidmann --Adams and Styles Timeline.
The Martin Weidmann Assassination Timeline
Oswald arrives at the second floor lunch room where he meets Baker and Truly after descending from upstairs,
12:30:30
Adams and Styles arrive at the stairs on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner sees them go down the stairs
12:31.00 "Oswald" arrives at the 2nd floor and goes into the lunchroom after decending 4 flights of stairs
Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor, after decending 3 flights of stairs, and leave the building through the loading door
12:31.15 Baker arrives on the 2nd floor (Truly is already climbing the stairs to the 3rd floor) and meets Oswald in the lunchroom
etc...........
----------
Weidmann: "Oswald never stated that. According to Holmes he said he encountered Baker and Truly near the frontdoors on the second floor."
This is all you. How about what you made up right here. Frontdoors of the second floor?
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
Where does it say the "front doors of the second floor"?
Do you just post whatever ridiculous thing pops into your head?
Why should I?
PS. what fat chap?
Half of the entryway is blocked by secret service agents in the foreground.
Are you claiming that there's no difference between "next to" and "standing with"?
I thought you placed Shelley out on the sidewalk.
No, read it again. You are as bad as Doyle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pV7yxW82/Lovelady-on-TSBD-steps-Hughes.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In this Towner frame we see Lovelady stood to the far right against the wall of the entranceway as the Presidential limo turns towards him. It is at this time he states Stanton was stood next to him:
Mr O'Meara doesn't know how to post images. Another thing he has in common with Mr Doyle!My bad.
My bad.
Hughes frame.
i notice that's all you've picked up on. Shied away from the point being made haven't you.
What a shock.
Question for Mr James Hackerott!Yes, I believe that is Billy Lovelady at that position. I think that neither Lovelady, or Shelly, are walking down the Elm extension in the Mal Couch clips.
Mr Hackerott, in this--------------your first sketch based on your viewing of Prayer Man in the Darnell Film at the Sixth Floor Museum---------------you seem to have written the letters 'BL':
(https://i.imgur.com/nKuua7i.jpg)
Do these stand for 'Billy Lovelady'?
Thank you? Thumb1:
I thought you were saying you doubted the guy who is supposed to be Shelley, stood just behind Lovelady, wasn't Shelley at all.
I've always thought this guy seems a bit rounder than the very angular Shelley but everyone seems to agree that's who he is.
"Half of the entryway is blocked by secret service agents in the foreground."
Firstly, it made no difference to the point I was making,
Look at the frame holding the glass of the front entrance. On the right-hand side is a strut that runs from top to bottom. If you look at the top picture with people on the steps you can see this strut running down through Molina's arm. A large section of the east wall is visible. IMO 8)
"I thought you placed Shelley out on the sidewalk."
At the time of the shooting?
Wrong
"No, read it again. You are as bad as Doyle."
I did read it again. Lovelady states that at the time the motorcade passed he was "standing on the top step to the far right against the wall of the entranceway"
Yes, I believe that is Billy Lovelady at that position. I think that neither Lovelady, or Shelly, are walking down the Elm extension in the Mel Couch clips.
My bad.
Hughes frame.
i notice that's all you've picked up on. Shied away from the point being made haven't you.
What a shock.
8)
Yes, I believe that is Billy Lovelady at that position. I think that neither Lovelady, or Shelly, are walking down the Elm extension in the Mel Couch clips.
Many thanks, Mr Hackerott---------and I agree with you! Thumb1:
Was there greater detail in the 6FM version of Darnell that strengthened your belief that that this is indeed Mr Lovelady?
(https://i.imgur.com/GDSxDPJ.jpg)
So Lovelady was a burn victim with a giant head
Nope, still don't see any image.
The suddenness with which you turned into an overt Doyle tribute act is intriguing, Mr O'Meara.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcVHMP3C/Lovelady-on-TSBD-steps-Hughes-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Have you got your glasses on.
Lovelady stood at the far right of the entranceway as stated previously. At this time he states he was stood near Stanton.
Cry Doyle all you want but a witness puts Stanton over by the far right wall of the entrance way.
Have you got your glasses on.
To see that picture one would need a microscope.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMC8fLhf/hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Even my tired old eyes can make this out.
What about yours?
I think I'm seeing a person with a red shirt and a white T shirt underneath at the location where Prayerman was supposed to be. However, I'm also seeing a blue car, which I believe could be Kennedy's limo, passing by the stairs.
But my eyes are not as good as the once were, so I could be wrong.
So you agree it's Lovelady?
Cry Doyle all you want but a witness puts Stanton over by the far right wall of the entrance way.
I don't agree or disagree. I don't make judgement calls based on blurry pictures.It's not a call based on a blurry photo.
It's not a call based on a blurry photo.
There is corroborating photo/video evidence placing Lovelady in that area (Wiegman, Darnell, Altgens) and Lovelady's own testimonial evidence that he was stood at the far right of the entranceway as the motorcade passed by.
Can you make the ID now?
Lovelady's own testimonial evidence that he was stood at the far right of the entranceway as the motorcade passed by.
Mr O'Meara, why have you left out a key part of the quote (just like poor lost fanatical Mr Doyle used to do)?:D :D :D So you do agree that's Lovelady shown on the far right of the entranceway in the Hughes clip.
----------------"standing on the top step to the far right against the wall of the entranceway"
Is that what the Hughes frames show?
It's almost as though poor lost fanatical Mr Doyle himself is feeding you your Stanton material!
:D
:D :D :D So you do agree that's Lovelady shown on the far right of the entranceway in the Hughes clip.
Lovelady then moves up to the top step in Altgens just seconds later.
And remember, Stanton herself says that as soon as the motorcade passes the front of the building she can no longer see it.
We can deduce from Altgens that the only person in such a position must be stood in the corner to Lovelady's right.
If your understanding of angles went beyond Doyle levels, Mr O'Meara, you would understand that the Altgens photograph shows Mr Lovelady near the center railing.
Unfortunately, however, your level of understanding is weirdly coincident with the Doyle level of understanding, so you're just making a fool of yourself in exactly the same way Mr Doyle used to do before he was banned! Thumb1:
As did Messrs Molina and (Otis) Williams. But you have already had this pointed out to you and------------in true Doyle style----------ignore what's inconvenient to the crazy Doyle claim that Prayer Man is an obese woman wearing a dark wig in a professional situation.
Who's 'we' here, Mr O'Meara? You and Mr Doyle?
Look, Mr O'Meara, you played a good game initially, pretending to be interested in the whole Rowland-Williams-chicken thing. But once the word 'Stanton' passed your lips for the first time, you blew it--------------your sad obsession was revealed!
:D
Neither Williams nor Molina state they can't see the motorcade once it passes the front entrance, this is classic Ford fantasia.
:D :D :D
More Doyle-style fabrication from the new Mr Doyle!
---------"Just after his car disappeared from my view I heard three shots." (Mr Joe Molina, 3/25/64)
---------"Just after the Presidential car passed the building and went out of sight over the Elm St embankment I heard three loud blasts." (Mr Otis Williams, 3/19/64)
How many more lies is the new Mr Doyle willing to tell in his Doyle-grade crazy effort to sell Prayer Man as an obese woman wearing a dark wig and smoking a cigarette?
Are you for real?
Neither of these is a statement saying they lost sight of the Presidential limo as soon as it passed the front entrance. William's statement is specifically saying he watched it until it went out of sight over the Elm St embankment!
Look at the Altgens pic. Use your eyes. Both Molina and Williams can be clearly seen, meaning they have a view of the limo after it has passed the front entrance.
When Lovelady refers to Stanton he is referring to the object of your obsession, the blurry figure stood near the west corner
Who else could he be referring to Alan?
He could be referring to the person standing next to him in Altgens:
(https://i.imgur.com/ggauhci.jpg)
So you're identifying Sarah Stanton as THE MAN IN A WHITE SHIRT SHIELDING HIS EYES!!!
:D :D :D
Utter quality.
You've obviously fallen off the edge and, unlike the old Mr Doyle, I won't be following you down whatever rabbit-hole your currently inhabiting.
#StantonisMolina
8)
Mr Lovelady, before ever seeing the Altgens photograph, only named one other person there on the steps:
"When the Pres. came by Bill Shelley and I was standing on the steps..." (Affidavit, 11/22/63).
However, we know that one thing he was to notice in the Altgens photograph was the second-floor lady shielding her eyes. This must have triggered his recollection and prompted him to mention Ms Stanton as well as Mr Shelley in subsequent statements about who had been there with him / next to him on the steps. Because that was exactly what the Altgens photograph was showing him.
Lovelady stood at the far right of the entranceway as stated previously. At this time he states he was stood near Stanton.
Cry Doyle all you want but a witness puts Stanton over by the far right wall of the entrance way.
It's almost as though poor lost fanatical Mr Doyle himself is feeding you your Stanton material!
I know exactly where Lovelady is stood in Altgens but you seem to be unaware Altgens shows Molina looking at the Presidential limo and the only reason Williams can't see it is because he's looking the other way!
Now! Ms Stanton: "I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time ."
Perhaps the new Mr Doyle can show us where Ms Stanton says why she could not see the President's car while hearing the three shots? As he ponders this question, the new Mr Doyle might find it helpful to look again at the Altgens photograph.
So you're identifying Sarah Stanton as THE MAN IN A WHITE SHIRT SHIELDING HIS EYES!!!
The person shielding his eyes is wearing a tie. How many women wore ties in 1963?
False. You're the one who's equating "next to" to mean "to the right".Wrong. I'm equating "next to" as in "close proximity to"
Where?:D
This just keeps getting better! Not only do you know exactly who could see what (or not) better than they do, but you also know the reasons why. Where is Otis Williams in Altgens and how do you know where he's looking?As usual, the twisting manipulation of words. I've actually kind of missed it.
Wrong. I'm equating "next to" as in "close proximity to"
the man you and Alan are identifying as Sarah Stanton (wow :D), as she sports the white shirt and black trousers traditionally worn by female office workers of the day
Well then your claim that "a witness puts Stanton over by the far right wall of the entrance way" is just flat out false.Lovelady puts himself over by the far right wall of the entranceway and has Stanton in close proximity to himself. How is it false?
The person shielding his eyes is wearing a tie. How many women wore ties in 1963?
As usual, the twisting manipulation of words. I've actually kind of missed it.
I'm clearly talking about the direction in which people are looking, not what they can see.
I "also know the reasons why"?? You're usual garbage.
To help you out he's been circled in red. Can you see which way he's looking or do you need help with that?
From the camera's point of view he's stood just in front of the man you and Alan are identifying as Sarah Stanton (wow :D),
as she sports the white shirt and black trousers traditionally worn by female office workers of the day
8)
Lovelady puts himself over by the far right wall of the entranceway and has Stanton in close proximity to himself. How is it false?
And no thanks for pointing out Williams for you. Typical ;)
Lee claimed that he went outside to watch the parade. There is a guy who looks him on the front steps in two different films. Quite a coincidence.
Fred
Quote from Mr Ford, You see a tie on this person Mr Mitcham, really?"
Yep shown in red, and arrowed.
https://i.postimg.cc/zBsGGm8W/doorway2.jpg
(https://i.postimg.cc/BLC0mV8Q/doorway2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/BLC0mV8Q)
Link not working for me, Mr Mitcham! Could you please re-post?
Quote from Mr Ford, You see a tie on this person Mr Mitcham, really?"
Yep shown in red, and arrowed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BLC0mV8Q/doorway2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/BLC0mV8Q)
Am still not seeing an image, Mr Mitcham. It may be a firewall issue for me, in which case I apologize!
Can you help me out here? Are you actually claiming to see a tie on the individual standing directly under the arrow here? I.e. the individual with two hands shielding their eyes, as opposed to the individual lower down shielding his eyes with one hand (and the other hand across his chest)??
(https://i.imgur.com/3xvIAA0.jpg)
Thumb1:
The lower one. with his left hand across his chest. However, the one with two hands shielding his eyes has the upper torso shape of a guy not a woman.
The lower one. with his left hand across his chest. However, the one with two hands shielding his eyes has the upper torso shape of a guy not a woman.
As usual, the twisting manipulation of words. I've actually kind of missed it.
I'm clearly talking about the direction in which people are looking, not what they can see.
I "also know the reasons why"?? You're usual garbage.
Where is Otis Williams?
At the time the motorcade passed the TSBD Williams "was standing on the top step against the railing" [3/19/64]
At the time of the assassination Williams was 64 and looked like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR3d05SX/williams-otis.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Note the swept back hair, grey at the sides, darker on top and the glasses with thick, black arms.
So we're looking for an elderly gent who looks like the photo on the top step next to the railing:
(https://i.postimg.cc/15TmTKDL/Williams-Otis-TSBD-steps.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
To help you out he's been circled in red. Can you see which way he's looking or do you need help with that?
From the camera's point of view he's stood just in front of the man you and Alan are identifying as Sarah Stanton (wow :D), as she sports the white shirt and black trousers traditionally worn by female office workers of the day
8)
Thanks for clarifying, Mr Mitcham! Thumb1:Apologies if you were discussing the green arrowed man as you said the one shielding his eyes. As far as the green arrow man, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a man, but which one I don't know.
So------------no tie visible on the person I marked with a green arrow, i.e. the person we were talking about in the first place.
If you think that person--------the one with two hands shielding their eyes---------is a man, which man do you think it could possibly be?
Remember: Mr Shelley has told us he's not in the photograph. Which leaves you with three men visible but only two men (Messrs Molina and Williams) to identify them with...
(https://i.imgur.com/2ZGW5sr.jpg)
Apologies if you were discussing the green arrowed man as you said the one shielding his eyes.
As far as the green arrow man, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a man, but which one I don't know.
Crossed lines of communication, Mr Mitcham, no harm done! Thumb1:
So who's the woman from the second floor shielding her eyes whom Mr Lovelady pointed out in Altgens to Mr Dom Bonafede?
And how can two white men (Messrs Molina and Williams) explain what you are saying is three white men (other than Mr Lovelady) seen in the doorway in Altgens?
Sorry Alan, I haven’t been following this thread closely enough. Could you point to the evidence why Shelley cannot be one of the three? I saw you said he claimed not to be in Altgens.
Sorry Alan, I haven’t been following this thread closely enough. Could you point to the evidence why Shelley cannot be one of the three? I saw you said he claimed not to be in Altgens.As I'm sure you know, Shelley is the most "witnessed" person on the TSBD steps around the time of the assassination and places himself " Just outside the glass doors there.", as seen in Altgens 6.
As I'm sure you know, Shelley is the most "witnessed" person on the TSBD steps around the time of the assassination and places himself " Just outside the glass doors there.", as seen in Altgens 6.
This is the picture he was shown from "Four Dark Days in History":
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xvsg2hT0/Altgens-in-4-dark-days.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
He confirms he was stood next to Lovelady at the time but is there any real mystery as to why he couldn't ID himself in the picture?
:
So who's the woman from the second floor shielding her eyes whom Mr Lovelady pointed out in Altgens to Mr Dom Bonafede?
Who is this woman shielding her eyes?
https://i.postimg.cc/PrQ9GG5C/Doorway3.png (Yellow arrow)
Mr Mitcham, I'm darned if I can work out why I'm not seeing your images. :'( My apologies again!
If you are indicating this woman----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/XRPjs73.jpg)
----------------then that's Ms Madeleine Reese, who worked on the third floor so cannot be the woman Mr Lovelady means.
Thumb1:
Thanks for the info Alan. By the way any other poster unable to load my links?
All good here Ray. Thumb1:
::)
No, there is no mystery whatsoever: Mr Shelley knows where he was standing in relation to Mr Lovelady--------west of him--------and that's how he knows he was not in view of the camera.
If he had been standing where you------------in your desperate Doylesque effort to magic him into Mr Molina so you can magic Ms Stanton into Prayer Man--------------think you see him in Altgens, he would not be stating categorically that he was not in view of the camera.
Here's where Mr Frazier places Mr Shelley in his WC testimony: "standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there". And before you throw more nonsense at us by suggesting Mr Frazier might mean the east wall, he makes it clear he means the same wall Mr Lovelady was nearest to.
Here's what Mr Shelley himself says, in the March 64 document you love cherry-picking quotes from, about Mr Lovelady's position in relation to him: "seated on the entrance steps just in front of me". This, again, places Mr Shelley unequivocally on the west side of the entranceway. Whereas your Shelley-in-Altgens is on the east side. (So... you have transposed Ms Stanton from east to west and Mr Shelley from west to east. A classic double Doyle maneuver!)
Furthermore! Mr Lovelady-----------who, like Mr Shelley-----------will have seen the Altgens photograph many times by Jan 64, and who was very soon after the assassination shown an FBI blow-up of it, never once indicates that he can see, or thinks he can see, Mr Shelley in the photograph. He only mentions the lady shielding her eyes who works on the second floor. Again, the simple reason is: he, like Mr Shelley, knows that Mr Shelley is not in view of the camera.
Again I challenge you: show us the lady shielding her eyes who works on the second floor you think Mr Lovelady means!
Thanks for the info Alan. By the way any other poster unable to load my links?
As usual you have completely made something up out of thin air and presented it as a fact. Nowhere does Shelley state that he is stood west of Lovelady. If you have a quote for this please supply it. If you any quote that specifically puts Shelley to the right /west of Lovelady please provide it.
Once again I'm having to deal with something you've completely made up. Show where I have argued that the man in the suit in the doorway (Shelley) is Joe Molina.
Utter made-up nonsense yet again. Shelley states he is stood just outside the glass door.
This is a central position, neither east nor west. If Lovelady is sat in front of him please explain how this 'unequivovally' places Shelley on the west side.
Please provide the quote where Lovelady is asked whether Shelley is in Altgens 6. Is he ever asked about it?
The only 'lady shielding her eyes' on the TSBD steps in the Altgens pic has already identified. Maddie Reese. Lovelady has made a mistake placing her on the second floor when she works on the third. He obviously doesn't know her that well, he never refers to her by name and she never refers to him. It's a simple mistake. Maddie Reese is the only female TSBD employee on the steps shielding her eyes in Altgens. You must drop this thing about identifying Joe Molina as Sarah Stanton, it' really embarrassing.
The Hughes film shows Mr Lovelady having stood up for the limousine's arrival. He is right over by the west column of the entranceway. This places Mr Shelley unequivocally (or rather: unequivovally) on the west side of the entranceway.
Get it now? Of course you don't, because you're the new Mr Doyle!
According to your own logic this places Sarah Stanton 'unequivocally' on the west side of the entranceway, just as I've been saying all along.
Lovelady states that at the time the motorcade passed he was on the top step 'to the far right against the wall of the entranceway' and that at that time Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton were stood with him.
Another post from you that is positively Doyle-esque in its shameless dishonesty and reality denial! :DMore Fantasia Ford. Talking about the Hughes film then changing it to Altgens when it suits!
Mr Lovelady sees Ms Stanton standing next to him in the Altgens photograph, and accordingly names her (along with Mr Shelley) as having been standing next to him. Not complicated!
More Fantasia Ford. Talking about the Hughes film then changing it to Altgens when it suits!
Not complicated when you can float around in a world where fact and fantasy are so interchangeable.
8)
:D
(https://i.imgur.com/o7ykLgu.jpg)
Ms Madeleine Reese did not work on the second floor. Therefore Mr Lovelady must mean the person standing next to him in the Altgens photograph, whom it is logical to identify as Ms Stanton-----------a lady who did work on the second floor and who will just so happen to a) mention Mr Lovelady in her March 64 FBI interview; b) be the lady Mr Lovelady will tell the FBI was "standing next to me".
Thanks for playing-------------better luck next time!
;D ;D
So you're just going into denial about placing Stanton by the west wall.
If, as you insist, Shelley is west of Lovelady where is he in this photo?
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvCG6NT7/Wiegman-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
No, I'm not in denial about your demented, evidence-denying placement of Ms Stanton by the west wall.
Here he is:
(https://i.imgur.com/K1D3MIn.jpg)
Thumb1:
So you finally reveal how devious you're willing to be when cornered. Using a single, shaky frame from Wiegman to try and demonstrate there's someone stood behind Lovelady.
Really pathetic.
I think we're done here Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcVHMP3C/Lovelady-on-TSBD-steps-Hughes-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Have you got your glasses on.
Lovelady stood at the far right of the entranceway as stated previously. At this time he states he was stood near Stanton.
Cry Doyle all you want but a witness puts Stanton over by the far right wall of the entrance way.
"Cry Doyle all you want but a witness puts Stanton over by the far right wall of the entrance way"
Which witness and where were they standing?
If this witness was in front of or across the street from the TSBD and they are looking at the TSBD from the street, sure, Stanton to them was at far right of wall of the entrance way, or, furthest away from Oswald.
Stanton also stated she didn't see Oswald.
Just because she didn't see him doesn't mean he wasn't there.
It only means, well, she didn't see him. Entertain me, why do you suppose she couldn't see him?
Opposite directions on the steps per chance?
Any other questions on this long de-bunked Stanton Doyle induced Garbagola?
Let's try to keep this place cleaned up, they just got rid of one crazy clown here in Doyle, and here you ride on in to fill the void.
Unbelievable.
According to your own logic this places Sarah Stanton 'unequivocally' on the west side of the entranceway, just as I've been saying all along.
Bull. As I pointed out at least three times already, all Lovelady said was that Stanton and Shelley were standing next to him. He didn’t say in what direction.
Alan said:
"The Hughes film shows Mr Lovelady having stood up for the limousine's arrival. He is right over by the west column of the entranceway. This places Mr Shelley unequivocally (or rather: unequivovally) on the west side of the entranceway."
You don't have a problem with this (of course) and what I said was a response to this.
What are you talking about anyway? Who is saying 'what direction'? What does this mean?
Lovelady is saying he is stood over by the west wall and that Stanton is in close proximity to him. What has 'direction' got to do with it?
Alan said:
"The Hughes film shows Mr Lovelady having stood up for the limousine's arrival. He is right over by the west column of the entranceway. This places Mr Shelley unequivocally (or rather: unequivovally) on the west side of the entranceway."
You don't have a problem with this (of course) and what I said was a response to this.
What are you talking about anyway? Who is saying 'what direction'? What does this mean?
Lovelady is saying he is stood over by the west wall and that Stanton is in close proximity to him. What has 'direction' got to do with it?
Because you (and Doyle) keep trying to use this to "show" that Stanton must therefore have been "over by the west column of the entranceway".
So when Alan states:"The Hughes film shows Mr Lovelady having stood up for the limousine's arrival. He is right over by the west column of the entranceway. This places Mr Shelley unequivocally (or rather: unequivovally) on the west side of the entranceway.", you don't have a problem with this at all. But when I point out that Lovelady places both Shelley and Stanton with him you suddenly have a problem.
This is no surprise. When Mr Ford made his utterly ludicrous identification of Sarah Stanton as Joe Molina you actually supported it.
Are you a Prayer Man advocate? If not, what is the problem you have with proposing Stanton as the person stood in the shadows?
When the same Mr Ford uses a shaky Wiegman frame to fraudulently attempt to show Shelley was west of Lovelady at the time of the assassination, you have nothing to say.
In his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), Dr. David Wrone makes a convincing case that Oswald, not Bill Lovelady, is the man seen standing in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photo. Until very recently, I made the mistake of accepting the HSCA PEP's identification of the man as Lovelady. I should have known better. In fact, again until very recently, I always viewed the attempts to identify the man as Oswald as amateurish and embarrassing to the multiple-gunmen position.
When I recently bought Wrone's book and saw that it had a chapter on the man in the doorway (chapter 11), I assumed that Wrone identified the man as Lovelady. As I read the chapter, I soon realized that he did not, but I also saw that he made a very strong case for the Oswald identification. When I got to the last page of the chapter, I thought to myself, "Holy cow! This is powerful stuff!"
Of course, since the Altgens photo shows Oswald standing in the TSBD doorway, he could not have been up on the sixth floor firing at Kennedy.
There is no case to be made for Mr Oswald's being the man in the doorway in the Altgens photograph.
That's what I thought until I read Wrone's chapter on the subject. You might want to read it.
Holy crap!
One of the facts that Dr. Wrone points out is that we now have a clear picture from the Martin film of Bill Lovelady standing near the TSBD entrance shortly after the shooting, and the picture undeniably shows Lovelady was wearing a long-sleeved black-and-red shirt buttoned at the collar with no buttons unbuttoned. This fact categorically, absolutely rules him out as the man in the doorway.
It also destroys those whose say that Lovelady was wearing a striped shirt, not a red and white patterned shirt.
One of the facts that Dr. Wrone points out is that we now have a clear picture from the Martin film of Bill Lovelady standing near the TSBD entrance shortly after the shooting, and the picture undeniably shows Lovelady was wearing a long-sleeved black-and-red shirt buttoned at the collar with no buttons unbuttoned. This fact categorically, absolutely rules him out as the man in the doorway.
Since Lovelady and Oswald's faces and hair looked very similar, we can go back and forth about the facial features of the man in the doorway, but we now know what kind of shirt Lovelady wore, and it was not the shirt worn by the man in the doorway.
Dr. Wrone notes that if you study the original Altgens photo at the National Archives, not the multi-generation copies commonly available, the man in the doorway's shirt looks exactly like the shirt that Oswald wore to work that day, down to the detail that the shirt is slightly oversized, that the shirt's color and pattern match those of Oswald's shirt, that the shirt has a small tear, and that the top three button holes are stretched and thus could not be buttoned, which explains why the top part of the man's shirt is unbuttoned.
Open your mind. Dare yourself to read research published after 1980.
"Truth be told, we don't really know exactly where Shelley stood either."
You don't think the fat chap in the doorway is Shelley?
"He could say that if Stanton was between him and Sanders (ie. somewhere in the middle of the entranceway)."
That has no bearing on the point I'm making. (wouldn't she be in Altgens 6)
"Everyone in the entryway was standing "together". It's not like it was some vast expanse of real estate."
Nice flip flop. A second ago no-one was standing next to prayer-blob as if it was some vast expanse of real estate, now everyone's together.
The two closest people to prayer-blob are Lovelady and Shelley. Lovelady confirms she was over by the right (west) side. Stanton can't see the motorcade as soon as it passes the front of the building.
Stanton is prayer-blob 8)
...You don't think the fat chap in the doorway is Shelley?...
You don't say...
Bill Shelley was a fat guy?
Please opine?
Lovelady identified himself as himself. Fellow workers identified him as himself. I reckon Oswald had somewhat higher, loftier ambitions than to just stand around on TSBD entrance steps, doing nothing more than looking like himself.
Yeah, except that Lovelady lied about the shirt he was wearing and lied about where he was located. We know this from the Martin film and from other photographic evidence. I don't blame Lovelady too much because he was undoubtedly strong-armed by the FBI to lie about these things because they were desperate to avoid having to admit that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.
Gosh, why don't you just dare yourself to break down and read research even though you know it will challenge your position?
Dr. Wrone is a very careful, measured scholar, not prone to flights of fancy. His book was endorsed by the likes of Dr. Douglas Brinkley and Dr. Walter Dellinger. Brinkley was the director of the Eisenhower Center and a professor of history at the University of New Orleans. Dellinger was a professor of law at Duke University and a former U.S. Solicitor General.
If prayer blob is Stanton , then one would have to conclude that the Lovelady statement “and right behind me” would have ended with “Sarah Stanton”, if he had not been interrupted in his WC testimony .
But would it not be illogically redundant for Lovelady to be relocating Stanton “ behind me” when he has already just located her along with Shelley in his previous statement?
Now if one speculates that Lovelady was just about to ID the person in his “ and right behind me” statement as Oswald, if not interrupted, then one has to wonder why Lovelady would not met with one of those curious “accidental deaths” that so many other JFK witnesses did.
Would the conspirators have allowed Lovelady to live on for another 13 years with this vital secret of knowing Oswald had an iron clad alibi?
Perhaps this “interruption” of Lovelady in the WC hearing was merely coincidental, and the conspirators never really knew Lovelady had been almost about to exonerate Oswald?
could Lovelady have kept this vital secret to himself for the next 13 years?
Should Loveladys death very close to the HSCA hearing be considered merely a concidental death?
Or did conspirators learn belated via some source that Lovelady might ID the person “behind” as Oswald, thus Lovelady meets with the timely fatal heart attack at only the age of 45?
In his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), Dr. David Wrone makes a convincing case that Oswald, not Bill Lovelady, is the man seen standing in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photo.
Dan would have you think that everybody who worked in the TSBD was intimately familiar with LHO prior to the assassination even though he rarely socialized with anybody or even talked to them and would have specifically remembered seeing him standing in the shadows during a traumatic event with people scattered around everywhere.
Hardly anybody mentioned Jeraldean Reid standing out front.
If prayer blob is Stanton , then one would have to conclude that the Lovelady statement “and right behind me” would have ended with “Sarah Stanton”, if he had not been interrupted in his WC testimony .
But would it not be illogically redundant for Lovelady to be relocating Stanton “ behind me” when he has already just located her along with Shelley in his previous statement?
Now if one speculates that Lovelady was just about to ID the person in his “ and right behind me” statement as Oswald, if not interrupted, then one has to wonder why Lovelady would not met with one of those curious “accidental deaths” that so many other JFK witnesses did.
Would the conspirators have allowed Lovelady to live on for another 13 years with this vital secret of knowing Oswald had an iron clad alibi?
Perhaps this “interruption” of Lovelady in the WC hearing was merely coincidental, and the conspirators never really knew Lovelady had been almost about to exonerate Oswald?
could Lovelady have kept this vital secret to himself for the next 13 years?
Should Loveladys death very close to the HSCA hearing be considered merely a concidental death?
Or did conspirators learn belated via some source that Lovelady might ID the person “behind” as Oswald, thus Lovelady meets with the timely fatal heart attack at only the age of 45?
There are other possibilities but we can say with great confidence that if Oswald had been on the steps at least one of these people would have seen him. Nobody did.
John would have you believe Oswald was stood back in the shadows but in order to make the height requirement Oswald has to be placed at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step partially blocking the steps. Not exactly inconspicuous.
John's point about Jeraldean Reid is ridiculous. Firstly, two people - Carl Edward Lewis and Ochus Campbell - place Reid in front of the steps but this is not the point. Nobody is asking "Did you see Jeraldean Reid on the day of the assassination?" People are being specifically asked if they saw Oswald. Nobody places Carl Edward Jones on the steps but it doesn't matter.
Why can “we” say that with great confidence? Just because you decided that it was so?
Did the people watching the motorcade on Elm street have some kind of 360-degree vision?
Talk about misrepresentations. John said nothing of the kind. By the way, what “height requirement”?
Why does it not matter? You entire argument is that if nobody mentioned noticing him then he wasn’t there.
"Why can "we" say that with great confidence? Just because you decided so?"
No John, it's not because I decided so. The answer to your question is in the section of my post you decided to leave out (a familiar tactic). Let's assume prayer-blob is Oswald. The reason I believe "we" can say with great confidence at least one of he witnesses who knew Oswald by sight would have spotted him on the steps is because there are so many of them. They are stood on the landing with him, on the steps just in front of him and passing by him on the steps as they return to the building. I believe the chances of him being spotted by at least one of the many witnesses are very high.
"Did the people watching the motorcade on Elm Street have some kind of 360-degree vision?"
Really John? This nonsense is the best you can come up with? People have necks on which they can turn their heads. They have bodies that can move about. Your assertion that people can only look in one direction is childish. But lets imagine you're right and they can only look straight ahead. The people coming up the steps would still be able to see him wouldn't they? (unless you also have a rule about having to close your eyes as you go up steps!)
"Talk about misrepresentations. John said nothing of the kind."
Referring to yourself in the first-person is creepy. This is what you said:
"Dan would have you think that everybody who worked in the TSBD was intimately familiar with LHO prior to the assassination even though he rarely socialized with anybody or even talked to them and would have specifically remembered seeing him standing in the shadows during a traumatic event with people scattered around everywhere." (my italics)
This is what I said:
"John would have you believe Oswald was stood back in the shadows..."
Please explain how you've been misrepresented.
"By the way, what “height requirement”?"
An analysis of the Darnell film by Andrej Stancak measures the height of prayer-blob as about 5'2". This is too short for Oswald so in order for him to meet the "height requirement" (5'2") he has to be standing with one foot on the first step as shown in the graphic I posted.
"Why does it not matter? You entire argument is that if nobody mentioned noticing him then he wasn’t there."
My argument is that if Oswald was stood on the top step one of the many witnesses who knew him by sight would surely have seen him there. The reason it doesn't matter if someone like Carl Edward Jones wasn't mentioned by other witnesses is that he wasn't suspected of assassinating JFK. The FBI was specifically asking if anyone had seen Oswald. People were being asked to remember if they had seen Oswald at the time of the assassination, not Carl Jones.
My argument is that if Oswald was stood on the top step one of the many witnesses who knew him by sight would surely have seen him there.
Wow, that's a massive assumption and a flawed one, for two reasons;
1. People were all looking in the direction of Elm street, where the motorcade was passing. They had no reason to turn around and look who was behind them. After the shots were fired it was complete chaos, with people not knowing what was going on. Under those circumstances people notice very little of their surroundings.
2. Even if nobody saw Oswald there, that still only means that nobody saw him (or possibly did not recall seeing him) there. It doesn't mean he wasn't there.
A while ago I was walking down the street when a car hit a cyclist. The accident quickly got the attention of lots of people and one of them was a good friend of mine. He was on the other side of the street and I waved to him, but got no reaction. About an hour later he phoned me and told me about the accident and I answered I knew about it because I had been there when it happened and had seen him. He had not seen me!
Going by your "logic", he did not see me, so I couldn't have been there, right? Yet, I was there nevertheless!
Do you now see how flawed you reasoning is?
I agree it's an assumption but by no means is it a massive one. It's a totally reasonable assumption. Read through the thread, for Oswald to make the height requirement he has to be stood at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step. He's not stood at the back where people would have to turn round to see him. He would be more to the front than anyone else on the landing. Buell Frazier and Roy Edward Lewis are stood in the lobby behind the glass and would have an unobstructed view of him as would the people returning to the building who would have to pass right by him. You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions! Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!
In your example one person doesn't see you yet you think you can compare it to this situation. If a dozen people who knew you by sight were at the accident, some of them passing right next to you but nobody saw you it's comparable.
Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is?
I agree it's an assumption but by no means is it a massive one. It's a totally reasonable assumption.I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it. There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it. The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid. There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
There is no such thing as a "reasonable assumption". An assumption is by definition biased and will always support the argument that the person making the assumption wants to make. There is nothing reasonable about that.
Read through the thread, for Oswald to make the height requirement he has to be stood at the front of the landing with one foot on the first step. He's not stood at the back where people would have to turn round to see him. He would be more to the front than anyone else on the landing. Buell Frazier and Roy Edward Lewis are stood in the lobby behind the glass and would have an unobstructed view of him as would the people returning to the building who would have to pass right by him. You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions! Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!
All this is, is an argument in support of your assumption. It has no significant value... There is no cut off point, where you can say; "oh, 20 people didn't see him there, so he wasn't there".
You too seem to have this impression that nobody can turn their heads round and look in different directions!
No... Of course it is possible that somebody turned their head. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the argument that somebody actually did. Personally, I find it somewhat unlikely that anybody who has waited for the President for some time would actually look away at the moment he passes by.
Caroline Arnold was stood at the bottom of the steps but thought she might have seen him behind the glass!
That's one version. Another one is that she saw him in the 2nd floor lunchroom. There is nothing solid there, either way.
In your example one person doesn't see you yet you think you can compare it to this situation. If a dozen people who knew you by sight were at the accident, some of them passing right next to you but nobody saw you it's comparable.
Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is?
There is no flaw in my reasoning. The actually flaw is your failure to understand what I was saying. It's human nature that you fail to ignore. If something interesting is going on in front of you, you don't turn around and look the other way. It doesn't matter if you apply that to one person or to a dozen. The outcome is still the same.
But even if it wasn't, and all 12 people turned around at the same time and did not see Oswald there, that still does not mean he wasn't there. It only means that, for whatever reason, they didn't see him.
Your basic argument requires that you prove a negative and that's something nobody has ever been able to do.
Btw, just so you understand. I don't know if Oswald was there or not nor do I argue that he was there. I think it's possible he was indeed there, but that's only because of Baker's initial comments before they morphed into a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter. What is beyond clear to me by now is that Oswald being at the 6th floor at 12.30 shooting at Kennedy's limo is a highly unlikely scenario.
I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it. There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it. The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid. There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.
What I agree with is that all these witnesses missing 'Oswald' doesn't prove he wasn't there. It's about probabilities which can be subjective so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I disagree with so much you say here but I'm not sure there's much point getting into it.
Yes, there is a point. I only have an opinion. If that opinion is incorrect, I would love to know about it.
There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption and it should be used to form an opinion rather than, as you assert, have an opinion and use the assumption to support it.As I said, the assumption informs your opinion, it doesn't support an already existing opinion. I'm glad I could help.
Let me correct my previous comment. There is indeed a thing as a reasonable assumption, but only in those cases where the assumption has no consequence for the subsequent opinion. In other words; when you wake up in the morning and the streets are wet, it is reasonable to assume that it rained during the night. It still could be the wrong conclusion as it could also be that a fire hydrant exploded, but it was a reasonable conclusion nevertheless, as it was a conclusion without consequence.
However, as soon as the final outcome is determined by the assumption, it is no longer reasonable.
The Darnell and Wiegman pictures on which a lot of these arguments are concerned take place after the Presidential limo has passed out of sight so your points about everyone being engrossed with the President are invalid.
Wrong. As soon as the shots were fired, it was chaos at Dealey Plaza... The observations of individuals became less reliable, not more reliable. The human brain can only process so much. When the POTUS is killed in front of you, most people hardly pay attention to their surroundings. Instead their main focus is to find out what happened.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.
I don't ignore anything. A dozen people said they didn't see Oswald, so what? Big deal! When did they say that? Months later, after Oswald was already dead and buried and branded by the media as the sole assassin. Now. let's suppose, you are a witness who did see Oswald on the stairs (meaning he couldn't be the killer), what do you do? Don't underestimate the survival instinct of people... Why rock the boat? When the media tells us he did it, who am I to tell them they are wrong and what would be the consequences for me?
There is a massive difference between one person missing something and a dozen people missing the same thing.
You ignore the witnesses stood behind, alongside and walking right up to 'Oswald' on the steps.
You are way too much interested in reaching a pre-determined conclusion.
What I agree with is that all these witnesses missing 'Oswald' doesn't prove he wasn't there.
Finally... which, of course, destroys your entire argument.
It's about probabilities which can be subjective so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.I think the probability that Oswald would have been spotted by one of so many witnesses is really high. You don't. I can't put it any simpler than that.
Please explain? Probabilities can be subjective.... I really need you to explain this to me as it doesn't make sense to me.
And what opinion is that?
As I said, the assumption informs your opinion, it doesn't support an already existing opinion. I'm glad I could help.
Wrong. The people stood on the steps didn't know what was going on as the Presidential limo was out of sight at the time of the shooting. The POTUS was not killed in front of them. This observation demonstrates a tenuous grasp on what actually occurred. No-one was in shock on the steps in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was only when other employees began to return that those on the steps began to understand what had happened. In all probability the people on the steps were turning to each other wondering what was going on.
Here we go. What a massive and wild assumption that any potential witnesses refused to answer questions truthfully in order not to 'rock the boat'. I've no doubt you view this as a reasonable assumption but I do not.
There is no pre-determined conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence on this matter one way or the other. It's a matter of opinion. At no point have I stated that the lack of witness corroboration 'proves' Oswald wasn't there. Oswald is not placed there by any witnesses, I think this has relevance so I tried to determine how many potential witnesses might be involved and was surprised by the high number. In my opinion, the higher the number of witnesses the higher the probability Oswald would have been spotted on the steps.
This statement reveals your own biased attitude. As I've explained, I'm fully aware there is no conclusive evidence on this matter. It's a matter of opinion based on interpreting the available evidence. You interpret it one way I interpret it another.
I think the probability that Oswald would have been spotted by one of so many witnesses is really high. You don't. I can't put it any simpler than that.
If we assume prayer-blob is LHO, the problem isn't confined to Lovelady. The majority of the twelve people stood on the TSBD steps as the President passed by knew LHO by sight, as did other employees who would have a clear view of prayer-blob such as O V Campbell and Roy Edward Lewis. In Darnell we see employees streaming back into the building all filing past him. When Baker gets into the lobby he sees "several people standing around" who we can assume are returning employees who have just passed LHO on the steps.
The number of witnesses who recognised LHO on the steps would probably run into double figures. In order to avoid this inconvenience PMZ's have LHO slipping outside quietly at the last minute and taking up a position at the back where he goes unnoticed (lets ignore the employees filing past him). AND THEN, to make the height requirements the same zealots have LHO in this position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbNHtwrg/oswald-on-steps.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Here we see him stood in the most awkward position imaginable, blocking part of the steps, in plain view of anyone on the top steps and right in the face of any returning employees. Hardly inconspicuous.
As soon as the FBI started interviewing people they would be hearing statement after statement placing LHO on the top step. All these people would have to be individually threatened and all would have to play along. In terms of mysterious deaths, every single person who witnessed LHO on the steps that day would become a top priority target.
This is all fantasy of course and goes away when we realise Oswald was not on the steps and is not prayer-blob.
And what opinion is that?
You need to ask? How can you say - as you did earlier - that you disagree with so much I said when you don't even know what I said?
As I said, the assumption informs your opinion, it doesn't support an already existing opinion. I'm glad I could help.
Except you're not helping. You are only showing us all that you cleary are confused, to put it mildly. It's beyond hilarious to claim that an assumption somehow can "inform your opinion".
Wrong. The people stood on the steps didn't know what was going on as the Presidential limo was out of sight at the time of the shooting. The POTUS was not killed in front of them. This observation demonstrates a tenuous grasp on what actually occurred.
Playing the semantics game doesn't enhance your credibility. It only shows the level of desperation with which you are trying to cling to your flawed argument. The people on the steps heard the shots and a co-worker (can't remember her name) ran towards them and told them the President had been shot. So, within seconds after the shots they knew what was going on.
No-one was in shock on the steps in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was only when other employees began to return that those on the steps began to understand what had happened. In all probability the people on the steps were turning to each other wondering what was going on.
Where did I claim that people were in shock? That's a strawman! And yes, most likely people did indeed turn to eachother to find out what happened. However, I don't know about you, but if I want to find out what happened I would look in the direction where it happened, rather than turn around and look the other way.
Here we go. What a massive and wild assumption that any potential witnesses refused to answer questions truthfully in order not to 'rock the boat'. I've no doubt you view this as a reasonable assumption but I do not.
You clearly have no understanding of human nature. In your perfect world witnesses will come forward voluntary and without fear, right? Well, your perfect world is fantasia land. In the real world, most people simply don't want to get involved. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. Just ask any detective. It is as true today as it was in the past.
There is no pre-determined conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence on this matter one way or the other. It's a matter of opinion. At no point have I stated that the lack of witness corroboration 'proves' Oswald wasn't there.
Great... end of discussion then, right?
Oswald is not placed there by any witnesses, I think this has relevance so I tried to determine how many potential witnesses might be involved and was surprised by the high number. In my opinion, the higher the number of witnesses the higher the probability Oswald would have been spotted on the steps.
Hilarious... first you agree that nobody seeing Oswald there doesn't prove he wasn't there, and then you go full contradictio in terminis and argue the opposite. Give it up, will ya! Your opinion is wrong. Even if every single person on the steps did not see Oswald, that still does not prove he wasn't there.
This statement reveals your own biased attitude. As I've explained, I'm fully aware there is no conclusive evidence on this matter. It's a matter of opinion based on interpreting the available evidence. You interpret it one way I interpret it another.
I think the probability that Oswald would have been spotted by one of so many witnesses is really high. You don't. I can't put it any simpler than that.
My biased attitude? Really?... How pathetic. As for the rest of what you've written; like a dog chasing his own tail, you are going round in circles and are not getting anywhere fast.
On the one hand, you agree that a lack of witness corroboration does not prove Oswald wasn't there and then, on the other hand, you argue that, since not one witness, you know of, out of a group of witnesses, saw him, it's probable that he wasn't there.
I am not wasting anymore time on this.... I merely wanted to point out the flaw in your argument, but you can't argue with stubborn. Good luck with trying to prove a meaningless negative. When you are done, I'm sure the real world will welcome you back with open arms..... oh wait, in your book that's an assumption.... :D
I won't bother with most of your reply as it's utter garbage coming from a truly entrenched mind. But this highlight does need dealing with:
"Hilarious... first you agree that nobody seeing Oswald there doesn't prove he wasn't there, and then you go full contradictio in terminis and argue the opposite. Give it up, will ya! Your opinion is wrong. Even if every single person on the steps did not see Oswald, that still does not prove he wasn't there."
"On the one hand, you agree that a lack of witness corroboration does not prove Oswald wasn't there and then, on the other hand, you argue that, since not one witness, you know of, out of a group of witnesses, saw him, it's probable that he wasn't there."
Assuming the prayer-blob is Oswald. He is surrounded by witnesses who know him by sight - some stood behind the glass entrance with a clear view of him, some stood alongside him, some walking past him on the steps. There are about a dozen potential witnesses. Not one of then places him at that position. None of this is opinion, it's testimonial fact which I believe favours the view that it is not Oswald on the steps. But it doesn't 'prove' it's not Oswald.
For you to imagine this is a contradictory position demonstrates the kind of brainpower you have at your disposal.
Don't bother replying.
Yes, I agree with You, Mr. Dan, that the one step down position seems a bit awkward.
I also agreed with the former Mr. Doyle, the logical place for a 300 lb fat woman to stand would be where Prayrblob is for the reasons:
1. Out of everyone else way and not blocking the door
2. Has better LOS to see motorcade
3. Not in the sunlight, thus having hands free to hold the coffee cup carefully with both hands, instead of having to use one hand to shade eyes
4. If it’s a porcelain white coffee cup from the 2nd floor lunchroom, the out of the way corner reduces chance of being bumped into, spilling the coffee and or dropping the cup and it shattering on the concrete landing
in summary the “fat lady” was self aware and taking precautions to avoid any potential accident or becoming an obstruction to her fellow employees.
Wrong. The people stood on the steps didn't know what was going on as the Presidential limo was out of sight at the time of the shooting. The POTUS was not killed in front of them. This observation demonstrates a tenuous grasp on what actually occurred. No-one was in shock on the steps in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was only when other employees began to return that those on the steps began to understand what had happened. In all probability the people on the steps were turning to each other wondering what was going on.
Assuming the prayer-blob is Oswald. He is surrounded by witnesses who know him by sight - some stood behind the glass entrance with a clear view of him, some stood alongside him, some walking past him on the steps. There are about a dozen potential witnesses. Not one of then places him at that position. None of this is opinion, it's testimonial fact which I believe favours the view that it is not Oswald on the steps.
How long does it take Shelley to get to his room and eat part of his lunch? 10 to 15 minutes seems fairly reasonable, which would mean Stanton is out there already by 12:00 to 12:05pm. The above Wiegman frames are taken seconds after the shooting around 12:30. It's just an opinion but I'm not convinced Stanton would still be drinking her coffee up to half an hour later. Maybe she liked it cold and made it last a long time. Maybe she went back up to the second floor lunchroom and came back down with a coffee just before the shooting.
How many of these "dozen potential witnesses" mentioned seeing Sarah Stanton (or anybody else by name) standing in that spot?
LOL. You start with the unproven premise that it's Stanton and then use that assumption to argue that she wouldn't be drinking a cup of coffee.More misrepresentation.
Unless it's not Stanton. Or coffee. Or a cigarette for that matter. Do you even know if Stanton smoked?
Hang on. The very same frame has who you claim is Gloria Calvery already on the steps telling everyone that she saw the president shot. You can't have it both ways.Even by your high standards of misrepresentation this stands out.
Even by your high standards of misrepresentation this stands out.
In the post you refer to I state that the President was not shot in front of the steps of the TSBD and that the people stood there only started to find out from returning employees (ie: Gloria Calvery).
What on earth do you mean I "can't have it both ways"? What do you mean by "the very same frame"?
What, exactly, are you talking about?
Come on John.
Q: How many TSBD employees were asked if they'd seen Sarah Stanton?
A: None
Q: How many TSBD employees were asked if they'd seen Oswald?
A: All of them
Come on John.
Q: How many TSBD employees were asked if they'd seen Sarah Stanton?
A: None
Q: How many TSBD employees were asked if they'd seen Oswald?
A: All of them
Even by your high standards of misrepresentation this stands out.
In the post you refer to I state that the President was not shot in front of the steps of the TSBD and that the people stood there only started to find out from returning employees (ie: Gloria Calvery).
What on earth do you mean I "can't have it both ways"? What do you mean by "the very same frame"?
What, exactly, are you talking about?
No---------he is scribbling this stuff down as he listens.By his own admission ..that is not true.
By his own admission ..that is not true.
The scribble is from memory [some time later] Maybe that evening.
There was no recording.
At this point, 60 secs post shots Oswald now has found the answer to why the sirens are still on going. This is when he decides to “go out to see what was happening in the P. Parade”
12:10 Oswald is returning to TSBD with his lunch and from
some distance away, sees James Jarman and Harold Norman exiting back door of TSBD dock as they go around the NE corner of TSBD. They do not see Oswald however, as they are facing SE heading along Houston st.
There are some commonsense assumptions here but I'd like to make a quick point about the white porcelain cup.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wbz07Mvc/Shadow-Person-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This Gif shows two images from Wiegman. It shows the white 'glowing' object being moved up and down. The first frame is the one that shows the object being held up to the face of prayer-blob, the second has the object in the lower position. In his WC testimony Bill Shelley states he went for lunch about 11:50am, went to his office on the first floor and ate part of his lunch then went out front, on the landing of the steps just outside the glass door because their were already some people outside, one of whom was Sarah Stanton.
How long does it take Shelley to get to his room and eat part of his lunch? 10 to 15 minutes seems fairly reasonable, which would mean Stanton is out there already by 12:00 to 12:05pm. The above Wiegman frames are taken seconds after the shooting around 12:30. It's just an opinion but I'm not convinced Stanton would still be drinking her coffee up to half an hour later. Maybe she liked it cold and made it last a long time. Maybe she went back up to the second floor lunchroom and came back down with a coffee just before the shooting.
Personally I have a different idea about the object in prayer-blob's hand but the images are so sketchy I find it impossible to be definitive.
:D :D :D
More phony Sarah Stanton claims again.
That Stanton nonsense was debunked long ago. Sad that some still believe it.
Fred
I assume you're a fat-Oswald-on-the-steps kind of guy. Good old fat, invisible, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Like you've demonstrated that prayer-blob is fat. :DSure looks fat to me 8)
Right here on this forum. Look up earlier threads and posts by John and Alan.That's really vague Fred. Rather than have me spend days trawling through the forum just tell me what it is that debunks the Stanton ID. You're the one who said it's been debunked so obviously you know.
Fred
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.0.html)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2194.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2194.0.html)
Fred
Still hours of reading Fred (which I will get to in my own time).Mr O'meara:
Just tell me what it is that debunks the Stanton ID or say you don't know.
But don't claim something like that when you don't know, then pretend that you do.
It's important that avenues of investigation aren't shut off for no reason. I think the claim for it being Oswald on the steps is non-existent. There is literally nothing to make the ID yet others are quite ferocious in their defence of this non-idea. It smacks of intellectual bullying (I use the word 'intellectual' very loosely).
The case for Stanton as prayer-blob is many times more superior to that of Oswald (IMHO) but it seems like those who shout the loudest are the ones who get heard.
Mr O'meara:
There's still a search function on this site, I do believe.
Also, for a guy who just joined this site in..June? of this year, you certainly seem to have strong opinions and, by your own account, a great deal of knowledge.
Have you been researching the JFK assassination for a lot longer than 4 months, through other means?
For the record, the Sarah Stanton, Prayer Man, whomever is a pointless diversion, as is any attempt to ascertain what went on in Oswald's interrogation; those that were present certainly shared less than the truth, there's no audio recording, and everybody involved is long dead.
Before I even thought of joining one of these JFK sites, let alone commenting, I spent several years reading. And reading. And reading.
But, "you shine on, you crazy diamond."
No need to be aggressive John.
Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected)
But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility.
Sure looks fat to me 8)
This is exactly the poisonous attitude I'm taking a stand against. Just because Doyle was hated by other researchers then anything he advocated is 'wrong'. I totally disagree with this mentality.
You can make as many of your snide comments as you wish John but if you don't think the case for Stanton being prayer-blob is superior to the case for Oswald being prayer-blob then say so.
No need to be aggressive John.Mr O'meara: there was nothing " aggressive" in my post.
Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected)
But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility.
It has nothing to do with Doyle being “hated by other researchers”. It’s because every single argument he made in favor of prayer-blob being Stanton was either false or made-up.Please remind me which arguments I've used that were either false or made up concerning the identification of Stanton. I'm assuming that's what you think as I'm "as bad as Doyle".
As far as I know, you've claimed no evidence other than that you think it looks like a fat lady smoking a cigarette.You have an incredibly short memory John.
And by the way, your list is contrived, because you don't know if prayer-blob was in position when most of these people returned to the building, because you don't know when they returned to the building.
What you think is "unlikely" is not evidence of anything.
And I'm not sure how witnesses not remembering seeing Oswald tells you that prayer-blob is Sarah Stanton.
"most of these people" were stood around the prayer-blob position at the time of the assassination (10 to be precise)
Of those who returned to the building, Truly arrived within seconds, as did Gloria Calvery and co. who ran back to the TSBD after the shooting, as did Ruth Hendrix.
Typical BS: meaningless statement. Nowhere have I stated my opinion constitutes evidence. What a ridiculous thing to suggest.
Another typical BS: meaningless statement. Nowhere have I suggested that because not one of these many witnesses didn't see Oswald on the steps, this means it must be Sarah Stanton. Nowhere.
Bull. You don't know how many seconds it took Calvery to run back. Or Westbrook, or Hicks, or Reid, or Arnold.
Then your entire post is one giant non-sequitur, because you posted it in response to my saying that every bit of evidence that Doyle presented for prayer-blob being Stanton was false or made-up, then you asked me what evidence you've provided for prayer-blob being Stanton that was false or made-up and I replied that you have provided none other than that you thought it looked like a fat lady smoking a cigarette. Then you went off in the weeds and started talking about whether people saw Oswald or not.
So the BS: here is all coming from you.
Calvery and co. are back at the TSBD steps in less than 30 seconds after the shooting has finished.
Just to clarify the situation. You posted:
"It has nothing to do with Doyle being “hated by other researchers”. It’s because every single argument he made in favor of prayer-blob being Stanton was either false or made-up."
As you were comparing me to Doyle
I asked "which arguments I've used that were either false or made up ". Because you couldn't find such any arguments, rather than say so you introduce the word "evidence". A typical BS: tactic on your behalf.
So you claim, based on yet another dubious identification. By the way, who exactly is "and co."?
Mr O'meara: Buell Wesley Frazier was interrogated and bullied by Fritz and friends for several hours on Friday night. His statements are worthless; he was just trying to save his own a#$. ( Not that I blame him; Fritz and Henry railroaded many innocent folks to the penitentiary...and beyond.)
What about the janitor on the ground floor? He places Oswald by the "glass doors" in front, less than one minute after the assassination. I believe it's Eddie Piper?
Dubious? How so?
At the time of the assassination Gloria Calvery is stood feet away from the President as the first shot hits him. With her are Karan Hicks, Karen Westbrook and Carol Reed, work colleagues from room 203 in the TSBD. These ladies are the "and co'"
It's literally based on Tommy Graves squinting and imagining that he's seeing a stripe on her "skirt". Never mind the fact that he doesn't actually know what Calvery was wearing that day.
Yes, and how did you identify Hicks, Westbrook, and Reed back at the TSBD steps in less than 30 seconds?
Not really. Tommy and Sandy Larsen have put together a compelling argument for the identification of Calvery based on testimonial/photographic/video evidence. It's not, as you constantly suggest, a question of trying to identify anyone directly from the Darnell clip.
Karen Westbrook Scranton talks about them returning to the TSBD in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
When did she say who she returned with or how quickly?
But it's interesting that you bring up Westbrook, since she identified herself and Calvery in the Z film in a different spot than where Tommy Graves wants them to be.The only interesting thing is that she doesn't know Gloria Calverys' name. She identifies two Carols when one remained in the office. She identifies Carol Reed as the non-caucasian Stella Jacobs.
She refers to herself and her work colleagues collectively when she says "We returned to the building",
at some point after that she refers to running into the TSBD
The only interesting thing is that she doesn't know Gloria Calverys' name.
She identifies two Carols when one remained in the office. She identifies Carol Reed as the non-caucasian Stella Jacobs.
What's really interesting is that you brought this non-identification up. Is this your preference for the Calvery ID?
You don't know who "we" refers to.
Right. No indication of how soon after the shots.
I brought it up because you trotted out Westbrook to support your claim that Calvery, Hicks, Westbrook, Reed were "back at the TSBD steps in less than 30 seconds after the shooting has finished", even though Westbrook said nothing of the kind.
The "we" can only refer to her work colleagues
She states that immediately after the shots there was pandemonium which is when they returned to the building.
All "We" has to mean is her and at least one other unspecified person.
Sorry, no. She doesn't say that she returned to the building during the "pandemonium".
The roof door was locked from the inside and could only be opened by someone on the inside which is what they did.[/b]
My response: How do you explain away the fact that it was locked from the inside when Dallas Sheriff John Wiseman got there IF the lying rooftop tandem were really upon the roof as they said? There is no other explanation but they simply lied. It's that simple really.
Moreover, Baker further steps into his own horse manure (Oops) by sharing that he also saw Inspector Sawyer (at the same time he was suppose to be upon that otherwise locked roof w/Roy Truly. Inspector Sawyer merely spent from 12:34PM to 12:37PM on his sojourn into the building, up to the 4th floor via an elevator at the front entrance of the building and back down again. His words, Mr. Nessan, not mine. Do the math yourself sir: the lying rooftop tandem said they were upon the roof no more than 10 minutes. So, they want us to believe two impossibilities:
*(1) They magically Locked the roof from the inside while also stationed upon their lie (the roof); and, (2) Baker is so magical he says he encounters Inspector Sawyer while still upon that same lie 3x the amount of time the Inspector is anywhere for him to encounter.
My apologies for late response (originally posed to me way back upon the 30th page of this thread). Found myself sidetracked with a closer examination upon the Charles Mentesana film, where I believe I may have found the wrongly accused lingering around in Dealey Plaza for the 5-10 minutes he said he did w/Bill Shelley.
Should you make a response, here's fair warning sir, I won't be in to respond until next month. For now I will continue to study the Mentesana film ====>
where I'm paying close attention between the 39 sec to 45 sec mark. There's two gentlemen standing together on the lower right-hand side of the screen. Though one is wearing a suit like Bill Shelley, aside from his hairdo style, there's not much there to go on; but my main attention is upon the individual standing to his left wearing similar clothing as the wrongly accused when compared to the Texas Theatre images of his arrest.
Perhaps someone with the means to do so could reach out to Marina Oswald-Porter to share the Mentesana film with her... tp make a determination one way or the other given the man's peculiar mannerisms (hands on the hips posture etc). Meanwhile, I will be making every effort to freeze a few of the frames to match his head shape and rear hairline to the images of the wrongly accused as he is being escorted into DPD headquarters.
Again, Mr. Nessan, the lying rooftop tandem lied about their exploits upon that otherwise locked roof ---->
COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
Name of Compainant
Assassination Of President Kennedy
Offense
John Wiseman, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date Nov 23, 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas when the President passed and the car went around the corner and a few more cars had passed when I heard a shot and I knew something had happened. I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots ran out. I ran on across Houston Street, then across the park to where a policeman was having trouble with his motorcycle and I saw a man laying on the grass. This man laying on the grass said the shots came from the building and he was pointing to the old Sexton Building. I talked to Marilyn Sitzman, 202 S. Lancaster who said her boss, Abraham Zaprutes, RI 8 6071, had movies of the shooting. She said the shots came from that way and she pointed at the old Sexton Building. I ran at once to the Sexton Building and went in. I asks some woman how many doors lead out of the building and she said 4. I left the building and found some DPD patrolmen and we came back to the building. I ran up the stairs and the patrolman started trying to get more help to search the building. I went up the stairs to the 7th floor and started up into the attic and noticed that the door to the roof was locked on the inside with a gate type hook latch. I stopped and started back down the stairs taking a quick look on each floor.
The lying rooftop tandem also lied about a phantom 2nd floor encounter w/the wrongly accused as well. If you do nothing else, Mr. Nessan, please read Baker's same day affidavit over and over again ---->
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
The wrongly accused merely weighed 130lbs, nowhere near 160; moreover, what part of walking away from a stairway has anything to do with inside the lunchroom?
Something I found interesting in the Karen Westbrook Scranton interview:
"Our offices were around the building and then there was a centre office building, a large bull-pen kind of office, on the second floor that was the office of the Texas Schoolbook Depository and they had a supervisor in there called Mrs Reid, And when we were milling around while the police had us locked in and so forth, we were milling around, Mrs Reid said that she - when everybody was walking and milling and so forth - that Lee came to the door with a Coke in his hand and said, "What's all the excitement about?", and Mrs Reid said she told him, "Oh my God, someone has shot the President." 29:21 - 29:57
In her CE 1381 Westbrook states she left her office about 1:30pm. So at some point in the hour between JFK being shot and Westbrook leaving the TSBD she heard Mrs Jeraldean Reid talking about her encounter with Oswald.
In her WC testimony Mrs Reid describes how she ran back into the building straight after the shooting and her interaction with Oswald. A reconstruction of her movements timed it as approximately two minutes between the end of the shooting and running into Oswald.
Considering prayer-blob is seen in Darnell approximately 30 seconds after the shooting I find it incredibly difficult to believe someone could get from that position, race up to the second floor lunchroom, buy a Coke then bump into Mrs Reid seconds later.
More evidence that prayer-blob is not Oswald 8)
There are two important aspects to Karen Westbrook Scranton's revelation concerning Mrs Reid in her "Living History" interview. Firstly, it corroborates Reid's version of meeting Oswald with a coke in his hand in the second floor office. Secondly, it is a first-hand eyewitness account that this story was first told before Oswald was even arrested, let alone before Oswald confirmed the coke story in his interrogations. It can hardly be assumed that this story was being 'planted' before Oswald was arrested. It seems highly probable that Reid was being truthful in her account of this interaction with Oswald.
With this in mind let's take a closer look at Reid's version of events. In her WC testimony Reid states that she had her lunch in the second floor lunchroom, she was one of the last to leave, she went out front and stood on the steps for a few minutes then, when she saw the motorcade turning on to Houston, moved closer to the street, where O. C. Campbell and Roy Truly were standing. Within moments of the shots she ran up to her office where she had her encounter with Oswald. In a reconstruction of her movements she retraced and timed her steps three times, the upshot of which was a timing of approximately two minutes between the shots ending and meeting Oswald on the second floor. It can safely be assumed that, as Oswald was entering her office at the far end with a full bottle of Coke in his hand he had just come from the second floor lunchroom.
Pauline Sanders, in an FBI interview taken on the 11/24/63, states that on that very morning:
"she called Geraldine Reid...who told her that the police officer who first entered the building ran into the lunch room where Mr Truly...and Oswald were evidently lunching. The police officer put his gun into Oswald's stomach but Truly advised the police officer that Oswald worked for him. Police officer turned away and evidently left the area. She said according to Reid, Oswald went to the main office and Reid, although she had not observed the initial incident with the police officer, told Oswald that the President had been shot. According to Sanders, Mrs Reid claimed that Oswald just mumbled something and then left the office."
It must be remembered, these are not Reid's words, it is a third-hand account via Pauline Sanders and agents Basham and Anderson. It is clearly a version of the second floor encounter but it is stressed Reid "had not observed the initial incident with the police officer". I doubt Reid's version had Truly lunching with Oswald as she was stood outside with Truly at the time of the shooting. I also doubt that the officer would've come across the two men having lunch and decided to stick his gun in Oswald's stomach whilst accepting Truly's authority.
So it would appear we have a corroborated first-hand eye-witness account of Oswald being on the second floor seconds after the shooting which itself confirms, to a certain extent, the second floor lunchroom encounter with Oswald and Baker.
Except that Baker, in his first day statement, says third or fourth floor on the stairway - which seems more damning of Oswald, i.e. closer to sixth floor. Why the change to second floor lunchroom?
What's this got to do with the corroboration of Reid's encounter with Oswald by Karen Westbrook Scranton. Reid was telling people about her encounter with Oswald minutes after the shooting and before Oswald was arrested. Reid witnessed Oswald on the second floor with a coke in his hand seconds after the shooting. It's got nothing to do with Baker. All it does is suggest Baker made a mistake about which floor.Why is it that Baker was " mistaken" as to which floor he encountered Oswald on, but Reid is not " mistaken" in her account? ( Scranton's testimony is hearsay, by the way.)
It also implies that Oswald was coming from the second floor lunchroom at a time that fits perfectly with the Baker/Truly reconstruction of their encounter with Oswald.
The important thing, though, is that Westbrook Scranton provides corroboration of Reid's encounter with Oswald.
Why is it that Baker was " mistaken" as to which floor he encountered Oswald on, but Reid is not " mistaken" in her account? ( Scranton's testimony is hearsay, by the way.)Baker could've been mistaken because he'd never been in the building, was full of adrenaline, gun drawn, anticipating meeting an armed assailant, racing up and down a building he had to recall later.
And, again, moving the Oswald encounter down a few floors seems counterintuitive to the official story, i.e. the third or fourth floor is closer to the sniper's nest, therefore much more damning. The second floor lunchroom encounter is an odd fabrication - wish I could figure out its purpose.
She is clearly referring to herself and her work colleagues. It is unreasonable to assume otherwise.
"...there was a quiet calm while the shots were fired and then, when everybody realised the shots were fired, the car sped on, then it erupted in pandemonium and everybody started running every place, so we came back to the building..."
We're definitely going to have to disagree on that.
Considering prayer-blob is seen in Darnell approximately 30 seconds after the shooting I find it incredibly difficult to believe someone could get from that position, race up to the second floor lunchroom, buy a Coke then bump into Mrs Reid seconds later.
More evidence that prayer-blob is not Oswald 8)
There are two important aspects to Karen Westbrook Scranton's revelation concerning Mrs Reid in her "Living History" interview. Firstly, it corroborates Reid's version of meeting Oswald with a coke in his hand in the second floor office.
So it would appear we have a corroborated first-hand eye-witness account of Oswald being on the second floor seconds after the shooting which itself confirms, to a certain extent, the second floor lunchroom encounter with Oswald and Baker.
It's unreasonable to assume that these 4 people all marched (or ran) together in lockstep after the assassination.
And yet somehow you know that they were all back at the building "in less than 30 seconds".
You finding something "hard to believe" does not constitute "evidence".
No, actually it doesn't. It just corroborates that Reid told the same story. It's not an independent account.
No, not even to any extent. Mrs Reid didn't know first-hand that Oswald came from the lunchroom or that there was an encounter there. And in Westbrook's account, there is no mention of where Reid was when she saw Oswald or how long after the assassination.
Agreed. I didn't suggest it was.
More evidence that prayer-blob is not Oswald 8)
To the extent that Oswald has just come from the lunchroom (full bottle of coke in hand) seconds after the shooting has finished.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
But Reid wouldn't have known that he came from the lunchroom.Where else would he be coming from with a full bottle of coke in his hand?
Agreed. They were not in lockstep.
Running back to the TSBD from the site of the assassination would get you there in well under 30 seconds. Probably half that time.
;D How very tricky of you.
The 'evidence' I was referring to was Scranton's corroboration of Reid telling the story of her encounter with Oswald before Oswald was even arrested.
Where else would he be coming from with a full bottle of coke in his hand?
Think it through John.
So that would be an assumption, right? Just so we're clear.
Sigh.....none of them said that they ran back to the TSBD immediately after the assassination.
How is that "evidence" that prayer-blob is not Oswald?Reid's eye-witness account is evidence Oswald was in the second floor office with a full bottle of coke in his hands seconds after the shooting finished.
So what happened to his jacket?
Think it through, Dan.
You're talking November 22nd, 1963, right?
Mr. DULLES - Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn't quite hear.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.
vs.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.
How many seconds later was that?
What you can make of it is that Reid is FoS.
If Oswald was a nobody that nobody cared about why would she suddenly, on the 22nd, refer to this conversation?
Geneva Hine, who remained on the 2nd floor, destroys Reid's story and that's why Hine was not part of Belin's fake reenactment which only included Reid.
Why is Westbrook the problem?
Which might have been resolved during a reenactment.
Can you come up with any plausible explanation for not including Hine in a re-enactment?
Relying on 50 old memory, not sure what you're trying to prove or disprove...
If Reid did not know Lee's name how did she refer to Lee as Westbrook does, as "Lee"?
"This leads to a scenario so unlikely as to be comedic" was your own assessment. Not worth a re-enactment?
#1 makes sense, the others don't.
All good. Reid's account of leaving the lunch room is hazy and her language squishy.....
Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?
Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there.
Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?
Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone.
Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?
Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.
Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?
Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you went out from the lunchroom; turning to Exhibit 497, you went from the lunchroom through the door, which would be the west door, and then through the doorway marked number 23 on the exhibit there or did you instead go to the front?
Mrs. REID. No; I came back through the office.
So, there were men in the lunchroom....she might have left the lunchroom returning through the office with Lee carrying his coke. My contention is that this morphed into her official story after she got primed by Truly on Saturday prior to giving affidavits. Note that Westbrook has Lee initiating the conversation, reverse of what Reid testified.
The main problem there is that the lunchroom was full of the 'younger girls' who all fail to mention Oswald's presence in their CE 1381's
That includes Reid and Westbrook, so what does that prove?
Lee didn't need to camp in front of the vending machine prior to getting his Coke.
All girls had left prior to Reid leaving, allowing Oswald to enter "unseen".
Should equally cool your excitement for Westbrook's 50 year old "hi-res" recollection of an incident that wasn't worth mentioning to the FBI in 1964 by any of the involved parities.
At least I didn't claim "we know" what happened, as you did a few pages back when your happy marriage quickly fell apart:
Good to know you're now interested in learning stuff instead of running along with the Reid/WC two minute sprint to the second floor.
"The 'evidence' I was referring to was Scranton's corroboration of Reid telling the story of her encounter with Oswald before Oswald was even arrested. We know from Reid this encounter took place seconds after the shooting finished."
Your attempt to prove that prayer-blob is not Oswald was straight out of the WC/LN lunchroom encounter playbook spiced up with Westbrook that couldn't get the dialogue right, even adding "whether that fits in with the timeline", and cherry picked third hand Sanders thrown in for good measure -- LOL
Better luck next time.
Thanks for playing.
Just a tad too dismissive of my suggestion, gave you away.
But you need to work a lot harder on that gone-in-seconds jacket for your Ried fantasy to work!
In the interview Westbrook Scranton describes running back into the TSBD.
Both Lovelady and Shelley describe Calvery as running back to the TSBD
And none of them said "in well under 30 seconds".
Reid's eye-witness account is evidence Oswald was in the second floor office with a full bottle of coke in his hands seconds after the shooting finished.
In Darnell we see prayer-blob in position 20-30 seconds after the shooting.
Reid's account places an incredible strain on the credulity of the idea that, if prayer-blob was Oswald, he could get from that position, up to the second floor lunchroom, get a full bottle of coke and appear nonchalantly strolling into the second floor office in the time allotted.
Very succinctly put Otto but there are one or two issues your searing insight has overlooked.
The problem isn't Reid, it's Westbrook. Watch the interview and see what you make of it. I get the distinct impression she is absolutely certain about this incident, I don't see how she can be 'misremembering' something so specific.
The main problem there is that the lunchroom was full of the 'younger girls' who all fail to mention Oswald's presence in their CE 1381's
That includes Reid and Westbrook, so what does that prove?
Lee didn't need to camp in front of the vending machine prior to getting his Coke.
All girls had left prior to Reid leaving, allowing Oswald to enter "unseen".
You misspelled "minutes".
Then you have a weird notion of "incredible strain on the credulity".
And what makes you think Oswald got the "full bottle of coke" after Darnell?
Wrong
Wrong again
It's full
What you evidently missed, and dodged, in your CE 1381 argument was that fact that the FBI Reid report (add Westbrook) taken just one week prior her WC testimony contained zero supporting evidence of a rendezvous with Oswald, topped off with a (full) Coke.
Too bad they added the Coke to Reid's brush with destiny...
Firstly, you're just plain wrong about Reid's CE 1381 containing " zero supporting evidence of a rendezvous with Oswald, topped off with a (full) Coke."
Other than that slight gaffe I'm not sure how Reid's FBI statement relates to the CE 1381's of the office workers in the lunchroom at that time. Please enlighten me.
The gaffe is all yours.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0350b.gif)
You just quote Reid from CE 1381 and I'll gladly stand corrected.
No problem, now you need contemporary corroborating evidence for Reid's claim in case you hope to advance your blob-claim.
And you need to work a lot harder on that unfortunate jacked reported by Baker.
And you have to deal with Hine's testimony naming every member, including Reid, of the group returning to the office.
"I have been advised of the information previously furnished to the F. B. I. and it is an accurate account
of my activities and impressions on 11-22-63"
This is a reference to Reid's FBI statement given on 11/26/63
And you know that . . . how?
Otto's point is that Reid's CE 1381 statement makes no reference to the coke and the encounter, and he is absolutely right.
How do I know Reid gave a statement to the FBI on 11/26/63?
I would imagine Otto can speak for himself John.
No. How do you know that "information previously furnished to the F. B. I." is a reference to Reid's FBI statement given on 11/26/63?Because her statement to the FBI on 11/26/63 is 'previous' to her WC testimony and it is information given (or 'furnished') to the FBI, hence the phrase "information previously furnished to the F.B.I."
Thumb1:
Further from the Weisberg collection:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/E%20Disk/Ellis%20Starvis%20Major/Item%2001.pdf
Specifically the last paragraph is rather interesting....
Because her statement to the FBI on 11/26/63 is 'previous' to her WC testimony
and it is information given (or 'furnished') to the FBI, hence the phrase "information previously furnished to the F.B.I."
Just to expand on that - the statement given to the FBI on 11/26/63 contained information relating to her "activities and impressions" on 11/22/63 as she states in her CE 1381
Interesting to say the least. Now I'm going to be spending my evening trying to track down water coolers in the TSBD
yes, 11/26/63 is certainly "previous" to 3/18/64. That's your basis?
So I guess somebody needs a lesson in "necessary" vs. "sufficient".
Either way, CE 1381 does not make any reference to Reid encountering Oswald or a Coke.
Still crying about being schooled John. You're the only one getting any lessons round here. 8)
Nice display of arrogance, but that doesn't justify your claim that "information previously furnished to the F. B. I." is a reference specifically to Reid's FBI statement given on 11/26/63.
Just teasing because you're being so petulant ;D
Unfortunately they forgot "information previously furnished to the F. B. I." in the Carolyn Arnold's statement (page 7 in the CE 1381 bundle) to cover her 12:25 sighting of Oswald -- LOL
Combined with this part makes it even more exiting:
As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor.
But wait, wasn't Oswald on the sixth floor stacking boxes around 12:15?
You're the one who gets petulant. Every time your misinformation gets corrected.It's kind of a pattern with Mr O'meara.
It's kind of a pattern with Mr O'meara.
He posts. We rebut. He insults.
Still crying about being schooled John. You're the only one getting any lessons round here. 8)Uh, another sign of you responding to dissenting voices.
Suck it up and move on, you're wasting everybody's time.You're the one who chose to respond.
Uh, another sign of you responding to dissenting voices.
Your desire to show dominance is quite telling.
Sad. :(
Even more odd how the man got past Truly unseen.
Oswald?
Much later.
I count zero ingredients of the "lunchroom encounter" in Baker's affidavit.
Surprisingly, Baker completely fails to mention (affidavit) that he just identified the man being brought in, handcuffed, as the man he had stopped in the depository.
Further details on page 2, which included a search of the man......there you go!
If it was clear when Baker later identified Oswald there was no need for the addendum which states it happened when Baker was giving an affidavit. Plain and simple, but it just didn't suit you.
That Johnson states Baker's identification of Oswald took place after his affidavit was taken is indisputable.
You choose to ignore this blatant fact because, I assume, it suits you to do so.
Unlike you, I don't have an entrenched position on this issue.
You're lucky that you've made your mind up about it. I still have to wonder about silly little details such as "What point does a fake lunchroom encounter serve?" and "Why not, if its all made up, have it on the sixth floor?"
I'm not trying to sway you on this matter in any way, if I ask (myself) challenging questions it's because I still don't understand what's happening.
Oswald snuffed Kennedy.
That's it. No need to get one's shorts in a knot.
Zoom out, and you'll notice the "...later identified..." statement concludes Johnson's narrative of what Baker witnessed at the depository. "Later" refers to the events in the Plaza/TSBD.
The indisputable moment, last paragraph, is "when" Baker is giving his affidavit. Johnson couldn't quote Baker if he wasn't there at that moment "when" Oswald entered the room. If it really happened. At least Baker, initially, brought it to the fourth floor.
Few things are indisputable in this case.
Mildly disappointed, but your effort is appreciated.
I'm constantly putting things out there to be knocked down which is something I welcome.
Tonkovich is right. When your assumptions are challenged you get defensive and pissy.
As we're getting personal John...Mr O'meara has appeared, only six months into his membership here, as an expert ( sic) as to the JFK assassination. He claims to have read the work of the Tom Purvis.
Out of everything I've posted you chose a really telling quote:
"I'm constantly putting things out there to be knocked down which is something I welcome."
This is something that is true of me, I am constantly putting out ideas, theories and arguments which are there to be knocked down. This is something you certainly don't do. You constantly snipe at the work others are putting out without ever putting out your own.
I find the way you operate to be really cowardly.
The good thing about the forum is that it's a record and I will proudly hold up what I've contributed whilst having to deal with your constant nit-picking pedantism and, in particular, the way you misrepresent what I've posted then attack that.
The record will show how small-minded you are.
Try a debate with me sometime. You bring your arguments and I'll bring mine. You're the big man who knows it all so why not? How about the identification of Gloria Calvery? :D
You and the other John share a common trait, it's something I really dislike which is why I have to deal with so much irrelevant heat from the two of you.
You never contribute - you just take away from those who do.
Mr O'meara has appeared, only six months into his membership here, as an expert ( sic) as to the JFK assassination. He claims to have read the work of the Tom Purvis.The autopsy report indicates an irregular wound of entry.
Mr O'meara: have you examined the "irregular " aspects of JFK'S back wound?
The autopsy report indicates an irregular wound of entry.
Wrong thread John.Oswald was mentioned in a 4th floor encounter.
This is about Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination.
Start a different thread and I'll gladly participate but let's try and keep this on track.
Thumb1:
Oswald was mentioned in a 4th floor encounter.
You haven't explained why that became a 2nd floor encounter
Baker has Oswald on the sixth floor?
Is this satire?
I think it's best to read through the last few posts before just joining in.Yeah. The important thing is, the second floor encounter never happened.
In a previous post I was demonstrating how easy it would be to make up a fake encounter to establish Oswald's guilt rather than the insanely complex 2FLRE Hoax. To get a better understanding it would help to go back to that post and read forward.
Just a suggestion.
"the reality based community"
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Curry, Fritz, Westbrook, Truly, Baker, Reid, Johnson, Bookhout ... who else?
Let's get real here. The only people who know whether there was a "2nd floor lunchroom encounter" or not are Truly, Baker, and Oswald.
The issue is how many people knew there was a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter hoax.3rd or 4th floor encounter. First day statement. Mr. O'Meara.
3rd or 4th floor encounter. First day statement. Mr. O'Meara.
The issue is how many people knew there was a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter hoax.
Baker+Truly+Oswald
You do the math
In respect to the 2nd floor encounter in the lunchroom w/the wrongly accused, It did not happen. It's that simple really. First, let's take into account the actual truth before a hastily contrived script after the fact rears its deceptive offerings:
Marrion Baker's same day affidavit (bold emphasis mine to illustrate a key point ---->
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Baker's same day statement alone sums up the actual truth when compared to a hastily contrived script that follows a day later. Moreover, the wrongly accused did Not, repeat did not fit Mr. Baker's description (the wrongly accused weighed in 34lbs less than the individual Baker actually encounters. Again, the wrongly accused weighed only 131lbs, nowhere near 34lbs heavier. Also, it's important to note, the individual was, quote, "walking away from the stairway". What part of this observation substantiates an encounter in a room, let alone a lunchroom floors below?
Again, What part of walking away from a stairway has anything to do with being inside a lunchroom?
The phantom 2nd floor encounter w/the wrongly accused is just that, phantom "evidence" mired knee deep in horse manure amid a hastily contrived script the day after to frame an innocent party.
The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
You're completely missing the point Alan.
You argue how unlikely the "official" version of things is but the point I'm making is how utterly ridiculous the "Second Floor Encounter Hoax" is. It's utterly pathetic. In an earlier post I've already demonstrated how easy it would be to construct an airtight fake encounter. How can you account for how many people are involved in this so-called hoax? How can you account for how the hoaxers contradict each other? Who is directing this hoax?
As for your point about Baker, if, as people like yourself point out, Baker is in the same room as Oswald when he gives his affidavit, why is his description of the man he encountered different from the man sat right in front of him?
Good afternoon, Mr. O'meara
Until actual evidence presents itself that at least one more person--besides Mr. Piper (Eddie) actually confirms they saw the tandem of Baker & Roy Truly ascend the backstairs together it did not happen. Moreover, what's most disturbing about even Mr. Piper's acknowledgment of them being together is the following statements ---->
Mr. BALL. You mentioned you saw Truly?
Mr. PIPER. I don't know whether it was a policeman or FBI or who it was, but another fellow was with him.
Mr. BALL And where were you?
Mr. PIPER. Standing right there where they make coffee.
Critical thinkers--given Mr. Piper's expressed doubt about just who he sees w/Roy Truly are left to wonder why he cannot simply confirm he saw a white helmeted motorcycle officer in long black boots w/Roy Truly IF indeed the tandem were together.
I do believe that Baker and Roy Truly came together at some point that afternoon (just not the timing sequence pushed by the hastily contrived script to frame an innocent party). I believe they encountered the MUCH larger man (165lbs) than the wrongly accused (131lbs) on an upper floor beyond the 2nd floor lunchroom, let alone inside it. However, once the hastily contrived script raises its deceptive head the next day to reinvent. revise and ignore the same day events, the stench of horse manure becomes rather obvious.
Then there's this exchange ---->
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
Critical-thinkers are left to wonder what exactly was Roy Truly up to over in the sniper's nest BEFORE the gun and shell casings were found...
Again, I would believe the exploits of Baker & Roy Truly if more than a single lone person can account for them being near the backstairs together. Only Mr. Piper, 1-69 witnesses does so. I will never be convinced that Ms. Adams, etc were deaf and/or blind to account for the reason they didn't bear witness to seeing the tandem together.
Still wondering aloud why Roy Truly was over in the sniper's nest BEFORE the gun and shell casings were found. Hmm
The hoax is definitely set in the second floor lunchroom.
Explain your reasoning of this being a "hoax".
Explain your reasoning of this being a "hoax".
As I say Rick, for certain parties it is important that this encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom didn't happen. It really spoils their models for what happened that day.Good post. And your questions about how this second floor "hoax" was undertaken - who directed it, who wrote the script, how did they get the "actors" to follow is - can be applied to a myriad of claims by conspiracists about how the evidence was manufactured or planted or falsified.
So they propose the whole thing is a hoax and there seems to be plenty of contradictory testimony to support this assertion.
But the "Hoax Theory" is put forward as a reality that explains certain things and, to my mind at least, you don't just get to propose something as a reality then not explain the "mechanics" of this reality.
You don't just conjure up something out of thin air as a reality then not justify the basis of that reality.
So, if the Hoax is real:
Who created it?
What are it's origins?
Who is directing it?
Who is involved?
These are simple, reasonable questions that must be answered by anyone proposing the "2FLRE Hoax Theory" as a reality.
Anyone who looks into this will quickly discover how ridiculous the notion of the Hoax is. As soon as one tries to explain the Hoax as a reality it vanishes leaving the prospect that the encounter did indeed take place.
As I say Rick, for certain parties it is important that this encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom didn't happen. It really spoils their models for what happened that day.
So they propose the whole thing is a hoax and there seems to be plenty of contradictory testimony to support this assertion.
But the "Hoax Theory" is put forward as a reality that explains certain things and, to my mind at least, you don't just get to propose something as a reality then not explain the "mechanics" of this reality.
You don't just conjure up something out of thin air as a reality then not justify the basis of that reality.
So, if the Hoax is real:
Who created it?
What are it's origins?
Who is directing it?
Who is involved?
These are simple, reasonable questions that must be answered by anyone proposing the "2FLRE Hoax Theory" as a reality.
Anyone who looks into this will quickly discover how ridiculous the notion of the Hoax is. As soon as one tries to explain the Hoax as a reality it vanishes leaving the prospect that the encounter did indeed take place.
Good post. And your questions about how this second floor "hoax" was undertaken - who directed it, who wrote the script, how did they get the "actors" to follow is - can be applied to a myriad of claims by conspiracists about how the evidence was manufactured or planted or falsified.
The general conspiracy claim (yes, there are many) is that a wide range of people including both powerful figures who directed/ordered it and ordinary people who carried it out at some point and in some way and in some place got together and carried out the assassination of the president of the United States. Again, the president; this was not robbing a 7/11. When we ask for evidence for this we really get nothing. It's all conjecture, speculation and theories. It's been more than half a century and all of these people who were involved remained silent? It's absurd.
You cannot carry out the intricate conspiracy that the general conspiracists claim happened. Not carry it out. Not keep it quiet. Not plan it in secrecy. It simply cannot be done. But I'm drinking the government Kool-aid and "Look at all of these odd things!!" and JFK was hated and he was going to end the Cold War and pull out of Vietnam and they had to stop him and et cetera et cetera
Jeesh, these last few pages of 'debate' are soooooooooooo 2010!
Team Keep LHO Off Them Steps still can't
---------------------find a credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man
---------------------explain the ridiculous shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman
---------------------explain away the suppression (for over five decades) of Mr Oswald's claim to have visited the second-floor lunchroom for a coke BEFORE going "outside to watch the P. Parade".
As I say Rick, for certain parties it is important that this encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom didn't happen. It really spoils their models for what happened that day.
So they propose the whole thing is a hoax and there seems to be plenty of contradictory testimony to support this assertion.
But the "Hoax Theory" is put forward as a reality that explains certain things and, to my mind at least, you don't just get to propose something as a reality then not explain the "mechanics" of this reality.
You don't just conjure up something out of thin air as a reality then not justify the basis of that reality.
So, if the Hoax is real:
Who created it?
What are it's origins?
Who is directing it?
Who is involved?
These are simple, reasonable questions that must be answered by anyone proposing the "2FLRE Hoax Theory" as a reality.
Anyone who looks into this will quickly discover how ridiculous the notion of the Hoax is. As soon as one tries to explain the Hoax as a reality it vanishes leaving the prospect that the encounter did indeed take place.
It's great to have your expertise back on board Mr Ford.
As these questions are soooooo 2010 just clear them up quickly and we can move on:
Who created the 2FLRE Hoax?
Who is directing the Hoax?
Who is involved?
These are obviously simple questions for someone of your experience. I would be really surprised if you couldn't answer them or you were evasive.
Thumb1:
The reasons:
1. Pauline Sanders locates Stanton (at least for some segment of time,) as located beside herself on the east side of the landing. However , there does not appear to be a fat lady next to Sanders in the Couch and Wiegman film frames
It is doubtful that the fat lady would have remained blocking the front door, and therefore opted to move to another position from which she would be less an obstacle plus also have a better LOS to at least the corner of Houston and Elm St.
2. Pauline Sanders FBI statement includes reference to seeing Baker, while Sarah has no such statement. If Sarah was still standing beside Pauline (hence in front of the door) its questionable how Stanton could have missed Baker running virtually right into her. Would not Stanton have included this observation in her FBI statement just as Pauline did, if such sighting of Baker did occur?
3. Prayerblob height is approx 5’3” per John Mytton’s analysis in another lengthy thread. Sarah Stanton is allegedly not taller than 5’4”.
4. Sarah Stanton has not been absolutely identified as on of the other women visible in the Weigman and Couch Film or Altgens no. 6 photo
5. Mr Fords proposition that white shirt person shading their eyes (to the right of Billy ) is Sarah Stanton? Is doubtful per reasons such as A. skinny forearms and B. location having LOS to JFK after passing by TSBD entrance, in contrast to Sarah Stanton statement inferring her LOS was blocked after the limo passed.
Easy peasy, Mr O'Meara!
Who created the 2FLRE Hoax? Looks like SA Nat Pinkston played a key role.
Who directed the 2FLRE Hoax? See above!
Who is involved? Officer Baker, Mr Truly and Mrs Reid: pressurized into playing along. Key 'investigators' (i.e. cover-up merchants) in FBI, DPD and SS agreed on 2FLRE as least worst damage-limitation strategy-------limiting the damage caused, of course, by the fact that a) Mr Oswald had had his encounter with Officer Baker/Mr Truly at the front entrance; b) Officer Baker/Mr Truly had subsequently encountered a different man walking away from the rear stairway 'on the third or fourth floor'.
Now! Do let us know when you are in a position to
---------------------find a credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man
---------------------explain the ridiculous shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in Wiegman
---------------------explain away the suppression (for over five decades) of Mr Oswald's claim to have visited the second-floor lunchroom for a coke BEFORE going "outside to watch P. Parade".
So far you haven't done any better on any of these than the original Mr Doyle did!
Thumb1:
More importantly, isn't LHO getting a coke from the 2FLR part of the elaborate Hoax? Isn't this a detail made up by the Hoaxers?
I'll type this real slow, Mr O'Meara, so you have a chance of keeping up:
The 2FLRE hoax was developed---by the 'investigating' authorities, after the assassination---on the basis of a real visit by Mr Oswald, before the assassination, to the second floor lunchroom for a coke.
The reason you're still obsessing over 2010 talking points is that you still can't find a credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man, you still can't explain the shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in Wiegman, and you're still in denial about Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade". You're as tragically lost as the original Mr Doyle was!
The 2FLRE hoax was developed---by the 'investigating' authorities, after the assassination---on the basis of a real visit by Mr Oswald, before the assassination, to the second floor lunchroom for a coke.
If PM is Oswald, why did not the conspirators blacken out that west corner using the same whatever black masking that is alleged by Mr. Ford to be creating a shadow on the side of Lovelady!
Explain this:
The 11/24/63 report on Oswald's interrogation by Special Agent Bookhout contains the following:
"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book
Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building,
having just purchased a Coca-Cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer
came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present
and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and
continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor
and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room."
Why does Oswald have a coke in this version of the 'hoax' but it disappears by the time Baker and Truly testify before the WC?
You say Nat Pinkston was involved, what do you have to back this up?
You say the hoax was developed by "the 'investigating' authorities, after the assassination". What do you have to back this up?
More Fantasia.
If PM is Oswald, why did not the conspirators blacken out that west corner using the same whatever black masking that is alleged by Mr. Ford to be creating a shadow on the side of Lovelady!
Here's a challenge for all of you who believe the 2FLRE was a hoax.
In proposing the Hoax you are proposing something 'real'. It must have been created by someone - who was it created by? Who is orchestrating the Hoax? It must have participants - who is involved in the Hoax and to what extent?
How did the Hoax come into being?
What is the timeline for it?
You have reached into thin air and pulled out a new reality called the 2FLRE Hoax. Defend it. Prove it exists as a thing in it's own right.
If you believe in the 2FLRE Hoax don't just sit in the shadows waiting for these awkward questions to go away so you can just carry on believing it without any proof of it's reality.
Get your heads together.
Come up with something concrete.
Yawn. The evolution of the interrogation reports has been covered in great detail multiple times in multiple venues since 2013, Mr O'Meara. But you wouldn't know that, seeing as you're stuck in 2010. Educate yourself, man!
If Lovelady flannel shirt hanging loosely , then possibly the wind gusts of 15mph at the time could have moved the loose shirt hanging on his right side outward in a way to create an shadow from the shirt.
Also, if his right arm is moved outward with elbow bent, it might cause additional shadow on his right.side.
Isn't he just partly in shadow?
If there was NOT any alteration of the original film version of the PM figure, and the conspirators therefore unaware the PM figure may resemble Oswald, then the purpose to move or add shadow to Lovelady must be due to some OTHER face/figure that was identified in the original film that the conspirators thought resembled Oswald.
Or if not Oswald , then whom else would the conspirators have thought it necessary to mask over with shadow added or by moving Lovelady image?
Not sure what Mr Ford is suggesting as to some object needing to be blackened out beside Lovelady.
(...)
If Mr Ford is adamantly still of the opinion that PM is Oswald, then I’m
Still at a loss to explain these photographic “quirks” to cover up some one or some THING?
It looks like a forearm imo, which is the left arm and if you can identify anything that is reflecting light at the wrist area, then it could be Oswalds shiny bracelet he wore on his Left hand as indicated in a photo of him in handcuffs
The reason for the fake shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is to be found in Altgens: the Oswald-Did-It 'investigators' needed folks to believe Mr Lovelady had his sleeves rolled up in order to pass off what they knew to be Prayer Man's unsleeved right arm in Altgens as Mr Lovelady's unsleeved left arm.
Obviously, they only went to this trouble because Prayer Man = Mr Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspect who truthfully claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" after buying a coke in the second floor lunchroom.
:D :D :D
In terms of fantastical Mr Ford fantasia this is next level.
Just for a laugh please explain how the investigating authorities knew it was Oswald's arm and, more importantly, why they would imagine anyone else would suspect it was Oswald's arm?
Mr Oswald, in custody, told them exactly where he had been at the time of the shot. They established very quickly that he was telling the truth. The giveaway in Altgens? The bottle in the hand.
I’m trying to envision how PM , while holding a bottle of Soda ( 1963 Dr. Pepper bottle with the solid white oval shaped logo?) , would move down far enough to the lower step next to black guy, and how PM would hold his bottle as he peeks around the corner.
IMO, he would use his RIGHT hand up against the west wall to stabilize himself as he moves down a step or 2 while holding the bottle in his LEFT hand
:D :D :D
I really have missed you.
So Oswald told "them" exactly where he was at the time of the shot?
What do you base this on? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
You have none because, in typical Fantasia Ford style, you've just made this up and are trying to pass it off as something real.
You never change.
Oh, you also forgot to make up a reason as to why "they" would think anyone would recognise Oswald's arm in Altgens.
Now let's have a little look at a couple of images you yourself have posted. Both are close-ups of Altgens 6 but one is really heavily brightened so you can make your ridiculous argument (tampering with evidence again Mr Ford?)
(https://i.postimg.cc/htqyk1xS/Ford-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/) (https://i.postimg.cc/zDs0hFxn/Ford-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
In the 'normal' version of Altgens we can clearly see that the arm you are trying to pass off as Oswald's belongs to a black person ( :D :D :D this is brilliant)
How on earth do you explain this (I can't wait to hear what you come up with).
More Doylesque cope, lol-------all because you can't for the life of you explain the shadow down Mr Lovelady..........
(https://i.imgur.com/ICXtVjA.jpg)
How do you explain that the arm you're trying to pass off as Oswald's belongs to a black person?
I guess you, with your customary laziness, missed my post #711. Do try to keep up in future! Thumb1:
You really think you're going to get away without addressing this point?
You posted the following two images:
(https://i.postimg.cc/htqyk1xS/Ford-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/) (https://i.postimg.cc/zDs0hFxn/Ford-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The image on the right is a close-up of the really bleached-out image you present in post #711 (I assume)
You have tried to pass off the arm of a black person as Oswald's.
You have used a really 'bleached-out' close-up of Altgens 6 to have us believe the arm belongs to a white person.
You have done this knowingly.
Even when your fraud has been pointed out you have carried on with your insanity.
Look at the two images above
Look at the arm
Look at how stupid you must think we all are
Are you going to carry on with your insanity?
How many photo discrepancies are required before it’s reasonable to declare It’s evidence of a purposeful alteration to hide some one or some object, so as not to interfere with the WC lone nut Oswald the shooter theory?
Lol.
Mr O'Meara has just confirmed that
a) he is completely, mortifiyingly, infuriatingly unable to offer an explanation for the shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman
b) the sentence in my post #711 ("Is this image-----broadcast the evening of the assassination-----the closest the American public has ever come to seeing what the original Altgens 6 showed?") overwhelms his reading comprehension abilities.
No wonder the poor guy has nothing to bring to a thread titled "Then went outside to watch P. parade" beyond irrelevant, outdated 2FLRE talking points!
Nobody is going to accept Oswald was actually African American.
Let's leave Mr Ford and his new theory behind.
Nobody is going to accept Oswald was actually African American.
Let's get back to the Hoax Thoery.
Those who propose there was a Hoax must show the reality of the thing they are proposing.
Who has any evidence regarding the origins of the Hoax?
Who organised the Hoax?
Who knew about the Hoax?
Who was taking part in the Hoax?
You haven’t presented a compelling argument that that appendage is African American. Or any argument at all, really.
I’ve seen the “normal” copy of Altgens, and I still want to know how you know that “appendage” belongs to an African American.
???
It's a joke John
Because the arm is non-white I've picked a non-white race
It's a joke
Oswald is white
You must surely see it's a joke
Suggesting Alan is putting forward a theory that Oswald is African American is a joke
That's all it was John
You need to let this go
???
It's a joke John
Because the arm is non-white I've picked a non-white race
It's a joke
Oswald is white
You must surely see it's a joke
Suggesting Alan is putting forward a theory that Oswald is African American is a joke
That's all it was John
You need to let this go
reasons to reconsider PM= Oswald theory:
1. Notes by FBI agent Hosty presumably having overheard Oswald stating to Will Fritz , being “out front with Shelly” and having gone “outside to watch the P.Parade”
2. An apparent photographic anomaly of a vertical dark shadow on the west side of Lovelady in several Weigman film frames of the TSBD entrance
(...)
5. The 5’3” height discrepancy of PM relative to Buell Wesley Frazier, now possibly explained by this speculative movement of PM to a lower step, momentarily stopped in Wiegman Film frames of entrance steps, but then PM moving down a few more steps in the segement of time BETWEEN last visible entrance frame of Weigman and the Z255 frame of Altgens 6 photo
Also worth mentioning here is that Mr James Hackerott has viewed the superior copy of the Darnell frames held by the Sixth Floor Museum, and---------if his drawings are anything to go by----------saw that PM is a slim figure.
If PM is Sarah Stanton, a 300lb plus short fat woman that BW Frazier has stated he LOOKED AT ( and she at him simultaneously) after having heard Gloria Cavalry exclaim that JFK had been shot, then should not BWF have some memory of Sarah’s location relative to himself, that would allow him to confirm or deny that PM is Stanton?
So far, BFW has NOT been able ( or is purposely unwilling?) to ID the PM figure.
Has Mr. Ford located exactly where Sarah Stanton is at the front entrance?
At my last visit to Dallas (11 months ago) I was extremely fortunate to be allowed to make a single tracing of the Darnell doorway. I was pressed for time and the tracing was made in a hurry. This scan of the trace is presented for-what-it's-worth, but should be a better outline of Prayer Person compared to my earlier free-hand sketches.
(https://i.imgur.com/KakvLm0.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tCUZDmz.png)
A Safe and Happy New Year to All
Not gonna happen. Ok, then, how do you know the appendage belongs to a “non-white” person?
???
Because of the colour of it.
You are the joke
Can't you discern between black and white people in Altgens 6?
Excellent, Mr Hackerott, thank you!No, the word is tie – the thin vertical stripe (e.g. tie, necklace, zipper etc.) below the chin. I think before this visit to the SFM I indicated the line was present in multiple frames. I plan to revisit this observation if I can someday have another chance. The museum is now open for some business, but the Reading Room was still closed at the end of November.
I'm intrigued by your note at the foot of the tracing. Does it read "PP face not reproduced frame to frame Darnell"?
???
Because of the colour of it.
You are the joke
Can't you discern between black and white people in Altgens 6?
No, the word is tie – the thin vertical stripe (e.g. tie, necklace, zipper etc.) below the chin. I think before this visit to the SFM I indicated the line was present in multiple frames. I plan to revisit this observation if I can someday have another chance. The museum is now open for some business, but the Reading Room was still closed at the end of November.
Now I’ve got a suspicion that the original Althens 6 photo image of the forearm was clearly BEHiND the neck of the black man. This would be a very definite indication that someone holding up their arm was just a few steps up behind the black man.
So perhapsThe 1st idea to modify the image was to make the arm appear to belong to the black man
They added a portion of light gray of equal value approx to the tone of the arm creating an illusion of a roiled up portion of shirt connecting the arm to the black man.
Then they realized from other frames of Weigman that the black mans light gray shirt sleeves were NOT rolled up and that someone would eventually notice this discrepancy and question why the mans arm was not as dark as his face.
So then they must have decide led to cover up 1st alteration by a 2nd alteration of adding more of Loveladys shirt texture pattern over this light tone arm, and hope that it the public would accept the arm now belonging to Lovelady.
However, for whatever reason, the now covered arm w/ texture pattern = to Lovelady shirt did NOT correct the 1st alteration portion that seems to attach the arm to the black man, thus the Lovelady’s left sleeved arm
STILL had the anomaly of extending IN FRONT of the black guys neck.
Why they could not fix this perhaps was due to more complication in adjusting the image, so they left it as good enough“ calculating that some expert could be found to offer a seemingly plausible explanation for the remaining anomaly
It's Lovelady.
Oswald was in the lunchroom.
Enough of this fantasy BS:
Who created the second floor lunchroom encounter hoax and who was in on it?
Simple questions
let's have some simple answers
Suggestions for what the white object is in PM’s hands:
1. White coffee cup
2. White styrofoam cup
3. Camera
4. 1963 Dr.Pepper bottle w/ white logo
5. Cigarette lighter flame
Mr. Ford has presented an image of a forearm and hand upraised and presumed to be not the forearm of Lewis (black man at lower west wall corner of the TSBD entrance steps), nor the forearm belonging to Lovelady.
Mr. Ford has outlined also some object that he thinks he sees in the upraised hand?
If there is a shape, can it be analyzed by some computer image program to determine which of the 5 hypothetical objects listed above is the most probable?
If coffee cup or styrofoam cup, the quantity of liquid would be minimal, and thus possibly consumed completely BEFORE PM was captured in Weigman film
If a camera, then one must ask what would be the reason for PM to hold up the camera ( as though photographing the side of the TSBD) in the Altgens photo. Also, would not the face of PM be visible if holding up the camera to his eye?
If a cigarette lighter aflame in the hand of PM in Weigman film then the small object is not likely to be visible in the hand when PM moves and raises the arm in Alrhens photo
The Dr. Pepper bottle, therefore, is my pick because
A. The bottle upraised, having a long neck, may explain face of PM obscured by west corner wall , even thought bottle shape would be visible in the hand
B. Quantity of liquid would be consumed over a longer periodic time with raising hand up multiple times
C. Coincidental finding of a Dr. Pepper
Bottle on the steps next to the West wall of the TSBD where PM is seen in the Weigman film, and where he would have stepped down to lower step in an increment of time between last Weigman frame of entrance steps and the Altgens photo 6.
D. The shape of the bottle would be more visible and be horizontal if upraised to take a drink as is the object that Mr. Ford has outlined (although its indeterminate), in the now presumed upraised hand of PM before that image was altered by adding texture and pattern of Lovelady shirt to obscure the arm and make it appear to be Loveladys arm.
Still can't explain the shadow, eh Mr O'Meara? Oh dear oh dear, how embarrassing for you!
(https://i.imgur.com/ICXtVjA.jpg)
It looks like a coke bottle.
(https://i.imgur.com/CsX4avj.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/mGGd8Ds.gif)
The reason it looks like a coke bottle is probably that it is one.
How can you tell it's coke?
Where's your coke bottle in this pic?
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxxVbGF2/Ford-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Getting back to something serious, I believe it was who accused Nat Pinkston of having something to do with creating the 2FLRE Hoax.
Was this just more of your made-up BS:
Much as poor Mr O'Meara wants to keep partying like it's 2010, I'm afraid he needs another friendly reminder that his claim that Mr Lovelady is in "partial shadow" here still needs splainin'.....
(https://i.imgur.com/ICXtVjA.jpg)
Over to you, Mr O'Meara! :D
Where's the coke bottle Alan and why do you need the concept of 'shadows' 'splained to you
There is slight problem with the speculative notion of PM having moved down a few steps in the brief interlude between Wiegman films last frame of entrance and Altgens photo capture.
The problem is that in Couch film sequence of the entrance which is AFTER Altgens photo, PM appears to be in the SAME position in the corner as he was in Weigman film.
Agent Hosty was present at that first interrogation, and his draft report makes perfectly clear what he heard Mr Oswald say: I went to the lunchroom on the second floor to buy a coke, then went down to the first floor, then "went outside to watch P. Parade":
(https://i.imgur.com/fZb0o5T.jpg)
This tells us not just that Mr Oswald claimed to have gone out front for the motorcade, but also that
-----------a) Mr Oswald claimed something utterly at odds with the 2FLRE story
-----------b) Mr Oswald's claims were so threatening to the official line that they had to be buried
The "out with Bill Shelly in front" is not from Agent Hosty's draft report but from Captain Fritz's non-contemporaneous notes (which, as has been deduced elsewhere, derived from Agent Bookhout's interrogation reports).
If this 'shadow' cannot be explained as a naturalistic phenomenon------and to date it has not been so explained--------then then implications are explosive: there was something in that doorway that the 'investigating' authorities desperately wanted to hide. I submit that that something must have been LHO-related, and reissue my cordial invitation to skeptics to offer a conceivable alternative motivation.
There is no 5'3" height discrepancy if at least one of PM's feet is one step down. Mr Andrej Stancak has modeled this quite painstakingly.
Also worth mentioning here is that Mr James Hackerott has viewed the superior copy of the Darnell frames held by the Sixth Floor Museum, and---------if his drawings are anything to go by----------saw that PM is a slim figure.
Finally, I once again sincerely believe that the left index finger of Mr Buell Wesley Frazier in this photograph is telling us the all important fact that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier's tongue dare not speak:
(https://i.imgur.com/z6ffleg.jpg)
Thumb1:
These notes were obviously written AFTER Hosty sat in on the first interrogation of Lee Oswald....The original hand scribbled notes of Hosty make no mention of Lee saying that he bought a coke and then went downstairs and ate his lunch before going out front to watch the P. parade.
The Coke issue first surfaced when Fritz confronted Lee with Officer Baker's report that he had encountered Lee in the second floor lunchroom about 90 seconds AFTER the shots were fired.
According to Hosty's notes ( see above) After buying the coke, Lee went downstairs and ate his lunch before going outside to watch the P. Parade. There was no parade to watch five minutes after Baker encountered Lee In the second floor lunchroom.
That's merely because we don't have the complete set of contemporaneous notes------Agent Hosty only allowed one page to be made public, a page that doesn't touch on Mr Oswald's whereabouts at and around the time of the assassination.
Officer Baker gave no such report on 11/22/63.
You're on the brink of an actual insight here, Mr Cakebread, but I won't hold my breath...
Here ya go Mr Ford....YOU posted the notes.....Notice that Hosty wrote..." On 11/22 at 3:15 pm LHO was interviewed by capt. W. Fritz, JWB & JPH . Capt. Fritz advised O of his rights etc:"
Hosty also writes about the purchase of the coke..... That information didn't surface until officer Baker returned to DPD headquarters much later that afternoon.... Hosty is lying about this info being discussed in the 3:15 interrogation.
These are the contemporaneous notes I was talking about, Mr Cakebread----------
(https://i.imgur.com/MzKKNJZ.jpg)
Heavens, talk about tortured logic!
These are the contemporaneous notes I was talking about, Mr Cakebread----------
(https://i.imgur.com/MzKKNJZ.jpg)
Yes, I know, Mr Ford....And you'll notice that Hosty says NOTHING about a coke in those notes which he scribbled DURING the initial interrogation session which started at about 3:15 pm that afternoon. But in the other notes he says that Lee said that he went to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke and then he went down to the first floor and ate his lunch before going out to watch the P. parade ....
We know that the coke issue surfaced later that afternoon AFTER officer Baker returned to headquarters and he told Fritz that he had encountered Lee in the second floor lunch room just seconds after the shots were fired and he was calmly drinking a coke. Whether Lee was actually drinking the coke or merely had it in his hands isn't important....( Baker or Fritz, probably embroidered that tidbit about Lee "calmly drinking a coke" to make Lee appear to be a cold unemotional killer) ...The point is Hosty couldn't have wrote about the coke until after 5:00pm .... And the salient point is:.....If Lee took the coke downstairs to consume with his lunch BEFORE going outside then there was NO DAMNED P. PARADE for Lee to Watch.....because the parade had long since broken up and disbursed..
(https://i.imgur.com/u9j1YK5.jpg)
Yes, I know, Mr Ford....And you'll notice that Hosty says NOTHING about a coke in those notes which he scribbled DURING the initial interrogation session which started at about 3:15 pm that afternoon. But in the other notes he says that Lee said that he went to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke and then he went down to the first floor and ate his lunch before going out to watch the P. parade ....
We know that the coke issue surfaced later that afternoon AFTER officer Baker returned to headquarters and he told Fritz that he had encountered Lee in the second floor lunch room just seconds after the shots were fired and he was calmly drinking a coke.
Whether Lee was actually drinking the coke or merely had it in his hands isn't important....( Baker or Fritz, probably embroidered that tidbit about Lee "calmly drinking a coke" to make Lee appear to be a cold unemotional killer) ...The point is Hosty couldn't have wrote about the coke until after 5:00pm ....
And the salient point is:.....If Lee took the coke downstairs to consume with his lunch BEFORE going outside then there was NO DAMNED P. PARADE for Lee to Watch.....because the parade had long since broken up and disbursed..
Friends, here is how Officer Baker in his 11/22/63 affidavit described the man he encountered "walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor":
========> "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket"
And here is what we learn in a 9 Jan '64 FBI internal memo about the true source of the suspect description put out by DPD shortly after the shooting:
========> "An unidentified individual told Inspector SAWYER that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President KENNEDY and that this individual was an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30 or some type of Winchester rifle."
Hands up who thinks the uncanny similarity between the two descriptions is a coincidence!
Mr Ford...Can we focus on the Hosty notes? You seem to think that the lunchroom meeting between Lee Oswald and Officer Baker never happened... Is that your stance?
Of course, Mr Cakebread. Sensible researchers left the lunchroom fiction behind years ago.
On what do you base that idea?
Why, the evidence.
For example! Let's take the current topic: the revelation in Agent Hosty's draft interrogation report that Mr Oswald claimed to have visited the lunchroom before the P. Parade, gone down to one and then gone "outside to watch P. Parade".
Do you accept this as plain-as-day evidence that Mr Oswald did not----------contrary to what was later claimed----------confirm any post-assassination lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker and Mr Truly?
(https://i.imgur.com/u9j1YK5.jpg)
Mr Oswald claimed to have visited the lunchroom before the P. Parade, gone down to one and then gone "outside to watch P. Parade".
WHERE in Hosty's notes, does it sat that ?
Are you suggesting that Lee went to lunch at 12:00 O'clock? Can you provide proof that Lee went to the second floor lunchroom BEFORE the P. parade arrived in Dealey plaza.
Question to Mr.Ford about the newly proposed location of Sarah Stanton at the fluffy white shirt person with hand upraised.
Is this person on the opposite (east side of the center hand rail as Billy Lovelady?
Is this persons hair light tone or dark?
Are you trying to be cute, Mr Cakebread? As already stated multiple times, this crystal clear report of what Mr Oswald claimed in that first interrogation is in Agent Hosty's draft interrogation report. Are you suggesting Agent Hosty hallucinated or fabricated this claim?
You're still missing the point: We now have proof that Mr Oswald himself claimed to have gone to the second floor lunchroom BEFORE the parade. Your attempts to explain away this bombshell information contained in Agent Hosty's draft interrogation report are getting you nowhere.
We now have proof that Mr Oswald himself claimed to have gone to the second floor lunchroom BEFORE the parade.
Isn't it obvious to you that the second set of notes re NOT contemporaneous ...Hosty didn't jot those notes down during the initial interrogation which stated at about 3:15 pm that afternoon....Open your eyes and LOOK ...
The second set of notes repeats information that had already been recorded in the first set of notes. The second set of notes says: "On 11/22 at 3:15 pm LHO was interviewed by Capt W Fritz JWB & JPH. Capt Fritz advised O of his rights etc;"
This is repeating the information that he (Hosty)had already recorded at the top of the note which he recorded while sitting in on the first interrogation of Lee Oswald. Obviously there was no need to record that information a second time if the notes were all recorded at the same time...Thus it should be clear that Hosty recorded the second set of notes at a later time...And that was AFTER Baker had reported that He had encountered Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom AFTER the shots were fired.
If this isn't clear to you there is no point in discussing this issue any further.
Huh? Of course the draft interrogation report was written after that first interrogation-------it's a report, for goodness' sake ::)
As for Agent Hosty's attending a follow-up interrogation in which he hears what Mr Oswald has to say about a Coke that Officer Baker has been reporting, the only world in which any of that happened is the world of your lunchroom-fiction-addled imagination.
Mr Ford It's NOT my imagination....Perhaps you should read the reports of Fritz, Hosty and Bookhout in appendix XI of the WR.
Capt Fritz wrote....." Mr Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped his man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said that he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in." "I asked him what part of the building he was in when the president was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch at about that time on the first floor."
NOTE---- No detective would ask a question that would provide information to a suspect.....Fritz didn't ask Lee where he was when the president was shot....He asked lee, where he was at the time the Parade passed by the TSBD...
FBI Bookhout wrote: "Oswald stated that on November 22 at the time of the search ( referring to Baker's search) of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas police officers he was on the second floor of said building having just purchased a Coca-Cola from the soft drink machine at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked if he worked there.Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took his coke down to the first floor and stood around and had his lunch in the employee's lunch room. He there after went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes."
Why do you skip over the joint report by Agents Bookhout and Hosty which PRECEDES the Bookhout-only report, and which (unlike that later report) was written while Mr Oswald was still alive? Here's what that earlier report says-------------------
“OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola ‘for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to’ be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed by his building.”
The eyebrows of alert researchers had long been raised by the rather bizarre vagueness of that last bit: "on the first floor". Where on the first floor?? Thankfully, the mystery was lifted when an EVEN EARLIER report was finally unearthed in 2019: Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he bought the Coke on two, then came downstairs for lunch, and then "went outside to watch P. Parade". The part of the first floor that Mr Oswald must have specified was: the front entrance.
This document of course destroys at a stroke the lie that Mr Oswald ever confirmed a post-assassination lunchroom encounter with an officer and Mr Truly. In fact he told them something that was completely at odds with the lunchroom encounter story. And so......... they buried it.
Comparing the evolving story told from one interrogation report to the next, in short, allows us to watch a key part of the cover-up against Mr Oswald take shape. If you weren't so besotted with the long-discredited lunchroom-encounter fiction, you would have no trouble recognizing the explosive import of the Hosty draft interrogation report that came to light in 2019-------and you wouldn't be taking recourse to ludicrously strained LNer-style argumentation in a desperate effort to explain its contents away.
Why do you skip over the joint report by Agents Bookhout and Hosty which PRECEDES the Bookhout-only report, and which (unlike that later report) was written while Mr Oswald was still alive? Here's what that earlier report says-------------------
I didn't skip over the joint report....I did omit the first part that says that lee went to lunch at noon....We know that the Domino room was full of employees at noon and nobody reported seeing Lee there at that time.... And lee himself said that he was eating his lunch in the 1st floor lunchroom when Junior jarman and harold Norman passed by as they were on their way to the fifth floor at about 12:25. So Lee DID NOT go to lunch at 12:00 o'clock.
You are stuck on some fantasy tale that Baker and Truly's encounter in the second floor lunchroom never happened ...Which forces you to ignore the statements of Lee Oswald...Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, James Hosty, James bookhout Captain Fritz, Junior Jarman, Harold Norman, and Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley .... Thomas Kelley's report doesn't shed a lot of light on the matter....BUT.... Kelley did report that Lee said something about seeing a two Negro employees who he recognized as employees and one of them was called "Junior", and the other was a little short statured Negro boy.
Lord grant me patience with this one!
1. You did omit the joint report, skipping straight to the Bookhout-only report.
2. Mr Oswald, as we now know from the earliest interrogation report, claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" AFTER visiting the second floor lunchroom. You are falling for the scam pulled by those who buried his claim because they understood how dangerous it was to the narrative they were constructing against him.
3. Mr Oswald saw Messrs Jarman & Norman AFTER he had a) bought his Coke on the second floor and b) returned to the first floor to eat his lunch. (Messrs Jarman & Norman were re-entering the building by the back door to head upstairs.) Shortly after this, Mr Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade.
Question for you, Mr Cakebread: What do you believe Mr Oswald actually told Captain Fritz re. second-floor lunchroom and his whereabouts when JFK passed the building? Be specific! Thumb1:
Lee had no idea that shots had been fired and was perplexed at seeing Baker burst into the second floor lunchroom with his gun in his hand. Since He was ignorant and in the dark about the events unfolding outside, he simply assumed that the Parade was passing by and so he went outside to watch.....
Ah, so the encounter with Ms Reid, in which she told him JFK had been shot, never happened?
I dont see any problem with Oswald eating lunch in the Domino room having seen Norman and Jarman returning at approx 12:23 as they passed by the Domino room ( they left front of TSBD approx 12:22 after overhearing a police radio reporting JFK motorcade was soon arriving to Dealey Plaza.
Imo, Oswald getting a Dr. Pepper bottle from the 1st floor machine just before going out to front entrance is is plausible because of coincidence of the Dr. Pepper bottle found at just at step and west side wall where PM was standing in Weigman and where PM would have stepped down to get photographed with arm raised with bottle in hand.
If the original version of Altgens was clear enough to discern not only that the raised arm with bottle in hand was definitely BEHIND the face of Lewis , But that there was also a portion of the solid white Dr. Pepper bottle logo VISIBLE in that hand.....OMG... it’s Oswald!!!
I don't know.... But I'm very doubtful that Mrs Reid saw Lee walking through the office area. He said that he went to the second floor to gat a coke to go with his lunch....So I seriously doubt that he would have passed through thre office area on his way back down to finish his lunch.
Imo, Oswald getting a Dr. Pepper bottle from the 1st floor machine just before going out to front entrance is is plausible because of coincidence of the Dr. Pepper bottle found at just at step and west side wall where PM was standing in Weigman and where PM would have stepped down to get photographed with arm raised with bottle in hand.
If the original version of Altgens was clear enough to discern not only that the raised arm with bottle in hand was definitely BEHIND the face of Lewis , But that there was also a portion of the solid white Dr. Pepper bottle logo VISIBLE in that hand.....OMG... it’s Oswald!!!
So why did Ms Reid invent the encounter? For kicks?
Why do you skip over the joint report by Agents Bookhout and Hosty which PRECEDES the Bookhout-only report, and which (unlike that later report) was written while Mr Oswald was still alive? Here's what that earlier report says-------------------
“OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola ‘for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to’ be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed by his building.”
The eyebrows of alert researchers had long been raised by the rather bizarre vagueness of that last bit: "on the first floor". Where on the first floor?? Thankfully, the mystery was lifted when an EVEN EARLIER report was finally unearthed in 2019: Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he bought the Coke on two, then came downstairs for lunch, and then "went outside to watch P. Parade". The part of the first floor that Mr Oswald must have specified was: the front entrance.
This document of course destroys at a stroke the lie that Mr Oswald ever confirmed a post-assassination lunchroom encounter with an officer and Mr Truly. In fact he told them something that was completely at odds with the lunchroom encounter story. And so......... they buried it.
Comparing the evolving story told from one interrogation report to the next, in short, allows us to watch a key part of the cover-up against Mr Oswald take shape. If you weren't so besotted with the long-discredited lunchroom-encounter fiction, you would have no trouble recognizing the explosive import of the Hosty draft interrogation report that came to light in 2019-------and you wouldn't be taking recourse to ludicrously strained LNer-style argumentation in a desperate effort to explain its contents away.
"The eyebrows of alert researchers had long been raised by the rather bizarre vagueness of that last bit: "on the first floor". Where on the first floor?? Thankfully, the mystery was lifted when an EVEN EARLIER report was finally unearthed in 2019: Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he bought the Coke on two, then came downstairs for lunch, and then "went outside to watch P. Parade". The part of the first floor that Mr Oswald must have specified was: the front entrance."
I know that pointing this out is a complete waste of time but you're like a scab I can't help but pick.
When a person is "outside" a building they do not consider themselves to be on any floor of that building and nobody else would consider them to be on any floor of that building.
The only people who would interpret things that way are those who are crazy enough to believe Oswald was African American or that Joe Molina is Sarah Stanton.
People who are rabidly defending a BS: theory that is supported by zero evidence.
The only thing you ever offer is this note by Hosty but what does Hosty have to say about this in his own book - "Assignment: Oswald"
"With his cowboy hat tilted back on his head, Fritz leaned back
in his chair and asked, "Okay now, Lee, you work at the Texas
School Book Depository, isn't that right?"
"Yeah, that's right", Oswald answered, very politely
"When did you start working there?" Fritz asked.
"About October fifteenth."
"What did you do down there?"
"I was just a common laborer."
"Now, did you have access to all the floors in that building?"
"Of course."
"Tell me what was on each of thse floors."
"The first and second floors have offices. The third and fourth
are storage. So are the fifth and sixth."
"And you were working there today, is that right?"
"Yep."
"Were you there when the president's motorcade went by?"
"Yeah."
"Where were you when the president went by the book
depository?"
"I was eating my lunch in the first-floor lunchroom."
"What time was that?"
"About noon."
"Were you ever on the second floor around the time the
president was shot?"
"Well, yeah. I went up there to get a bottle of Coca-Cola from
the machine for my lunch."
"But where were you when the president actually passed your
building?"
"On the first floor in the lunchroom." [my emphasis]
Even Hosty contradicts the one piece of "evidence" Alan holds so dear. Oswald is inside the building at the time of the assassination, exactly as Oswald states himself on video.
But the chances of Fantasia Ford giving up on this are zero.
Yes, if you wish to put it that way....She was just engaging in "office gossip".... She had heard that Lee was wanted for shooting the President, and she probably said something like " O my God!....I never realized that he had just shot the President when I saw him coming though the office area" When in reality she saw nothing of the kind, and she didn't realize what that innocent gossip was going to lead to. The cover up committee that was created by LBJ realized that they could exploit Mrs Reid's gossip and would not allow her to back away from her statement. Surely you can see that in her testimony......
"The eyebrows of alert researchers had long been raised by the rather bizarre vagueness of that last bit: "on the first floor". Where on the first floor?? Thankfully, the mystery was lifted when an EVEN EARLIER report was finally unearthed in 2019: Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he bought the Coke on two, then came downstairs for lunch, and then "went outside to watch P. Parade". The part of the first floor that Mr Oswald must have specified was: the front entrance."
I know that pointing this out is a complete waste of time but you're like a scab I can't help but pick.
When a person is "outside" a building they do not consider themselves to be on any floor of that building and nobody else would consider them to be on any floor of that building.
The only thing you ever offer is this note by Hosty but what does Hosty have to say about this in his own book - "Assignment: Oswald"
"With his cowboy hat tilted back on his head, Fritz leaned back
in his chair and asked, "Okay now, Lee, you work at the Texas
School Book Depository, isn't that right?"
"Yeah, that's right", Oswald answered, very politely
"When did you start working there?" Fritz asked.
"About October fifteenth."
"What did you do down there?"
"I was just a common laborer."
"Now, did you have access to all the floors in that building?"
"Of course."
"Tell me what was on each of thse floors."
"The first and second floors have offices. The third and fourth
are storage. So are the fifth and sixth."
"And you were working there today, is that right?"
"Yep."
"Were you there when the president's motorcade went by?"
"Yeah."
"Where were you when the president went by the book
depository?"
"I was eating my lunch in the first-floor lunchroom."
"What time was that?"
"About noon."
"Were you ever on the second floor around the time the
president was shot?"
"Well, yeah. I went up there to get a bottle of Coca-Cola from
the machine for my lunch."
"But where were you when the president actually passed your
building?"
"On the first floor in the lunchroom." [my emphasis]
Even Hosty contradicts the one piece of "evidence" Alan holds so dear.
Oswald is inside the building at the time of the assassination, exactly as Oswald states himself on video.
But the chances of Fantasia Ford giving up on this are zero.
Gee, this document-------containing the unambiguous words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"--------really has gotten under your skin, hasn't it, Mr O'Meara? Ain't nothing you can do about it! :D
Still unable to explain this shadow, Mr O'Meara? Must be driving you crazy! :D
I agree that she told a fictitious story, Mr Cakebread, but did so for a very different reason to the one you're giving.
...the joint report by Agents Bookhout and Hosty which PRECEDES the Bookhout-only report, and which (unlike that later report) was written while Mr Oswald was still alive? Here's what that earlier report says-------------------
“OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola ‘for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to’ be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed by his building.”
Question: Where on the first floor was Oswald when the president passed by?
Alan Ford: Outside the building
It's just a shadow Alan. How many times do you have to be told?
And I have no intention wasting my time explaining to you how shadows work!
Westbrook Scranton recalls the incident in detail.
You mean the incident where, with everyone walking and milling around and everything, Mr Oswald came to the door with a Coke in his hand and asked Ms Reid, "What's all the excitement about?" and Ms Reid told him "Oh my God, someone has shot the President!"? That incident?
Really?
Try again.
She is saying that while the TSBD employees were milling around in the office after the assassination Reid told her story about meeting Oswald at the door (of the office) with a Coke in his hand.
She is not saying Oswald came to the door of the office when everyone was milling around in there after the assassination. ::)
So you--------in your zeal to take Ms Scranton's account at "face value"--------believe that Ms Reid told colleagues that Mr Oswald asked her "What's all the excitement about?"? If the answer is yes, then I am strongly minded to agree with you! Thumb1:
Stop trying to squirm out of it Alan.
Forget the details for now.
Scranton is confirming Reid was telling the story of meeting Oswald in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
Way to soon to be part of a Hoax.
You have to call Scranton a liar because she blows your little world apart.
So just get it over with.
Call her the liar you think she is.
:D
"Westbrook Scranton recalls the incident in detail." ---------Mr Dan O'Meara
"Forget the details for now."------------Mr Dan O'Meara (an hour-and-a-half later)
For the record: I most certainly do not think Ms Scranton is a liar. I believe she may have given us crucial information as to when exactly and where exactly Ms Reid's real encounter with Mr Oswald took place. (Hint: not in the second floor office, not some two minutes after the shooting.)
So now you believe there was an encounter between Reid and Oswald?
Guess who wrote this just a few posts ago:
"She only told it because her boss Mr Truly needed help selling the lunchroom fiction that the still-alive Mr Oswald was unwittingly but dangerously refuting in interrogation."
So, where and when did the "real encounter" with Oswald take place?
;)
If the late Mr.Doyles alleged interview with relatives of Sarah Stanton is true, then Sarah Stanton saw Oswald with a “Pepsi” in hand on the 2nd floor landing BEFORE the lunchroom had cleared of all the office women.
The only people who would interpret things that way are those who are crazy enough to believe Oswald was African American or that Joe Molina is Sarah Stanton.
People who are rabidly defending a BS: theory that is supported by zero evidence.
The only thing you ever offer is this note by Hosty but what does Hosty have to say about this in his own book - "Assignment: Oswald"
You have to call Scranton a liar because she blows your little world apart.
pot-kettle
I agree that she told a fictitious story, Mr Cakebread, but did so for a very different reason to the one you're giving.
Even without the supposed Ms Reid incident, your overall explanation for "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" is spectacularly weak and far-fetched. The idea that Mr Oswald, having had a cop stick a gun at his belly and then tear upstairs with Mr Truly, will then go back down to the domino room, spend several minutes eating lunch there all the while thinking the P. Parade hasn't arrived yet... before finally going outside to watch what he still thinks will be a normal P. Parade... requires a Mr Oswald who is mentally retarded, hearing impaired and in possession of the eye-power of Mr Magoo.
The idea that Mr Oswald, having had a cop stick a gun at his belly,and then tear upstairs with Mr Truly, will then go back down to the domino room, spend several minutes eating lunch there all the while thinking the P. Parade hasn't arrived yet... before finally going outside to watch what he still thinks will be a normal P. Parade... requires a Mr Oswald who is mentally retarded, hearing impaired and in possession of the eye-power of Mr Magoo.
When you embroider the encounter with this kind of hyperbole " had a cop stick a gun at his belly," you are simply doing yourself a disservice....and fooling yourself into believing that Lee wouldn't have gone "back down to the domino room, spend several minutes eating lunch there all the while thinking the P. Parade hasn't arrived yet..."
I doubt that you were an eye witness to the lunchroom encounter but perhaps you can explain WHY Baker would "stick a gun at Lee's belly" Lee was there with a Coca Cola in his hand and not acting suspicious, he was a bit perplexed, so WHY would Baker stick a gun at his belly ???
But when you exaggerate and spin the encounter, then you can foolishly attempt to make the lunchroom encounter appear to have been spun from some conspirators wild imagination... And the tale was invented before anybody knew that Lee was in that lunchroom at 12:30.
Now, Mr O'Meara, question for you! Do you believe that Ms Reid told colleagues that the Coke-in-hand Mr Oswald had asked her, "What's all the excitement about?" Or are you now, suddenly, of the view that Ms Scranton did not after all recall in detail and that her account is not after all to be taken at face value?
Front entrance, just after the assassination. (Cf. what Messrs Lovelady & Shelley told the WC about Ms Gloria Calvery.)
Just to clarify something as I'm not 100% convinced you're fully understanding an important issue.
When I say that Scranton recalls the incident in detail I am referring to her setting the scene in which she heard Reid telling people about her interaction with Oswald. The incident she is referring to is hearing Reid telling the story about Oswald, she's not referring to the actual encounter between Reid and Oswald as she wasn't there when that happened.
As for the details of what Scranton recalls about the Reid/Oswald incident, I don't know. The only thing that interests me is that Reid is telling a story about an interaction with Oswald that has key similarities with her WC testimony and she's telling this story shortly after the assassination.
Scranton's account of Reid's telling the story about meeting with Oswald is credible and should be taken at face value.
When Scranton recalls Reid saying "Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand", which door do you think she's referring to?
That's far from clear from what she actually says:
"Mrs Reid said that she--when everybody was walking and milling and so forth--that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand and said, 'What's all the excitement about?' And Mrs Reid said she told him, 'Oh my God, someone has shot the President'" (emphasis added)
Well, ain't it funny how I'm the one taking the story at face value, while you're the one now scrambling to divert the discussion from its details.
Do you or do you not believe that Ms Reid told colleagues that Mr Oswald said "What's all the excitement about?"
Before you answer, permit me to remind you of your own words just a few posts back: "The story seems far too detailed to be some kind of 'misrememberance'." How have you gone from this to "As for the details of what Scranton recalls about the Reid/Oswald incident, I don't know." Either the details impress you or they don't.
Already answered, as you well know.
Yeah, all a bit confusing (what a shock).
Which door did Reid meet Oswald at?
"Already answered" - by which you mean the front entrance of the TSBD.
But then you have Oswald coming to the door of the office in which everyone is milling around.
How do you account for this discrepancy?
When everyone was "locked in" the central office on the second floor by the police and were milling around, how did the encounter between Oswald and Reid take place?
When Scranton says "Lee came to the door", she is clearly talking about the door of the second floor office. The office she has just finished describing prior to telling the story about hearing Reid going on about Oswald.
How do you move all this down to the front entrance and what was that reference to Lovelady and Shelley all about?
So now Ms Scranton's detailed recollection is "all a bit confusing", lol.
I don't have anything of the sort, nor does Ms Scranton. What you're doing here is superimposing Ms Reid's later story on the one she originally told colleagues (as per Ms Scranton, whose detailed recollection you used to admire).
The reason you're asking all these questions is to deflect from the question I asked you: Do you believe Ms Reid told colleagues that Mr Oswald asked her "What's all the excitement about?". Kindly answer it Thumb1:
Scranton has Oswald coming to the door of the second floor office.
As for your inane question - I totally accept Scranton is recalling this correctly. During the interview in general she comes across as a fairly competent witness.
Quote, please.
And yet Ms Reid has nothing of Mr Oswald's asking her "What's all the excitement about?" in any of her official statements, which all have her initiating the exchange and his mumbling something intelligible back at her.
From her W.C. testimony:
Mr. BELIN. Could you even remember one word that he mumbled?
Mrs. REID. I did not because he kept moving and I did, too, and I was just not interested in what he was saying, it was just the excitement of time and I didn't even say, "What did you say?" because I wasn't interested.
Why this change in Ms Reid's story?
When Scranton tells her story she goes into great pains to describe the setting and in particular the central office in which the story takes place. She begins with an overview of the second floor in general:
"...our offices were around the building and then there was a centre office building, a large bullpen kind of office on the second floor, that was the office of the Texas School Book Depository."
She describes Reid as being the supervisor of this office. She then describes how she and her work colleagues "were milling around" in this office as they were "locked in" by the police. It is in this setting that Scranton describes Reid saying "that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand". In this context 'the door' can only refer to a door of the second floor central office. In no way can this be construed as meaning the front entrance of the TSBD.
Scranton misheard. Misunderstood. Mis-remembered.
Nope, you're just reading that into it.
The scene Ms Scranton sets is of the place where they all were at the time Ms Reid told them of the incident.
:D Why, just in your last post you wrote: "I totally accept Scranton is recalling this correctly." Time to take a walk, Mr O'Meara, you obviously need some air!
The place where Scranton heard Reid telling the story and the place where Reid states she saw Oswald in her WC testimony is the same place.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn’t think, I also asked him why he left the building.
Question! Where would someone need to be to be a) eating lunch with some of the employees, b) seeing all the "excitement"?
(https://i.imgur.com/qHIlwtM.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/afcAlmE.jpg)
I would imagine the Domino room.
In this scenario Oswald is having his lunch around the time the president is assassinated.
He decides to get a coke from the second floor
As he leaves the Domino room he becomes aware of some commotion at the front enteance.
He goes up to the second floor and gets his coke.
Baker and Truly burst in.
Oswald walks into the second floor central office and sees Reid
After seeing the commotion downstairs and then been confronted by an armed policeman Oswald wants to know what all the excitement is about.
Reid tells him the president is shot.
For the third time -
"What evidence do you have Reid's encounter with Oswald happened at the front entrance of the TSBD? "
(And don't forget this:
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else of people running or doing anything else?
Mrs. REID. No; because I ran into the building. I do not recall seeing anyone in the lobby. I ran up to our office.
Oh dear :-[)
In which Mr O'Meara once again pretends it's 2010 and the Hosty draft report doc doesn't exist. Genius!
In which Mr O'Meara pretends he has accounted for the shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman. Genius!
In which Mr O'Meara refutes the idea that a witness lied in their WC testimony by quoting from---------their WC testimony. Genius!
Again, here's what Ms Scranton actually says in that Sixth Floor Museum interview:
"Mrs Reid said that she, when everybody was walking and milling and so forth, that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand and said, 'What's all the excitement about?'"
Let's for a moment "totally accept Scranton is recalling this correctly" (Mr D. O'Meara). What "excitement" could Mr Oswald have been talking about if this encounter happened in a quiet, empty office area? And why would Ms Reid drop Mr Oswald's question from all subsequent tellings of her story?
Lee never alluded to any such incident...
For the fourth time -
"What evidence do you have Reid's encounter with Oswald happened at the front entrance of the TSBD? "
Kindly answer Thumb1:
"Mrs Reid said that she, when everybody was walking and milling and so forth, that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand and said, 'What's all the excitement about?'"
Lee simply came to the door and asked...What's all the excitement about?
I seriously doubt that Lee came to any door and asked that question.....Where did you get that information....It clashes with all other accounts .... For example ...Lee never alluded to any such incident...And Mrs Reid said that Lee walked thtough the office area and right past her desk and never said anything until she said something about "someone shot the President"....
At that time, (which was about two minutes after the first shot was fired) Mrs Reid wouldn't have known that JFK had been hit.....And she couldn't have known if someone had shot at JFK, or what the shooting was about.
So what do you make of Scranton's interview, Walt?
Asks the man who started by waxing lyrical about Ms Scranton's reliability as a detail-recollecting witness and ended by fleeing in horror from the details of her recollections! :D
For the fifth time -
"What evidence do you have Reid's encounter with Oswald happened at the front entrance of the TSBD? "
Kindly answer Thumb1:
Because, unlike Ms Reid's on-the-record story, it actually makes sense: Mr Oswald goes "outside to watch P. Parade", sees "all the excitement" and (Coke still in hand) asks an employee who comes running up the steps what all the excitement is about. Later, when word filters through that Mr Oswald is a suspect in the assassination, said employee tells colleagues about her encounter at the door with the Coke-holding Mr Oswald. Later, though, she is pressurized into doing what her own immediate boss (Mr Truly) has been pressurized into doing: moving a front-entrance encounter up to the second floor.
But you, of course, are in loud denial about the fact that Mr Oswald not just claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" but actually did go "outside to watch P. Parade". At the heart of your denial is your comically hopeless identification of PM as Ms Stanton, as well as your excruciating public inability to explain away the impossible shadow down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film, an impossible shadow which all on its own proves that the 'investigating' authorities needed to hide something on those front steps.
What do you believe is casting the shadow on Mr Lovelady in Wiegman? Ms Stanton's handbag? Thumb1:
As has already been pointed out, English isn't your strong suit.
The question begins "what evidence do you have..."
What evidence?
Instead of providing even the slightest hint of evidence you go off, in true Fantasia Ford style, on some mad rant that you've completely made up, from start to finish.
Don't you see that you've completely made up this story?
Here's a clue for you Alan.
What's casting the shadow across Sarah Stanton ;D
A curious item re. Ms Jeraldean Reid.......
Ms Martha Reed, a second floor Depository employee, was on the sidewalk on the north side of Elm St "about one-half way between Record and Houston Streets" when she heard the shots. Here's what she told the FBI 11/23:
"... she did not know where the shots came from. She went up the front stairs of the Texas School Book Depository building to the second floor offices where she spoke to Mrs HEID and Mrs HINE, told them about the shooting of the President, which she had heard on the street, and then returned to the front door of the building...."
If "Mrs HEID" is a typo for "Mrs REID", then we have a problem: the woman who supposedly informed Mr Oswald about the shooting of the President herself needed to be informed by another colleague about the shooting of the President.
As I've already made clear, I do not believe for one second the story told by Ms Reid after 11/23. It's as phony as the lunchroom story her boss Mr Truly was telling.
Now, in the light of the above information from Ms Martha Reed------------in which she informs both Ms Reid and Ms Hine in the second floor office area that JFK has just been shot-------------I offer again Ms Scranton's recollection of what Ms Reid was telling colleagues in the second floor office while they were on lock-down after the shooting:
"Mrs Reid said that she--when everybody was walking and milling and so forth--that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand and said, 'What's all the excitement about?' And Mrs Reid said she told him, 'Oh my God, someone has shot the President'"
The temptation is to read this as "Mrs Reid, when everybody was walking and milling and so forth, said that..." But that's not what Ms Scranton has said, which is instead: "Mrs Reid said that she--when everybody was walking and milling and so forth--that Lee came to the door..."
What if we put these two elements together, i.e.
--------------a) Ms Jeraldean Reid not knowing about the shooting until Ms Martha Reed comes into the second floor office and tells her and Ms Hine about what has just happened out in the street
--------------b) Ms Jeraldean Reid having an interaction with Mr Oswald at a time when "everybody was walking and milling and so forth" and when she (Ms Reid) has knowledge that somebody has shot the President?
When and where might such a LHO-Reid encounter have really happened?
If PM is Oswald then he was still outside even as Baker is seen in Couch film running across the pavement towards the TSBD entrance steps.
Since PM has been outside for the duration of the 3 shots fired Idoes not make any sense he would have asked a question like “what’s all the excitement about?” in some post shots meeting with Mrs Reid.
On the other hand , if Oswald has been eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom 12:15 to 12:30 ( Carolyn Arnold sighting him SEATED at 12:15)
Then a siren crescendo by 20 sec shots might of been the reason Oswald left the lunchroom, approx 20 sec post shots , wearing only his Tshirt and with an unopened coke in hand, to enter the 2nd floor office to enquire why airens were going off
Hence, the Question “What’s all the excitement about” when Oswald meets Reid entering the front office door at approx 50-60 sec post shots
The other alternatives:
1: Mrs Reid fabricating a false story
2. Mrs Reid confusing a pre parade meeting with Oswald just before she being the last of the office women to leave the office approx 12:14 a minute
prior to Carolyn Arnold returning to the lunchroom at 12:15
3. Mrs Reid is one of those women seen ascending the TSBD front steps in Couch film and runs into PM (Oswald) and for some reason Oswald hasn’t realized the President was shot even though Oswald must have heard shots fired, this asking Reid what’s all the excitement about
4. Mrs Reid is one of the women seen turning around in the Couch film as Baker runs past and thru them, and thus meets Oswald about 15 seconds behind Baker and Truly entering the front lobby (approx 35 sec post shots)
The meeting occurs with Oswald as Reid try’s to use the passenger elevator and finds its inoperative
5. Oswald meets Baker/Truly in the entrance lobby. Oswald has returned into the front lobby about 10 sec before Baker enters the front door. Oswald goes to storage room by the front staircase where he had left his jacket, puts it on and exits just as Baker and Truly have traversed the entrance foyer and about open the 2nd set of glass doors.
6. Oswald is missed being seen by Baker/Truly in the foyer because Oswald was going up the front staircase , in his way to A. Get his jacket, which he had left in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and B. Returning his empty coke or Dr.Pepper bottle, to the box Mr. Ford has pointed out in the lunchroom photo
Since PM has been outside for the duration of the 3 shots fired Idoes not make any sense he would have asked a question like “what’s all the excitement about?” in some post shots meeting with Mrs Reid.
On the other hand , if Oswald has been eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom 12:15 to 12:30 ( Carolyn Arnold sighting him SEATED at 12:15)
Then a siren crescendo by 20 sec shots might of been the reason Oswald left the lunchroom, approx 20 sec post shots , wearing only his Tshirt and with an unopened coke in hand, to enter the 2nd floor office to enquire why airens were going off
Hence, the Question “What’s all the excitement about” when Oswald meets Reid entering the front office door at approx 50-60 sec post shots
1: Mrs Reid fabricating a false story
Yes, Mrs Reid, made up the story about seeing Lee walk through the office area about 2 or three minutes after the first shot was fired . It was just innocent "office gossip" and she had no idea that she laid the foundation on which a shyster lawyer would build a false case against Lee Oswald.
We know that IF the incident had occurred it would have to have happened just a few minutes after the first shot was fired, and AFTER Baker had encountered Lee in the second floor lunchroom. There was no way that Mrs Reid could have known that someone had shot at the President just a couple of minutes after the shooting..... And I doubt that she would have speculated about the shots so soon after the shooting.
6. Oswald is missed being seen by Baker/Truly in the foyer because Oswald was going up the front staircase , in his way to A. Get his jacket, which he had left in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and B. Returning his empty coke or Dr.Pepper bottle, to the box Mr. Ford has pointed out in the lunchroom photo
The question is: where did Mr Oswald dispose of his empty coke bottle?
If he went back up to the second floor lunchroom to put it in the empties crate, at a time several minutes after the assassination when "everybody was walking and milling and so forth" in the office area, could this have been the time he and Ms Reid had their real encounter?
Lee said that after Baker and Truly left him in the second flor lunchroom he returned to the 1st floor Domino Room with his coke and finished eating his lunch.....then he went outside and stood around for five minutes before leaving. He said nothing about passing through the office area ....and the most direct route to the Domino Room would have been by way the the stairs in the NW corner and then across the first floor to the NE corner where the Domino Room was located.
Finally, I once again sincerely believe that the left index finger of Mr Buell Wesley Frazier in this photograph is telling us the all important fact that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier's tongue dare not speak:
(https://i.imgur.com/z6ffleg.jpg)
Thumb1:
Presuming Hosty note is true and not some obfuscation of some other statement Oswald said like “Went out to the front steps to see what all the excitement was about”
Then the meeting with Baker/Truly has to occur on the 1st floor, In the entrance foyer , because of PM= Oswald entering probably not earlier than approx 10 secs ahead of Baker/Truly
Does Mr. Ford swear on the Holy Book that the image he posted of the fuzzy version of Altgens that has an upraised arm and bottle shaped object
Is from a reliable source?
Sour it’s a verifiable version of Altgens that Cronkite was looking at, then the CLEAR actual photo that was Cronkite must have observed , theoretically would show this arm and bottle clear enough to remove doubt that ii was any photographic quirk, and therefore substantial evidence of someone with bottle upraised just behind Lewis.
Would Cronkite have kept this arm upraise version off Altgens photo and can it possible be found?
I should be used to your cowardly, meaningless sniping from the side-lines but I'd like you to provide one theory I've ever put forward that is supported by zero evidence.
You won't be able to so why don't you STFU and keep your snide comments to yourself.
It's how the English language works (not your strong suit, I know)
In the context of the story being told "the door" can only refer to a door of the second floor central office. That's a fact of how the English language works. It's not a question of me reading into it.
It cannot refer to any other door.
Notice how Dan always goes into arrogant insult mode when he’s on the wrong end of a failing argument? It is pure conjecture what “the door” refers to.
It is pure conjecture what “the door” refers to.
FWIW..... IMO It seems clear to me that she was referring to the door at the back of the office area. The door that is at the south end of the foyer which was at the west end of the 2nd floor lunch room.
It only 'seems clear' for the same reason it 'seems clear' that a jacket-wearing "man walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor" refers to a non-jacket-wearing man seen through a small window in a closed door leading to the door to a lunchroom on the second floor; or that the words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" cannot possibly refer to the act of going outside to watch the Presidential Parade
-------------i.e. the official story so dominates the researcher's psyche that said psyche has long since lost the ability to even imagine any other scenario.
All LNers suffer from this sad syndrome; many CTers do to!
It only 'seems clear' for the same reason it 'seems clear' that a jacket-wearing "man walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor" refers to a non-jacket-wearing man seen through a small window in a closed door leading to the door to a lunchroom on the second floor;]
Pssssst, Alan. I've long ago rejected the nonsense the Lee was the man that Baker saw on either the third or fourth floor.
I believe that Baker was wrong about the floor that he saw a 165 pound man who was wearing a tan jacket who was WALKING AWAY FROM THE STAIRS .........on the fifth floor.
Clearly Baker's description of the man DID NOT fit Lee Oswald, nor did the location fit the second floor lunchroom.....The 165 pound man who was wearing a tan jacket was NOT Lee Oswald. The encounter with Lee in the second floor lunchroom was so innocuous that Baker completely dismissed that encounter when he was informed that he may may have encountered the assassin in the TSBD when he dashed through the building immediately following the shooting. Since the 165 pound man (who was on the 5th floor) was acting suspicious and trying to avoid being seen when Baker yelled at him and told him to "Come here" .....THAT was the man that Baker thought may have been the assassin when he wrote his affidavit.
P.S.... Baker was in the Homicide office when he wrote out his affidavit..... And Lee Oswald passed right in front of him at that time. ( Lee was being escorted to an interrogation with Capt. Fritz) So why didn't Baker simply tell the interrogators that the man being escorted was the man that he had stopped on "either the 3rd or 4th floor" ? Or why didn't he give an accurate description of Lee Oswald if he thought that Lee was the 165 pound man that he had stopped?
Very worth noting! Thumb1:
But by the same token-----------
If while giving the affidavit Officer Baker sees a man being brought in in handcuffs, and remembers having encountered this suspect at a lunchroom on the second floor shortly after the assassination, why on earth does his affidavit not make mention of this very significant fact in the affidavit?
why on earth does his affidavit not make mention of this very significant fact in the affidavit?
Good question..... And I believe the reason that Baker didn't recall seeing Lee Oswald and the lunchroom encounter....is Because, it was so quick and uneventful that he simply dismissed the entire event. After writing the affidavit he received more details about the suspect and was told that the suspect had murdered a fellow police officer. so he simply closed ranks and said whatever his superior officers wanted him to say.
The question is: where did Mr Oswald dispose of his empty coke bottle?
If he went back up to the second floor lunchroom to put it in the empties crate, at a time several minutes after the assassination when "everybody was walking and milling and so forth" in the office area, could this have been the time he and Ms Reid had their real encounter?
In 2013 Mr Buell Wesley Frazier told the late Mr Gary Mack that, some 5 or 10 minutes after the shooting, he saw Mr Oswald walking south by the Houston St side of the Depository and then crossing Houston & then Elm before disappearing from sight. Mr Frazier was emphatic that Mr Oswald could not have exited via the front entrance but must have done so via the back dock.
If he's correct about all this, and if my surmise about the true timing of the Reid encounter is correct, we get the following:
1. Mr Oswald buys Coke in lunchroom
2. Mr Oswald goes down to one to eat
3. Mr Oswald goes outside to watch the P. Parade, and is on the front steps at the time of the shooting
4. Mr Oswald----seconds later----has an exchange by the front door with Officer Baker (before Mr Truly comes up)----Officer Baker is asking him "Do you work here?" because he needs someone to point him to the nearest stairs
5. Mr Oswald----some minutes later----goes back up to two to leave his empty Coke bottle in the crate (and is noticed on his way there by Ms Reid, who speaks briefly with him)
6. Mr Oswald goes back down to one and exits by the rear dock
7. Mr Oswald is seen by Mr Frazier leaving the area
On 11/23 Chief Jesse Curry told reporters that an officer had spotted Mr Oswald in the lunchroom in the presence of several other employees. It is possible therefore that we need add another item to the above timeline:
5a. Officer Baker, on his way back downstairs from the roof with Mr Truly, sticks his head in the lunchroom door and asks Mr Truly, "Do all these people work here?" or somesuch. One of the people in the lunchroom is Mr Oswald, who is there to deposit the empty bottle in the crate.
In 2013 Mr Buell Wesley Frazier told the late Mr Gary Mack that, some 5 or 10 minutes after the shooting, he saw Mr Oswald walking south by the Houston St side of the Depository and then crossing Houston & then Elm before disappearing from sight. Mr Frazier was emphatic that Mr Oswald could not have exited via the front entrance but must have done so via the back dock.
If he's correct about all this, and if my surmise about the true timing of the Reid encounter is correct, we get the following:
1. Mr Oswald buys Coke in lunchroom
2. Mr Oswald goes down to one to eat
3. Mr Oswald goes outside to watch the P. Parade, and is on the front steps at the time of the shooting
4. Mr Oswald----seconds later----has an exchange by the front door with Officer Baker (before Mr Truly comes up)----Officer Baker is asking him "Do you work here?" because he needs someone to point him to the nearest stairs
5. Mr Oswald----some minutes later----goes back up to two to leave his empty Coke bottle in the crate (and is noticed on his way there by Ms Reid, who speaks briefly with him)
6. Mr Oswald goes back down to one and exits by the rear dock
7. Mr Oswald is seen by Mr Frazier leaving the area
On 11/23 Chief Jesse Curry told reporters that an officer had spotted Mr Oswald in the lunchroom in the presence of several other employees. It is possible therefore that we need add another item to the above timeline:
5a. Officer Baker, on his way back downstairs from the roof with Mr Truly, sticks his head in the lunchroom door and asks Mr Truly, "Do all these people work here?" or somesuch. One of the people in the lunchroom is Mr Oswald, who is there to deposit the empty bottle in the crate.
4. Mr Oswald----seconds later----has an exchange by the front door with Officer Baker (before Mr Truly comes up)----Officer Baker is asking him "Do you work here?" because he needs someone to point him to the nearest stairs
I hope you will see that this idea isn't probable..... Because.... Baker didn't need anybody to direct guide him through the building as he approached the front steps. He probably expected to find an elevator just inside the door ( which in fact there was ) But he wouldn't have asked for a guide or directions BEFORE he entered the building.
On 11/23 Chief Jesse Curry told reporters that an officer had spotted Mr Oswald in the lunchroom
Do you have a video of Curry's press briefing ?
The lunchroom story was concocted at some point late 11/22 in order to get Mr Oswald away from that front entrance----------and to explain away the man encountered walking away from the stairway halfway up the building.
Incorrect!
"As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were." (Officer Baker, affidavit 11/22)
"As I entered the door" .... This statement indicates that Baker was INSIDE the building.....
If there were "several people standing around why didn't any of them say that they heard Baker ask Lee Oswald any questions....And certainly someone would have reported that they heard Baker asking them for directions. Do you suppose that Lee Oswald wasn't there and This is nothing but a figment of your imagination.
Very worth noting! Thumb1:
But by the same token-----------
If while giving the affidavit Officer Baker sees a man being brought in in handcuffs, and remembers having encountered this heavily guarded suspect at a lunchroom on the second floor shortly after the assassination, why on earth does his affidavit not make mention of this very significant fact?
From Officer Baker's WC testimony:
Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Picture the scene, friends: Officer Baker is giving his affidavit. He has one memorable encounter he really needs to tell: the man walking away from the rear stairway on "the third or fourth floor". Why does he need to tell this? Why, because he now----in retrospect----must wonder might this man have been a fleeing assassin after all. The fact that he describes the man's physical appearance at the end of his affidavit proves that he now worries that this was no ordinary innocent employee.
But! As he is giving the affidavit, a man is brought in-----in handcuffs and heavily guarded.
What happens next?
Scenario A: Officer Baker recognizes the man as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, and------with all the time he has to note this crucial fact------seals the deal by getting this noted in the affidavit he is in the process of giving.
Scenario B: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he checked out in a lunchroom on the second floor. He says to the person taking his affidavit, "This guy's the suspect? Damn, we need to start over."
Scenario C: Officer Baker does not recognize the man from Adam and finishes giving his affidavit, whose central character remains the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor,.
Scenario D: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he encountered fleetingly at the front entrance as he was running into the building. He tells this to the person taking his affidavit, and this encounter is duly mentioned in the (continued or fresh) affidavit.
Scenario E: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he encountered fleetingly at the front entrance as he was running into the building. He tells this to the person taking his affidavit, and this encounter is NOT mentioned in the (continued or fresh) affidavit.
Which of the above scenarios is consistent with the affidavit as we have it, and which not?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/88/CoBOPUWV_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
Nope, that would be "After I had entered the door"
Lol, so the contents of Officer Baker's affidavit-------seeing people standing around, asking where the stairs are---------are now a figment of my imagination?
Question for you, Mr Cakebread: how many people, some 30 seconds after the last shot, do you think were "standing around" in the lobby? Can you name a single one?
From Officer Baker's WC testimony:
Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Picture the scene, friends: Officer Baker is giving his affidavit. He has one memorable encounter he really needs to tell: the man walking away from the rear stairway on "the third or fourth floor". Why does he need to tell this? Why, because he now----in retrospect----must wonder might this man have been a fleeing assassin after all. The fact that he describes the man's physical appearance at the end of his affidavit proves that he now worries that this was no ordinary innocent employee.
But! As he is giving the affidavit, a man is brought in-----in handcuffs and heavily guarded.
What happens next?
Scenario A: Officer Baker recognizes the man as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, and------with all the time he has to note this crucial fact------seals the deal by getting this noted in the affidavit he is in the process of giving.
Scenario B: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he checked out in a lunchroom on the second floor. He says to the person taking his affidavit, "This guy's the suspect? Damn, we need to start over."
Scenario C: Officer Baker does not recognize the man from Adam and finishes giving his affidavit, whose central character remains the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor,.
Scenario D: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he encountered fleetingly at the front entrance as he was running into the building. He tells this to the person taking his affidavit, and this encounter is duly mentioned in the (continued or fresh) affidavit.
Scenario E: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he encountered fleetingly at the front entrance as he was running into the building. He tells this to the person taking his affidavit, and this encounter is NOT mentioned in the (continued or fresh) affidavit.
Which of the above scenarios is consistent with the affidavit as we have it, and which not?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/88/CoBOPUWV_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
From Officer Baker's WC testimony:
Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Picture the scene, friends: Officer Baker is giving his affidavit. He has one memorable encounter he really needs to tell: the man walking away from the rear stairway on "the third or fourth floor". Why does he need to tell this? Why, because he now----in retrospect----must wonder might this man have been a fleeing assassin after all. The fact that he describes the man's physical appearance at the end of his affidavit proves that he now worries that this was no ordinary innocent employee.
But! As he is giving the affidavit, a man is brought in-----in handcuffs and heavily guarded.
What happens next?
Scenario A: Officer Baker recognizes the man as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, and------with all the time he has to note this crucial fact------seals the deal by getting this noted in the affidavit he is in the process of giving.
Scenario B: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he checked out in a lunchroom on the second floor. He says to the person taking his affidavit, "This guy's the suspect? Damn, we need to start over."
Scenario C: Officer Baker does not recognize the man from Adam and finishes giving his affidavit, whose central character remains the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor,.
Scenario D: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he encountered fleetingly at the front entrance as he was running into the building. He tells this to the person taking his affidavit, and this encounter is duly mentioned in the (continued or fresh) affidavit.
Scenario E: Officer Baker recognizes the man, not as the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor, but as a man he encountered fleetingly at the front entrance as he was running into the building. He tells this to the person taking his affidavit, and this encounter is NOT mentioned in the (continued or fresh) affidavit.
Which of the above scenarios is consistent with the affidavit as we have it, and which not?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/88/CoBOPUWV_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
Scenario C: Officer Baker does not recognize the man from Adam and finishes giving his affidavit, whose central character remains the man he caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor,.
Read his affidavit...... Does his description of the man fit Lee Oswald? Does the site of the encounter fit the second floor lunchroom?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/88/CoBOPUWV_o.jpg)
"After I had entered the door"
I doubt that you believe that Baker "entered the door" ( Like casper the ghost, .....Went right into the wood of the door) Any rational person would understand that Baker meant to say.... as I entered the building through the door......
The fact that he describes the man's physical appearance at the end of his affidavit proves that he now worries that this was no ordinary innocent employee.
Excellent observation.....I like this observation, Mr Ford... But I think the word "proves" is a bit strong.
The fact that he describes the man's physical appearance at the end of his affidavitprovescould indicate that he now worries that this was no ordinary innocent employee.
I think your right and Baker was definitely recalling to his minds eye the description of the man that he suspected, and the location where he had seen that "dark haired, 165 pound man who was wearing a light brown (tan or khaki ) jacket.
Since Baker wrote his affidavit several hours after the fleeting encounter he could easily have been mistaken about which floor
it was where he had seen the man furtively trying to avoid being seen. We know that Baker couldn't have seen the fugitive on the third or fourth floor because there were many people on those floors who would have seen and such activity.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
MARRION BAKER AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around.
I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor
I saw a man walking away from the stairway.
I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
I've noticed you are really pedantic about little details and I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of sarcasm. Sarcasm can be seen as saying something that is completely the opposite of what you actually mean as a way to emphasise what you actually mean. To clarify - I'm not actually asking you to believe that Oswald is out front with all his work colleagues interacting in a positive way with them as if he was a really sociable, easy-going guy. I'm actually saying the opposite thing. I honestly thought this would be totally clear as the whole post up to that moment was a litany of testimonial evidence demonstrating how Oswald was perceived as, for want of a better word, unsociable. Statement after statement clearly demonstrating (or so I thought) that Oswald didn't like the company of his work colleagues. As I thought it was blindingly obvious, in the light of the substantial amount of evidence on display, that Oswald would rather blow his own brains out than spend time with his work colleagues, I made up a non-existent, sarcastic scenario to emphasise this point. (when I say "blow his own brains out" this is not sarcasm, this is a 'figure of speech' and is not to be taken literally).
The addition of William Shelley in this scenario was an extrapolation made from Oswald's supposed testimony as recorded in Fritz's notes where he specifically singles out William Shelley - "out with Bill Shelley in front"
The bit at the end where I say "Mind you it was a lovely day and Jackie did look gorgeous in pink" is also sarcasm. I'll keep it to a minimum if future.
"Where do you get "contempt"?"
If you were to approach a work colleague and said "Good Morning" in a friendly way and that person, even though they heard you, didn't react in any way. They just blanked your existence. What word do you use for that? I use 'contempt'.
"Or he was just a shy introvert"
You believe the testimonies of all those work colleagues are describing a shy person? If a person is shy you use the word 'shy' to describe them. Show me one example, from the copious amount of testimony about Oswald, where one of his colleagues uses the word 'shy'.
Oswald in an antisocial, arrogant loser.
Exactly-------he doesn't say "Just after I entered I saw" or anything like that. He uses the word "as". Thumb1:
Exactly! Thumb1:
Exactly! Thumb1:
Exactly! Thumb1:
I didn't post the affidavit in support of any particular POV
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
MARRION BAKER AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
MARRION BAKER AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were.
There was a sign in the foyer at the bottom of the stairs, with an arrow that pointed to the stairs..... Those stairs only went to the second floor....But How did Baker know that?...And HOW did Truly know that Baker wanted to go to the roof of the TSBD. ???
No one is talking about a lunchroom encounter----------because it hasn't been invented yet.
Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us.
Mr. DULLES - Were they white men?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Who on earth were these two white men?
Stanton is the fluffy white shirt person with both hands raised shading the face.
Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us.
Mr. DULLES - Were they white men?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Who on earth were these two white men?
Otis Neville Williams FBI statement March 19 1964, suggests he was “momentarily” remaining standing at the front entrance ( next to Pauline Sanders) just after hearing 3 shots. He then went back into the building and up to his 2nd floor office.
So not only is Williams a good candidate for being in the front lobby within 30 secs post shots, but his reference to Mrs Sanders is a supporting argument that Sarah Stanton DID move away from Pauline Sanders to some other location, which as Mr.Ford has posited is possibly the steps just east of the center handrail, an Stanton is the fluffy white shirt person with both hands raised shading the face.
The other candidate IDK , because Molina did NOT see Baker and Molina states only seeing Truly go IN to the building which implies Molina is still OUTSIDE.
Mr. Campbell possibly might have returned before Baker buts it’s unlikely imo, as Campbell ran to the GK and I think in the Couch film background as Couch camera pans towards the GK , a man with hat and suit on is seen running Right hand side past the Stemmons freeway sign.
It’s definitely NOT Mr. Shelley and Billy Lovelady, as they are walking away in from the steps as Baker is seen in Couch film running to the TSBD entrance steps
Doubtful that BW Frazier was the 2nd man now INSIDE and in the frint foyer , because surely even fuzzy memory Frazier would have remembered Truly and Baker in that case.
I noticed in reading the 3 FBI statements from Otis Neville Williams that the March 19/64 one seems to include an FBI “deniability” clause specifically about NOT seeing Oswald. However, after this “do not recall” clause, Williams curiously states that he MAY have seen Oswald in the TSBD but is basically unsure what the EXACT day it was!?
Alan, I've reread the "second floor lunchroom" tale in the W.R. ( pages 149-156) and there certainly seems to be major problems with Baker's story.... Particularly with his tale of spotting Lee walking east in the small vestibule which was at the west end of the lunchroom. That vestibule was so small ( about 4 feet across) that it could be traversed with about two normal steps.... Baker said that he caught a fleeting glimpse of a man walking across the vestibule so he walked across the area at the top of the stairs to the west door into the lunch room and saw the man (Lee Oswald) walking toward the rear ( east end) of the lunchroom, and ordered him to "come here". Problem.....If Lee was a fleeing killer he could easily have exited out the north door (which was just a couple of feet east of the Coke machine) of the lunchroom, before Baker could have crossed the second floor landing....
The distance from the door at the west end of the lunchroom to the door just east of the coke machine was about 12 feet, while the distance from the top of the stairs to the door at the west end of the lunchroom was about 25 feet and Baker had to open the vestibule door .
Bottom line:... In reality, If Lee had been a fleeing assassin and there was any validity to the tale....Lee wouldn't have been in that lunchroom.... He would have exited the lunchroom through the north door, before Baker could have reached the Vestibule door.
It appears that you may be onto a major flaw in the official tale.... Can you post some of the info from the WR...
Fluffy white shirt person” phrase is all that I can take credit for :)
Mr. Ford is the one who proposed this location on the front steps for Sarah Stanton, in response to my question where is Sarah Stanton if PM is now considered to be Oswald?
As for Molina, if Williams and Sanders are to his left, then does not that place Molina on the top level landing rather than several steps down?
Fluffy white shirt person is short enough to be Stanton imo, but the forearms somewhat questionable if they are “flabby” enough to belong to the fat lady.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/07/qYcWKeUO_o.jpg)
It is theoretically possible that this encounter happened after Officer Baker and Mr Truly returned to the first floor.
The whole point of the invented lunchroom story is to explain away two real encounters
As for Molina, if Williams and Sanders are to his left, then does not that place Molina on the top level landing rather than several steps down?
Alan, I've reread the "second floor lunchroom" tale in the W.R. ( pages 149-156) and there certainly seems to be major problems with Baker's story.... Particularly with his tale of spotting Lee walking east in the small vestibule which was at the west end of the lunchroom. That vestibule was so small ( about 4 feet across) that it could be traversed with about two normal steps.... Baker said that he caught a fleeting glimpse of a man walking across the vestibule so he walked across the area at the top of the stairs to the west door into the lunch room and saw the man (Lee Oswald) walking toward the rear ( east end) of the lunchroom, and ordered him to "come here". Problem.....If Lee was a fleeing killer he could easily have exited out the north door (which was just a couple of feet east of the Coke machine) of the lunchroom, before Baker could have crossed the second floor landing....
The distance from the door at the west end of the lunchroom to the door just east of the coke machine was about 12 feet, while the distance from the top of the stairs to the door at the west end of the lunchroom was about 25 feet and Baker had to open the vestibule door .
Bottom line:... In reality, If Lee had been a fleeing assassin and there was any validity to the tale....Lee wouldn't have been in that lunchroom.... He would have exited the lunchroom through the north door, before Baker could have reached the Vestibule door.
It appears that you may be onto a major flaw in the official tale.... Can you post some of the info from the WR...
We know the encounter didn't take place on the fourth floor. Dorothy Garner prevents that.
What about the third floor?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GppDHdv4/3rd-floor-plan.jpg)
Look in the top left hand corner.
The gap between the stairs and the elevators is about 15ft. Can the encounter described by Baker have taken place in this tiny space?
We know the encounter didn't take place on the fourth floor. Dorothy Garner prevents that.
What about the third floor?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GppDHdv4/3rd-floor-plan.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Look in the top left hand corner.
The gap between the stairs and the elevators is about 15ft. Can the encounter described by Baker have taken place in this tiny space?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GppDHdv4/3rd-floor-plan.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for posting the plat of the third floor....The viewer can see that Baker could not have seen a man whom he said was in front of the elevators, and walking away from the stairs. The wall of the room blocked his view of the area in front of the elevators..... And if the man had been in the small area at the top of the stairs Baker wouldn't have need to call out to him and order him to "Come here". The Plat you've posted precludes and rules out the 3rd floor...and There were many people on the fourth floor...so Baker had to have been referring to the fifth floor as the site where he saw the "dark haired, 165 pound man," who was wearing a light brown ( khaki colored) jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GppDHdv4/3rd-floor-plan.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for posting the plat of the third floor....The viewer can see that Baker could not have seen a man whom he said was in front of the elevators, and walking away from the stairs.
It seems clear Baker was simply mistaken about which floor the encounter happened on. The fact he's not sure if it was three or four says it all. As we can see it didn't happen on three or four.
Yet another problem for Mr Ford and his fake Hoax Thumb1:
Another contrived 'problem', lol.
Here's the area:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/42/1E3rpzLh_o.jpg)
Kindly explain to us---------having finally mastered the difference between the UP and the DOWN stairs :D --------how the event described as follows in Officer Baker's 11/22 affidavit could not have happened here:
"As we reached the (...) floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me."
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YS5wrs3v/Screenshot-15.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Truly and Baker come up the stairs to the left (running north to south). At the top of the stairs there is a door just to the left.
They pass through this door into a very small space and have to turn left. At this point the stairs going up are about 12 ft in front of them to the left. At this point they can see anyone near the stairs.
It takes about three large steps to find themselves with the stairs going up to their left and a short "hall" to the elevators to their right. This "hall" is about 13 ft long and can be covered in three large strides.
When Baker reaches this point and sees a man walking away from him
in this tiny space he could almost reach out and grab him. He most certainly wouldn't need to shout to call him back as they are stood in virtually the same space. Baker could reach the man in one large stride so the idea of Baker calling out to a man walking away from the stairs seems a bit silly.
The big problem is Truly who is running ahead of Baker.
How do you know Officer Baker can't have seen anyone at a point before this?
Again-----------how do you know Officer Baker can't have seen someone before he reaches this point?
Where in Officer Baker's affidavit does it say the building manager is ahead of him as they take the stairs?
Nope--------that's just the icon for a normal door.
~Sigh~
Nope--------just a normal door icon. Cf the icons for the not-at-all-saloon-type doors leading off the second floor landing to the lunchroom:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e7/15/RjmRf2PD_o.jpg)
NOTE TO MR CAKEBREAD: I have deleted my most recent posts, as they were founded on a misunderstanding of the door(s) you meant!
Now! Why on earth does seeing south of the elevators have to be the only way Officer Baker could have seen the man "walking away from the stairway"?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/42/1E3rpzLh_o.jpg)
Are you serious? Baker said that as he reached the stairway exit on either the third or fourth floor he saw a man walking away from the stairs and he called out to the man..."Come Here"...
Do you think he would have called out to the dark haired 165 pound man if that man was about six feet away from him? Or possibly you believe that Baker had X-ray vision and could see right through the wall that block the line of sight between the top of the stairs and the south side of the elevators.
No, he said: "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me." You need to stop reading into those words what you want them to mean.
Which stairway was the man walking away from when Officer Baker saw him?
Why are you asking such a stupid question? There was only one stairway on the third floor..... And obviously if the diagram is correct, then Baker could NOT have been referring to the THIRD floor
NOTE TO MR CAKEBREAD: I have deleted my most recent posts, as they were founded on a misunderstanding of the door(s) you meant!
Now! Why on earth does seeing south of the elevators have to be the only way Officer Baker could have seen the man "walking away from the stairway"?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/42/1E3rpzLh_o.jpg)
Incorrect. There was a DOWN stairway and an UP stairway. Which one does Officer Baker say he saw the man walking away from?
Incorrect. There was a DOWN stairway and an UP stairway. Which one does Officer Baker say he saw the man walking away from?
It clearly didn't happen on the third floor Alan.
The space is too small.
Why would Baker have to call out to someone he could have leaned over and touched.
How could Oswald be described as coming back towards Baker when it would have taken two strides.
:D :D :D
I hate to point this out Alan as it isn't really relevant to the current debate, but it's possible to go up and down the same set of stairs.
It's a special feature of stairs.
It must be mind-blowing to learn Truly and Baker were running up the "down" stairs.
Thumb1:
Lol, you still haven't explained how you magically know exactly where Officer Baker's affidavit description-------"As we reached the (...) floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway"-------places him and the man at the moment Officer Baker first sees him:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/42/1E3rpzLh_o.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2WXjzYy/3rd-floor-corner.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Is the man at the top of the stairs (where DN) is?
Is the man on the other side of the door near the top of the stairs? (Where it says "Hall")
Is the man walking towards the "Up" stairs?
Yes, that's possible.
Yes, that's possible.
How about *away* from them?
It clearly didn't happen on the third floor Alan.
The space is too small.
Why would Baker have to call out to someone he could have leaned over and touched.
How could Oswald be described as coming back towards Baker when it would have taken two strides.
It doesn't make any sense.
Baker was mistaken, his statement displays this uncertainty, he was unfamiliar with the building and full of adrenaline. The only reason he mentions the encounter is because it's the only thing of any significance that happens during his "search" of the TSBD.
There is no invented hoax. You can't provide one scrap of evidence that it exists. But that won't stop you waffling on about it.
It is you and you're made up hoax that wants the encounter anywhere other than the second floor lunchroom.
It's you insisting it took place on either the third or fourth floor (notice how vague this is, as if Baker couldn't recall properly)
We know it didn't take place on the fourth floor (Dorothy Garner)
So it's you insisting this encounter takes place on the third floor.
So why don't you tell us where this man was who Baker reported encountering in the TSBD.
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2WXjzYy/3rd-floor-corner.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Is the man at the top of the stairs (where DN) is?
Is the man on the other side of the door near the top of the stairs? (Where it says "Hall")
Is the man walking towards the "Up" stairs?
Where's it gonna be Alan?
You mean away from the Up stairs towards the elevators?
Exactly as I have been talking about all along?
Baker was mistaken, his statement displays this uncertainty, he was unfamiliar with the building and full of adrenaline. The only reason he mentions the encounter is because it's the only thing of any significance that happens during his "search" of the TSBD.
I believe you're right Dan, ol man. Bakr did not encounter a man on either the 3rd or 4th floor....
However as you've pointed out, Baker DID in fact encounter a "DARK HAIRED,"---" 165 POUND" man, who was wearing a "LIGHT BROWN JACKET" and that man was walking away from the stairs in a dimly lit area near the elevators.....( yes, Baker did say that the area was dimly lit) I believe the only floor Baker could have been referring to was the 5th floor.
Yes.
No--------you (rather absurdly) tried to place Officer Baker at a spot where he only has to lean forward to touch the man.
So that gives us at least three ways in which Officer Baker could have seen "a man walking away from the stairway" on the third floor. What else you got, Mr O'Meara?
I opened this particular conversation with a diagram of the third floor and these words:
"The gap between the stairs and the elevators is about 15ft. Can the encounter described by Baker have taken place in this tiny space?"
From the beginning the conversation has been about the small space between the "Up" stairs and the elevators but because you live in a fantasy dream-world you don't seem to have grasped this fundamental point.
Just to get you up to speed - the argument is that this space is too small for the encounter Baker describes in his affidavit. Even though there is barely any detail in the affidavit there is enough to rule out the tiny space on the third floor as the setting for the encounter.
When Baker "calls out" to the man it implies there is the kind of distance involved where someone would have to raise their voice to be heard clearly. In the tiny space between the stairs and the elevator Baker and the man would be a few feet apart. No need to call out.
The same applies to the detail that the man "turned around and came back toward me." This also implies a distance greater than a few feet.
The space between the Up stairs and the elevators is too small for the encounter described by Baker.
It didn't happen on the fourth floor because Dorothy Garner would've noticed it.
And it didn't happen on the fifth as Williams, Norman and Jarman would've mentioned it.
We're running out of places for it to have happened.
Maybe it happened on the second floor but Baker made a mistake in his vague recollection (3rd or 4th) of which floor it was.
A simple mistake from someone recalling events from a building he was unfamiliar with, pistol drawn, adrenaline fuelled, etc.
What didn't happen was some invisible, unknown person concocting the worst hoax in the history of hoaxing.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
I opened this particular conversation with a diagram of the third floor and these words:
"The gap between the stairs and the elevators is about 15ft. Can the encounter described by Baker have taken place in this tiny space?"
From the beginning the conversation has been about the small space between the "Up" stairs and the elevators
but because you live in a fantasy dream-world you don't seem to have grasped this fundamental point.
Just to get you up to speed - the argument is that this space is too small for the encounter Baker describes in his affidavit. Even though there is barely any detail in the affidavit there is enough to rule out the tiny space on the third floor as the setting for the encounter.
When Baker "calls out" to the man
it implies there is the kind of distance involved where someone would have to raise their voice to be heard clearly.
In the tiny space between the stairs and the elevator Baker and the man would be a few feet apart.
it didn't happen on the fifth as Williams, Norman and Jarman would've mentioned it.
That's an assumption ....But not necessarily true. The three stooges attention was riveted on the railroad yard, and the incident was only a few seconds in duration....
The reason you're losing this debate is that you have to resort to strained interpretation; I on the other hand don't.
:D :D :D
Why should you rely on any kind of interpretation when you've got pure fantasy at your fingertips.
But even your fantastical imagination can't come up with anyone who might have created the hoax you constantly waffle on about.
Who created it? When? Who was involved?
[just make something up. you usually do] Thumb1:
(...) Baker and Truly also encountered another man near the stairs as they were on their way to the roof. Baker said that Truly vouched for this DARK HAIRED , 165 POUND, who was wearing a LIGHT BROWN JACKET. and told Baker that the man was an employee. IF in fact the man was an employee .....There is a high probability that the man was Jack Dougherty. BUT since Baker's description doesn't fit Jack Dougherty then Truly was lying and the man was not an employee.....
It's human nature to dismiss one's own employees as being a murderer, especially since Truly apparently liked Oswald who had another kid on the way, was a good worker. and didn't bother anybody. Baker was a motorcycle cop, not a detective, who would be more likely detain anybody coming down the stairs immediately post shots.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f7/2a/ObErnt9B_o.jpg)
CLAIM: Officer Baker, seeing an indeterminate movement behind the window of this closed door just one floor up in the building whose roof he urgently wants to get up to, thinks to himself: "This might be the shooter."
SANE REACTION TO CLAIM: :D
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f7/2a/ObErnt9B_o.jpg)
CLAIM: Officer Baker, seeing an indeterminate movement behind the window of this closed door just one floor up in the building whose roof he urgently wants to get up to, thinks to himself: "This might be the shooter."
SANE REACTION TO CLAIM: :D
Poor old Alan.
Let's put you out of your misery.
The following is an excerpt from Roy Truly's affidavit given on the day after the assassination:
"The officer and I went through the
shipping dept to the freight elevator. We then
started up the stair way. We hit the
second floor landing, the officer stuck his head
into the lunch room area where there
are coke and candy machines. Lee
Oswald was in there. The officer had his
gun on Oswald. And asked me if he was an
employee. I answered yes. We then went
up the stairs to the 5th floor..."
In your "analysis" you like to forget Truly was also present don't you.
Oh dear...
The officer had his gun on Oswald. And asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes. We then went
up the stairs to the 5th floor..."
We then went up the stairs to the 5th floor..."
Notice that Truly said nothing about stopping on "either the third or fourth floor" , but he did say they continued their climb up the stairs to the FIFTH FLOOR.
I believe the fifth floor is the site where Baker spotted a man trying to avoid being seen who was walking away from the stairs, near the elevators in a dimly lit room.
There is another part of the story that I've always had trouble accepting as true. I doubt that Baker and Truly ran across the shipping room on the first floor and yelled for the elevator to be released. Eddie Piper was right there on the first floor at the coffee pot, which was not far from the elevators and he said nothing in his affidavit about witnessing any such activity.
In his Warren Commission cover up committe testimony he did say that he saw a similar event but he described Baker who was dressed in the uniform of a motorcycle officer with a large white helmet as " either a police officer or an FBI man"
It's highly unlikely that Piper would describe a motor cycle cop as an FBI man...... I believe Piper was recalling the so called re-enactment when he thought that Baker might have been an FBI man.
Poor old Alan.
Let's put you out of your misery.
The following is an excerpt from Roy Truly's affidavit given on the day after the assassination:
"The officer and I went through the
shipping dept to the freight elevator. We then
started up the stair way. We hit the
second floor landing, the officer stuck his head
into the lunch room area where there
are coke and candy machines. Lee
Oswald was in there. The officer had his
gun on Oswald. And asked me if he was an
employee. I answered yes. We then went
up the stairs to the 5th floor..."
In your "analysis" you like to forget Truly was also present don't you.
Oh dear...
:D
The one where Mr O'Meara tries to refute the idea that Witness X is lying by giving us a quote from------Witness X
Good enough for the LNers, I guess
Truly gave this affidavit the day after the assassination.
This affidavit contains the second floor lunchroom encounter.
Are you really suggesting your fake Hoax is in place that quickly?
~Yawn~
The one where Mr O'Meara plays dumb and pretends he never read Reply #876
Oh yeah, what about the report of officer Marvin Johnson, one of DPD's finest:
"When Patrolman M. L. Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book depository."
So, let me get this straight...
The DPD have concocted this story to get Oswald away from the front entrance and to explain the man Baker saw on the 3rd/4th floor.
They do this by creating a whole new scenario set in the second floor lunchroom, moving Oswald further away from the 6th floor.
Then Johnson, a DPD officer, reports Baker identified the man he saw on the 4th floor as Oswald.
What's going on here Alan?
What kind of Hoax is this?
Oh yeah, this gem:
"The lunchroom story was concocted at some point late 11/22 in order to get Mr Oswald away from that front entrance----------and to explain away the man encountered walking away from the stairway halfway up the building."
So, as I understand it, the boys from the DPD
sat around into the late hours of the 22nd wondering how they could get Oswald away from the front entrance and explain away the encounter with the man on the 3rd/4th floor and it never occurred to them to simply say the man on the 3rd/4th floor was Oswald.
Oh yeah, what about the report of officer Marvin Johnson, one of DPD's finest:
"When Patrolman M. L. Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book depository."
Although I vehemently disagree with Mr Ford about the fabrication of the lunchroom encounter, I believe we should thank him for opening the door for discussion about Baker's affidavit. We have determined that Baker could NOT have been referring to either the 3rd or 4th floor as the place where he encountered a suspicious acting man who was NOT Lee Oswald.
That's it, Mr O'Meara, put yet more words in my mouth!
Too risky---------the 'investigating' authorities knew full well by now that Mr Oswald had been on the front steps at the time of the shooting. What if a photograph turns up clearly showing this? What if one of the witnesses speaks the truth to the press? What if Mr Oswald proves the fact in court? The lunchroom story is the only way of hedging bets-------------a location to which Mr Oswald could (at least notionally) have descended from the sixth floor or ascended from the first.
And then there's the professional & insitutional embarrassment factor: having let a man in a second floor lunchroom go is a whole lot less embarrassing than having let a man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up.
If you weren't a fanatical member of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps, Mr O'Meara, you would allow your eye to be caught by the number 4.
Earlier in that report, we find the words "On about the 4th floor (...)". Could be fourth....... could be third........ could be fifth...... certainly not just one floor up.
That's it, Mr O'Meara, put yet more words in my mouth!
Too risky---------the 'investigating' authorities knew full well by now that Mr Oswald had been on the front steps at the time of the shooting. What if a photograph turns up clearly showing this? What if one of the witnesses speaks the truth to the press? What if Mr Oswald proves the fact in court? The lunchroom story is the only way of hedging bets-------------a location to which Mr Oswald could (at least notionally) have descended from the sixth floor or ascended from the first.
And then there's the professional & insitutional embarrassment factor: having let a man in a second floor lunchroom go is a whole lot less embarrassing than having let a man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up.
That's it, Mr O'Meara, put yet more words in my mouth!
Too risky---------the 'investigating' authorities knew full well by now that Mr Oswald had been on the front steps at the time of the shooting. What if a photograph turns up clearly showing this? What if one of the witnesses speaks the truth to the press? What if Mr Oswald proves the fact in court? The lunchroom story is the only way of hedging bets-------------a location to which Mr Oswald could (at least notionally) have descended from the sixth floor or ascended from the first.
And then there's the professional & insitutional embarrassment factor: having let a man in a second floor lunchroom go is a whole lot less embarrassing than having let a man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up.
Actually we have determined nothing of the sort, Mr Cakebread. Perfectly possible this happened on the third floor, and not impossible it happened on the fourth.
Those unfamiliar with the 'bendy' logic of Mr Ford will be saying to themselves, "Surely the 3rd floor is the best way to hedge your bets, midway between both points. And that way you don't have to create this ridiculous Hoax with all it's
complexity and unlikeliness, dragging in scores of people to prop up this insanity. Just say the man on the 3rd floor is Oswald."
To be honest, as long as he leaves the scene before Truly and Baker it can be any floor you want.
Even Oswald is a member of this team, stating on film he was in the TSBD at the time of the shooting.
You seemed to have missed the point Alan.
In your fantasy world the "investigating authorities" (which, I assume, involved elements of the DPD. Unless, of course, you've gone all out and the "investigating authorities", as far as you are concerned, are comprised solely of X-Men)... I've lost my train of thought...
the 'investigating' authorities ( conspirators and those who were railroading Lee Oswald) ) knew full well by now that Mr Oswald had been on the front steps at the time of the shooting.
NOTHING in the evidence even hints or suggests that Captain Fritz ( the Conductor on the railroad) or any other law enforcement officer believed that Lee was on the front steps at the time of the shooting. ( Lee told them that he was on the first floor eating his lunch at that time)
The lunchroom story is the only way of hedging bets-------------a location to which Mr Oswald could (at least notionally) have descended from the sixth floor or ascended from the first.
Actually Mr Ford, I strongly doubt the official tale about Truly leading Baker across the first floor and stopping at the elevators and yelling for the elevator to be released. I believe Baker went immediately up the stairs to the second floor, and Truly caught up to him at the swinging door at the entrance to the 2nd floor office area.
Of course this would have been less than a minute after the shooting and the lunchroom encounter with Lee Oswalt would have been about a minute after the shooting , and of course the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald could not have descended from the sixth floor to the lunchroom in just one minute. Thus they made up the story about Baker and Truly dashing across the first floor to the elevators.
And I believe this is the reason that Baker thought he was on "either the third or fourth floor" when he spotted a suspicious acting man walking away from the stairs..... Baker had forgotten that he had already ascended to the second floor by way of the stairs inside the front door of the TSBD at the SE corner of the building.
Actually we have determined nothing of the sort, Mr Cakebread.
Actually "WE" ( All rational and clear thinking people) have determined that Baker could not have been describing either the third or fourth floor as the place where he and Truly encountered a man who did NOT fit the description of Lee Oswald.
*its*
Glad to see you now accept that the words "I saw a man walking away from the stairway" do after all work for the third floor! Thumb1:
Ah, but the 'investigating' authorities know full well by now that Mr Oswald wasn't just on the front steps at the time of the shooting but had an interaction with Officer Baker at that front entrance. Why, DPD have been telling the world about it!
So the third floor won't work--------Officer Baker and Mr Truly are the ones with the head start, see? How would you get from Mr Oswald at the front entrance to Mr Oswald walking away from the stairway on a floor that Officer Baker and Mr Truly are themselves only just reaching?
Question for Mr Ford....If Lee had been at the front door at the time of the shooting that would have provided him with an airtight alibi. When Captain Fritz asked him where he was at the time the President was shot ( That's what Fritz claimed that he asked Lee) Lee would simply have said Well Cap, I was standing on the front steps of the TSBD at that time, and a DPD Motorcycle officer can vouch for me....Because he asked me if I worked in the building.
And that's just what Mr Oswald did tell him. And DPD were happy to tell the press about that front entrance encounter------------until they realized just how soon after the shooting Officer Baker had run up those front steps
that's just what Mr Oswald did tell him.
Really??.... This is astounding information!....
Are you a goldfish, Mr Cakebread? See Reply #973Here's #973... WHERE is the solid proof that Lee told anybody that he was on the front steps at the time the President was shot.
Here's #973... WHERE is the solid proof that Lee told anybody that he was on the front steps at the time the President was shot.
(https://i.imgur.com/u9j1YK5.jpg)
Friends, there are now two main opposing narratives:
1------------Mr Oswald corroborated the post-assassination second floor lunchroom encounter (as claimed in the LATER interrogation reports)
2------------Mr Oswald, far from corroborating the encounter, said he visited the lunchroom before the P. Parade, then went down to one, then "went outside to watch P. Parade" (the EARLIEST interrogation report: Agent Hosty's handwritten draft)
My argument is simply this: once one does NOT assume that Mr Oswald (per #2 above) is lying, then things fall into place:
--------the suppression of Agent Hosty's draft report
--------the evolution of the story in subsequent reports
--------the 11/22 DPD statements about a front entrance encounter
--------the impossible shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman
--------the appearance of an arm + bottle in the version of Altgens 6 that Mr Walter Cronkite showed that evening
--------Officer Baker's 11/22 affidavit description of a man caught walking away from the stairway on "the third or fourth floor"
--------the glaring problems with the lunchroom story
--------the notable fact that not a single credible alternative candidate has been found for Prayer Person
--------and much else besides.
Thumb1:
he visited the lunchroom before the P. Parade, then went down to one, then "went outside to watch P. Parade"
Mr Ford, you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.
Lee told the lead conspirator, Capt. Fritz that he was eating his lunch on the First floor ( the Domino Room) when he saw James "Junior" Jarman, and Harold Norman pass by the Lunchroom. Those two employees verified that they had in fact walked by the 1st floor lunchroom at about 12:26. So they unknowingly corroborated Lee's statement that he was eating his lunch in the FIRST FLOOR LUNCHROOM at 12:26. Lee told Fritz that while eating his lunch he went to the 2nd floor lunchroom ( about 12:28) to get a Coca Cola from the Coke machine in the second floor lunchroom. While he was there in the second floor lunchroom DPD officer Baker encountered him in that 2nd lunchroom (12:31) After Baker left Lee went back down to the first floor lunchroom and finished eating his lunch.( 12:35) He then went outside and stood around for about five minutes and talked to Bill Shelley before leaving to go to his rented room to change his clothes.
(https://i.imgur.com/u9j1YK5.jpg)
You have just accompanied your imagined version of events with a document that makes a nonsense of it!
I'll think you'll find Walt's interpretation of said document is spot on, tying in with other recorded interrogations of Oswald. Something your interpretation doesn't do. Also, Walt's interpretation is independently corroborated by the testimonies of Jarman and Norman.
How is your interpretation corroborated by anything other than your own fertile imagination.
"Then went out
to watch P. parade"[/b]
It doesn't say he saw the parade, does it.
Your bizarre theory is that he was challenged by a cop at pistol-point in the lunchroom, then had a lady employee in the office area exclaim to him that someone had shot the President, then went down to-------eat lunch (!) and then went out to--------watch the P. Parade! :D
Really Alan?
And would you like to point out where I've ever said anything remotely like that.
Which bit of this do you, with your Warren Gullible take on the lunchroom incident and the Ms Reid incident, not believe?-----------
---------Mr Oswald was challenged by a cop at pistol-point in the lunchroom (YES?/NO?)
---------Mr Oswald then had a lady employee in the office area exclaim to him that someone had shot the President (YES?/NO?)
---------Mr Oswald then went down to one to eat lunch (YES?/NO?)
---------Mr Oswald then went out to (as he thought it) watch the P. Parade (YES?/NO?)
Over to you, sir! Thumb1:
Yes
Yes
No
No
Thank you! Thumb1:
So it turns out that, unlike Mr Cakebread, you believe-----------------
---------Mr Oswald did NOT, after his visit to the second floor lunchroom, go down to one to eat lunch
---------Mr Oswald did NOT then go out to (as he thought it) watch the P. Parade
Question! Do you believe that Mr Oswald did, however, make those claims in that first interrogation?
Now hold the phone there young Alan.
Let's have a bit of Quid Pro Quo.
Do you believe Marvin Johnson that Baker identified Oswald as the man he encountered in the TSBD ? Yes/No
If you are referring to the man on "about the fourth floor", then no, he made no such firm identification.
Now! You believe that
---------Mr Oswald did NOT, after his visit to the second floor lunchroom, go down to one to eat lunch
---------Mr Oswald did NOT then go out to (as he thought it) watch the P. Parade
Do you believe that Mr Oswald did, however, make those claims in that first interrogation?
Ok, so you believe Johnson lied in his report on the 26th that Baker made the ID.
Yes, I do believe Oswald made those claims in his first interrogation.
Do you believe Karen Westbrook Scranton lied about hearing Mrs Reid telling people about her encounter with Oswald (in the Living History interview)?
Lied, or (less likely) misremembered.
Therefore you believe Mr Oswald was lying when he made those claims, yes?
You asked me that before, and I answered: no.
You're saying he lied, he mentions it twice in the report even going so far as to link it to Baker getting caught in the same room as Oswald. No chance of misremembering.
Of course he was lying about going outside to watch the parade.
So you believe Mrs Reid was telling people about her encounter with Oswald in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Not so. Quite possible that Officer Baker said something along the lines that this man looked familiar but he wasn't sure if he was the guy he'd caught walking away from the stairway, and that Det. Johnson misremembered this very hesitant recollection as a firm one. But---------as I've already indicated----------Det. Johnson probably just lied.
Why on earth would he do that?
An encounter with Mr Oswald in the (...) aftermath of the assassination? Sure. But, as we've already established, Ms Scranton's recollection of what Ms Reid was telling colleagues does not tally with the story Ms Reid told in her affidavit the next day.
Ok, Johnson was part of the Hoax, along with Baker and Truly.
An alibi.
Nothing of the sort was established. That's a weird thing to say.
Do you believe Oswald's claim of seeing Jarman and Norman (?)
I'll think you'll find Walt's interpretation of said document is spot on, tying in with other recorded interrogations of Oswald. Something your interpretation doesn't do. Also, Walt's interpretation is independently corroborated by the testimonies of Jarman and Norman.
How is your interpretation corroborated by anything other than your own fertile imagination.
"Then went out to watch P. parade"
It doesn't say he saw the parade, does it.
No, he was not part of the lunchroom hoax.
An alibi for what?
I suggest you re-read the transcript of what Ms Scranton actually said.
Yes. Do you?
He lied about Baker identifying Oswald but isn't part of the Hoax....hmmm... you'll have to let me think that over.
His role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy
You've already had your question.
Do you believe Oswald when he said he was a "Patsy"?
He lied about Baker identifying Oswald but isn't part of the Hoax....hmmm... you'll have to let me think that over.
His role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy
I suggest you do the same
You've already had your question.
Do you believe Oswald when he said he was a "Patsy"?
Take all the time you need, Mr O'Meara.
Ah. Where do you believe Mr Oswald was at 12.30pm that day?
Your reluctance to answer the question as to whether you believe Mr Oswald did indeed see Messrs Jarman and Norman re-enter the building shortly before the assassination is noted.
I don't know.
Exactly where Oswald places himself - in the TSBD.
No reluctance. You were trying to sneak an extra question in and I wasn't having it.
I have no problem answering the question.
Do you believe agent Hosty was part of the Hoax?
Ah, this amusingly evasive response gets us to the heart of the matter, Mr O'Meara. Where in the TSBD do you believe Mr Oswald was at the time of the assassination?
~Grin~ Doesn't sound like it. Your second refusal to answer the question of whether Mr Oswald did indeed see Messrs Jarman and Norman re-enter the building shortly before the assassination is noted.
He never confirmed Mr Oswald's confirmation of the lunchroom incident, but---------after the deep-sixing of his draft interrogation report---------he did go along with the burying of Mr Oswald's actual claims. So he was part of the cover-up but not specifically of the lunchroom hoax.
Don't know.
Do you believe agent Bookhout was part of the Hoax?
So why do you think he needs to fabricate an alibi by making a false claim about having gone to one to eat lunch and then gone outside to watch the P. Parade?
Already answered------no, he was not part of the lunchroom hoax.
The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade, the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by.
So Bookhout's report dated the 25th which contains the full lunchroom encounter is not part of the Hoax.
It must be.
How can you say Bookhout isn't part of the Hoax?
You've just done a 180, Mr O'Meara. Just to be clear: You now accept that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have been outside at the time of the assassination?
I do apologize, Mr O'Meara, I misread your question: yes, Agent Bookhout (author of the lunchroom-fiction solo interrogation report) was indeed a party to the lunchroom hoax.
Just to be clear Alan.
You asked me this - "Do you believe that Mr Oswald did, however, make those claims in that first interrogation?"
I answered - "Yes, I do believe Oswald made those claims in his first interrogation."
I have not done a 180. I think you might be getting a little tired.
Ok, Bookhout is part of the Hoax but Hosty isn't.
Is Fritz part of the Hoax?
"Then went out to watch P. parade"
It doesn't say he saw the parade, does it.
The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade, the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by.
You had been maintaining steadfastly that Mr Oswald merely claimed to have gone outside to watch what he thought would be the P. Parade, but that he never claimed to have been outside actually watching it. Your position has just shifted, most tellingly. You now accept that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have been "outside watching the P. Parade" (your words). This admission commits you further to recognition of the fact that Mr Oswald's claim in this regard was not accurately reflected in the officially published interrogation reports, i.e. it was covered up.
Now.... You say you don't know where exactly Mr Oswald was at the time the shots rang out. However, you believe Mr Oswald lied because he needed to create an alibi for his part in the assassination. You also believe he confirmed the post-assassination lunchroom encounter with the officer and Mr Truly.
How exactly does confirming a post-assassination lunchroom encounter with an officer and Mr Truly AND claiming to have reacted to this encounter by (first) going down to eat lunch and (then) going outside and watching the P. Parade (!) serve Mr Oswald's cause of fabricating an alibi?
No, at least not initially. On 12/23/63 Captain Fritz writes a report for Chief Jesse Curry in which he mentions that one of his officers (Officer Baker) "stopped" Mr Oswald "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway". Which indicates that, even at this late stage, he was out of the loop on the details of the lunchroom hoax.
However, he was of course a party to the burying of Mr Oswald's actual claims (though he did slip up when giving his WC testimony).
Calm down Alan. Your flights of fancy are starting to get the better of you and you had been doing so well.
Just to clarify my position on this - I believe Oswald made the claims in Hosty's notes but I do not believe Oswald was being wholly truthful.
There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story.
Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.
So in Fritz's notes where he states - "claims 2nd floor coke when off. came in" - you don't believe that's a reference to the lunchroom encounter?
Calm down Alan. Your flights of fancy are starting to get the better of you and you had been doing so well.
Just to clarify my position on this - I believe Oswald made the claims in Hosty's notes but I do not believe Oswald was being wholly truthful.
This is really simple and not open to the fantastical interpretations you claim I've "been maintaining steadfastly". (Steadfastly?? You really should listen to yourself sometime. It's great)
There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.
So in Fritz's notes where he states - "claims 2nd floor coke when off. came in" - you don't believe that's a reference to the lunchroom encounter?
There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.
Changing his story?... How so?
There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.
Changing his story?... How so?
Mr O'Meara knows the interrogation reports are irreconcilable with one another and is blaming the fact on Mr Oswald, whose guilt he is convinced of.
Mr O'Meara is a WC defender pretending to be a critic of the official story.
I go don't give a damn if Dan is (or is not) a WC defender. He seems to be more candid, open minded and honest, than You Mr Ford. I'd really love for you to make a solid case that Lee was outside watching the P.Parade at the time JFK was murdered, but alas ....I can clearly see that you are trying to read your wishful thoughts into the hastily scribbled and truncated notes.
Anybody who is truly seeking the truth should be totally unconcerned about another person's [i"]religion"[/i] as long as the other person is candid and honest and is willing to honestly examine the facts. One of your major problems Mr Ford lies in your refusal to hear and examine any facet of a subject that conflicts with your views.
Mr O'Meara knows the interrogation reports are irreconcilable with one another and is blaming the fact on Mr Oswald, whose guilt he is convinced of.
Mr O'Meara is a WC defender pretending to be a critic of the official story.
How do you defend something by criticising it?
The utterly moronic quality of some of your statements is astounding.
I am totally open-minded about all this and willing to have my outlook completely changed by compelling argument.
At this moment in time I'm convinced Oswald was involved in the assassination and look at his recorded statements in that light.
I find your rabid defence of something for which there is zero evidence repellent and have fun making a fool of you.
There is no evidence for the identification of Prayer Man as Oswald, equally there is no evidence for the Hoax.
You blindly argue both cases with no regard for Reason or even sanity.
Your fantastical ravings are funny.
And that's all they are.
So! Your "totally open-minded" position at present is:
1. Yes, Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside and watched the P. Parade, but...
2. Mr Oswald, being guilty, was lying because he needed to construct a false alibi.
Question!
What guilty deed do you think Mr Oswald is trying to hide by lying about having eaten lunch on one and then watched the P. Parade outside?
"All you have on video, Mr O'Meara, is Mr Oswald confirming his location at the time of the assassination: Texas School Book Depository. He's happy to confirm that he was there and nowhere else."
All I have is Oswald on video confirming he was in the building at the time of the assassination, corroborated by Holmes. The insane mental gymnastics involved in arguing that out on the front steps of the building is 'still in the building' are spooky. Nobody looks at it that way except for the zealous PM crew. The front door is right there, on one side is in the building on the other is outside the building. Please don't respond to this comment as I've heard all I need to hear about it.
The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade, the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by.
This same question has already been answered in full.
What evidence do you have confirming the reality of the Hoax?
Bumping this to show everyone the truly remarkable journey Mr O'Meara has been on.
He has spent months and months dismissing as "insane mental gymnastics" the very suggestion that Mr Oswald claimed to have been outside watching the P. Parade.
His current position? Read for yourselves, folks!
Thumb1:
No, Mr O'Meara, it has been answered in full vagueness.
All you have told us is that you
-------------believe that Mr Oswald had a role in the assassination
-------------don't know where Mr Oswald was at the time of the assassination.
So: What specific deed or activity do you think Mr Oswald is trying to hide by lying about having eaten lunch on one and then watched the P. Parade outside?
How about we start with the shadow down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film? You know, the one you still can't explain. Thumb1:
I go don't give a damn if Dan is (or is not) a WC defender. He seems to be more candid, open minded and honest, than You Mr Ford. I'd really love for you to make a solid case that Lee was outside watching the P.Parade at the time JFK was murdered, but alas ....I can clearly see that you are trying to read your wishful thoughts into the hastily scribbled and truncated notes.
Nowhere does Oswald say he watched the parade.
You've made that up because you want it to be true.
Folks, this is where the Fantasia Ford show really kicks in.
Stills of the TSBD steps from the Wiegman film show billy Lovelady with a shadow darkening part of him.
Alan is convinced this shadow has been added to hide the fact Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt.
Why would the powers that be want to hide the fact Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt?
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtxV6315/Ford-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Alan believes the arm highlighted belongs to Oswald and this is why the Wiegman film had to be altered.
How these two things are related is anybody's guess.
How Alan has identified this as Oswald's arm is anybody's guess, especially when this is a 'normal' version of the pic:
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8vz4FBY/Ford-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Above all, what has any of this got to do with the fake lunchroom hoax?
Who knows 8)
Welcome to the bendy world of Alan Fantasia Ford Walk:
Reply #1008
I asked: "So why do you think he needs to fabricate an alibi by making a false claim about having gone to one to eat lunch and then gone outside to watch the P. Parade?"
You responded: "The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade, the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by."
Why are you pretending you never said this, Mr O'Meara?
In other words, you still can't explain the shadow down Mr Lovelady. Got it! Thumb1:
Really Alan?
According to Hosty's notes Oswald claimed he went outside to watch the presidential parade.
I have no reason to doubt that Hosty recorded this claim made by Oswald.
Are you with me so far?
Just because Oswald claimed he did that doesn't mean it really happened.
:D
Mr Dan O'Meara: "Nowhere does Oswald say he watched the parade."
Mr Dan O'Meara: "The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade"
I've been trying my best to see what it is you're seeing. I can see you've left this part of the sentence out "...the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by."
The sentence reads -
"The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade, the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by. "
So I can see you've taken part of a sentence and are trying to make it seem like a full sentence but I still don't get what you're trying to say. He's implying he went outside but he doesn't actually say he watched the parade..
Oh...
wait on a minute...
are you trying to say you're completely nuts?
Because that would explain so much
:D
Mr Dan O'Meara: The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade
Mr Dan O'Meara: It is not a part of his false claim that he was outside watching the P. parade
So! Mr Oswald tells Captain Fritz in that first interrogation that he visited the second floor lunchroom, then went down to one to eat his lunch and then went outside to watch the P. Parade. This last obviously comes as a bombshell to those in the interrogation room.
Agent Hosty doesn't believe a word Mr Oswald has said, but dutifully records his claims in his draft interrogation report.
What happens next?
Well! Let's compare
a) the opening of that draft report by Agent Hosty
b) the opening of the subsequent joint Hosty-Bookhout report
c) the opening of Agent Bookhout's later solo report.
a) Agent Hosty draft report: "On 11/22 at 3:15pm LHO was interviewed by Capt W. Fritz, JWB & JPH. Capt F. advised O of his rights etc."
b) Joint Hosty-Bookhout report: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 1026 North Beckley, Dallas, Texas, was interviewed by Captain WILL FRITZ of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police Department. Special Agent JAMES P. HOSTY and JAMES W. BOOKHOUT were present during this interview. When the Agents entered the interview room at 3:15 p.m., Captain FRITZ had been previously interviewing LEE HARVEY OSWALD for an undetermined period of time. Both Agents identified themselves to OSWALD and advised him they were law enforcement officers and anything he said could be used against him."
c) Solo Bookhout report: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J. W. FRITZ in the presence of Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSWALD was advised of the identity and official capacity of said agent and the fact that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make could be used in a court of law against him, and that any statement made must be free and voluntary and that he had the right to consult with an attorney."
Notice the personnel change from a)+b) to c)?
"At about 10.30pm, November 23, 1963,I attended my first interview with Oswald...I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..."
Inspector Thomas J Kelley
Go figure
Keep in mind that none of the FBI reports or Fritz's report (or even Fritz's notes) were written during the interrogations.
Yes, Inspector Kelley lied. What else can we help you with, Mr O'Meara?
Keep in mind that none of the FBI reports or Fritz's report (or even Fritz's notes) were written during the interrogations.
:D :D :D
It's not me who needs the help Alan.
Why did Kelley lie
and what proof do you have of that?
Because it had been decided at the highest level that nothing was to get in the way of Mr Oswald's conviction in the public eye as the lone gunman. Frankly astonishing that you need to ask.
What proof do you have he's telling the truth? Apart from your gullibility and pro-WC bias, that is?
There were 7 or 8 other people in the room with Kelley when he asked Oswald if he saw the parade.
So! Mr Oswald tells Captain Fritz in that first interrogation that he visited the second floor lunchroom, then went down to one to eat his lunch and then went outside to watch the P. Parade. This last obviously comes as a bombshell to those in the interrogation room.
Agent Hosty doesn't believe a word Mr Oswald has said, but dutifully records his claims in his draft interrogation report.
What happens next?
Well! Let's compare
a) the opening of that draft report by Agent Hosty
b) the opening of the subsequent joint Hosty-Bookhout report
c) the opening of Agent Bookhout's later solo report.
a) Agent Hosty draft report: "On 11/22 at 3:15pm LHO was interviewed by Capt W. Fritz, JWB & JPH. Capt F. advised O of his rights etc."
b) Joint Hosty-Bookhout report: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 1026 North Beckley, Dallas, Texas, was interviewed by Captain WILL FRITZ of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police Department. Special Agent JAMES P. HOSTY and JAMES W. BOOKHOUT were present during this interview. When the Agents entered the interview room at 3:15 p.m., Captain FRITZ had been previously interviewing LEE HARVEY OSWALD for an undetermined period of time. Both Agents identified themselves to OSWALD and advised him they were law enforcement officers and anything he said could be used against him."
c) Solo Bookhout report: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J. W. FRITZ in the presence of Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSWALD was advised of the identity and official capacity of said agent and the fact that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make could be used in a court of law against him, and that any statement made must be free and voluntary and that he had the right to consult with an attorney."
Notice the personnel change from a)+b) to c)?
Keep in mind that none of the FBI reports or Fritz's report (or even Fritz's notes) were written during the interrogations.
He didn't need to lie Alan because Oswald never did watch the parade.
Can't you see that.
Oswald says as much on film.
There were 7 or 8 other people in the room with Kelley when he asked Oswald if he saw the parade.
Oswald said he never saw the parade in front of all these people.
You can't seriously be saying they were all in on this simple lie.
All 8 interrogators lying about this one little thing.
You're the one making the wild accusations you can never back up.
And what makes you think I'm pro-WC? Just because I think you're FoS?
Keep in mind that none of the FBI reports or Fritz's report (or even Fritz's notes) were written during the interrogations.
Dan, Mr Ford is very much like Rob Caprio ..... He gets some wild idea in his head and even after it's proven that the idea is total nonsense and untrue ...he will not back up and listen to reason.....Instead he will accuse anybody who tries to show him the facts, as being supporters of the tale created by the Warren Commission.
I've never accused you of being a WC defender, have I, Mr Cakebread?
The most committed members of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps belong to two very different groups
------------------those obsessed with protecting the idea of Mr Oswald's guilt (Mr O'Meara is a member of this group)
------------------those CTs who have spent so many years clinging to the lunchroom story that they react with irrational hostility to anyone who tries to take their comfort blanket away from them (you belong to this group)
Thumb1:
The idea that your hero is a completely innocent bystander caught up in the assassination reflects a truly disturbed mentality.
This disturbed mentality is revealed when anyone challenges it in any way.
There is zero evidence that Oswald is on the steps.
Fritz wrote his notes several days up to a week later when all the important information escaped his mind.
The idea that your hero is a completely innocent bystander caught up in the assassination reflects a truly disturbed mentality.
This disturbed mentality is revealed when anyone challenges it in any way.
There is zero evidence that Oswald is on the steps. It's not a question of burying or ignoring evidence - there is not one scrap of evidence placing Oswald there.
Not one.
How can you defend that so zealously?
Now! From Captain Fritz's WC testimony-----------
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--
...
Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
Interesting exchange! I draw attention to some key points:
1. "Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement" - this is indeed what Mr Oswald said, but Captain Fritz is leaving out the WHERE (front steps: as we now know, Mr Oswald's claim was that he went "outside to watch P. Parade")
2. "I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that..." - this incoherence is just plain funny
3. "told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom" - curious that Captain Fritz recalls having been told of a STAIRWAY encounter but it took an "investigation" to relocate that to a LUNCHROOM one
4. "a little lunchroom where they were eating" - they? Captain Fritz is here working off the same story Chief Curry told reporters on 11/23
5. "I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right." - attend closely to Captain Fritz's weasel words here: they offer no confirmation that Mr Oswald confirmed having been seen in the lunchroom (how exactly do you "stop" someone who's standing or sitting in a lunchroom eating their lunch?)
6. "Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch." - more weasel words, allowing Captain Fritz to NOT answer yes to Mr Ball's question as to whether he had asked Mr Oswald what he was doing in the lunchroom
7. "Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola." - yet more weasel words: Captain Fritz is NOT confirming that Mr Oswald talked about being "up there" in the lunchroom at the time in question
Thumb1:
Now! From Captain Fritz's WC testimony-----------
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--
...
Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
Interesting exchange! I draw attention to some key points:
1. "Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement" - this is indeed what Mr Oswald said, but Captain Fritz is leaving out the WHERE (front steps: as we now know, Mr Oswald's claim was that he went "outside to watch P. Parade")
2. "I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that..." - this incoherence is just plain funny
3. "told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom" - curious that Captain Fritz recalls having been told of a STAIRWAY encounter but it took an "investigation" to relocate that to a LUNCHROOM one
4. "a little lunchroom where they were eating" - they? Captain Fritz is here working off the same story Chief Curry told reporters on 11/23
5. "I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right." - attend closely to Captain Fritz's weasel words here: they offer no confirmation that Mr Oswald confirmed having been seen in the lunchroom (how exactly do you "stop" someone who's standing or sitting in a lunchroom eating their lunch?)
6. "Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch." - more weasel words, allowing Captain Fritz to NOT answer yes to Mr Ball's question as to whether he had asked Mr Oswald what he was doing in the lunchroom
7. "Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola." - yet more weasel words: Captain Fritz is NOT confirming that Mr Oswald talked about being "up there" in the lunchroom at the time in question
Thumb1:
Now! From Captain Fritz's WC testimony-----------
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--
...
Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
Interesting exchange! I draw attention to some key points:
1. "Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement" - this is indeed what Mr Oswald said, but Captain Fritz is leaving out the WHERE (front steps: as we now know, Mr Oswald's claim was that he went "outside to watch P. Parade")
2. "I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that..." - this incoherence is just plain funny
3. "told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom" - curious that Captain Fritz recalls having been told of a STAIRWAY encounter but it took an "investigation" to relocate that to a LUNCHROOM one
4. "a little lunchroom where they were eating" - they? Captain Fritz is here working off the same story Chief Curry told reporters on 11/23
5. "I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right." - attend closely to Captain Fritz's weasel words here: they offer no confirmation that Mr Oswald confirmed having been seen in the lunchroom (how exactly do you "stop" someone who's standing or sitting in a lunchroom eating their lunch?)
6. "Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch." - more weasel words, allowing Captain Fritz to NOT answer yes to Mr Ball's question as to whether he had asked Mr Oswald what he was doing in the lunchroom
7. "Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola." - yet more weasel words: Captain Fritz is NOT confirming that Mr Oswald talked about being "up there" in the lunchroom at the time in question
Thumb1:
Here Fritz admits that Roy Truly had told him before he ever left the TSBD that Baker had encountered Lee "ON THE STAIRWAY"
but he learned later that the man that Baker had encountered "ON THE STAIRWAY" was not Lee Oswald
Now! From Captain Fritz's WC testimony-----------
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--
...
Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
Interesting exchange! I draw attention to some key points:
1. "Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement" - this is indeed what Mr Oswald said, but Captain Fritz is leaving out the WHERE (front steps: as we now know, Mr Oswald's claim was that he went "outside to watch P. Parade")
2. "I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that..." - this incoherence is just plain funny
3. "told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom" - curious that Captain Fritz recalls having been told of a STAIRWAY encounter but it took an "investigation" to relocate that to a LUNCHROOM one
4. "a little lunchroom where they were eating" - they? Captain Fritz is here working off the same story Chief Curry told reporters on 11/23
5. "I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right." - attend closely to Captain Fritz's weasel words here: they offer no confirmation that Mr Oswald confirmed having been seen in the lunchroom (how exactly do you "stop" someone who's standing or sitting in a lunchroom eating their lunch?)
6. "Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch." - more weasel words, allowing Captain Fritz to NOT answer yes to Mr Ball's question as to whether he had asked Mr Oswald what he was doing in the lunchroom
7. "Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?/ Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola." - yet more weasel words: Captain Fritz is NOT confirming that Mr Oswald talked about being "up there" in the lunchroom at the time in question
Thumb1:
Mr Ford.....Some days ago you posted the scribbled notes of Bookhout. In which he scribbled something like " says he had lunch in the first floor lunchroom, alone"
Could you please post that again.
I'm afraid I know of no such scribbled notes from Agent Bookhout
So Mr Truly lied to Captain Fritz?
Friends, think about the absurd position of those who believe that Mr Oswald confirmed a second-floor post-shooting encounter with the officer and Mr Truly.
A. Suppose Mr Oswald is guilty of the shooting. He went downstairs and was confronted by the officer at the lunchroom. Now in custody, he knows that Mr Truly and the officer will tell Captain Fritz of this, if they haven't done so already. So he confirms the encounter. The self-interested thing to do now is to just tell the next part truthfully as to external facts: I wanted to find out what had happened. I went through the office area, where one of the ladies who works there told me the President had been shot. I went down the front stairs and out front.
B. Suppose Mr Oswald is innocent of the shooting. He happened to be confronted by the officer at the lunchroom. Now in custody, he knows that Mr Truly and the officer will tell Captain Fritz of this, if they haven't done so already. So he confirms the encounter. All he has to do now is tell the next part: I wanted to find out what had happened. I went through the office area, where one of the ladies who works there told me the President had been shot. I went down the front stairs and out front.
About the single maddest, most suicidally self-incriminating thing Mr Oswald can do-------------on EITHER scenario above--------------is say: I immediately put the encounter with the police officer out of my mind and went back down to the first floor to eat my lunch. Then I walked to the front of the building, not noticing anything or anybody around me. Then I went outside to watch the P. Parade. To my great surprise...
Yet this is what Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps would have us believe Mr Oswald said!
Mr O'Meara, in his zeal to keep Mr Oswald away from them steps, even goes a step further-----------
I immediately put the encounter with the police officer out of my mind and went back down to the first floor to eat my lunch. Then I walked to the front of the building, not noticing anything or anybody around me. Then I went outside to watch the P. Parade. It took a little while before I realized that it wasn't a normal parade...
Why----------according to Mr O'Meara----------did Mr Oswald say this? Why, to fashion for himself an alibi! :D
HUH??.... Truly told Fritz while Fritz was at the TSBD ( Around 1:45 ??) that officer Baker had encountered a man ON THE STAIRS .....
Did Mr Truly tell Captain Fritz that the man was Mr Oswald?
Meanwhile, for those of us who prefer things to be straightforwardly logical, we have a perfectly clear claim from Mr Oswald himself:
I went to the second floor lunchroom and bought a Coke. I then went down to the first floor to have lunch. Then I took what was left of my lunch and Coke outside with me to watch the P. Parade. I was there on the front steps when the shooting happened.
Mr Oswald's claim is the primary claim. It both precedes and has a hell of a lot more going for it than the WC fairytale claim. The fact that it had to be suppressed tells us all we need to know about its correspondence to reality! Thumb1:
Truly may ? have told Fritz that the man's name was Lee Oswald......But I doubt it.
Baker described the man as being about 30, with dark hair, weighing 165 pounds, and wearing a light brown jacket. And he was walking away from the stairs.
Baker did NOT describe Lee Oswald...and therefore Truly would have known full well that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.
Meanwhile, for those of us who prefer things to be straightforwardly logical, we have a perfectly clear claim from Mr Oswald himself:
I went to the second floor lunchroom and bought a Coke. I then went down to the first floor to have lunch. Then I took what was left of my lunch and Coke outside with me to watch the P. Parade. I was there on the front steps when the shooting happened.
Mr Oswald's claim is the primary claim. It both precedes and has a hell of a lot more going for it than the WC fairytale claim. The fact that it had to be suppressed tells us all we need to know about its correspondence to reality! Thumb1:
Well, there were other people in the room anyway. Whether they heard such an exchange is another matter altogether.
Inspector Kelley has Mr Oswald make three straight denials---------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ab/b9/IZm25CZ8_o.jpg)
----------but Agent Bookhout records only two----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/9e/45/OOomo4N6_o.jpg)
Let us remind ourselves of how Agent Bookhout--------in first his solo report---------begins his account of Mr Oswald's account of his movements around the time of the assassination:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building..."
Notice how Agent Bookhout is going straight to "the time of the search", having skipped over the single most important bit------the time of the shooting itself.
This is the lunchroom CYA strategy in operation: do NOT put any claimed assassination-time location in Mr Oswald's mouth, nor even a denial that he had watched the P. Parade, lest proof emerge down the line that he was in fact out front------------and that YOU lied about what he said in interrogation.
As for Mr Truly and Officer Baker, they will say NOTHING incriminating about Mr Oswald's demeanor (no sweating, not out of breath, no agitation) in the lunchroom encounter. The story they tell has to work both ways.
Many years later, Officer Baker takes part in the 'London Trial'. Mr Oswald's 'defense lawyer', Mr Gerry Spence, shows him a closeup of Altgens 6 and asks him if he recognizes the man in the doorway (whom we know to be Mr Billy Lovelady). Ex-Officer Baker says straight up it looks like Mr Oswald. And that's it. He does not add, 'But it can't be him, because I saw him up on the second floor just after that'. No-----------he knows two things:
-------------a) Mr Oswald was indeed in the doorway at the time of (or at least within seconds of) the shooting
-------------b) the fabricated lunchroom story was designed precisely to allow for the possibility that Mr Oswald could have been in that doorway and still, a very short time later, been up by the lunchroom as Officer Baker came off the first flight of stairs.
Had Mr Spence known the things we know----------starting with Officer Baker's 11/22 affidavit, Agent Hosty's draft interrogation report, the presence of Prayer Man----------that exchange would have gone to an even more interesting place!
Thumb1:
Ex-Officer Baker says straight up it looks like Mr Oswald.
As Joe D Schmoe said.... Big F--ing Deal! Many folks who have seen Altgen's 6 have said that the man on the steps looks like Lee Oswald...... And I agree the image does look like Lee Oswald..... BUT since I'm convinced that Lee would NOT have been anywhere where he could have been photographed at the time the "SHOTS" were fired, because he thought it was a hoax "attempt" and it was supposed to appear that he had attempted to shoot JFK . He would not have been anywhere to be seen or photographed during the hoax attempt, because if he had fled to Cuba and been granted asylum as a fugitive who had tried to kill Castro's enemy and a photo surfaced that showed him in a place where he couldn't possibly have been involved in the "attempted " assassination. .....That would have been a free ticket to attend Castro's firing squad.
Unlike you, Mr Cakebread, I never knew Mr Oswald, nor was I privy to the amazing information you have presented here
You are very gullible and naive if you truly believe that Fritz didn't take notes during the interrogation of Lee Oswald.
Unlike you, Mr Cakebread, I never knew Mr Oswald, nor was I privy to the amazing information you have presented here
Lee was NOT in the first floor lunchroom ( the Domino Room) when Jarman and Norman passed by at 12:26 , even though he said that he was.... He was staying out of sight, and he was in the shower that was just off the Domino room. Lee could see Jarman and Norman walking across the loading dock and approaching the back door of the shipping room, so he slipped into the shower so that they couldn't tell anybody that they had seen Lee Oswald on the first floor just a few minutes before JFK was murdered.
And you've seen 11/22/63 CCTV footage from inside the Depository? Wowzers!
Lee was NOT in the first floor lunchroom ( the Domino Room) when Jarman and Norman passed by at 12:26 , even though he said that he was.... He was staying out of sight, and he was in the shower that was just off the Domino room. Lee could see Jarman and Norman walking across the loading dock and approaching the back door of the shipping room, so he slipped into the shower so that they couldn't tell anybody that they had seen Lee Oswald on the first floor just a few minutes before JFK was murdered.
More speculation and no factual evidence.
Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked through that second floor lunch room and remembered that there was “someone else in there”. When Oswald was being interrogated, he remembered two black employees walking through the lunch room while he was inside the room.
Also, a Dallas police officer and Oswald’s boss testified seeing Oswald in that same lunch room less than 80-seconds after the last shot was fired.
So Mr. Cakebread, how could Oswald be in the "shower" as you claim when testimony proves Oswald was in fact in the lunch room seen by a cop and his boss? And don't forget Jarman and Norman possibly saw Oswald as well.
"Yeah, he worked with us and he didn't associate with us too much. He was kind of quiet. He didn't like to talk too much to us or anything...
We all eat lunch together in this little domino room. We play dominoes and eat our lunch. He might walk in and lay around with us and he would walk out. He didn't stay in there too long. I guess he didn't like crowds." Danny Arce
"...he was awful quiet." Mrs D. Baker
"Well, I'll be frank with you, Mr. Ball, I don't believe nobody knew him too well.
You might say he wouldn't have too much to say to anybody. He just stayed all to hisself..." Jack Dougherty
"Well, he was a fellow that kept pretty much to himself. He never had too much to say." Charles Givens
No. Just knew his name. I mean, you know, he wouldn't talk to anybody so I didn't. Harold Norman
If there is one constant in this labyrinthine mess it is the almost universal description of Oswald as a quiet loner who didn't talk and when he did it was a barely audible mumble. Someone who hated being with other people and when he was would have his head buried in a newspaper as a way of avoiding unnecessary contact with those around him. To most he was just quiet and withdrawn but to anyone who tried to interact with him he was extremely anti-social:
"Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to Oswald ?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever speak to you?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. He never replied to you?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Would you say he was unfriendly?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I would."
"Every time I went by him I would speak to him, say "Good morning" and he would never catch or meet my gaze..." Geneva Hine
Imagine trying to interact with someone who refuses to acknowledge your existence. How insulting and aggressive is that? Even when he did respond it would be as inaudible mumble:
"Mr. BALL. Did he ever speak to you, say "Hello" or anything of that sort?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir; if he did, you hardly ever heard him.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to him
Mr. PIPER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever reply to you that you can remember?
Mr. PIPER. If he did, I didn't ever hear him. He mumbled something and he would just keep walking." Eddie Piper
It was generally agreed he wasn't a "People Person"
"At times I would go down to Mr. Truly's office for some business. I would see him across the floor, but he paid no attention to you and there were times, the few times, he ate lunch up there but he never talked to anyone." Mrs Robert Reid
But now we're supposed to believe that, because it was a sunny day and the President was passing by, Oswald was out on the steps with the rest gang chatting away with his good buddy William Shelley:
"Mr. BALL - Did you ever talk to him?
Mr. SHELLEY - Not too much; he wasn't too talkative. If I had something I wanted him to do, I would tell him and he usually did it." William Shelley
I get the impression Oswald was utterly contemptuous of his work colleagues who he believed were all beneath him. So much so he wouldn't even pretend to make so much as the slightest effort to show any mannersl. He was so convinced of his superiority he could treat those around him like the dirt he thought they were. Ironically, his quietness didn't make him invisible, quite the contrary, in the tight-knit, gossip-prone, enclosed world of the TSBD he would have stood out head and shoulders above everyone else.
To believe this socially incompetent, arrogant loner would spend one second in the company of his work colleagues if he didn't have to is absurd. If Oswald watched the motorcade it was from some dark quiet corner where nobody else would think to be.
"I didn't know him personally, but I had seen him working. Never did say anything to anyone. He never did put himself in any position to say anything to anyone. He just went about his work." Bonnie Ray Williams
Mind you it was a lovely day and Jackie did look gorgeous in pink.
Whats that? Not one witness put him on the steps that day? Not one of those stood with him or the many coming back up the steps? Not one?
You do surprise me.
WUP ???
I get the impression Oswald was utterly contemptuous of his work colleagues
I believe hat you've got the wrong impression ( probably because you are biased and believe that Lee was the assassin.)
Mr O'Meara is a member of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps because he doesn't want Mr Oswald to have an alibi for the shooting of JFK.
Mr Cakebread is a member of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps because he wants Mr Oswald to not want Mr Oswald to have an alibi for the shooting of JFK.
More speculation and no factual evidence.
Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked through that second floor lunch room and remembered that there was “someone else in there”. When Oswald was being interrogated, he remembered two black employees walking through the lunch room while he was inside the room.
Also, a Dallas police officer and Oswald’s boss testified seeing Oswald in that same lunch room less than 80-seconds after the last shot was fired.
So Mr. Cakebread, how could Oswald be in the "shower" as you claim when testimony proves Oswald was in fact in the lunch room seen by a cop and his boss? And don't forget Jarman and Norman possibly saw Oswald as well.
LHO places himself above the 2nd floor during the shooting and he comes down where he encounters Trully and Baker. Interesting that a Marine seems to have no knowledge of shots being fired. Seriously, "commotion?"
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up."
He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him.
You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me."
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
And he wouldn't tell what happened then.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----
Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say why he left the building?
Mr. HOLMES. No; other than just said he talked about this commotion and went out to see what it was about.
Oswald doesn't place himself above the 2nd floor at the time of the shooting. His reference to sending the elevator back up is obviously a reference to the 6th floor crew on their way down. This happened about 11:45-11:50am.
The next we hear of Oswald is down on the first floor talking to Eddie Piper around 12:00
At the time of the shooting his reference is that he is inside the building and comes down the stairs to go outside. After the lunchroom encounter with Trully and Baker.
I agree.
According to Holmes Oswald seems to be saying he was on the second floor at the time of the shooting.
Fritz wrote his notes several days up to a week later when all the important information escaped his mind.
From the memo of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, on page 636 of the WR.
Captain Fritz then asked him (LHO) about the ID card .........And he flared up and said " I told you all I'm going to about that card, YOU TOOK NOTES, just read them for yourself if you want to refresh your memory"
Holmes is reporting that Lee noticed that Fritz was taking notes during the interrogation....
Do you still believe that Fritz scribbled those notes several days after the interrogation? Perhaps you should watch a few episodes of the TV program "The First 48"and take note that the interrogating officers always have a pen and paper and record the suspects answers to their questions... That is simply basic procedure in all police departments. i
At the time of the shooting his reference is that he is inside the building and comes down the stairs to go outside. After the lunchroom encounter with Trully and Baker.
Except-----------Postal Inspector Holmes recalls Mr Oswald putting the encounter "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor".
Which, quite by coincidence, is exactly where DPD's first dispatches to the press 11/22 put the encounter-------and where Mr Billy Lovelady told Mr James Jarman he saw an Oswald-Officer-Truly encounter.
Thumb1:
Where is Lovelady talking about an encounter? He is not even on the steps, instead he is looking back from 75 feet away and saw them enter the building.
Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
Mr. BALL - How many steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Twenty, 25.
Mr. BALL - Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Quote the DPD Dispatches.
He told a very different story to Mr James Jarman shortly after the assassination (see Mr Jarman's HSCA interview)
I think the point Jack is making is that this is clearly a BS: story as Lovelady was outside the TSBD when this supposed encounter took place.
How could Lovelady have seen the encounter when he wasn't there?
It's a simple question
And it has a simple answer: Mr Lovelady was on the steps, and the encounter took place at the front door
the encounter took place at the front door
Didn't Baker say that as he "entered the building".?...Words that indicated that he was already INSIDE the building.
And it has a simple answer: Mr Lovelady was on the steps, and the encounter took place at the front door
The were other people inside the foyer and not one witness to a policeman sticking a gun into LHO's stomach. Not one. Lovelady makes no reference to an encounter despite observing the office enter the building. The encounter took place on the second floor lunchroom just as stated and where there was only LHO, Baker and Truly. LHO admits to the encounter. Not one person saw LHO on the first floor or LHO exit the building despite all the employees gathered near the entrance.
According to Holmes Oswald said:
"I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door..."
The were other people inside the foyer and not one witness to a policeman sticking a gun into LHO's stomach. Not one. Lovelady makes no reference to an encounter despite observing the office enter the building. The encounter took place on the second floor lunchroom just as stated and where there was only LHO, Baker and Truly. LHO admits to the encounter. Not one person saw LHO on the first floor or LHO exit the building despite all the employees gathered near the entrance.
The were other people inside the foyer
and not one witness to a policeman sticking a gun into LHO's stomach.
Not one. Lovelady makes no reference to an encounter despite observing the office enter the building.
LHO stated every possible scenario from eating with the colored boys to eating alone to not eating at all. He always claimed to have exited from the front of the building. He admits to the lunchroom encounter with Trully and Baker. Ultimately LHO also states to Inspector Holmes he was finishing up his work when the commotion started which brought him down from the upper portion of the building and the encounter with Trully and Baker.
====================
Appendix XI - Reports Relating to the Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app11.htm
Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department
Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald
When asked what he did with his clothing, he took off when he got home, he said he put them in the dirty clothes. in talking with him further about his location at the time the President was killed, he said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called "Junior" and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know.
---------------------------------------
Reports of Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Report #1
Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.
-------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Report #3
Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room.
------------------------------
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Report #4
Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and the other was short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize
--------------------------------------------------------
Reports of Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, U.S. Secret Service
First Interview of lee Harvey Oswald
He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as "Junior," a colored boy, and the other was little short negro boy.
-------------------------------------------
U.S. Secret Service- Preliminary Special Dallas Report #3
November 29, 1963
He said when he was standing in front of the Textbook Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone before he left.
-------------------------------------------------
Report of U.S. Postal Inspector H.D. Holmes
"When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes." Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building.
Modify message
Well, there’s that Lovelady in the Couch film GIF somewhere if someone would like to post that so that Mr.Ford can decide if that bald spot man with shirt pattern is Lovelady or not.
Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked through that second floor lunch room and remembered that there was “someone else in there”.
Psst Mr Plant....Put the cork back in the bottle and go get some sleep.... When you're awake and sober I'm sure that you'll find that Jarman and Norman walked past the windows of the 1st floor lunchroom....That's the FIRST FLOOR lunchroom....They were never close to the second floor lunchroom. You really need to stay the hell out of things that you know nothing about.
:D :D :D
Says Walt who thought Fritz took notes during the interrogation.
:D :D :D
Says Walt who thought Fritz took notes during the interrogation.
Mr Pierce Allman, Sixth Floor Museum interview:
"I... went up the steps of the Depository building and there was a guy in the doorway and I ran up to him and asked him where a phone was, and he jerked his thumb and said 'In there'. I thanked him and went on in."
Mr Pierce Allman, Sixth Floor Museum interview:
"I... went up the steps of the Depository building and there was a guy in the doorway and I ran up to him and asked him where a phone was, and he jerked his thumb and said 'In there'. I thanked him and went on in."
Captain Fritz's 'notes' were not taken during the interrogation----------they were scribbled while listening to playback of dictated reports made by Agent Bookhout.
Compare:
Fritz 'notes':
claims 2nd Floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st fl had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in
front
left wk opinion nothing be
done that day etc.
? punch clock
8-8/45 were not
rigid abt time
wked reg. 1st Fl.
but all over
Agent Bookhout:
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of BILL SHELLEY, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building.
...
OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.
Quite extraordinary that you leave this out-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/u9j1YK5.jpg)
If it was the truth he would have kept repeating it and the other employees would have stated it was true. Instead he changes his story to finally being on the upper floors working during the assassination and only coming down to see what was causing the "commotion". A marine who doesn't know what the sound of gunfire sounds like. His ever changing story places him all over the inside of the building but never in verifiable company of anyone else. The coke on the second floor and the encounter with Baker and Trully is LHO's only constant. An encounter that was the result of him coming down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about.
Jack, Lee Oswald never ever said that he had heard the shots fired.....And he did NOT say that he was on the upper floors and came down to see what the commotion was all about. He wasn't even aware of any "commotion" until he returned to the first floor after the encounter with Baker in the second floor lunchroom. When Baker came into the 2nd floor lunchroom Lee was a bit startled and it probably tweaked a mild curiosity which caused him to wonder "what the hell was that all about".....Report of U.S. Postal Inspector H.D. Holmes
After he returned to the first floor he probably noticed people entering the building and talking in alarmed or excited tones, and that's when he went outside to see what the commotion was all about.
If it was the truth he would have kept repeating it and the other employees would have stated it was true.
Instead he changes his story to finally being on the upper floors working during the assassination and only coming down to see what was causing the "commotion".
A marine who doesn't know what the sound of gunfire sounds like. His ever changing story places him all over the inside of the building but never in verifiable company of anyone else. The coke on the second floor and the encounter with Baker and Trully is LHO's only constant.
An encounter that was the result of him coming down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about.
Report of U.S. Postal Inspector H.D. Holmes
"When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes." Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs,
He would have heard the shots, the rifle was right by his right ear.
So you accept that Mr Oswald did indeed tell Captain Fritz in that first interrogation session that he visited the second floor lunchroom before the motorcade, then went down to one to eat lunch, then "went outside to watch P. Parade". Excellent: this also commits you to accepting that his bombshell claim---------the single most important thing he said in that session----------was deep-sixed by your 'investigator' heroes whose every word you trust.
Let us now formally add Agent Hosty's same-day account to the top of the interrogation report excerpts you posted! Thumb1:
Why on earth would he do something so mad? All he'd need do-------on your LNer scenario--------is say he was in the second floor lunchroom or the first floor domino room the whole time. There are no conceivable circumstances under which he would tell Captain Fritz, 'Ok ok, I was on one of the upper floors when the President passed the building'. A ludicrous suggestion!
A pity it's not Officer Baker's constant...
Besides, as already pointed out, your argument here is dreadfully weak and selective. Inspector Holmes, upon whose account you're relying 100%, is quite clear on where Mr Oswald places the encounter with Mr Truly and a cop: "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor". Which is where DPD themselves were telling the press 11/22 the encounter happened------and where Mr Lovelady told Mr Jarman he saw the encounter happen.
It depends on what 'leaving the building' means. Mr Oswald could have been referring to going down the front steps and out into the street. This is exactly what several people on those steps did.
All of his statements should be relatively similar and they are not. It is not about one statement it is the sum total LHO's statements and how they evolved from having lunch with coworkers to not having lunch at all.
He would have known his statements would not be corroborated and they weren't. Media influence is not an issue as with other witness statements. He would have known his coworkers were having lunch on the first and second floor. He ultimately changes his story to distancing himself from contact with them based on him asking them to send the elevator back which was the truth. The other truth is the lunch room encounter which took place on the second floor. Which he states he descended down the stairs to the encounter. It did not take him long to abandon the idea he was ever outside let alone watching the parade. His later statements do not place him outside until he is leaving the area. No witnesses back up his lunch time story.
Do you believe, based on a comparison of Agent Hosty's and Agent Bookhout's respective solo reports, that Mr Oswald gave two completely different stories within one and the same interrogation (i.e. the first one @ 3:15pm 11/22)?
None of this 'I believe the authorities' spiel addresses a single point I made. You are just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your chosen story.
If it was the truth he would have kept repeating it and the other employees would have stated it was true. Instead he changes his story to finally being on the upper floors working during the assassination and only coming down to see what was causing the "commotion". A marine who doesn't know what the sound of gunfire sounds like. His ever changing story places him all over the inside of the building but never in verifiable company of anyone else. The coke on the second floor and the encounter with Baker and Trully is LHO's only constant. An encounter that was the result of him coming down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about.
It depends on what 'leaving the building' means. Mr Oswald could have been referring to going down the front steps and out into the street. This is exactly what several people on those steps did.
Now! Here are two different accounts of a key exchange during the morning 11/23 interrogation session---------
Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize. He stated that his lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple..."
Inspector Kelley, 11/23 interrogation report:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as 'Junior', a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread, fruit, and apples..."
According to Mr Nessan's LNer interpretive methodology, the discrepancies between the two accounts are Mr Oswald's fault----------because he must have changed his story mid-session (a fact not noted by anyone present...)!
And it would appear that this is exactly what Mr Oswald DID mean. Inspector Kelley's report on the same Sunday morning interrogation has Mr Oswald tell of a young crew-cut man rushing up to him "when he was standing in front of the Textbook building and about to leave it".
How can one be in front of a building without yet having left it? Easy-----------one is in the front entranceway! Thumb1:
Excellent rebuttal , Mr Ford....
I asked you a couple of days back if Bookhout had scribbled in his notes that Lee had told them that he was eating his lunch ALONE in the first floor lunchroom, and you replied that you hadn't posted the notes....
Now you post the typed report of Bookhout.....
Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone,
ALONE Lee told them that he was ALONE in that lunchroom.....
Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone,
ALONE Lee told them that he was ALONE in that lunchroom.....
Yes. Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bb/00/ynubhQu5_o.gif)
And the original Altgens 6 (taken just before this) showed him holding the Coke-------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6b/91/XeV4pAaH_o.gif)
Do you believe, based on a comparison of Agent Hosty's and Agent Bookhout's respective solo reports, that Mr Oswald gave two completely different stories within one and the same interrogation (i.e. the first one @ 3:15pm 11/22)?
None of this 'I believe the authorities' spiel addresses a single point I made. You are just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your chosen story.
I would hope in the same interegation it would be the same. They both wrote down the same words.
On one hand you want to believe LHO but very definitive to what statements, but also claim the detectives had an alterior motive by them keep asking the same questions but getting different answers. That is how the integations work. Same as the WC testimonies, the attorneys would always circle back to conflicting statements. Arnold Rowlands statement is an excellent example of that technique. So is LHO's integations about where he was during the assassination. Turns out he was upstairs and came down to the encounter with Baker and Trully.
Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------
No Alan....That's not correct....Lee said that he was ALONE in the lunchroom when he saw Jarman and Norman pass by....They were on the fifth floor at 12:28, so they couldn't have been passing by the Domino room at 12:30, When Altgen's 6 was taken. Lee couldn't have seen them AFTER 12:27.
I would hope in the same interegation it would be the same. They both wrote down the same words.
Nope! Agent Hosty has Mr Oswald put himself in the lunchroom pre-motorcade, Agent Bookhout shifts the timeframe dramatically to "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"--------and adds the Baker/Truly encounter to Mr Oswald's story.
Yes. Then he took the remains of his lunch out front to watch the P. Parade. I believe that the Wiegman film shows him holding his Coke in one hand and some food (either apple or sandwich) in the other-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bb/00/ynubhQu5_o.gif)
And the original Altgens 6 (taken just before this) showed him holding the Coke-------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6b/91/XeV4pAaH_o.gif)
Huh? Mr Oswald said he saw them before he went outside to watch the P. Parade. He did not say 'I saw them just as Altgens 6 was being taken'!
Nope! Agent Hosty has Mr Oswald put himself in the lunchroom pre-motorcade, Agent Bookhout shifts the timeframe dramatically to "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"--------and adds the Baker/Truly encounter to Mr Oswald's story.
There is no consistency in his statement. LHO tells Kelley he ate with the colored boys, He tells Bookhout he ate alone.
But there's more. Mr Ford is convinced the Wiegman film has been altered. According to his theory, the shadow we see cast down the left side of Lovelady as we look at it, has been added to disguise the fact Lovelady is wearing a long-sleeved shirt. (The shadow, by the way is obviously the edge of the wall of the front entrance, but don't tell Alan that).
Agent Bookhout shifts the timeframe dramatically to "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"-
You're confused Mr F. ..... Bookhout thought that Baker was searching the TSBD when he saw Lee In the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Bookhout may have got that idea from Lee Oswald.... Lee may have assumed that Baker was searching the building, and in a way that is what Baker was doing.....( He said his eyes swept, searched, the various floors as they ascended the stairs, and that's how he spotted Lee Oswald.) Lee simply assumed that Baker was searching the building and thus told Fritz that he was in the 2nd floor lunch room when the police searched the building.
You're completely missing the point I was making, Mr Cakebread
Agent Hosty has Mr Oswald put himself in the lunchroom pre-motorcade, Agent Bookhout shifts the timeframe dramatically to "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"--------and adds the Baker/Truly encounter to Mr Oswald's story.
Hosty / Bookhout From page 619 of WR. 11/23/63
"Oswald claimed that he went to lunch at approximately noon. and he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."
We don't know what Lee actually said.....Hosty and Bookhout may have misunderstood or maybe Lee wasn't clear...
Lee could easily have started his lunch break at " approximately noon" ...But that doesn't mean that he started eating at that time....( As a matter of fact he couldn't have started eating at "approximately noon" in the Domino room because the lunchroom was filled with TSBD employees at that time, and nobody reported seeing Lee there in the lunchroom at that time.
By 12:15 all of the employees who had been eating there lunch in that lunchroom had departed ( see the various affidavits)
Furthermore...Lee was eating his lunch ALONE in that 1st floor lunchroom at about 12:26 when Jarman and Norman passed by.
And he went to the 2nd floor to get a coke to drink with his lunch....He was seen by Baker and Truly while he was in that 2nd floor lunchroom . Then he returned to the 1st floor Domino room to finish his lunch.
All you have done here, Mr Cakebread, is find another way to miss the point I was making
No----the lack of consistency is entirely in the reports made of what he said. Remember: Inspector Kelley and Agent Bookhout are reporting on one and the same session, which they both attended! Does either of them indicate that Mr Oswald gave two completely different answers in that session?
It is possible they weren't both there at the same time or the whole time. Very similar statements though. They are consistent in regards to the claim of the presence of coworkers he is attempting to use as an alibi. What he admits to is the lunchroom encounter taking place on the second floor before he ate his lunch in the presence of the coworkers. An event he eventually states happened after he came down the stairs to see what the commotion was about. An event he eventually claims happened after the assassination not before. By the end of his interrogation little doubt he is making stories up about his whereabouts during the assassination.
Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize. He stated that his lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple..."
Inspector Kelley, 11/23 interrogation report:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as 'Junior', a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread, fruit, and apples..."
It is possible they weren't both there at the same time or the whole time. Very similar statements though.
Agent Bookhout, 11/23 interrogation report:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize. He stated that his lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple..."
Inspector Kelley, 11/23 interrogation report:
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as 'Junior', a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread, fruit, and apples..."
Maybe the reason for the blackout of Loveladys right arm was because the original Altgens negative would show his right arm NOT raised , NOT having sleeves rolled up, and MOST importantly : NO Soda bottle in the right hand!!
The significance of the unsleeved fore arm upraised with bottle in hand is basically ; Who else could the person be , other than Oswald?
The only other possibility was Lovelady , since he is the only other person out there on the front steps who has categorically stated in WC testimony of having bought coke from the 2nd floor machine just before he then went out to to the front steps
Imagine if that original negative of Altgens produced a clear print that showed not only the arm with bottle more clearly, but some portion of the white solid oval shaped Dr.Pepper label on bottle in that hand?
The significance of the unsleeved fore arm upraised with bottle in hand is basically ; Who else could the person be , other than Oswald?
The only other possibility was Lovelady , since he is the only other person out there on the front steps who has categorically stated in WC testimony of having bought coke from the 2nd floor machine just before he then went out to to the front steps
Imagine if that original negative of Altgens produced a clear print that showed not only the arm with bottle more clearly, but some portion of the white solid oval shaped Dr.Pepper label on bottle in that hand?
Well, Mr Ford, I congratulate you for convincing at least ME , that it’s not implausible that Oswald was there at the entrance steps of the TSBD.
Good luck with the REST of this forum .. LOL.
No----the lack of consistency is entirely in the reports made of what he said. Remember: Inspector Kelley and Agent Bookhout are reporting on one and the same session, which they both attended! Does either of them indicate that Mr Oswald gave two completely different answers in that session?
There is no consistency. LHO changes the storyline with each telling. Finally his story evolves to him continuing to work and coming down from upstairs with no corroborating witnesses except for Trully and Baker. He even abandons the eating lunch storyline. His time in jail gave him time to think it through. The only time he was outside is when he was heading for the bus. It didn't take him long to give up the out front on the steps story.
LHO finally evolved the story to the what is the truth. He caused the commotion.
Holmes: Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building.
You never answered my question: why in the hell would Mr Oswald (guilty or innocent) say something so crazily self-incriminating? And why was this last-minute bombshell confession not proclaimed to the world after his death that Sunday morning?
So--------contrary to your early claim---------you don't believe Mr Oswald consistently confirmed a second floor lunchroom encounter. Because Postal Inspector Holmes, whose every word you trust, has him put it "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor".
That would indicate that Lee and Baker met INSIDE the TSBD....However, I believe Lee and Baker met only in the second floor lunchroom..... Holmes didn't know what he was talking about....
There is no consistency in his statement. LHO tells Kelley he ate with the colored boys, He tells Bookhout he ate alone. He tells Hosty he went outside to watch the parade after eating lunch and getting a coke from the 2nd floor. He tells Holmes he went out to see what the commotion was about after the assassination. LHO tells Bookout he ate lunch after the assassination and after the lunchroom encounter. LHO places the lunch room encounter before the assassination in the Bookhout interrogation and does not mention it to Kelley. LHO tells Holmes he was still working at the time of the assassination. LHO never told the same story twice. Through it all LHO never once mentions hearing shots.
You never answered my question: why in the hell would Mr Oswald (guilty or innocent) say something so crazily self-incriminating? And why was this last-minute bombshell confession not proclaimed to the world after his death that Sunday morning?
You never asked the question
and there is no answer. Why does anyone do anything, but LHO did.
Obviously his alibis were crumbling as they spoke to the coworkers. He wasn't just talking they were interacting with him.
So--------contrary to your early claim---------you don't believe Mr Oswald consistently confirmed a second floor lunchroom encounter. Because Postal Inspector Holmes, whose every word you trust, has him put it "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor".
It is not contrary to any claim.
Holmes: "when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building."
No where in the statement does he state the encounter was on the first floor. You are reading that into it.
Are you under the strange impression that they all interviewed Oswald separately?
The Altgen's #6 photo was taken at 12:30.... Do you really believe that It took Billy Lovelady a half hour to consume one of those small bottles of Coca-Cola?? Is that being realistic??
You never answered my question: why in the hell would Mr Oswald (guilty or innocent) say something so crazily self-incriminating? And why was this last-minute bombshell confession not proclaimed to the world after his death that Sunday morning?
You never asked the question and there is no answer. Why does anyone do anything, but LHO did. Obviously his alibis were crumbling as they spoke to the coworkers. He wasn't just talking they were interacting with him.
So--------contrary to your early claim---------you don't believe Mr Oswald consistently confirmed a second floor lunchroom encounter. Because Postal Inspector Holmes, whose every word you trust, has him put it "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor".
It is not contrary to any claim.
Holmes: "when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building."
No where in the statement does he state the encounter was on the first floor. You are reading that into it. He is once again confirming the lunch room encounter with Trully and Baker and then he left the building.
Do you really believe that Shelley and Stanton were outside at noon?
Holmes: "when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building."
None of the three who were there Truly, Baker, or Lee Oswald ever said that Baker asked for identification.....
Baker has testified that he called out to Lee...."Come Here".... And about that time Roy Truly stated, "He's one of my employees". So Holmes isn't reporting the encounter correctly. Also....the policeman had him step aside momentarily.
Nobody ever testified that Baker asked Lee to "step aside".....
Well, for one thing Shelley said he didn't go outside until 12:15. Also, why would Shelley "flirt" with Sarah Stanton?
Why would anybody look to Harry Holmes' testimony for reliable information about anything?
"But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke."
'Do you work here?' would be questioning him as to his identification.
Mr Holmes gets some things muddled
Are you serious??.... Do you think that Lovelady was lying when he casually recalled that when he returned to the first floor after buying his coke, he saw Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton talking at the front door of the TSBD. I can't imagine why Lovelady would want to lie about something so mundane. And.... What man doesn't enjoy flirting with a pretty, young lady?
Why would anybody look to Harry Holmes' testimony for reliable information about anything?
Oh, Oh, John.... This is not Good.... You took the words right out of my mouth.... You'll probably want to retract that statement, now that you know that we are in total accord and harmony.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
You think Stanton was a "pretty young lady" do you? To each his own, I guess...
Well, for one thing, Stanton was 4 years older than Shelley.
I've noticed you are really pedantic about little details and I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of sarcasm. Sarcasm can be seen as saying something that is completely the opposite of what you actually mean as a way to emphasise what you actually mean. To clarify - I'm not actually asking you to believe that Oswald is out front with all his work colleagues interacting in a positive way with them as if he was a really sociable, easy-going guy. I'm actually saying the opposite thing. I honestly thought this would be totally clear as the whole post up to that moment was a litany of testimonial evidence demonstrating how Oswald was perceived as, for want of a better word, unsociable. Statement after statement clearly demonstrating (or so I thought) that Oswald didn't like the company of his work colleagues. As I thought it was blindingly obvious, in the light of the substantial amount of evidence on display, that Oswald would rather blow his own brains out than spend time with his work colleagues, I made up a non-existent, sarcastic scenario to emphasise this point. (when I say "blow his own brains out" this is not sarcasm, this is a 'figure of speech' and is not to be taken literally).
The addition of William Shelley in this scenario was an extrapolation made from Oswald's supposed testimony as recorded in Fritz's notes where he specifically singles out William Shelley - "out with Bill Shelley in front"
The bit at the end where I say "Mind you it was a lovely day and Jackie did look gorgeous in pink" is also sarcasm. I'll keep it to a minimum if future.
"Where do you get "contempt"?"
If you were to approach a work colleague and said "Good Morning" in a friendly way and that person, even though they heard you, didn't react in any way. They just blanked your existence. What word do you use for that? I use 'contempt'.
"Or he was just a shy introvert"
You believe the testimonies of all those work colleagues are describing a shy person? If a person is shy you use the word 'shy' to describe them. Show me one example, from the copious amount of testimony about Oswald, where one of his colleagues uses the word 'shy'.
Oswald in an antisocial, arrogant loser.
Soooo...??
a 41-year-old, gray-haired, obese, married woman may be a "pretty young lady" to an 81-year-old like yourself, but to a 37-year-old, also married slender co-worker? I'm skeptical.
Incorrect!-----see Reply #1120
Right, you can't explain why he would do such a crazy thing
So why did nobody in those interrogations ever offer the slightest indication that Mr Oswald changed his claimed whereabouts at the time of the assassination? You think they wanted to protect Mr Oswald's good name?
:D
Mr Holmes is asked in his WC testimony where Mr Oswald located the encounter, and his answer is: "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor". He even goes on to describe the layout of that part of the building, despite never having set foot in it.
So---------what I'm reading into "First floor. Front entrance to the first floor" is: First floor, front entrance to the first floor. Kooky, huh?
The encounter was on the second floor. It looks like there is a double set of doors leading from the 2nd floor stairs to the lunchroom.
There is a little triangular shaped space between the doors. It was through those windows that Baker caught a glimpse of him and noticed him walking in the lunchroom. Apparently LHO thought the little space was called a vestibule.
Unless the coke machine is on the first floor he was stopped by the Baker on the second.
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember?
Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.
He states that LHO encountered the policeman while he was standing by the coke machine. There is not a coke machine on the first floor. The coke machine is on the second floor.
No, there are two doors, not two sets of doors. And no front part. Mr Oswald was describing the front entrance on the first floor.
It appears Mr Oswald did use that word. Its primary meaning is front lobby, but it can also mean portico or front porch.
Mr Belin, during Mr Roy Truly's testimony, makes sure to misdescribe the space you refer to as a 'vestibule'.
~Grin~ Your gift for tuning out uncongenial data is impressive, Mr Nessan!
Mr HOLMES. ... But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke .
Mr Holmes is certain about the front entrance to first floor part, a lot less so about the coke part ("Seems like he said... It seems as though...")
Mr Oswald did indeed mention something about a Coke--a Coke which he had bought from the machine up in the lunchroom before the motorcade and which he now had in his hand at the front entrance when the officer came storming up those steps.
No, there are two doors, not two sets of doors. And no front part. Mr Oswald was describing the front entrance on the first floor.
It appears Mr Oswald did use that word. Its primary meaning is front lobby, but it can also mean portico or front porch.
Mr Belin, during Mr Roy Truly's testimony, makes sure to misdescribe the space you refer to as a 'vestibule'.
~Grin~ Your gift for tuning out uncongenial data is impressive, Mr Nessan!
Mr HOLMES. ... But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke .
Mr Holmes is certain about the front entrance to first floor part, a lot less so about the coke part ("Seems like he said... It seems as though...")
Mr Oswald did indeed mention something about a Coke--a Coke which he had bought from the machine up in the lunchroom before the motorcade and which he now had in his hand at the front entrance when the officer came storming up those steps.
No, there are two doors, not two sets of doors. And no front part. Mr Oswald was describing the front entrance on the first floor.He radically changed his story in this final interview. He abandoned the idea he ate lunch with or near the coworkers. He admitted to being on the upper floors during the assassination based on his continuing to work until he came downstairs because of th commotion and encountered Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom. I agree It is hard to believe he would do this but maybe the confusion of the interview played a part. In the end I really don't think LHO was that clever or an actual plan existed to assassinate JFK and for him to escape. It reinforces the idea it was totally spur of the moment
It appears Mr Oswald did use that word. Its primary meaning is front lobby, but it can also mean portico or front porch.
Mr Belin, during Mr Roy Truly's testimony, makes sure to misdescribe the space you refer to as a 'vestibule'.
~Grin~ Your gift for tuning out uncongenial data is impressive, Mr Nessan!
Mr HOLMES. ... But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke .
Mr Holmes is certain about the front entrance to first floor part, a lot less so about the coke part ("Seems like he said... It seems as though...")
Mr Oswald did indeed mention something about a Coke--a Coke which he had bought from the machine up in the lunchroom before the motorcade and which he now had in his hand at the front entrance when the officer came storming up those steps.
He radically changed his story in this final interview. He abandoned the idea he ate lunch with or near the coworkers. He admitted to being on the upper floors during the assassination
based on his continuing to work until he came downstairs because of th commotion and encountered Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
I agree It is hard to believe he would do this but maybe the confusion of the interview played a part. In the end I really don't think LHO was that clever or an actual plan existed to assassinate JFK and for him to escape. It reinforces the idea it was totally spur of the moment
Mr. HOLMES. There was no formality, to the interrogation. One man would question Oswald. Another would interrupt with a different trend of thought, or something in connection, and it was sort of an informal questioning or interrogation.
The confusion of having a number of officials and the randomness of the questions may have placed LHO off guard. All that is reported is the answers never the questions or statements by the officials. It is entirely possible someone told him his coworkers denied seeing him at lunch either as a bluff or by actual knowledge causing LHO to alter his story. Ultimately he places himself as being alone and working upstairs until two verifiable encounters took place.
In todays world the request for an attorney would have ended the interview. Back then it does not appear to have mattered.
-------------------------------------------
The use of the word "vestibule' also seems to take Belin back. You can tell by his reaction.
He radically changed his story in this final interview. He abandoned the idea he ate lunch with or near the coworkers. He admitted to being on the upper floors during the assassination based on his continuing to work until he came downstairs because of th commotion and encountered Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom. I agree It is hard to believe he would do this but maybe the confusion of the interview played a part. In the end I really don't think LHO was that clever or an actual plan existed to assassinate JFK and for him to escape. It reinforces the idea it was totally spur of the moment
Mr. HOLMES. There was no formality, to the interrogation. One man would question Oswald. Another would interrupt with a different trend of thought, or something in connection, and it was sort of an informal questioning or interrogation.
The confusion of having a number of officials and the randomness of the questions may have placed LHO off guard. All that is reported is the answers never the questions or statements by the officials. It is entirely possible someone told him his coworkers denied seeing him at lunch either as a bluff or by actual knowledge causing LHO to alter his story. Ultimately he places himself as being alone and working upstairs until two verifiable encounters took place.
In todays world the request for an attorney would have ended the interview. Back then it does not appear to have mattered.
-------------------------------------------
The use of the word "vestibule' also seems to take Belin back. You can tell by his reaction. Because of a Catholic upbringing I immediately thought of the area prior to entering the church itself. Outside doors, a space(vestibule), and then more doors to the church. I also thought it was an odd way to describe it. Holmes did not seem to particularly agree with the use either.
The key to the Coke story is not LHO drinking one , but that he was physically standing by the machine itself when he was talking to Baker. That can only be accomplished if he is on the second floor.
----------------------------------------------
Your vocabulary is very impressive. I was forcedd to look up the definition of uncongenial along with several others. Based on an engineering background, if you don't pay attention to the details, your newly constructed bridge just might fall into the river.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tacoma+bridge+collapse&docid=608045869369786645&mid=D8B80A1C110379BC596AD8B80A1C110379BC596A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
A simply amazing admission for Mr Oswald to make---------made all the more amazing by the fact that no one familiar with Mr Oswald's claims to date even noticed the change in story!
All we've got here is Inspector Holmes compressing time (the break for lunch... what happened afterwards).
A simply amazing admission for Mr Oswald to make---------made all the more amazing by the fact that he was seen downstairs after folks broke for lunch!
No, all it reinforces is the impression that you can't explain why Mr Oswald would make such a suicidal 'admission'
This is just speculation and wishful thinking, Mr Nessan
Really? Read Inspector Kelley's report on the Sunday morning interview!
Hardly...
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
Two sets of doors... front part... first floor... front entrance.
Just like DPD were telling press on 11/22. Amazing coincidence!
A simply amazing admission for Mr Oswald to make---------made all the more amazing by the fact that no one familiar with Mr Oswald's claims to date even noticed the change in story!
All we've got here is Inspector Holmes compressing time (the break for lunch... what happened afterwards).
A simply amazing admission for Mr Oswald to make---------made all the more amazing by the fact that he was seen downstairs after folks broke for lunch!
No, all it reinforces is the impression that you can't explain why Mr Oswald would make such a suicidal 'admission'
This is just speculation and wishful thinking, Mr Nessan
Really? Read Inspector Kelley's report on the Sunday morning interview!
Hardly...
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
Two sets of doors... front part... first floor... front entrance.
Just like DPD were telling press on 11/22. Amazing coincidence!
You are right, unbelievable, he was offered an attorney and to have him present when interviewed and continued on talking anyway. Proof of just how clever he was. You seriously can't imagine him incriminating himself the way he did. I believe his arrogance played a part in his admission. He simply thought he was smarter than he was. In the end he inadvertently stated he was on the upper floors during the assassination.
Kelley: Oswald stated that at various other times he had been thoroughly interrogated by the FBI; that they had used all the usual interrogation practices and all their standard operating procedure; that he was very familiar with interrogation, and he had no intention of answering any questions concerning any shooting; that he knew he did not have to answer them and that he would not answer any questions until he had been given counsel. He stated that the FBI had used their hard and soft approach to him, they used the buddy system; that he was familiar with all types of questioning and had no intention of making any statement. He said that in the past three weeks when the FBI had talked to his wife, they were abusive and impolite; that they had frightened his wife and he considered their activities obnoxious. He stated that he wanted to contact a Mr. Abt, a New York lawyer whom he did not know but who had defended the Smith Act "victims" in 1949 or 1950 in connection with a conspiracy against the Government; that Abt would understand what this case was all about and that he would give him an excellent defense. He stated in returning a question about his former addresses that he lived at 4907 magazine Street in New Orleans at one time and worked for the William Riley Company; that he was arrested in New Orleans for disturbing the peace and paid a $10 find while he was demonstrating for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; that he had a fight with some anti-Castro refugees and that they were released while he was fined.
The different interviewers just let him talk. The more he says the better. Let him hang himself and he finally did just that. All his interviews were a variation of the same story.
Someone did record his final alteration of the story. Holmes noted what he said and it is obvious you see the importance and significance of his change in his movements of the day. LHO's mistake was centered on him stating he came down after the "commotion" nothing more. LHO's story always had him in an encounter with Baker on the second floor following the assassination which he stated he came down the stairs to the encounter in the second floor lunchroom. At the time nobody had a clear view of the whole picture of the employees movements, today we do.
Someone did record his final alteration of the story. Holmes noted what he said and it is obvious you see the importance and significance of his change in his movements of the day. LHO's mistake was centered on him stating he came down after the "commotion" nothing more. LHO's story always had him in an encounter with Baker on the second floor following the assassination which he stated he came down the stairs to the encounter in the second floor lunchroom. At the time nobody had a clear view of the whole picture of the employees movements, today we do.
Are there any other prints of the Altgens 6 photo that show the same anomaly (fore arm with bottle in hand) as in the Cronkite TV show print ?
From Mr Truly's 11/22 FBI interview report------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/13/a2/ub5zJGnk_o.jpg)
Why are you telling us this, Mr Truly? :D
No sensational, game-changing final alteration of the story was noted by Captain Fritz or anyone else, and the reason is that there was no sensational, game-changing final alteration of the story.
--------------------Mr Oswald said he visited the second floor lunchroom before the motorcade and went outside to watch the P. Parade.
--------------------Mr Oswald said he encountered a cop at the front entrance.
This is the same story: Mr Oswald being out front for the assassination puts him in Officer Baker's path. And-------a point you keep ignoring-------DPD on 11/22 were telling the press all about this front entrance encounter. And Mr Lovelady saw it and told Mr Jarman all about it.
If Officer Baker's dash into the building had not been so disastrously quick, the encounter never would have been moved up to the second floor lunchroom.
LHO's own admissions in repeated interogations place him and Baker meeting on the second floor. They also repeated infer there was some interaction by coworkers. No coworker has ever stated they ate lunch with him or saw him eating lunch in the first floor lunch roomWow!!.... I've seen some real idiots post in the various forums, but YOU Mr Nessan surpass them all....
.
Holmes clearly states he has no knowledge of the interior of the TSBD. He also states the encounter with Baker took place by the Coke Machine. Understanding an encounter by a Coke Machine requires no knowledge of the layout of the TSBD.
The only time LHO was outside of the TSBD was when he left the building to catch the bus.
You cannot judge what people knew in 11/ 63 with what is known today. The whereabouts of all the employees is well known now, but would not have been known by LHO or anyone else with any degree of certainty. LHO inadvertently stated his whereabouts during the assassination based on what he knew at the time. Today we know he gave himself up as being on the 6th floor by stating he came down stairs to the lunch room encounter after the "commotion" referenced by him.
Good post about Truly's account of the encounter, but it gets worse for LHO and his mistaken admission of being located on the upper floor during the assassination.
This explains the vestibule and also the double doors as being on the second floor before the lunchroom.
The following affidavit was executed by Roy Sansom Truly on August 3, 1964.
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Dallas, ss:
I, Roy Sansom Truly, being duly sworn say:
1. I am the Superintendent of the Texas School Book Depository Building Dallas, Texas.
2. The door opening on the vestibule of the lunchroom on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building is usually shut because of a closing mechanism on the door
LHO's own admissions in repeated interogations place him and Baker meeting on the second floor.
They also repeated infer there was some interaction by coworkers. No coworker has ever stated they ate lunch with him or saw him eating lunch in the first floor lunch room
Holmes clearly states he has no knowledge of the interior of the TSBD.
He also states the encounter with Baker took place by the Coke Machine. Understanding an encounter by a Coke Machine requires no knowledge of the layout of the TSBD.
The only time LHO was outside of the TSBD was when he left the building to catch the bus.
You cannot judge what people knew in 11/ 63 with what is known today. The whereabouts of all the employees is well known now, but would not have been known by LHO or anyone else with any degree of certainty.
LHO inadvertently stated his whereabouts during the assassination based on what he knew at the time. Today we know he gave himself up as being on the 6th floor by stating he came down stairs to the lunch room encounter after the "commotion" referenced by him.
How many times are you going to misrepresent what's in the Hosty draft report, Mr Nessan?
--------visit to second floor lunchroom (pre-assassination)
--------lunch on one (pre-assassination)
--------then outside to watch P. Parade
No post-assassination encounter with Officer Baker in the second floor lunchroom.
Why do you favor Inspector Kelley's version of this over Agent Bookhout's? Oh, I forgot------Agent Bookhout took a little nap while Inspector Kelley stayed awake to hear Mr Oswald change his story.
Mr Oswald claimed----truthfully----that he ate lunch alone in the domino room, during which time he noticed Messrs Jarman and Norman pass through. He also claimed----truthfully----that he took what remained of his lunch/coke outside to watch the P. Parade------------and hence was (as Captain Fritz let slip) eating his lunch in the presence of other employees when the assassination happened, and saw all the 'excitement'.
.
And yet he describes its front area to a T. Because he is recalling Mr Oswald's description.
~Yawn~ More shameless cherry-picking......
"But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke."
Mr Holmes heard Mr Oswald mention having bought the coke from the coke machine--------a pre-motorcade event.
Did Mr Oswald have access to the latest newspapers? If not, how come he was able to tell the same story of a front entrance encounter that DPD were telling press on 11/22?
We know nothing of the sort, lol.
And once again------you are aware, I hope, that Mr Oswald was seen downstairs after folks broke for lunch. So your wild theory, based on a ridiculously forced reading of Mr Holmes' compressed account, is that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz on the Sunday that he never came downstairs after folks broke for lunch. Good luck with that!
Mr Ford, your imaginary information surrounding Lee Oswald's actions between 12:15 pm and 12:35 Pm is no better than Mr Nessan's imaginary information. Apparently neither of you can comprehend what you read.... Or at least neither of you can understand that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes had been hanging around the DPD and hearing bits and pieces of information from the time that Lee Oswald was brought to police headquarters. Holmes knew the story that was being created and fed to the reporters.... So when he listened in on the interrogation of Lee Oswald that Sunday morning he tried to fit Lee's account into the framework of the story he already knew....But that story was not true. The most glaring error that Holmes made was founded in his belief that Lee Oswald was guilty,... And since he accepted that Lee was guilty (because Holmes had been watching Lee's mail box, as an FBI informant , and therefore he "knew" that Lee was a communist ) he accepted the tale that Lee had been on the sixth floor at the time shots were fired from the sixth floor window. ***
Bottomline.... Holmes report is simply a twisted account of what Lee said that Sunday morning just minutes before he was lead to his lynching.
P.S. Once a person like Holmes, accepts a lie about another person (LHO) who is being held up in the limelight as a demented devil, and Holmes believes the tales being told are true, it's very easy for that person ( Holmes) to create false information about the villain. And that's exactly what Holmes did.
A simple example..... Everybody knows that Adolph Hitler, was pure evil.... So If I were to say that I'd found secret information that Hitler engaged in sex with small children .... Many people would simple accept it as the truth.
*** There were no shots fired from he sixth floor window.
Nope. Mr Holmes' recollection is somewhat compressed & muddled, but he gets the essentials of Mr Oswald's (truthful) claims right------------
1. Encounter between coke-in-hand Mr Oswald and officer (=Marrion L. Baker) at front entrance
2. Showing crewcut man (= Mr Pierce Allman) to nearest phone
3. No lunchroom encounter
Thumb1:
1. Mr Oswald visits second floor lunchroom for coke several minutes before the motorcade (and is noticed there by Ms Carolyn Arnold & Mr Jack Dougherty)
2. He returns to one and starts eating his lunch in the domino room (and notices Messrs Jarman & Norman enter), periodically checking out the front door for signs of the motorcade's arrival (being awkward with small talk, he is deliberately waiting until the last minute to go out)
3. He goes outside to watch the P. Parade (he's Prayer Man)
4. Officer Baker comes storming up the steps and asks him if he works there (to show him to the nearest stairs)... then Mr Truly comes along
5. Mr Oswald, alarmed by what has just happened, goes inside to check for the curtain rods he left in the front-of-house storage room
6. He comes back out to the lobby (having been noticed by Mr Ochus Campbell and perhaps Ms Jeraldean Reid?)... he has established that the curtain rods are gone
7. Mr Pierce Allman comes looking for a telephone; Mr Oswald points him the way
8. Mr Oswald walks down the front steps and leaves the building------------disappearing (as Chief Curry will tell reporters later that day) "in the crowd"
9. The next known sighting of him is by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier, who sees him walking south on the Houston side of the Depository and then crossing over and disappearing from sight (Mr Frazier mistakenly assumes he must have just left by the back door of the building)
In custody, Mr Oswald does NOT mention #5 & 6 to Captain Fritz. He does not want to admit to having carried ANY substantial package to work that morning.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/f6/xilRx4lh_o.jpg)
5. Mr Oswald, alarmed by what has just happened, goes inside to check for the curtain rods he left in the front-of-house storage room
Aha! It's taken you weeks and weeks and weeks to bring yourself to tell us that, Mr O'Meara. What a tremendous breakthrough!
So------------the shadow is the edge of the wall of the front entrance, is it?
Here's Mr Lovelady with the shadow down the right side of his body---------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/95/32/cdMmjjGJ_o.jpg)
The green line here (a model of the doorway @ Darnell) shows where the shadowline actually fell at 12:30pm 11/22/63:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/89/cf/SjSbbYk0_o.jpg)
Now, Mr O'Meara-----------can you kindly indicate, using the image above, where on those steps you believe Mr Lovelady is standing in the Wiegman frame above?
Thumb1:
A further research resource to help Mr O'Meara with his Great Demonstration of the Obvious Fact That Mr Lovelady in Wiegman---------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/95/32/cdMmjjGJ_o.jpg)
---------is 'Obviously' Catching a Big Chunk of Shadow from the Edge of the West Wall.............
(https://images2.imgbox.com/35/9d/zXHishjg_o.png)
(Credit: Mr James Hackerott)
Over to you, Mr O'Meara! Thumb1:
1. Mr Oswald visits second floor lunchroom for coke several minutes before the motorcade (and is noticed there by Ms Carolyn Arnold & Mr Jack Dougherty)
2. He returns to one and starts eating his lunch in the domino room (and notices Messrs Jarman & Norman enter), periodically checking out the front door for signs of the motorcade's arrival (being awkward with small talk, he is deliberately waiting until the last minute to go out)
3. He goes outside to watch the P. Parade (he's Prayer Man)
4. Officer Baker comes storming up the steps and asks him if he works there (to show him to the nearest stairs)... then Mr Truly comes along
5. Mr Oswald, alarmed by what has just happened, goes inside to check for the curtain rods he left in the front-of-house storage room
6. He comes back out to the lobby (having been noticed by Mr Ochus Campbell and perhaps Ms Jeraldean Reid?)... he has established that the curtain rods are gone
7. Mr Pierce Allman comes looking for a telephone; Mr Oswald points him the way
8. Mr Oswald walks down the front steps and leaves the building------------disappearing (as Chief Curry will tell reporters later that day) "in the crowd"
9. The next known sighting of him is by Mr Buell Wesley Frazier, who sees him walking south on the Houston side of the Depository and then crossing over and disappearing from sight (Mr Frazier mistakenly assumes he must have just left by the back door of the building)
In custody, Mr Oswald does NOT mention #5 & 6 to Captain Fritz. He does not want to admit to having carried ANY substantial package to work that morning.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/f6/xilRx4lh_o.jpg)
Do you know what Alan, I've had a good look into this and am unhappy to report that it doesn't look right.
I have to agree with you - it can't be a shadow from the corner of the wall being cast on Lovelady.
Go figure
1. Mr Oswald visits second floor lunchroom for coke several minutes before the motorcade (and is noticed there by Ms Carolyn Arnold & Mr Jack Dougherty)
2. He returns to one and starts eating his lunch in the domino room (and notices Messrs Jarman & Norman enter), periodically checking out the front door for signs of the motorcade's arrival (being awkward with small talk, he is deliberately waiting until the last minute to go out)
1. Lee arrives at the Domino room and notices it is now empty and all his fellow employees have departed to go out front to watch the parade, and starts eating his lunch in the domino room (and notices Messrs Jarman & Norman enter the Shipping room), periodically checking out the front door for signs of the motorcade's arrival (being awkward with small talk, he is deliberately waiting until the last minute to go out)
2. Mr Oswald visits second floor lunchroom for coke several minutes before going outside. While he's there in front of the coke machine, with the coke that he's just purchased in his hand, the door flies open, and big motorcycle cop appears at the doorway, with his pistol in his hand. ..... Then we have ....THE REST OF THE STORY.
(and is noticed there by Ms Carolyn Arnold & Mr Jack Dougherty)
Where do you get the notion Dougherty saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom from?
Mr. BALL - That you saw Oswald again at approximately 11 a.m. on the sixth floor?.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - But you didn't see him again after that, is that your testimony?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
You have arbitrarily reversed the sequence of events clearly set out in Agent Hosty's draft report----------
1. Visit to second floor lunchroom for coke
2. Down to 1 to eat
3. Then went outside to watch P. Parade.
No, I have not reversed the sequence of events in Hosty's ( and Bookhout's ) report...
Stop playing games, Mr Cakebread, you know full well I'm referring to the Hosty draft report that came to light in 2019. You're still in denial about its explosive contents
One has to wonder about the random probability of the Dr. Pepper bottle that appears in one photo of the front entrance steps within an hour approx post shots fired.
C. Oswalds favorite soda was Dr. Pepper
HOW THE HECK DID WE ( the public over 50 years) COMPLETELY FAIL to see this truly amazing image detail and the amazing coincidence of Oswald being the ONLY Possible other person with a soda bottle (other than Lovelady) on the front steps of TSBD???
Mr Oswald claimed that, just before he left the building, a credential-carrying crewcut man came up to him looking for a telephone, and Mr Oswald pointed him the way to the nearest one.
If Mr Oswald was telling the truth about this (and Mr Pierce Allman seems to confirm it), then we have Mr Oswald at the front entrance shortly after the shooting apparently noticed by not a single co-worker. And why would anyone take particular notice of him? He was just another manual worker.
I never have doubted that Lee was telling the truth about this point. I'm a bit befuddled about why you think it's such a big deal.
Do you think that Wesley Buell Frazier would have noticed him as they were friends/acquaintances or do you think he was pressurised to lie in his testimony?
Well SOMEBODY noticed The Forearm With Bottle in Altgens 6 photo, otherwise that arm would have remained as seen in the 1st print version and never would there have been the 2nd print version with that arm and bottle Erased and replaced with some texture and pattern of Loveladys shirt to attempt fool the public.
These two images are taken within seconds of one another------------
BELL FILM:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e7/76/JbcdjzW8_o.jpg)
TOWNER FILM:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/4a/mSkfPum4_o.jpg)
I believe the figure at the pink arrow in Towner is Mr Lovelady, at the yellow Prayer Man
Do you know what Alan, I've had a good look into this and am unhappy to report that it doesn't look right.
I have to agree with you - it can't be a shadow from the corner of the wall being cast on Lovelady.
Go figure
He radically changed his story in this final interview. He abandoned the idea he ate lunch with or near the coworkers. He admitted to being on the upper floors during the assassination based on his continuing to work until he came downstairs because of th commotion and encountered Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
You are right, unbelievable, he was offered an attorney and to have him present when interviewed and continued on talking anyway.
Holmes clearly states he has no knowledge of the interior of the TSBD. He also states the encounter with Baker took place by the Coke Machine.
Finally!
For many reasons I wasn't going anywhere near this but I note, in your role as self-appointed, self-anointed fact-checker, you didn't have a word to say about this lunacy, revealing (as if it needed revealing) your stinking bias and hypocrisy.
To me it looked like the shadow of the wall was being cast on Lovelady, no mystery, and Alan's explanation was beyond bizarre so I wasn't getting drawn into that particular fantasy.
Now!
From Captain Fritz's interrogation 'notes'--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b7/47/XA08VvNL_o.jpg)
4706? Wrong number!
From Agent Bookhout's interrogation report--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/fd/fC1tUtnI_o.jpg)
4706? Wrong number! But not just that.................. This is the same wrong number as in Captain Fritz's 'notes'! Gee whizz, the fact that Captain Fritz reproduces Agent Bookhout's exact error would almost make a soul think Captain Fritz's notes must derive their contents from Agent Bookhout's report..............
But wait! All this shows is Mr Oswald gave the wrong number in interrogation (the wily commie scoundrel). Right?
Wrong! From Inspector Kelley's report on the same interrogation session-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/c4/63/XRxqW88l_o.jpg)
4907? Right number!
Sorry to break Lunchroom Derangement Syndrome hearts here, but Captain Fritz's 'notes' are just scribblings based on Agent Hosty's reports. Their independent evidentiary value is ZILCH Thumb1:
Also from the Kelley report:
"I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..."
;)
Inspector Kelley is lying here. But he has no cause to lie about Mr Oswald's N.O. address.
Do you believe that both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout independently misheard the number 4907 as 4706? Or that Mr Oswald gave the wrong number, then corrected himself---------but both Captain Fritz and Agent Bookhout failed to notice the correction and so stuck with the original error?
I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.
Well, it means that Captain Fritz's "claims 2nd Fl Coke when off came in" cannot be used as independent corroboration of Agent Bookhout's solo-report claim as to what Mr Oswald said----------------as it's actually derived from same.
I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes and don't really have a problem with that suggestion.
I don't know if that exonerates Fritz as a Hoaxer.
Agreed, but it doesn't alter Bookhout's report, it just means Fritz can't be trusted.
The interesting thing about Bookhout's solo report is that he mentions Oswald had bought a coke before Baker and Truly came in. If Bookhout is a Hoaxer and making all this up
why does he include this detail about Oswald having bought the coke
only to have this refuted by his fellow Hoaxers, Baker and Truly
I have seen it convincingly argued elsewhere that Fritz copied Bookhout's notes
I believe that Fritz was at least senile. and possibly in the early stages of dementia. As a consequence he couldn't take accurate notes, so it's possible that he asked Bookhout if he could borrow the notes that he had taken. This would explain why he said he didn't take notes at the time, and jotted them down later. However, As I recall Hosty said in his book, that the typed up reports had to be filed within 24 hours of the interrogation and any notes taken were to be destroyed. If that is true, and Bookhout followed orders, then Fritz must have copied Bookhout's notes on Saturday 11/23 / 63.
Therefore, I’m going with a meeting of Baker and Oswald happening in the front foyer = “vestibule “ at the front staircase as Oswald was seen going TO the storage room by Baker.
Therefore, I’m going with a meeting of Baker and Oswald happening in the front foyer = “vestibule “ at the front staircase as Oswald was seen going TO the storage room by Baker.
Oswald still had on his brown shirt at this point, although it’s uncertain if the sleeves were still rolled up or rolled down. Baker thought it was a jacket.
Truly then entered, saw Baker with gun drawn at Oswald
The "vestibule" is the small space next to the second floor lunchroom. This is from Truly's affidavit:
"2. The door opening on the vestibule of the lunchroom on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building is usually shut because of a closing mechanism on the door"
Baker already had drawn his gun in preparation to begin his ascent up the front staircase, erroneously presuming that staircase continued to the roof.
It’s at that point that Oswald was seen as Baker reaches the stairs and it was a reflex action with gun still in hand as Baker saw Oswald going “away “ from that front staircase TO the storage room.
Carolyn Arnold’s very 1st FBI statement, the only one she SIGNED her name on, does NOT refer to
2nd floor lunchroom. Instead Arnold describes glimpsing Oswald on the 1st floor in the hallway between front entrance door and the 2nd set of doors leading to the warehouse at approximately time of 12:25.
That
is a description of the front foyer, and NOT the vestibule of the 2nd floor lunchroom.
She later denies this FBI statement and starts the 2nd floor lunchroom version in 2nd FBI statement NOT signing her name.
And embellishes on that story many years later adding more details such as Oswald seated etc.
Imo, Carolyn Arnold was coerced to change her original 1st floor sighting to the 2nd floor.
Baker already had drawn his gun in preparation to begin his ascent up the front staircase, erroneously presuming that staircase continued to the roof.
It’s at that point that Oswald was seen as Baker reaches the stairs and it was a reflex action with gun still in hand as Baker saw Oswald going “away “ from that front staircase TO the storage room.
Baker already had drawn his gun in preparation to begin his ascent up the front staircase, erroneously presuming that staircase continued to the roof.
I also believe that Baker started up front stairs that ended on the second floor....I believe that he tried to enter the office area through the swinging door but it was latched and at That point Roy truly ran into Baker's back. Truly of course knew how to release the dor and told Baker to follow him and he'd show him the way to the roof. As they passed through the vesibule at the west end of the 2nd floor lunchroom, Baker glanced into the lunchroom and saw Lee by the coke machine. And you know the rest of the story.
When the police started analyzing the story that Baker was telling they realized that there was NO WAY that Lee Oswald could have been in that lunchroom if he had been firing a rifle on the sixth floor when JFK was murdered. But the police were intent on putting Lee in the electric chair because they believed he had shot a fellow officer. So they invented the tale about Baker waiting at the elevator on the first floor
Carolyn Arnold basically has 3 Different stories
The Nov 26 1963 FBI statement which she did NOT sign, (my mistake earlier) which has NO mention of a 2nd floor lunchroom sighting of Oswald. This is the the statement of a 12:15 “glimpse” of Oswald in the front foyer of 1st floor between the front doors and the 2nd set of double doors to the warehouse
Then the March 18 1964 FBI statement which she DiD sign, Carolyn Arnold has NO mention of any sighting of Oswald WHAT SO Ever. There is Nothing at all about a 2nd floor lunchroom sighting.
She changes time of exiting the TSBD from 12:15 to 12:25.
It’s not until 1978 when Carolyn
Arnold’s no.3 story of 2nd floor sighting of Oswald is told in interviews with Earl Golz and Anthony Summers.
And it was then that she denies the Nov 26/63 statement is true.
IDK what to think now, but I doubt seriously that the FBI would falsely make a statement that would give Oswald an alibi, such as having witness observing him in the front foyer entrance at 12:15
More probably, IMO, the FBI would be compelled by the Hoover memo to “convince” Carolyn Arnold that she must have seen Lovelady instead of Oswald and that a statement of NOT seeing Oswald at the time of shooting would be helpful. And to sign that statement.
Hence the follow up March 18 1964 Signed FBI statement by Carolyn Arnold declaring not seeing Oswald at time of shooting and no statement of lunchroom or any other sighting of Oswald.
No one------but NO one------in 1978 even suspected, let alone knew (as we now do) that Mr Oswald had claimed a pre-assassination lunchroom visit. Ms Arnold is not inventing this sighting IMO.
An analysis of the CE 1381's, specifically Arnold's and the co-workers she was with that day, supports the foyer sighting but refutes the 2nd floor lunchroom sighting.
Piper has Oswald on the first floor by noon.
The Jarman/Norman detail has him in the Domino Room @12:25, obviously on the first floor
How so?
Not wanting to disrupt the flow of the thread but thought these may be of interest.
Furthermore! If Officer Baker were anywhere near the front-of-house storage room, he wouldn't have needed anyone's help in finding the stairs............
(https://images2.imgbox.com/db/a4/jw5dxLBD_o.jpg)
That door you see is the door to the storage room!
Thumb1:
Arnold is part of a group of women who go out to watch the parade together. Most of them give the time as '12:15 when they go outside.
Who says they exited the building with her?
I think Virgie Baker states she was "accompanied" by some of the girls including Arnold when she left the second floor to go outside.
Correct, the wording does give that impression Thumb1:
However I think Ms Arnold joined that group outside a little after and Ms Baker simply misremembered four months later.
Cf for example (and from the same CE1381) Ms Judy Johnson, whom Ms Baker includes in the group that supposedly accompanied her from the second floor. She tells a rather different story:
"On November 22, 1963 I left my office, Room 200, Texas School Book Depository Building, about 12 :15 P .M . to go. outside the building to watch the President's Motorcade pass which-was to pass along Elm Street in front of the building . I was with Miss Jeannie Holt, 2521 Pleasant Drive, Dallas, Texas, and Miss Stella Jacob, 508 South Marsalis St ., Dallas, Texas both employees of the Texas School Book Depository . We walked to the southwest corner of Elm and Houston Streets and were joined by Mrs. Bonnie Richey, 220 South Marsalis, Apt . 117, Dallas, Texas, Mrs . Carolyn Arnold, 3325 South Tyler St ., Dallas, Texas"
Ms Betty Dragoo seems to make the same error (if such it be, and if the interview statement is indeed an accurate rendition of what she says) as Ms Baker in this regard.
The above example seems to confirm Arnold and Richey were together - Johnson was joined by Richey and Arnold.
It seems more likely Johnson misremembered as Holt and Jacob were down by the Stemmons sign with Sharon Simmons. None of them mention Johnson.
Arnold left the second floor with Virgie Richey (and others) @ 12:15
Not wanting to disrupt the flow of the thread but thought these may be of interest.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4eiQAp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/82xyVDe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oZhqT04.png)
Yes, they were together by that point, but that doesn't mean they went out together. Ms Richey says nothing to that effect. (Those CE1381 interviews are infuriatingly narrow in scope--all the more infuriating in that they are our only statements from a legion of Depository employees!)
Well, they're offering a very compressed account. I doubt Ms Johnson would bring their names in for no good reason.
No, this has not been established.
Come now Alan.
If Arnold wasn't with them why would they all mention her?
Because she was with them as the motorcade was approaching.
Hmmm...
Baker definitely states Arnold accompanied her from the second floor and there's nothing else that really contradicts that apart from Johnson's dodgy memory.
The strong impression is that they were all together when they went outside.
Jeraldean Reid seems to confirm this:
Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?
Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone
I think that little mystery is cleared up.
If that's the reading, then Ms Baker definitely states Ms Johnson accompanied her from the second floor, and that is directly contradicted by Ms Johnson. Calling her memory 'dodgy' does not resolve the issue.
Perhaps Ms Arnold went to the bathroom?
You're being too hasty, Mr O'Meara!
Have it your way Alan ;)
Boo, you're no fun!
;D
By the time Arnold (perhaps) returns to the lunchroom after (perhaps) going to the toilet, Oswald would be down in the Domino room seeing Jarman and Norman come in through the back door (perhaps)
No, I think Ms Arnold saw him in there around the 12:20 mark.
So the girls leave and Arnold goes to the toilet leaving Reid in the lunchroom.
Arnold returns to the lunchroom and everyone is gone but Oswald has suddenly appeared
(even though Arnold saw him five minutes earlier when she was stood outside and Oswald was in the foyer)
Oswald is sat at a table (having lunch?)
As soon as Arnold leaves, Oswald packs up and heads for the Domino room to have is lunch (again?)
where he sees Jarman and Norman.
Hmmm...all seems a bit tricky to me.
Why not just go with what nearly all the testimonial is saying - Arnold leaves with the girls about 12:15. As she is stood outside and sees Oswald in the foyer about 12:15.
Forget the Oswald/Arnold second floor lunchroom encounter.
Ms Reid may already have left by this time.
Slow down, Mr O'Meara, you move too fast!
Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?
Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left.
According to the time estimates given in the FBI interview report.
By contrast, from CE1381 (March 18):
(https://images2.imgbox.com/0b/c3/TZYCYd7D_o.jpg)
Time estimates are just that-------------estimates.
Ms Arnold sees Mr Oswald in the lunchroom ca. 12:20, then again ca. 12:25.
He may have started to eat. He may have his apple and/or unopened sandwich on the table in front of him. He may be reading a newspaper or somesuch.
Either to start eating (with the coke) or to continue eating
Yep
Because a) that's not what nearly all the testimony is saying, b) Ms Arnold was quite emphatic about the lunchroom sighting when she spoke with Messrs Golz and Summers. Why would she want to make this up? And isn't it striking that her claim chimes not just with what Mr Dougherty saw but also with a claim by Mr Oswald that would not properly become known until 2019?
Sorry, Mr O'Meara, no can do!
You're dismissing too much testimony and creating too many maybes.
Now you're twisting the times around and have Oswald having lunch on the second floor then the first floor.
The ladies she 'accompanies' out of the building give a time @12:15
, the same time Arnold gives for seeing Oswald in the foyer.
No, I never said that.
Again, you only have Ms Baker giving that impression----------the same Ms Baker who also has Ms Johnson accompanying her from the lunchroom, a notion directly contradicted by Ms Johnson herself.
And yet in her March '64 interview she says she left the building at 12:25.
We don't know that Ms Arnold gave 12:15 as the time in the original FBI interview. If she told them she saw Mr Oswald behind the front door ca. five minutes before the shooting, there is not a snowball's chance in hell they would have let that stand.
So, in your scenario - even though there is ample testimonial evidence the girls all left together and went outside,
Arnold went to the toilet instead (maybe).
She then decided to return to the lunchroom (maybe).
In the time it took her to go to the toilet Oswald appeared sat at a table
, maybe having lunch, maybe reading a newspaper.
Arnold goes to join her friends outside (something nobody mentions).
In the meantime Oswald goes down to the Domino room where he sees Jarman and Norman come in the back door.
After this he goes to the foyer where Arnold sees him.
There isn't a single solid piece of testimonial evidence to that effect.
No maybe about it. She said she decided to go to the lunchroom. (Where are you getting 'return to' from btw?) I'm not inventing anything here, just listening to the witness. She was quite emphatic about this. Why would she make this up, especially when she can have had no idea of its true significance (i.e. as a startling corroboration of Mr Oswald's actual claim in custody that he visited the second floor lunchroom BEFORE the assassination)?
No, he could have been there before that, and she may not have gone to the toilet. What's the big problem?
And then, at the last minute, he went outside to watch the P. Parade. No big deal!
?? Reid testifies all the girls left together
and Baker testifies she was accompanied by Arnold on her way out.
What are you talking about? Both Dragoo and Richey confirm they were all together.
Where am I getting "return" from??
You're the one saying she left the lunchroom and returned to it.
How else does she see Oswald in there if she didn't return to it?
Think about it
He could have been there before she left the lunchroom??
What are you on about?
Inspector Kelley - "I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not..." ;)
Where does she mention Ms Arnold as part of this group in the lunchroom?
Already addressed
Yes-----------outside.
No, she may not have been among the girls who ate lunch in the lunchroom.
She didn't have to have returned to it, merely to have gone into it.
How do you know she was in the lunchroom in the first place?
Already addressed. Inspector Kelley liked to gild the lily
----------Mr Oswald eating lunch alone but seeing two black coworkers pass through----------------->Mr Oswald eating lunch WITH two black coworkers
----------Mr Oswald denies shooting JFK; Mr Oswald denies shooting Gov. Connolly------------------>Mr Oswald denies those two things AND having viewed the parade (Agent Bookhout, nor anyone else, records any such statement, even though they sat in on the same interview)
Unbelievably weak nonsense Alan.
You may have addressed Baker's description of Arnold accompanying her and the rest of the girls but you've not dealt with it.
It is clear from the 1381's this group of women are together - Arnold, Baker, Richey, Dragoo, Johnson
It is clear from the 1381's they leave together,
this is confirmed by Reid's statement.
She is outside around 12:15-12:20
You can twist the meaning of anything you want and create as many maybe's as you want.
I'll stick to a common sense interpretaion of the evidence thanks very much.
I found the photo in this forum photo gallery of the Dr.Pepper bottle on the front steps and it’s definitely a SOLID white oval shaped label. There is NO diagonal dark slash thru it like the bottle the cop has in that other photo Mr. Ford posted earlier
SO THERE!!! It’s all connected now (IMO) quite nicely, except for Mr, Fords insistence on Oswald getting a coke from the2nd floor lunchroom which has really no reason to have to be the case if Mrs Reid’s T shirt and coke story is being tossed aside
Even if there’s some way to reconcile Mrs Reid’s meeting with T shirt man as Oswald, it’s not really saying he did not have a Dr. Pepper while at the position of PM
I’m
Staying with my theory that the hand holding the Dr. Pepper bottle at the base allow approx half of that solid white label exposed to the camera of Weigman and is the reason for the extra white effect.
Is less probable if it were a coke which had only white cursive lettering and this much less area of white to cause such a solid white blotch as it appears imo.
I found the photo in this forum photo gallery of the Dr.Pepper bottle on the front steps and it’s definitely a SOLID white oval shaped label.
Mr, Fords insistence on Oswald getting a coke from the2nd floor lunchroom
Eureka! Maybe Mr. Ford has found the coke bottle that MR LOVELADY for certain did take out to the front steps.
I can’t quite determine for certain if that’s another bottle beside the Dr. Pepper bottle , however if it is, it definitely does NOT have any significant area of white label similar to The Dr. Pepper logo, hence reinforcing my proposition that a coke bottle with minimal white cursive lettering would NOT produce such an area of white blotch area as seen in PMs hand in Weigman film
The above example seems to confirm Arnold and Richey were together - Johnson was joined by Richey and Arnold.
It seems more likely Johnson misremembered as Holt and Jacob were down by the Stemmons sign with Sharon Simmons.
"Down by the Stemmons sign". LOL.
Holt and Jacob both describe walking about 50 yards towards the underpass
Simmons states they were about half way between the TSBD and the underpass
All consistent with a location somewhere near the Stemmons sign.
Try to have your facts straight before you criticise, it would make you appear less buffoonish.
No, the Stemmons sign was about 70 yards from the TSBD entrance, which was still way short of "half way between the TSBD and the underpass".
I always have my facts straight. If you weren't so defensive and combative whenever you make unsupported truth claims, it would make you appear less buffoonish. The people you always claim (without evidence) to be Holt, Jacob, and Simmons aren't even standing by the sign. It just appears that way because of the perspective from Zapruder's position.
"I always have my facts straight."
"...the Stemmons sign was about 70 yards from the TSBD entrance"
:D :D :D You are something else.
Do you have information to the contrary?
Yes I do John.
The Stemmons sign is barely 40 yards from the TSBD entrance.
You don't have to look too hard to find a plan of Dealey Plaza. Get on it.
I did exactly that, using Don Roberdeau's map. That's where I got 70 yards.
(https://i.imgur.com/yPFbsFl.gif)
I did exactly that, using Don Roberdeau's map. That's where I got 70 yards.
(https://i.imgur.com/yPFbsFl.gif)
Interesting.
I used this and got a very different result
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvHC9Jqt/Dealey-Plaza.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
None of this low-stakes conversation has anything to do with Mr Oswald's bombshell claim to have gone outside to watch the P. Parade
Interesting.
I used this and got a very different result
I agree. It looks like about 40 yards on that one.
I agree. It looks like about 40 yards on that one.
This isn't rocket science.....The TSBD measures 100 feet across the south face ( Actually the TSBD was 100 ' square.)
It' a piece o cake to use the TSBD as a scale to determine ant distance in the plaza.
Have a look at this one and see what you think
(I can't upload it because it's massive and when I shrink it all the detail get's lost when I zoom in)
https://craigciccone.wordpress.com/schematic-of-dealey-plaza/
Yes, that looks like about 33 yards to me. Here's a crop I did with the scale attached.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/ciccone-crop.png)
But it works out perfectly with Mrs Reid meeting because if Oswald enters lunchroom approx 98-100 secs post shots it takes about another 20 secs to walk across floor to Coke machine, buy the coke, walk back across floor, and enter the 2nd floor office rear door at approx 120 sec = 2min post shots
Where are you getting this info from Walt?
I worked that out many years ago, (By finding the width of the windows) before I knew about the diagrams the detectives had created of the sixth floor which show the length and width of the building. And there are several diagrams of the various floors of the TSBD in the WR , (page150) that confirm the building was 100 feet square.
This diagram shows the front of the TSBD was about 80 ft
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4X2BckK/TSBD-2nd-floorplan.gif) (https://postimg.cc/67gWPd6p)
Look.... The scale starts at 5 feet negative so the full length is 25 feet .....
Mr Oswald said he bought the Coke BEFORE the motorcade, reason being he bought the Coke before the motorcade
My bad Walt, missed that.
Mr Oswald said he bought the Coke BEFORE the motorcade, reason being he bought the Coke before the motorcade
Actually Nobody, not even Lee, could know whether he bought the coke BEFORE the motorcade arrived....He said that he interrupted his lunch to go to the second floor to buy a coke..... and while he was there, a motorcycle policeman burst into the lunchroom.
It would appear that Lee went to the 2nd floor at about the same time the motorcade was approaching the TSBD.
It would appear that you think you can still get away with pretending this doesn't exist............
(https://images2.imgbox.com/57/92/FfKFvCLe_o.jpg)
Oswald was seen by Baker with his brown shirt on and NO Bottle in hand ,while Mrs Reid saw Oswald in T-shirt only and an UNOPENED coke in hand
The probable reason imo is that Oswald bought a Dr. Pepper from 1st floor machine which he drank while out on the front steps and then left it there at that step in the recess as photographed in Allen photo.
Whether Oswald ever really went up to the floor lunchroom to buy a coke and not open it , In effect the SECOND bottle of soda bought AFTER Oswald returns into TSBD, is the scenario Mrs Reid’s story requires a plausible explanation other than “she’s crazy” :)
That’s what I’m try to do in constructing a timeline for Oswald as PM
"O stated that he was present for work at the TSBD on the morning of 11/22, and at noon he went to lunch. He went to the 2nd floor to get a Coca-Cola, to eat with his lunch, and returned to the 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch the P. parade. "
This will probably be a futile effort to show a man with his head firmly inserted that he's incorrect in his belief.... But I'll try.
"O stated that he was present for work at the TSBD on the morning of 11/22, and at noon he went to lunch."
"at noon he went to lunch."
Lee may have discontinued working at NOON, but of course he didn't start eating his lunch at noon.... We can know that because he stated that he ate his lunch in the first floor lunchroom.... But that lunchroom was full of TSBD warehouse workers at noon, and NOBODY saw Lee there while they were eating their lunch....Furthermore Lee said that He saw Jarman and Norman pass by the 1st floor lunchroom as he was eating his lunch. J& N testified that the walked by the 1st floor lunchroom at about 12:27. Thus there are many unaware witnesses who corroborate Lee's alibi.
""He went to the 2nd floor to get a Coca-Cola, to eat with his lunch, and returned to the 1st floor to eat lunch."
It is a fact that Lee was approached in the 2nd floor lunchroom, just after buying a coke, by DPD officer Marrion Baker. We know that time was about 12:32 ..... and after Baker departed from the 2nd floor lunchroom, Lee returned to the 1st floor lunchroom.
(He) "Then went outside to watch the P. parade. "
This scribbled statement does not make the information the absolute "cast in stone", honest-to- God truth.
IF Lee actually related that information to Bookhout then it's entirely possible that Lee believed that the P. parade was passing by at the time he headed for the front door. Or it's also possible that Bookhout misunderstood or misinterpreted what Lee said. When Bookhout transcribed his scribbled notes on 11/25/63 and typed up his 302 to be filed he wrote:
quote..."He stated that he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca- Cola from the soft drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee, and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took his coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunchroom. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.".... unquote
Pssst...Mr Ford.. Perhaps you can extract your head enough to see that when Bookhout used the scribbled notes to type up his report he said NOTHING about the P. parade passing when Lee went outside.....
Oswald was seen by Baker with his brown shirt on and NO Bottle in hand ,while Mrs Reid saw Oswald in T-shirt only and an UNOPENED coke in hand
The probable reason imo is that Oswald bought a Dr. Pepper from 1st floor machine which he drank while out on the front steps and then left it there at that step in the recess as photographed in Allen photo.
Mr Oswald's shirt was reddish.
Ms Reid said nothing about an unopened bottle of coke.
You're needlessly complicating a simple sequence of events------------
1. Mr Oswald breaks for lunch
2. Mr Oswald buys a coke
3. Mr Oswald eats on one
4. Mr Oswald goes outside to watch P. Parade.
Mr Ford is correct. Mrs Reid stated the bottle of coke was “full”.
So “unopened” was inaccurate.
Nevertheless, from Bakers and Trulys WC testimony neither saw anything in
Oswalds hands such as a bottle.
Maybe they were fibbing. IDK
If the coke that Reid saw was “full” then it’s not likely the bottle That PM was drinking while at the front steps.
Since Baker didn’t see anything in Oswalds hands then that coke that Mrs Reid saw in Oswalds hands could only be a coke Oswald bought AFTER having met Baker, whether on the 1st floor or the second floor.
On the rationale that because Mrs Reid was telling her story BEFORE Oswald was even yet a suspect, and that she was NOT a loon and or a liar, It is therefore necessary to integrate her story somehow with the Oswald=PM timeline.
Generally I am in agreement with PM=Oswald due to Mr Fords presentation of the Altgen photo anomaly of the upraised forearm and hand with a bottle in it (imo)
I see the logic of Mr.Ford relying on the Hosty reference to “coke” if one is going to accept the entire statement including “P.Parade”.
Walt apparently disagrees with the PM=Oswald theory and seems to think my attempt to construct a timeline for PM is analogous to some act that is normally not a subject for discussion in a JFK forum as it’s mostly irrelevant except possibly in connection to an alleged affair of JFK and Marilyn Monroe.
I
When Mr Oswald buys his coke, would this be at the same time all the young ladies on the second floor are having their lunch?
Mr Ford is correct. Mrs Reid stated the bottle of coke was “full”.
So “unopened” was inaccurate.
Nevertheless, from Bakers and Trulys WC testimony neither saw anything in
Oswalds hands such as a bottle.
Maybe they were fibbing. IDK
If the coke that Reid saw was “full” then it’s not likely the bottle That PM was drinking while at the front steps.
And Baker stated that in his sworn, written affidavit, that the fiend was "drinking a coke" when he encountered him in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
"Walt apparently disagrees with the PM=Oswald theory and seems to think my attempt to construct a timeline for PM is analogous to some act that" produces nothing lasting and solid.... IOW.... The theory that PM=Oswald theory and seems to think my attempt to construct a timeline for PM is is not worth wasting the time spent to read the goofy theory...
I'm sorry that I have to be so brutally honest Zeon.... But I feel compelled to move the stalemate along.....I've been trying for over 50 years and my candle is burning low.
This photograph of the second floor lunchroom--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b0/7e/YddPtWio_o.jpg)
was supposedly taken 11/22/63 (as stamped on back)--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/4c/Dzs4izRL_o.jpg)
But the clock on the wall shows 12:30--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7e/87/n5BIin9t_o.jpg)
It's daylight outside, so unless Det. Studebaker was inside the lunchroom at the moment Pres. Kennedy was shot, the timestamp is a fraud.
Thumb1:
Please provide proof that the clock was running, and keeping accurate time....
More Cakebread nonsense
The reason your candle is burning low, Mr Cakebread, is that you cling stubbornly to a narrow pet theory of the case that you came up with years ago. Far from moving the stalemate along, you put all your effort into attacking those who are trying to do just that. Sorry to be so brutally honest.
Actually .... I simply use the evidence that's been established for many years. ( though some of it has only surfaced in recent years)
Stubborn.... Yes...But facts are facts.... And there's no doubt that Marrion Baker encountered Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at about 12:32. This was established on the evening of 11/22/63 when Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that the event had happened.
Captain Fritz & co. knew very quickly that day that Mr Oswald had been at the front entrance at the time of the shooting. 'Now calm down, son, we know you didn't do the actual shooting. But we also know that you were involved. And that's why you're here.'
Later that night:
REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
MR OSWALD: No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall axed me that question.
From the Warren Report (p. 201):
"At this time Oswald had been arraigned only for the murder of Patrolman Tippett (sic.), but questioning by Captain Fritz and others had been substantially concerned with Oswald's connection with the assassination."
Had Mr Oswald known what DPD were telling the world---------that he was the sixth-floor shooter----------he would have screamed his alibi at the press at every opportunity.
Had Mr Oswald known what DPD were telling the world---------that he was the sixth-floor shooter----------he would have screamed his alibi at the press at every opportunity.
No, he wouldn't have..... Lee was first and foremost a patriotic American agent..... He would put his life on the line at the request of the FBI....or any American agency that he thought he was working for..... And he would NEVER have revealed that he was a secret agent..... He trusted his handler and "knew" that the agency would pull his "fat from the fire"....On that note...lee actually alluded to believing that he was going to be pulled from the clutches of the DPD just minutes before the conspirators gunned him down.
This photograph of the second floor lunchroom--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b0/7e/YddPtWio_o.jpg)
was supposedly taken 11/22/63 (as stamped on back)--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/4c/Dzs4izRL_o.jpg)
But the clock on the wall shows 12:30--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7e/87/n5BIin9t_o.jpg)
It's daylight outside, so unless Det. Studebaker was inside the lunchroom at the moment Pres. Kennedy was shot, the datestamp is a fraud.
Thumb1:
The photo is CE 741...and in the book 1st Day Evidence it is shown on page 289...It was taken on 11/25/63 NOT 11/22/63 Because on 11/22/63 there would have been no reason to take a photo of the lunchroom. The limelight wasn't cast on the lunchroom until late in the afternoon on 11/22. The clock reads 3:05 or 1:17 (it's difficult to determine which is the long minute hand and which is the shorter hour hand.)
On the back of ONE copy we find the datestamp 11/22/63; on the back of ANOTHER 11/25/63.
NOBODY was talking about a lunchroom encounter for the first few hours after the assassination. It hadn't been invented yet.
Good to see you've dropped the broken clock silliness. The time shown is 12:30.
I'm sure that it was 12:30 somewhere..... But it wasn't 12:30 in Dallas at the time CE 741 was taken. As I said, I can't see which is the minute hand and which is the hour hand...but the two hands are definitely not aligned vertically, as they would be if the clock read 12:30.
Good grief!
Something of a side-issue, but........
Ms Reid would appear to be She Who Does Not Want To Be Named.
She is the only female in CE1381 whose first name is not given. And when asked her name at the top of her WC testimony, she gives it as "Mrs. Robert A. Reid", which is how she is referred to everywhere in the official documents (with one exception: interview report of Ms Pauline Sanders 11/24, where her name is spelled as 'Geraldine').
Kinda odd.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b0/a9/PeS6UfC9_o.jpg)
Friends, I invite you to read this closing portion of Ms Reid's WC testimony carefully. It's truly bizarre---------------------
Mr. DULLES. Yes. Attorney General Carr, do you have any questions?
Mr. CARR. Mrs. Reid, have you had occasion to visit with any of Oswald's relatives, his wife or mother?
Mrs. REID. No.
Mr. CARR. Have they been in there since that date to look over the premises?
Mrs. REID. His mother has been but I didn't see her. She didn't go any further than the first floor I understand, but I have never seen her other than these pictures.
Mr. DULLES. Is it usual for the employees of the depository to have friends visit them during office hours or would that be an unusual practice?
Mrs. REID. No; that would not be unusual. Family or somebody wanted to drop by to see you they never have objected to that.
Mr. BELIN. I think the record should show we are offering in evidence this morning, Mr. Dulles, Commission Exhibit 507 which is the diagram of the seventh floor which Officer Baker testified to.
Mr. DULLES. You want that admitted now?
Mr. BELIN. We want that admitted now.
Mr. DULLES. No objection. It will be admitted.
(The diagram referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 507 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. BELIN. I think those are all the questions we have of Mrs. Reid.
We want to thank you very much for your cooperation in coming up here, Mrs. Reid.
Mrs. REID. Thank you.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mrs. Reid.
I will tell the Chief Justice of your cooperation and helpfulness. We will reconvene at 2:30.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
What the hell just happened?
Mr. BELIN. I think the record should show we are offering in evidence this morning, Mr. Dulles, Commission Exhibit 507 which is the diagram of the seventh floor which Officer Baker testified to.
What is CE 507?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjCmzHnh/Screenshot-49.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Well what the hell does Mrs Reid have to do with the SEVENTH floor??
Nothing-----------and that's the point.
Attorney General Carr must have a reason for asking Ms Reid whether she has had communication post-assassination with either Ms Marina Oswald or Ms Marguerite Oswald. That's interesting. But what is MOST interesting is the speed with which Mr Dulles and Mr Belin close the line of questioning down
-------------------> Mr Dulles asks a question blatantly designed to lead the discussion off topic
-------------------> Mr Belin then helps him out by a) bringing up a piece of procedural nonsense from Officer Baker's testimony, b) announcing peremptorily that the questioning of Ms Reid is done with
What is it about Attorney General Carr's line of questioning that has them so worried?
Nothing-----------and that's the point.
Attorney General Carr must have a reason for asking Ms Reid whether she has had communication post-assassination with either Ms Marina Oswald or Ms Marguerite Oswald. That's interesting. But what is MOST interesting is the speed with which Mr Dulles and Mr Belin close the line of questioning down
-------------------> Mr Dulles asks a question blatantly designed to lead the discussion off topic
-------------------> Mr Belin then helps him out by a) bringing up a piece of procedural nonsense from Officer Baker's testimony, b) announcing peremptorily that the questioning of Ms Reid is done with
What is it about Attorney General Carr's line of questioning that has them so worried?
It definitely has the smell of a tag-team effort by Belin and Dulles to shut that line of questioning down.
Carr only asks a couple of questions before they side-line him.
Why would Carr suspect that Reid somehow knew the Oswalds personally? There is nothing I can see in Reid's testimony that would even hint at that.
Time for some wild speculation Thumb1:
I don't think Attorney General Carr is suggesting that she knew them personally in the sense of socially or anything like that, he more indicates that he has heard that Mrs Reid has had some contact with one of them since the assassination.
No way is he asking this question without having some specific reason for doing so. And the Dulles-Belin response is a real giveaway of---------------well, something...........?
Very, very odd!
I've read enough about Marguerite Oswald to know that if she had heard that Mrs Reid had encountered her son Lee just seconds after the shooting she would have gone to talk to Mrs Reid. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut, that Mamma Oswald sought out Mrs Reid.....
So Ms Reid is lying here?
Could there have been some preexisting animosity between Oswald and Mrs Reid that would be motive for Mrs Reid to conjure up a false story complete with added details of T-shirt and full coke, and entering rear door , walking slowly, mumbling.
IDK what Mrs Reid’s personal views were related to segregation and or rules of separation of workers and administration.
There is some other parts of her WC testimony where she relates looking up at the TSBD bldg after hearing 3 shots fired and seeing the “colored boys” of which 3 , she named James Jarman as one she recognized.
So this might indicate that Mrs Reid has a particular bias that would might put her and Oswald at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Especially even more pronounced because Oswald is
1. A self proclaimed Marxist
2. A USMC veteran who defected to To a communist country
3. Oswald routinely eats with those “colored boys”
4. Oswald often uses the 2nd floor lunchroom to actually eat his lunch , which would be breaking the rule Mrs Teid probably prefers of separate lunch rooms for 2nd floor Admin and worker 1st floor
Nevertheless, from Bakers and Trulys WC testimony neither saw anything in
Oswalds hands such as a bottle.
Well, as least after Baker scratched that part out of this affidavit.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aBTInu_OfUU/WV3x3uWqBAI/AAAAAAABMRw/_g6vClvxpJQpknWKuttxfSDWn9kT8geMQCLcBGAs/s1600/Marrion-Baker-9-23-64-Affidavit.png)
One has to wonder WHY Baker scratched out the "drinking a coke" entry.....???
One has to wonder WHY Baker scratched out the "drinking a coke" entry.....???
That's an easy one. Every second Oswald needed to work the machine and get the Coke out takes time away from the time he was supposed to have used to come down from the 6th floor.
Gentlemen,
Some encouraging reading, especially the spotlight focus upon the three (3) "witnesses" hedging their bets while trying to frame an innocent individual without fear of perjury upon further review by a much closer examination of their statements.
Of course, that lingering fear was forever lifted off Baker, Truly & Reid after the wrongly accused was dispatched to a status of permanent silenced. Thus the horse manure we are still dissecting today (a phantom 2nd floor encounter between Mr. Baker and Truly-nothing truly about him; Mrs. Reid's phony encounter of the same; and, of course, omitting the actual encounter of the wrongly accused on the first floor near the storage room).
Anyone who has any lingering doubts that Mrs. Reid isn't lying, please read Geneva Hines WC testimony, where she leaves little doubt that Mrs. Reid did not immediately return to the 2nd floor as she claimed...
Mr. BALL. When you came back in did you see Mrs. Reid?
Miss HINE. No, sir; I don't believe there was a soul in the office when I came back in right then.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody else go in through there?
Miss HINE. No, sir; after I answered the telephone then there was about four or five people that came in.
Mr. BALL. Was there anybody in that room when you came back in and went to the telephone?
Miss HINE. No, sir
396
In fact, Mrs. Hine observes Mrs. Reid come in with a group of five to six others.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Mrs. Reid come back in?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I think I felt sure that I did. I thought that there were five or six that came in together. I thought she was one of those.
Now, it gets even more interesting, because the only way Mrs. Reid could have seen the wrongly accused is Mrs. Hine was in position to vouch for it, but she doesn't ---->
Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald come in?
Miss HINE. My back would have been to the door he was supposed to have come in at.
Mr. BALL. Were you facing the door he is supposed to have left by?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you recall seeing him?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
An honest to goodness answer. The wrongly accused wasn't anywhere near that office, let alone in that office on the 2nd floor in spite of Baker, Truly & Mrs. Reid's hastily contrived horse manure to frame an innocent man.
A genuine closer examination into Roy Truly's actual activities that afternoon would further shed some light to dispel the prevailing five decades old myth about a lone gunman and a satchel of magic bullets (please excuse the eye-roll).
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.
Cat got your tongue, Mr. Truly?! Cannot answer or won't answer?! Pleading the 5th, Mr. Truly?!
*Why was Roy Truly in the sniper's nest before the spent shells were found?
*Given his early return to work upon the upper floors, Did Jack Dougherty encounter Roy Truly on the 6th floor prior to the motorcades arrival?
*Why does Roy Truly want the whole world to think/believe that Jack Dougherty is a bit feeble minded? Did Jack Dougherty inadvertently come upon his boss planting a rifle and/or spent shell casings?
Anyone who has any lingering doubts that Mrs. Reid isn't lying, please read Geneva Hines WC testimony, where she leaves little doubt that Mrs. Reid did not immediately return to the 2nd floor as she claimed...
I'm not one to sugar coat a fact.....But Don't you think that using the term "lying" is a bit strong when applied to Mrs Reid's "office gossip"..... I sincerely doubt that Mrs Reid was being malicious, when she claimed that the killer had walked right past her just minutes after the murder. She was merely trying to impress her fellow workers...... But once the conspirators realized that they could use her, they wouldn't let her recant.
Gentlemen,
Some encouraging reading, especially the spotlight focus upon the three (3) "witnesses" hedging their bets while trying to frame an innocent individual without fear of perjury upon further review by a much closer examination of their statements.
Of course, that lingering fear was forever lifted off Baker, Truly & Reid after the wrongly accused was dispatched to a status of permanent silenced. Thus the horse manure we are still dissecting today (a phantom 2nd floor encounter between Mr. Baker and Truly-nothing truly about him; Mrs. Reid's phony encounter of the same; and, of course, omitting the actual encounter of the wrongly accused on the first floor near the storage room).
Anyone who has any lingering doubts that Mrs. Reid isn't lying, please read Geneva Hines WC testimony, where she leaves little doubt that Mrs. Reid did not immediately return to the 2nd floor as she claimed...
Mr. BALL. When you came back in did you see Mrs. Reid?
Miss HINE. No, sir; I don't believe there was a soul in the office when I came back in right then.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody else go in through there?
Miss HINE. No, sir; after I answered the telephone then there was about four or five people that came in.
Mr. BALL. Was there anybody in that room when you came back in and went to the telephone?
Miss HINE. No, sir
396
In fact, Mrs. Hine observes Mrs. Reid come in with a group of five to six others.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Mrs. Reid come back in?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I think I felt sure that I did. I thought that there were five or six that came in together. I thought she was one of those.
Now, it gets even more interesting, because the only way Mrs. Reid could have seen the wrongly accused is Mrs. Hine was in position to vouch for it, but she doesn't ---->
Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald come in?
Miss HINE. My back would have been to the door he was supposed to have come in at.
Mr. BALL. Were you facing the door he is supposed to have left by?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you recall seeing him?
Miss HINE. No, sir.
An honest to goodness answer. The wrongly accused wasn't anywhere near that office, let alone in that office on the 2nd floor in spite of Baker, Truly & Mrs. Reid's hastily contrived horse manure to frame an innocent man.
Lest we forget, only one single person claims he saw Roy Truly near the backstairs in the same WC timing sequence as the phony dash up the backstairs to embellish a phantom encounter with the wrongly accused. Only one single person.
The problem here is that that lone single person does not put Baker w/Roy Truly during that timing sequence ---->
Mr. BALL. You mentioned you saw Truly?
Mr. PIPER. I don’t know whether it was a policeman or FBI or who it was,
but another fellow was with him.
Mr. PIPER. He ran in and yelled, “Where is the elevator?” And I said, “I
don’t know, sir, Mr. Truly.”
They taken off and went on up the stairway and that’s all I know about
that.
IF Baker was with Roy Truly he would have not been mistaken for a mere policeman instead of a unmistakable motorcycle policeman in white helmet with long black boots, nor mistaken as an agent with the FBI or "another fellow". I will only concede that at some point that yes, Baker & Truly were together at some point, but certainly not in the timing sequence of the horse manure hastily contrived to invent a phantom encounter w/the wrongly accused.
Okay, Mr. Cakebread, fair enough. I retract my strong sentiments that she outright lied, and consider perhaps she simply wished to place herself into the major story of the day. No harm, no foul...guess it's a bit of human nature.
The wrongly accused was framed.
No sniper actually waiting in ambush on the 6th floor facing forward would have known Mr. Jarman (Junior) and his companion, Norman, reentered the building from the rear. The wrongly accused witnessed their entrance in the rear of the building way down on the first floor because he was not in the front of the building up on the 6th floor.
The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
Because Mrs Reid has made a very early FBI statement of having seen Oswald in the 2nd floor office very soon AFTER shots fired,
Mr. BELIN. Did you know his name on the day you saw him?
Mrs. REID. No; I did not. When I saw his picture I still didn't know his name until they told us who it was.
So.................how could Mrs Reid have been telling co-workers so soon after the assassination all about having seen 'Oswald'?
By 2:00pm Lee Oswald's name had been broadcast .....
She says she didn't learn his name until after being shown his picture. Who showed her his picture?
Mrs. REIIL No; very seldom unless they are sent up there to get something.
I mean they just don’t come in there and wander around. It is some business
for them.
Now, I did see him in the lunchroom a few times prior to this eating his lunch
but I didn’t even know his name.
Mr. BELIN. Did you know his name on the day you saw him?
Mrs. REILL No; I did not. When I saw his picture I still didn’t know his
name until they told us who it was.
Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald
on the second floor?
Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.
Mr. BJCLIN. You mean the picture with the name Dee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.
Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?
Mrs. Rum. Other than that day, sure.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. Rw. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind
This testimony is rubbish..... Mrs Reid's coworkers or Roy Truly would have described lee to her when Truly was looking for Lee.
She wouldn't have needed to see a picture to know .....
You're just making that up, Mr Cakebread.
Fact is, Mrs Reid's own testimony rules out her having told her co-workers in the office so soon after the assassination about having seen 'Oswald'.
You're just making that up, Mr Cakebread.
Fact is, Mrs Reid's own testimony rules out her having told her co-workers in the office so soon after the assassination about having seen 'Oswald'.
No "her" testimony does not rule out that she told her co-workers that the "killer" had walked right by her just minutes after the murder......
I'd like to endorse your idea, but the truth is we don't know WHEN Mrs Reid first became familiar with Lee Oswald, ( learned his name) Lee had been employed at he TSBD for over a month, and Mrs Reid said that Lee had came to her desk to get change for the Coke machine... It would be unusual if she hadn't enquired about the man who was coming to her desk and asking for change.
It was the DPD affidavit on Nov 23/63 that is the “early “ statement by Reid.
Correct! Thumb1:
Had Mrs Reid been telling everyone about having seen "Oswald" just after the shooting, she would not have been treated like just another office worker and let home 2pm-2:30pm. The fact that this supposedly key witness isn't brought down to City Hall to give an affidavit until the next day speaks for itself.
That Reid was telling her co-workers about her encounter with Oswald is confirmed by Karen Westbrook Scranton in her Oral History interview.
She doesn't need to know his name - "I saw that scrawny loser...etc."
But why is she talking about such an innocuous event. The president has been shot and she's talking about passing some creep holding a coke. Why?
Incorrect :-[
Key witnesses such as Geneva Hine, Harold Norman and Junior Jarman weren't taken down to City Hall that day.
Fanciful
It's like the question, 'Why does Officer Baker, rushing to get to the top of the building, take a time-wasting detour off the second floor landing to check out a guy who happens to be on the far side of a door but then later amazingly turns out to have been Mr Prime Suspect?'
And it has the same answer: It never happened. Mr Truly put Mrs Reid up to it.
Ms Hine, Mr Norman and Mr Jarman have one thing in common: they make no claim of having seen Evil Mr Oswald near the time of the motorcade.
And I suggest you read the affidavit Mr Jarman does give the following day!
The reason Reid is talking about such a seemingly innocent event is because it has become common knowledge amongst those trapped inside the TSBD that Oswald is being sought after.
Carolyn Arnold claims to have seen Patsy Oswald near the time of the motorcade.
She isn't hauled in either.
Fanciful
It's like the question, 'Why does Officer Baker, rushing to get to the top of the building, take a time-wasting detour off the second floor landing to check out a guy who happens to be on the far side of a door but then later amazingly turns out to have been Mr Prime Suspect?'
And it has the same answer: It never happened. Mr Truly put Mrs Reid up to it.
Go and check out the Scranton interview.
There's nothing 'fanciful' about it.
You would just like to wish it away.
It's not even remotely similar.
The reason Reid is talking about such a seemingly innocent event is because it has become common knowledge amongst those trapped inside the TSBD that Oswald is being sought after.
Why else mention it?
You don't have one scrap of evidence for this assertion.
It's your own invented opinion.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/87/8f/lStJS04J_o.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/98/7d/9BFbKhxt_o.jpg)
Gentlemen,
First, certainly appreciate Mr. O'meara's sentiments that he does not believe the wrongly accused fired any shots that fateful afternoon. Hear! hear!
Now, getting back to whether or not Mrs. Hine's decision to move away from her desk momentarily gave Mrs. Reid an opportunity to engage the wrongly accused before Mrs. Hine ventured back to field all those incoming phone calls, let's now take Mr. Williams' following statement into account ----->
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338166/m1/1/
For Mrs. Reid to have returned inside the building immediately as she claims, here are a couple of fair questions:
*Why didn't Mr. Williams (Otis) see her as he returned to his office?
Moreover...
*Why didn't Mr. Williams see Mrs. Reid when he returned to the stairwell for a 2nd time to now head up to the 4th floor to get a better view of the assassination aftermath?
There's no question that Mrs. Reid saw the wrongly accused, she just moved the instance up a flight of stairs far removed from the small storage room on the first floor.
"Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We had been outside
watching the parade. We saw him [Oswald] in a small storage room on
the ground floor." -- Texas School Book Depository VP Ochus V. Campbell, courtesy of the New York Herald
Lest we forget, Mrs. Hine's names Mrs. Reid as a member of the group she observed accompanied by Mr. Campbell's returning party upstairs ---->
Mr. BALL. Who were they?
Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Jlolina (spelling). Miss Martha Reid, Mrs.
Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.
Again, the challenge here for Mrs. Reid's phantom encounter w/the wrongly accused is to explain away how she didn't cross paths with Mr. Williams (not once, but twice).
There's no question that Mrs. Reid saw the wrongly accused, she just moved the instance up a flight of stairs far removed from the small storage room on the first floor.
I disagree.....I seriously doubt that Mrs Reid encountered Lee Oswald anywhere after the shots were fired. I know that Lee told the interrogators that he returned to the first floor lunchroom, to finish his lunch after he purchased a Coke from the 2nd floor vending machine. And I seriously doubt that he took a detour through the office area ....Though not specifically stated Lee's statement to the interrogators, implies that he went directly to the first floor lunchroom before going outside..... Depending on how much time Lee spent in the 1st floor lunchroom after he brought his coke down to eat with his lunch....It's entirely possible that Mrs Reid could have encountered Lee at the front door of the TSBD.
Okay, Mr. Cakebread, fair enough. Perhaps Mr. Campbell's specific word usage describing "we" saw him in a first floor storage room meant he was only referencing other members in his party's return inside the building besides Mrs. Reid.
I'm all for your option, quote, It's entirely possible that Mrs Reid could have encountered Lee at the front door of the TSBD. Anything that puts the wrongly accused anywhere near where he said he was is okay by me.
It's entirely possible that Lee's interest was piqued by the sudden appearance of Baker and Truly and he wanted to get outside to see what the hell was happening..... He could have dashed to the Domino room and gulped the rest of his sandwich and then headed for the door with the coke in his hand... And that could be where Mrs Reid saw him. I don't believe that Mrs Reid saw him in the office area... and she might have confessed to that bit of BS if the bastards on LBJ's cover up committee hadn't forced her to stick to the gossip tale she had started.
Gentlemen,
First, certainly appreciate Mr. O'meara's sentiments that he does not believe the wrongly accused fired any shots that fateful afternoon. Hear! hear!
Now, getting back to whether or not Mrs. Hine's decision to move away from her desk momentarily gave Mrs. Reid an opportunity to engage the wrongly accused before Mrs. Hine ventured back to field all those incoming phone calls, let's now take Mr. Williams' following statement into account ----->
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338166/m1/1/
For Mrs. Reid to have returned inside the building immediately as she claims, here are a couple of fair questions:
*Why didn't Mr. Williams (Otis) see her as he returned to his office?
Moreover...
*Why didn't Mr. Williams see Mrs. Reid when he returned to the stairwell for a 2nd time to now head up to the 4th floor to get a better view of the assassination aftermath?
There's no question that Mrs. Reid saw the wrongly accused, she just moved the instance up a flight of stairs far removed from the small storage room on the first floor.
"Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We had been outside
watching the parade. We saw him [Oswald] in a small storage room on
the ground floor." -- Texas School Book Depository VP Ochus V. Campbell, courtesy of the New York Herald
Lest we forget, Mrs. Hine's names Mrs. Reid as a member of the group she observed accompanied by Mr. Campbell's returning party upstairs ---->
Mr. BALL. Who were they?
Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Jlolina (spelling). Miss Martha Reid, Mrs.
Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.
Again, the challenge here for Mrs. Reid's phantom encounter w/the wrongly accused is to explain away how she didn't cross paths with Mr. Williams (not once, but twice).
Last thought today gentlemen as I wish all who may pass this way best wishes to remain well, safe & healthy amid the ongoing pandemic challenges we all face.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you park your car?
Mr. SAWYER. In front of the Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. In front of the main entrance there?
Mr. SAWYER. In front of the main entrance.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately went into-well, talked to some of the officers
around there who told me the story that they had thought some shots had
come from one of the floors in the building, and I think the fifth floor was
mentioned, but nobody seemed to know who the shots were directed at or what
had actually happened, except there had been a shooting there at the time
the President’s motorcade had gone by.
And I went with a couple of officers and a man who I believed worked in
the building. The elevator was just to the right of the main entrance, and we
went to the top floor, which was pointed out to me by this other man as being
the floor that we were talking about. We had talked about the fifth floor.
And we went back to the storage area and looked around and didn’t see
anything.
Mr. BELIN. Now you took an elevator up, is that correct?
Mr. SAWYER. That’s right.
Mr. BELIN. The route that you took to the elevator, you went to the front
door?
Mr. SAWYER. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. We got into the elevator. We run into this man.
Mr. BELIN. Well, when you say you got into the elevator, where was the
elevator as you walked in the front door?
Mr. SAWYER. It was to the right.
Mr. BELIN. To the right?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Was it a freight elevator or a passenger elevator?
Mr. SAWYER. The best of my recollection, it was a passenger elevator.
Mr. BELXN. Did you push for the top button in that elevator?
Mr. SAWYEB. Well, I don’t know who pushed it, but we went up to the top
floor.
Mr. BELIN. You went up to the top
Interesting how quickly Mr. Belin steers the subject matter far and away from the mystery man who comes to Inspector Sawyer's aid. Also interesting that this man just so happens to be right by the small storage room, the passenger elevator and stairwell there. Given the timing sequence (12:34PM) of Inspector Sawyer's statement, it's clear there is a good reason to avoid identifying this mystery man for the record. After all, according to a hastily contrived script, wasn't he suppose to be on a phantom bus ride, cab ride, etc. to be elsewhere for a phantom encounter at 10th & Patton across town?
When one reviews every other male TSBD employee statements/activities/whereabouts around this specific timeline no one else can account for being in this specific position near those stairs and the passenger elevator, which just so happens, you guessed it, right there in close proximity of the small first floor storage room.
The wrongly accused was framed. The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
What's on your mind, Mr. Frazier?
Trying your best to discreetly come clean sir?
Why did Mrs Reid put Mr Oswald in a white tshirt? I mean, if she's trying to help her boss, Mr Truly, then this makes no sense, right?
Wrong! A description of Mr Oswald's clothing during the (fictional) lunchroom encounter is notably missing from ALL of Mr Truly's accounts. He had, of course, encountered Mr Oswald (along with Officer Baker) at the front entrance just after the shots, but must have had no clear recollection afterwards of what he was wearing during this fleeting encounter. And so, when telling his unfortunate puppet Mrs Reid what to put on Mr Oswald, he went with the white tshirt Mr Oswald usually wore while at work.
Meanwhile, Officer Baker had gone on the record about a man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up wearing a light brown jacket! :D
That's exactly what he's doing
(https://images2.imgbox.com/87/8f/lStJS04J_o.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/98/7d/9BFbKhxt_o.jpg)
Item A! Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" AFTER buying a coke in the second floor lunchroom and returning down to one
Item B! A mysterious, impossible shadow down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film
Item C! A figure by the western wall of the doorway in Wiegman and Darnell
What do those who refuse to accept Item A all have in common? They remain flummoxed by Items B & C!
What do those who remain flummoxed by Items B & C all have in common? They ignore Item A!
Thumb1:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/cc/d9/7Sqsx4pY_o.jpg)
Now read that last paragraph again, only this time bearing in mind a simple fact: Mr Robert Reid's wife was Mrs Robert A. Reid, a.k.a. Jeraldean Reid
Notice anything?
It's good to see (~snippety snip snip~)
So when Baker and Truly were cooking up they're
fake hoax 2nd floor encounter
they didn't get together on silly little details like the actual appearance of their made-up man. Hmmmm....
You seem to be suggesting that there was no contact whatsoever between Truly and Baker after the day of the assassination and they had to come up with their story there and then in it's final form...
...or were they provided with the story by the FBI but Reid wasn't at the the meeting and gave an incorrect description of Oswald's clothing...
...or was Reid the mastermind as, according to Scranton Westbrook, she is the first one to reveal details concerning the phony fake hoax 2nd floor encounter, telling her co-workers about Oswald before Baker had written his report...
...or....get ready for this...was it Oswald?
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I'd love to know what fantasy the Tinfoil Twins have spun for these images.
At a guess I'm going to go way out there and suggest that Frazier's sneaky finger pointing is meant to demonstrate to those in the know (and only these 'chosen ones') that Oswald was Prayer Man ;D
Obviously, what I'm suggesting is completely bananas, totally hat-stand, absolutely crackers but I have a feeling I might be onto something.
Yes, I believe Mr Frazier is pointing to the exact Prayer Man spot for a reason
I seem to remember your using similarly mocking language in response to my entirely reasonable observation that the shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman is not natural. How did that work out for you?
Thumb1:
it Was a question early on about why BWF did not apparently see PM/Oswald and the answer then was it was because PM was behind Frazier while in that corner.
Then when Mytton pointed out that PM was only 5’3” it seemed to be implausible PM was Oswald anyway.
Then the idea that PM could be the 5’-4” height Sarah Stanton, was floated , which at the time Stantons location was in question having moved away from Pauline Sanders as there did not apoear to be a fat woman there blocking the east side entrance door.
That seems to been resolved now as Stanton is the Fluffy White Shirt Person with both hands raised to shade the face. Which person previously had been thought to be Joe Molina.
with this newly (discovered?) image in the 1st print Altgens photo 6 in which it appears there is a forearm raised and a bottle in hand, ,this means it’s probably PM stepping down to be IN FRONT of BWF, not to mention also Billy Lovelady,
So what does Mr.Mytton, the resident defender of the WC theory have to say about all this as there does seem
Be a noticeable absence of an LN rebuttal to this thread, which I hope is not due to simply dismissing the issue because Zeon is agreeing with Mr. Ford :)
I agreed that there was something odd about it and I still do.
Unlike you I've not woven some fantastical tale out of it.
It's more than odd, it's proof that the film was altered. You think they did this for esthetic reasons? Just how desperate are you to keep Mr Oswald off those steps?
Well how about you weave a 'non-fantastical' tale out of it then, i.e. suggest a non-Oswald-related reason why a physically impossible shadow runs down Mr Lovelady. Can you do that, Mr O'Meara?
There is no impossible shadow.
He is simply turned side-on to Wiegman.
I love the way you offer your new Anatomically Impossible Explanation with the very same cool assurance with which you used to offer your old Geometrically Impossible Explanation................
(https://images2.imgbox.com/0d/34/3GR4TKDe_o.jpg)
Best of luck contorting Mr Lovelady's body in such a way as to explain this image :D
Then the idea that PM could be the 5’-4” height Sarah Stanton, was floated, which at the time Stantons location was in question having moved away from Pauline Sanders as there did not apoear to be a fat woman there blocking the east side entrance door.
That seems to been resolved now as Stanton is the Fluffy White Shirt Person with both hands raised to shade the face. Which person previously had been thought to be Joe Molina
It's more than odd, it's proof that the film was altered. You think they did this for esthetic reasons? Just how desperate are you to keep Mr Oswald off those steps?
Well how about you weave a 'non-fantastical' tale out of it then, i.e. suggest a non-Oswald-related reason why a physically impossible shadow runs down Mr Lovelady. Can you do that, Mr O'Meara?
Thumb1:
:D :D :D
The whole Stanton as Prayer Man conspiracy was totally ridiculous. A 300+ pound fat woman with white hair did not even come close to looking like the Prayer Man figure who has black hair with a receding hairline. Plus Buell Frazier never had her standing to his right and she immediately went inside the building to go upstairs after she heard the shots.
It's a blown-up, distorted image of Lovelady turned side-on but looking towards the camera.
:D :D :D
The whole Stanton as Prayer Man conspiracy was totally ridiculous. A 300+ pound fat woman with white hair did not even come close to looking like the Prayer Man figure who has black hair with a receding hairline. Plus Buell Frazier never had her standing to his right and she immediately went inside the building to go upstairs after she heard the shots.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qBLX2dmn/stanton-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Sure looks fat to me.
As for white hair I assume you're talking about this pic:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0XNKBwp/Stanton-Pic.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Stanton was 41 at the time of the assassination.
The woman in the pic looks like she's in her sixties.
Lol.....
(https://images2.imgbox.com/65/74/2xv9O0cz_o.jpg)
What you claim is anatomically ludicrous, just the way your earlier 'solution' ('It's shadow from the west column, duh') was geometrically ludicrous, just the way your 'solution' to Prayer Man ('Sarah Stanton') was Doylistically ludicrous. Anytime LHO-On-The-Steps comes up, your rational faculties seem to desert you, Mr O'Meara
Thumb1:
"Anytime LHO-On-The-Steps comes up, your rational faculties seem to desert you, Mr O'Meara"
I notice you've dodged the pic of Lovelady's sleeve which blows your "Oswald enjoying a soda at the time of the assassination" theory out of the water.
Thanks for acknowledging I have rational faculties.
I can't see any images you've been posting, Mr O'Meara. Any chance you could use Imgbox?
Haven't you just responded to some images I posted.
The post in question is Reply#1428
You mean the post where you called the earliest public version of Altgens 'doctored' and a later public version 'proper'? Lol
Now, how about you contort Mr Lovelady's body so as to yield what we see here------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/65/74/2xv9O0cz_o.jpg)
Best of luck! :D
Once you've explained how Lovelady's sleeve has it's check pattern on it when you insist the arm belongs to Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5jkWmKg/lovelady3-2.jpg)
You're going to need a lot more than luck with that. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qBLX2dmn/stanton-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Sure looks fat to me.
As for white hair I assume you're talking about this pic:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0XNKBwp/Stanton-Pic.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Stanton was 41 at the time of the assassination.
The woman in the pic looks like she's in her sixties.
Any chance her hair was a different colour when she was twenty years younger?
Also, note the hairline.
~Grin~
Thanks for waving the white flag, Mr O'Meara.
We all know that if you really could think of a Lovelady contortion to explain this 'shadow' you'd be falling over yourself to let us know:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/65/74/2xv9O0cz_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
According to her family, this picture was taken just a few years after the assassination happened. Her relatives confirmed Stanton had light hair and weighed well over 300 pounds on the day of the assassination. The Prayer Man in no way resembles a 300+ pound fat woman with light hair.
Do you actually think the Prayer Man is well over 300 pounds like Stanton was?
Buell Frazier stated on several occasions that Sarah Stanton was standing to his left. He never said once that she was to his right. Frazier said he was standing outside just a few minutes before the motorcade passed by.
How would Stanton be able to move all the way over to Frazier's extreme right in just a few seconds time while he was still in mid conversation with her?
I think the figure in the corner looks fat.
Do you think it looks like scrawny Oswald?
PS: Wiegman makes it clear Frazier was not stood outside when the motorcade passed by.
He shows up in Darnell but not Wiegman. Ignore what he says about being outside in his testimony.
Note at about 53.27 Frazier states the lady on top step is to his left.......Interestingly Gary Maxk then asks was there anyone up there with camera!
Correct.
Buell Frazier always stated a lady (Stanton) was to his left. He never said she was to his extreme right or that she ever moved from his left side to move far to his right.
The Prayer figure is not Stanton.
So, are you on the record stating that Buell Frazier is a discredited witness?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there.
Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail.
Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I stood there until the parade come by.
Mr. BALL - Did you see the President go by?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did.
I'm on the record as stating a fact.
Frazier puts himself at the top of the front entrance steps by the rail as the 'parade' goes by. Weigman proves, beyond question, that this is not the case.
I'm on the record as stating a fact.
Frazier puts himself at the top of the front entrance steps by the rail as the 'parade' goes by. Weigman proves, beyond question, that this is not the case.
You're the one waving the white flag Mr Ford.
Explain the sleeve.
If its not Stanton and its not Oswald, who is it?
If its not Stanton and its not Oswald, who is it?
The fact that Ms Stanton is STILL the sorry best Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps can come up with is kinda telling, isn't it? Thumb1:
I had no idea there were other Stanton fans out there.
They want to take a man pictured in the photograph and claim it's a 300+ pound woman. :D
Stanton's own testimony refutes their absurd claim.
I disagree. Frazier's location is in a deep shadow in Wiegman. Just because you can't see him doesn't mean he's not there.
What exactly do you think needs explaining, Mr O'Meara?
Just for the record Rick, I'd like to point out something I said in Reply #514
"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."
The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.
Frazier puts himself at the front of the landing, one step down at the time the motorcade passes by. This is not in deep shadow:
Back in the day you believed the "impossible shadow" was put there to cover up Bill Shelley and you very deceptively used shaky frames from Wiegman to show Shelley was stood behind Lovelady when it was just a double exposure of Lovelady's head.
Then you changed your tune.
You have insisted the arm in Altgens 6 was Arnold's and then Oswald's arm holding a coke. How, then, can you explain that the arm in question has the check pattern on it we see on the rest of Lovelady's shirt
A mundane explanation of this would be that its the sleeve of Lovelady's shirt. That's why it seems to be connected to his shoulder and is the same pattern as the rest of his shirt.
I had no idea there were other Stanton fans out there.
They want to take a man pictured in the photograph and claim it's a 300+ pound woman. :D
Stanton's own testimony refutes their absurd claim.
There are facts, and then there are speculative attempts to account for these facts.
a) Impossible Shadow Down Mr Lovelady In Wiegman = Fact
b) Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact = Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact
I have been unwavering about a), open to a range of possibilities for b).
You are still in denial about a)
Lol
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6b/91/XeV4pAaH_o.gif)
Just for the record Rick, I'd like to point out something I said in Reply #514
"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."
The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5jkWmKg/lovelady3-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You dare talk about denial while you refuse to explain Lovelady's shirt sleeve in this detailed Altgens pic
If it makes no difference to you, then why do you keep making absurd claims that Stanton is the Prayer Man, when it's obviously not, by just looking at the size of the figure?
"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."
The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.
Not sure why you are taking offense at my comment.
You and a couple of others made the false claim that Sarah Stanton is the Prayer Man. One crackpot goes as far to say he has "proven it's Stanton" but can only provide bogus claims for his "so called evidence". When you make a hefty claim as that, you need to provide specific evidence to back up that claim. Not vague references, fabrications, and dismissals as your "evidence".
Each time I pose a question asking that specific individual how Sarah Stanton was able to be in the Prayer Man position when she was identified on the opposite side, I never get a real answer from that person. I get the same responses as yours, which feigned indignation and my question always is ignored. The reason? That person has no answer to for their failed claim.
It's a simple question to answer. How was Stanton able to get in the Prayer Man position (as you claim) when she was on the opposite side? All I get is continued obfuscation and no real answer whenever I ask someone who claims Stanton is the Prayer Man.
Yes, the Sarah Stanton claim has been debunked and I took part in that debunking.
Being a "newbie" has nothing to do with it. You don't even have to know one thing about the assassination. I've asked people that don't know anything about JFK to look at the photo and tell me if they think the Prayer Man is a 300+ pound woman aka Sarah Stanton. They all say "no" and they believe it's a male figure due to the head and receding hairline.
You can explore all the possibilities you want, but you need to back that up with solid evidence, and when that evidence debunks the claim it's time to face the facts that "possibility" is now debunked.
Now Buell Frazier, Pauline Sanders, and Sarah Stanton herself all place her on the opposite side. Sarah Stanton in her FBI testimony never places herself in the Prayer Man position. Are you going to disregard her testimony?
Obviously you do care because you're very upset over it.
The fact of the matter is, certain people don't want the Prayer Man to be Lee Harvey Oswald, so they use Sarah Stanton as a "stand in" to claim it's not Oswald.
These same people use the "either or" argument. They say it has to either be Oswald or Stanton for their failed claim and they refuse to acknowledge that it can be another unknown person standing there.
If it makes no difference to you, then why do you keep making absurd claims that Stanton is the Prayer Man, when it's obviously not, by just looking at the size of the figure? The person in the photo is not a 300+ pound woman no matter how hard you try to push for it to be.
And on top of that, Stanton's daughter in law and granddaughter are on audio confirming that Stanton was "huge" at that time. She couldn't get out of the backseat of a car at a funeral because she was so big. That description does not fit the size of the Prayer Man because the Prayer Man in the photo is not "huge" well over 300+ pounds.
I think the mystery man was Bill Shelley:
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; Mr. Truly left me guarding the elevator, not to let anybody up and down the elevator or stairway and some plainclothesmen came in; I don't know whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what but they wanted me to take them upstairs, so we went up and started searching the various floors.
Yeah Rick,
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
My reply included a post from ages ago (reply#524) that explained my stance on Stanton.
You seem to have taken it as if it was meant for you personally.
It's not.
Baker says in his testimony that he & Roy Truly were atop the roof for between 5 & 10 minutes. Yet Baker claims he saw Inspector Sawyer...
Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.
Mr. DULLES - City of Dallas Police?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. And he was on, I really didn't notice which floor he was on, but that is the first thing I saw as we descended how this freight elevator
Setting aside the timing issue momentarily..................
Inspector Sawyer will soon be broadcasting the following on Channel 2:
"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's still there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."
Let's take each element in turn.....................
"It's unknown whether he's still there or not": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen running out the back door of the Depository. Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.
"It's unknown whether he was there in the first place": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen firing from one of the Depository windows (by e.g. Mr Howard Brennan). (I am assuming here that "in the first place" means at the the actual time shots were fired.) Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.
One would very much like to suggest that the true source was none other than Officer Marrion Baker, whose affidavit description of the man caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor is SO close to the suspect description that went out over Channel 2. One would furthermore like to suggest that Officer Baker mentioned this man to Inspector Sawyer during their brief rendezvous on the "third or fourth floor" (!).
However! What doesn't fit here is that the Channel 2 description mentions that the man was "carrying what looked to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester"....................
It's possible that Inspector Sawyer COMBINED what he heard from Officer Baker (description of man) with what a different witness or officer told him a little earlier or later (description of rifle-------and only of rifle--------seen at time of shooting). The carrying-a-rifle part might simply be Inspector Sawyer's joining of these two dots. His otherwise perplexing uncertainty as to whether THIS man was EITHER in the building at the time OR still in the building now might be explained by just such a joining of the dots.
I'm on the record as stating a fact.
Frazier puts himself at the top of the front entrance steps by the rail as the 'parade' goes by. Weigman proves, beyond question, that this is not the case.
Actually, you're stating a falsehood. Weigman doesn't "prove" anything because Buell Frazier wasn't visible due to the darkness of the shadows.
Looks like you left out this important information Mr. O'meara.
BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Well Dan, members usually don't copy and paste a reply that was addressed to another member from several months ago (October 4, 2020) in their current reply (March 11, 2021) to a different member which has nothing to do with the current discussion. There's no point to that especially when you replied to my post that was directed at Mr. Ford.
And still you haven't answered any of my questions or provided a single shred of evidence for your bogus Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man claim.
Just read the post Rick. It's fairly self -evident and you were wrong to go off half-cocked about it.
It was your mistake, not mine.
The only claim I'm making as far as Stanton is concerned is that the case for her being Prayer Man is far superior to the case for it being Oswald. Stanton is known to have been on the top landing as was witnessed there by others. This alone makes her case superior.
There is not one scrap of evidence for Oswald being on the top step - literally nothing. But this does not deter some researchers from pushing this BS: with an almost evangelical zeal. I made the mistake of questioning it and was immediately attacked and I'm not having it.
Earlier in the thread you posted this:
"They want to take a man pictured in the photograph and claim it's a 300+ pound woman. "
What "man" were you referring to?
Above is a still from the Wiegman film. Frazier is nowhere to be seen.
There is no "superior case" for Stanton being the Prayer Man because she never placed herself there, other witnesses don't place her there, her family already said PM wasn't her, and her physical appearance automatically disqualifies her.
And you still never told me how Stanton was able to appear in your "claimed location" when she was standing on the opposite side confirmed by two witnesses. How did she get there?
Well, when you try to make a hefty claim with no evidence then you should expect some pushback from researchers.
See, your goal is to keep Oswald out as a potential candidate at any cost, so you try to throw a 300+ pound fat woman into the mix by pretending she is the Prayer Man. That's why your claim is ridiculous. Plus you never can offer any real evidence for your claim because there isn't any.
The unknown man who is standing there that isn't Sarah Stanton.
Evidence that points to the possibility of Stanton being on the west side of the entrance steps at some point:
1) Billy Lovelady's CE 1381:
"At the time the Presidential Motorcade passed the
Depository building heading west on Elm Street, I was standing
on the top step to the far right against the wall of the
entranceway to the Texas School Book Depository.
At this time I recall that William H Shelley, who resides at
128 South Tatum, Dallas, and Mrs Sarah Stanton, also of
Dallas, Texas, both of whom are likewise employed by the
Texas School Book Depository, were standing next to me."
As the President passes by Lovelady has himself positioned by the far west wall of the entranceway. In this clip from the Hughes footage it is possible to make out Lovelady by the far west wall as the President passes by:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyvvksPP/hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Lovelady is clearly placing Stanton on the west side of the entranceway.
2) Stanton's CE 1381
"...I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time."
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqwyXCQS/Altgens6-Corbisr-Crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It is clear from Altgens 6 that anyone standing on the east side of the entranceway has a clear view of the motorcade as the shots are being fired. Only someone standing closer to the west wall would not have this clear line of sight. Stanton appears to be saying it was not possible for her to see the President's car at the moment of the shots - "I could not see"
3) This interview with Frazier.
@ 51:10 in this interview:
“...a lady come by and she was crying, ‘cause she had been down by the sidewalk, somewhere down toward the triple underpass and she come by and she said, “They have shot the President”.
And so, Sarah, the lady I was standing by up on the top step back in the shadows...we looked at one another, and we really didn’t have a lot to say, we just listened to what the lady told us…”
Frazier identifies Sarah as being on the top step standing back in the shadows. People on the east side of the front steps are not standing in shadow. Only someone on the west side would be described as standing “back in the shadows.”
In this still from Darnell Frazier is clearly seen but where is Stanton?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tggWS3jc/Darnell-Enhanced-Blog.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Obviously there is Pauline Sanders statement that Stanton was on the east side of the entranceway and in other interviews Frazier seems to indicate Sarah was to his left. The common sense approach to all this evidence is that Stanton moved from the east side to the west as the motorcade approached.
He mentions Ms Stanton because he can see her in the Altgens photograph-------------she's the lady from the second floor he points out to Mr Dom Bonafede.
Extraordinary that these long-discredited garbage Doyle arguments are being advanced by someone who purports to be a serious student of the case!
Evidence that points to the possibility of Stanton being on the west side of the entrance steps at some point:
1) Billy Lovelady's CE 1381:
"At the time the Presidential Motorcade passed the
Depository building heading west on Elm Street, I was standing
on the top step to the far right against the wall of the
entranceway to the Texas School Book Depository.
At this time I recall that William H Shelley, who resides at
128 South Tatum, Dallas, and Mrs Sarah Stanton, also of
Dallas, Texas, both of whom are likewise employed by the
Texas School Book Depository, were standing next to me."
2) Stanton's CE 1381
"...I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time."
Would you agree that "next to me" could literally be in any direction?
Would you agree that there is not enough information to determine (without guessing) why she could not see the car?
She could not see the limo at the time of the shots because it was not possible for her to see the limo at the time of the shots. This is not the case for anyone stood on the east side of the steps.
OMG! This means that Mr Joe "Just after his car disappeared from my view I heard three shots" Molina can't have been on the east side of the steps either! BIG breakthrough!!!
Also! It means Mr Otis "Just after the Presidential car passed the building and went out of sight over the Elm street embankment I heard three loud blasts" Williams ALSO can't have been on the east side of the steps! MEGA breakthrough!!!!!
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
She could not see the limo at the time of the shots because it was not possible for her to see the limo at the time of the shots. This is not the case for anyone stood on the east side of the steps.
That's not necessarily correct. It depends on what it was (if anything) that prevented her from seeing the limo. It didn't have to be a wall.
I agree John. It's not "necessarily" the case.
The point I suppose I was making was that Altgens 6 strongly indicates that people stood on the east side of the steps have a clear line of sight to the limo during the initial part of the shooting at least.
It's true that, perhaps at the key moment a person could have sand blown in their eyes so it wasn't possible to see the limo or maybe a pigeon attacked their face making it impossible to see what was going on or maybe....lots of other unlikely possibilities.
But if they were just stood there watching, and nothing weird happened, and they were following the limo with their eyes, I don't see any realistic reason as to why they "couldn't" see what was going on.
Perhaps you have a more realistic suggestion as to why someone stood on the east side of the steps "couldn't" see the limo.
I agree John. It's not "necessarily" the case.Billy Lovelady had to hang out to see around that west wall.......If Stanton was behind Lovelady ( as it seems) then she couldn't have seen the Lincoln at the time the shots were fired.
The point I suppose I was making was that Altgens 6 strongly indicates that people stood on the east side of the steps have a clear line of sight to the limo during the initial part of the shooting at least.
It's true that, perhaps at the key moment a person could have sand blown in their eyes so it wasn't possible to see the limo or maybe a pigeon attacked their face making it impossible to see what was going on or maybe....lots of other unlikely possibilities.
But if they were just stood there watching, and nothing weird happened, and they were following the limo with their eyes, I don't see any realistic reason as to why they "couldn't" see what was going on.
Perhaps you have a more realistic suggestion as to why someone stood on the east side of the steps "couldn't" see the limo.
But if they were just stood there watching, and nothing weird happened, and they were following the limo with their eyes, I don't see any realistic reason as to why they "couldn't" see what was going on.
Yes. Somebody blocked her view. Next.
Mr F,...... Why don't you give up on this nonsense. Lee Oswald was not on those steps when the shots were fired.
He was at the rear of the TSBD..... Either on the stairs, and on his way to get a Coke, or in the lunchroom....
......or fixing to jump in the domino room shower (according to you) ::)
Lee did not want to be seen at the time the President passed by the TSBD. Because he thought that he was playing the same hoax game he had played at Walker's in April. He thought that it would appear that he had taken a shot at JFK ( just as it appeared that he had taken a shot at Walker. ) He thought the scheme was a way to get accepted inside Castro's island bastion but if someone took a photo of him doing something innocuous at the time when he was supposedly taking a pot shot at JFK and that photo surfaced after he was in Cuba.... He face the firing squad. Lee was prepared to duck into the shower to avoid being seen at the time JFK passed by.
Fascinating story, Mr Cakebread!
Meanwhile, back in the real world--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/03/56/rwKN2Iqx_o.jpg)
Please point out where Lee Oswald said that he was outside and heard gunfire at the time the President was murdered.
~Grin~
He said he went outside to watch the P. Parade. Ain't nothing you can do about it, Mr Cakebread! Thumb1:
There is no official report that mentions Oswald going outside at the time of the assassination.
On the contrary, we find this:
"I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not"
Report of Inspector Thomas J Kelley
There is no way you can get away from this Alan.
Not to mention that no witnesses place Oswald on the steps.
In fact, there are witnesses who specifically state Oswald wasn't on the steps at the time of the assassination.
You can wave Hosty's note around all you want. It is refuted by the above facts.
That's exactly what he's doing
(https://images2.imgbox.com/87/8f/lStJS04J_o.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/98/7d/9BFbKhxt_o.jpg)
Setting aside the timing issue momentarily..................
Inspector Sawyer will soon be broadcasting the following on Channel 2:
"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's still there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."
Let's take each element in turn.....................
"It's unknown whether he's still there or not": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen running out the back door of the Depository. Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.
"It's unknown whether he was there in the first place": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen firing from one of the Depository windows (by e.g. Mr Howard Brennan). (I am assuming here that "in the first place" means at the the actual time shots were fired.) Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.
One would very much like to suggest that the true source was none other than Officer Marrion Baker, whose affidavit description of the man caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor is SO close to the suspect description that went out over Channel 2. One would furthermore like to suggest that Officer Baker mentioned this man to Inspector Sawyer during their brief rendezvous on the "third or fourth floor" (!).
However! What doesn't fit here is that the Channel 2 description mentions that the man was "carrying what looked to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester"....................
Two questions.
Why was the Hosty note about Oswald watching p parade hidden from public for several decades?
Why is NBC refusing to release the original Wiegman and Darnell films?
Fred
Would you agree that "next to me" could literally be in any direction?
Would you agree that there is not enough information to determine (without guessing) why she could not see the car?
Did not Marina Oswald herself identify the PM figure as Lee?
Fred
Yes. Somebody blocked her view. Next.
I’m thinking a 5’4” height woman would probably have her LOS to JFK car blocked easily just by other people as well as that big car carrying the SS standing up.
I agree John. It's not "necessarily" the case.
The point I suppose I was making was that Altgens 6 strongly indicates that people stood on the east side of the steps have a clear line of sight to the limo during the initial part of the shooting at least.
It's true that, perhaps at the key moment a person could have sand blown in their eyes so it wasn't possible to see the limo or maybe a pigeon attacked their face making it impossible to see what was going on or maybe....lots of other unlikely possibilities.
Sarcasm always makes such a compelling argument. Did you learn that from Tommy Graves too?
Or a more likely possibility of one of the many other people crowded up on the steps blocking her view for part of the time. As Alan already pointed out, other people on that side mentioned not being able to see the car when the shots happened for whatever reason.
No doubt Mr O'Meara realizes his gaffe and will retire his silly claim-------------until the next time he tries it on, by which time the hope will be that folks round here will have forgotten how badly it ended for him last time. The intellectual dishonesty is real strong with this one.
The point about Stanton was just one of a few points that you've side-stepped.
So you now admit that Ms Stanton's statement that the limo was out of her view when she heard the shots does not-----------as you so energetically insisted-------------put her on the west side of the entranceway? Excellent.
Unfortunately for your mad revival of the garbage Doyle theory, nothing else puts her there either.
I suggest you now move on to your next no-hoper candidate. How about Mr Jack Dougherty? As long as it's Anybody But Oswald, right?
Thumb1:
You've dishonestly taken one element I've presented out of context.
Each point supports the other.
You're
avoidance of the other points is noted.
Haven't you got anything to say about the hole you've dug for yourself with the Altgens image?
The point about Stanton was just one of a few points that you've side-stepped. Just to remind you:
Lovelady is clearly placing Stanton on the west side of the entranceway.
It is clear from Altgens 6 that anyone standing on the east side of the entranceway has a clear view of the motorcade as the shots are being fired. Only someone standing closer to the west wall would not have this clear line of sight.
Frazier identifies Sarah as being on the top step standing back in the shadows. People on the east side of the front steps are not standing in shadow.
They are ((in shadow, A.F.)) if they are up on the landing.
No he's not. "Next to me" could be in any direction.
I agree that "next to me" could be in any direction.
Lovelady states he is stood by the west wall when the limo passes by.
The Hughes clip shows Lovelady stood against the west wall when the limo passes by.
To me this strongly suggests Stanton has moved from the position Pauline Sanders places Stanton on the east side of the front steps.
Not sure how Stanton can be stood next to Lovelady and Sanders
I agree that "next to me" could be in any direction.
Lovelady states he is stood by the west wall when the limo passes by.
The Hughes clip shows Lovelady stood against the west wall when the limo passes by.
To me this strongly suggests Stanton has moved from the position Pauline Sanders places Stanton on the east side of the front steps.
Not sure how Stanton can be stood next to Lovelady and Sanders
Guess the conspirators must have decided the Billy Lovelady in Hughes film with long sleeves wasn’t a problem, or else they missed spotting him.
They’re worried about that Altgen photo 1st print and that bare forearm that is not attached to either Lovelady or the black man.
Apparently there wasn’t much time to alter this 1st print and so they used some quick method of alteration to make the arm appear to be attached to the black man?
Or was it meant to make it appear the arm belonged to Lovelady?
It’s botched up either way as we examine now with our advanced tech Internet imaging devices,
However, 1963, they must have thought the 1st alteration was good enough to fool most of the people , including Walter Cronkite, and that by the time any tech would be available for mass examination by the public at large, most the conspirators would probably be dead.
On examining the Weigman film later, some astute conspirator noticed Lovelady had his sleeves down and worried that eventually some CT like Mark Lane might actually notice that and also notice the arm was not dark enough to be plausibly belonging to the black man.
So apoarently, it was decided the Weigman film frames needed to have Loveladys left arm blackened out and then a 2nd alteration to the Altgens to cover up the arm with texture pattern of Loveladys shirt.
Also apparently, the bottle was cut out or airbrushed out and then a new photo taken of this 2nd altered Altgen print to produce the negative that would become the official negative for the next 50 plus years.
And this was apparently missed by thousands of OCD JFK researchers until the end of the year 2020, when one Mr. Ford stumbled across this Walter Cronkite video and saw the anomaly in an extraordinary new way that becomes more apparent and defined as an arm with a bottle in it. Especially with enlargement and highlighting with blinking lights :)
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Had Mr Ball not (nervously!) interrupted Mr Lovelady here, he would have named the person "right behind" him as Mr Joe Molina, who indeed appears to be 'right behind' him in Altgens.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/69/b95RPugR_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
This MAY also offer explanatory context to the remarkable 'misunderstanding' that happened when Mr Lovelady was photographed by FBI on 29 Feb 64. An official report stated that he brought to the photograph session the shirt he was wearing 11/22/63-------a short-sleeved red-white striped shirt
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/0b/82Dnj3XH_o.jpg)
I still maintain there is a real possibility that Mr Lovelady was given Mr Eddie Piper's short-sleeved shirt at that session--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/89/9b/DXmjt8Tt_o.png)
If only these photos were in color!
I still maintain there is a real possibility that Mr Lovelady was given Mr Eddie Piper's short-sleeved shirt at that session--
Yes...if only those photos were in color.....Then we could know what color the buttons are on Lovelady's shirt.....We can see that the buttons on Eddie Piper's shirt are white while the buttons on Lovelady's shirt are NOT white......
What color do you believe the buttons on Mr Lovelady's shirt are?
Feb 29/63 is a bit late to attempt a 3rd edition of Algren since the 2nd edition with Loveladys reddish brown shirt with grid pattern white lines has established a long sleeve shirt Lovelady, obfuscating the forearm image with shirt pattern and white out the dark bottle shape that was Intersecting a portion of Lovelady’s white Tshirt.
So it’s doubtful the purpose of photographing Lovelady wearing a shortsleeve vertical stripe shirt 3 months post assassination was some idea to paste the image into Altgens photo as a 3rd edition version.
I won't guess.....
But I'm absolutely sure that they are NOT white like the buttons on Eddie piper's shirt.
No need to guess, Mr Cakebread--------look more closely at the photos of Mr Lovelady!
Well, there's things you're absolutely sure of and then there's things that are true. It's pretty rare the twain meet
Extract your head and LOOK at the buttons.....
(https://images2.imgbox.com/89/9b/DXmjt8Tt_o.png)
Not to mention how the spacing between the dark and light stripes is different.
Huh?
Was the Weigman film that conspirators saw in 63 , the dark background version in which PM is about 95% obscured?
Or did They have a lightened version that shows PM more defined as in the more recent version in 2021?
IMO, the PM figure may not have been visible in Weigman 1st edition and that’s perhaps why the figure was not blackened out /cut out in 2nd edition films released for public viewing.
However the shirt Lovelady was wearing is seen in Hughes and Bronson films and is clearly NOT a vertical stripe short sleeve shirt.
Surely the conspirators examined all the films did they not?
So asking Lovelady to wear a completely different pattern shirt with short sleeves , 3 months post assassination is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.:)
I would like to propose a 3rd place that Oswald might have left his jacket:
The 2nd floor storage room adjacent to the conference room which one would have to enter by using the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Since Mrs Reid’s story is questionable at best , it may be discarded as “improbable”, therefore does not interfere with an Oswald returning to lunchroom to retrieve jacket scenario.
The earlier CT theory of Oswald in
The lunchroom or Domino room at time of shots fired, must be discarded due to the Hosty notes of Oswald allegedly stating having gone out to watch the P.Parade. There is no motive for Hosty to have contrived such note as it only aids Oswald, which is probably why Will Fritz not only omitted the Hosty note, but went to great length to discredit Hosty via a supposedly having Oswald denying ever making such statement.
Of course this “denial” by Oswald is not recorded and the public is left to choose whom to believe, Hosty, or Fritz and gang.
Doesn't look like Prayerman's hairstyle, Alan.
Mr.Duvall is too tall:)
A 5’9” Oswald stepping down one 7” step might be plausibly 5’2” relative to BWF, but it’s more doubtful for a 6’ or taller man to appear such
The white object raised to month level = rolled up newspaper? 😆
In a recent interview on Quorum Radio, Mr Buell Wesley Frazier says the following:
"... they get up on the 2nd floor, and, uh, there's a lunchroom there, and, um, Marrion Baker and Mr. Truly they encounter Lee Oswald- he was standing there in front of the Coke machine drinking a soda and, um, over on one of the tables was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and an apple..."
This is a major oops moment from Mr Frazier, with potentially very large implications.........
Another possible explanation for this ridiculous impossible shadow down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman---------------Perhaps this dark cloud has a silver lining. Mr. DuVall gave an interesting oral history to Stephen Fagin at the Sixth Floor Museum. I was able to listen and take furious notes for the first 15 minutes of a little over 40 minutes of video.
(https://i.imgur.com/EgaTrHi.jpg)
1. Mr Duvall is NOT Prayer Man, but he is the man whose right hand holding what looks very like a soda bottle shows up in the version of Altgens shown to the American public for the first and last time by Mr Walter Cronkite on the evening of 11/22/63:
(https://i.imgur.com/umgFaFo.gif)
2. The original Wiegman film seen by the 'investigating' authorities showed Mr Duvall in this same spot between Mr Carl Jones and Mr Billy Lovelady. (Prayer Man however is right over by the west wall.)
3. Mr Duvall's strong resemblance to Mr Oswald led the 'investigating' authorities, who were aware of Mr Oswald's claim in custody that he "went outside to watch P. Parade", to black out Mr Duvall in those Wiegman frames. They actually believed that what they were seeing was Mr Oswald's alibi. This erasure had the MERIT of erasing 'Oswald's' presence on the steps but the DEMERIT of giving Mr Lovelady an impossible shadow down his left side. But------given the stakes, it was a risk worth taking.....
4. Because Prayer Man in Wiegman was so lost in (natural!) shadow anyway, and because the 'investigating' authorities had mistaken Mr Duvall for Mr Oswald, Prayer Man's significance (i.e. potential danger to the official story) was not even recognized-----------and would not be until folks, years later, started taking a closer look at the Darnell film.
Summary of this scenario: Mr Duvall was indeed on the steps, but so too was Prayer Man-------------a figure whom no one in Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps has been able to offer a credible candidate for!
Thumb1:
At the TSBD dock a forklift driver (Lee Oswald no less) would bring the books to the truckers.Doubtful. Especially at this late date. Lee's job was filling orders not driving fork lifts.
So back to the silver lining (and under the hypothesis that Mr. DuVall was in the doorway but somehow obscured) - where is his partner? Mr. DuVall’s partner becomes a credible candidate for Prayer Man.
Evidence that points to the possibility of Stanton being on the west side of the entrance steps at some point:
1) Billy Lovelady's CE 1381:
"At the time the Presidential Motorcade passed the
Depository building heading west on Elm Street, I was standing
on the top step to the far right against the wall of the
entranceway to the Texas School Book Depository.
At this time I recall that William H Shelley, who resides at
128 South Tatum, Dallas, and Mrs Sarah Stanton, also of
Dallas, Texas, both of whom are likewise employed by the
Texas School Book Depository, were standing next to me."
As the President passes by Lovelady has himself positioned by the far west wall of the entranceway. In this clip from the Hughes footage it is possible to make out Lovelady by the far west wall as the President passes by:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyvvksPP/hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Lovelady is clearly placing Stanton on the west side of the entranceway.
2) Stanton's CE 1381
"...I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time."
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqwyXCQS/Altgens6-Corbisr-Crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It is clear from Altgens 6 that anyone standing on the east side of the entranceway has a clear view of the motorcade as the shots are being fired. Only someone standing closer to the west wall would not have this clear line of sight. Stanton appears to be saying it was not possible for her to see the President's car at the moment of the shots - "I could not see"
3) This interview with Frazier.
@ 51:10 in this interview:
“...a lady come by and she was crying, ‘cause she had been down by the sidewalk, somewhere down toward the triple underpass and she come by and she said, “They have shot the President”.
And so, Sarah, the lady I was standing by up on the top step back in the shadows...we looked at one another, and we really didn’t have a lot to say, we just listened to what the lady told us…”
Frazier identifies Sarah as being on the top step standing back in the shadows. People on the east side of the front steps are not standing in shadow. Only someone on the west side would be described as standing “back in the shadows.”
In this still from Darnell Frazier is clearly seen but where is Stanton?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tggWS3jc/Darnell-Enhanced-Blog.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Obviously there is Pauline Sanders statement that Stanton was on the east side of the entranceway and in other interviews Frazier seems to indicate Sarah was to his left. The common sense approach to all this evidence is that Stanton moved from the east side to the west as the motorcade approached.
That's exactly what advocates for Oswald as Prayer Man have done. There is not one scrap of evidence that places Oswald on the steps.
You sound like Alan here.
Why rule out Oswald as a potential candidate?
I don't believe Oswald took the shots but I can't say definitively where he was at that time.
It would be amazing if it were Oswald on the steps.
So why not accept it is Oswald on the steps?
Because there is not one scrap of evidence that places him there.
The question is - How can other researchers place him there?
How do you know it's a man?
Red arrow: Mr Duvall
Green arrow: Mr Duvall's partner?
(https://i.imgur.com/EvcvrWp.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/38hNyK5.jpg)
I think Prayer Man may be leaning into the wall.
Flipped image to give our tired eyes a jolt!---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/yF377kk.jpg)
On film....
Reporter: "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."
Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps. If Oswald was not out by the front steps, then he is not prayer man. If Oswald is not prayer man, then who cares who prayer man was.
Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps.
Oswald admitted on film that he didn't shoot anyone. Therefore Oswald didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit.
On film....
Reporter: "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."
Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps. If Oswald was not out by the front steps, then he is not prayer man. If Oswald is not prayer man, then who cares who prayer man was.
It's important to establish who exactly the Prayer Man was to end all conspiracies. Especially when a couple of people want to claim it's a 300-500 pound woman with white hair.
Oswald claimed he had gone outside to watch the motorcade. Yet this statement was hidden from the public for decades. Makes one wonder.
Fred
But why should anyone really care if it is or is not a 300 pound woman with white hair? It's not Oswald and that's all that matters.
Tell us how one can one "admit" to not having done something.Easy I confess...I didn't do it.
Oswald claimed he had gone outside to watch the motorcade. Yet this statement was hidden from the public for decades. Makes one wonder.No, Lee didn't claim he went outside to watch the parade AT THE TIME JFK was murdered..... Lee said that he was in the first floor luchroom at that time ( but he didn't hear any shots, ...and went to the second floor to buy a coke at about that time ( Baker and Truly saw him there ) THEN he returned to the first floor , finished his lunch , and THEN went outside to watch the P. Parade.
Fred
It's said that you don't understand the difference.
Not my concern.
On film....
Reporter: "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."
Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps.
The enclosed front entranceway is part of the building. It is not some location other than the Depository. And you have smuggled in the word "inside".
Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he "went outside to watch P. Parade".
There is only one place that is both part of the building and outside: front steps.
Which is where Prayer Man is.
Thumb1:
You can't honestly believe your absurd interpretation of Oswald's clear as crystal explanation? If Oswald was on the front steps, he would say he was on the front steps and especially at a time when he has the World's stage and is basically pleading for his life,
why on Earth would he rely on the truth being discovered by a desperate Alan Ford 55 years later? Hahaha!
Btw other Depository staff all indicated that the outside steps were OUTSIDE, why would they say otherwise?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not right then I didn't. I say, you know, he was supposed to come by during our lunch hour so you don't get very many chances to see the President of the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been down to Texas very much I went out there to see him and just like everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by
Sarah Stanton who was on the steps described to the FBI that after hearing the shots "immediately went into the building".
(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wcd_0089a-FBI-REPORT-November-23-1963..jpg?w=778)
JohnM
In the confusion of the hall congestion of reporters asking questions nearly simultaneously, how probable that Oswald could have misheard the question?
IE: “Were you AT the building at the time?
Or: interpretation of “at the time” not specifically referencing to an exact moment shots were fired, but more generally referring to the motorcade arriving at Dealey Plaza?
As to the question why Oswald is not at every opportunity vigorously stating that he was at the front entrance when shots were fired.
Evidence that points to the possibility of Stanton being on the west side of the entrance steps at some point:
1) Billy Lovelady's CE 1381:
"At the time the Presidential Motorcade passed the
Depository building heading west on Elm Street, I was standing
on the top step to the far right against the wall of the
entranceway to the Texas School Book Depository.
At this time I recall that William H Shelley, who resides at
128 South Tatum, Dallas, and Mrs Sarah Stanton, also of
Dallas, Texas, both of whom are likewise employed by the
Texas School Book Depository, were standing next to me."
As the President passes by Lovelady has himself positioned by the far west wall of the entranceway. In this clip from the Hughes footage it is possible to make out Lovelady by the far west wall as the President passes by:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyvvksPP/hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Lovelady is clearly placing Stanton on the west side of the entranceway.
2) Stanton's CE 1381
"...I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time."
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqwyXCQS/Altgens6-Corbisr-Crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It is clear from Altgens 6 that anyone standing on the east side of the entranceway has a clear view of the motorcade as the shots are being fired. Only someone standing closer to the west wall would not have this clear line of sight. Stanton appears to be saying it was not possible for her to see the President's car at the moment of the shots - "I could not see"
3) This interview with Frazier.
@ 51:10 in this interview:
“...a lady come by and she was crying, ‘cause she had been down by the sidewalk, somewhere down toward the triple underpass and she come by and she said, “They have shot the President”.
And so, Sarah, the lady I was standing by up on the top step back in the shadows...we looked at one another, and we really didn’t have a lot to say, we just listened to what the lady told us…”
Frazier identifies Sarah as being on the top step standing back in the shadows. People on the east side of the front steps are not standing in shadow. Only someone on the west side would be described as standing “back in the shadows.”
In this still from Darnell Frazier is clearly seen but where is Stanton?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tggWS3jc/Darnell-Enhanced-Blog.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Obviously there is Pauline Sanders statement that Stanton was on the east side of the entranceway and in other interviews Frazier seems to indicate Sarah was to his left. The common sense approach to all this evidence is that Stanton moved from the east side to the west as the motorcade approached.
That's exactly what advocates for Oswald as Prayer Man have done. There is not one scrap of evidence that places Oswald on the steps.
You sound like Alan here.
Why rule out Oswald as a potential candidate?
I don't believe Oswald took the shots but I can't say definitively where he was at that time.
It would be amazing if it were Oswald on the steps.
So why not accept it is Oswald on the steps?
Because there is not one scrap of evidence that places him there.
The question is - How can other researchers place him there?
How do you know it's a man?
Obviously there is Pauline Sanders statement that Stanton was on the east side of the entranceway and in other interviews Frazier seems to indicate Sarah was to his left. The common sense approach to all this evidence is that Stanton moved from the east side to the west as the motorcade approached.
That's exactly what advocates for Oswald as Prayer Man have done. There is not one scrap of evidence that places Oswald on the steps.
You sound like Alan here.
Why rule out Oswald as a potential candidate?
I don't believe Oswald took the shots but I can't say definitively where he was at that time.
It would be amazing if it were Oswald on the steps.
So why not accept it is Oswald on the steps?
Because there is not one scrap of evidence that places him there.
The question is - How can other researchers place him there?
How do you know it's a man?
I get the impression Oswald was utterly contemptuous of his work colleagues who he believed were all beneath him. So much so he wouldn't even pretend to make so much as the slightest effort to show any mannersl. He was so convinced of his superiority he could treat those around him like the dirt he thought they were. Ironically, his quietness didn't make him invisible, quite the contrary, in the tight-knit, gossip-prone, enclosed world of the TSBD he would have stood out head and shoulders above everyone else.
To believe this socially incompetent, arrogant loner would spend one second in the company of his work colleagues if he didn't have to is absurd. If Oswald watched the motorcade it was from some dark quiet corner where nobody else would think to be.
Why would not Oswald at least tell his brother about the front steps?
Why not tell Marina
If either one or both of above were told, why would they choose not to ever divulge such critical information?
I can only speculate a possible reason that Oswald had intent of not letting such alibi be known (except to Will Fritz )because of some anticipation
of potential high profile attorney representing Oswald, initiating a wrongful arrest lawsuit and monetary settlement once some photographic/film evidence might be discovered.
Other options:
1. Oswald was not PM and chose to lie to his interrogators that he “went out to watch the P. Parade”, then reversed himself and denied saying such statement to those same interrogators.
2. Oswald was a schizophrenic and while one personality knew where he was, the other did not.
3. There Is a near double of Oswald who was the 6th floor shooter , while Lee Harvey Oswald was at the front entrance steps.
Oswald said he was in the lunchroom when he heard the 'commotion' outside. We LNers reckon he had somewhat loftier ambitions; say six floors worth.
And his brother Robert and Marina thought him guilty.
Why would not Oswald at least tell his brother about the front steps?
Why not tell Marina
Mr. HOLMES. He said when lunchtime came he was working in one of the upper floors with a Negro.
The Negro said, "Come on and let's eat lunch together."
Apparently both of them having a sack lunch. And he said, "You go ahead, send the elevator back up to me and I will come down just as soon as I am finished."
And he didn't say what he was doing. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. He didn't say whether he took the elevator down.
But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved.
He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit."
Then another man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so, where is your telephone."
And he said, "I didn't look at the credential. I don't know who he said he was, and I just pointed to the phone and said, 'there it is,' and went on out the door."
JohnM
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
Thumb1:
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, first of all, handing you what the court reporter has marked as Exhibit 498, I would like you to state if you know whether or not this appears to be the door leading from the second floor hallway into the vestibule going into the lunchroom.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; it does.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BvTmTvx1/ce-497.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/V644hHZf/ce-498.jpg)
JohnM
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, first of all, handing you what the court reporter has marked as Exhibit 498, I would like you to state if you know whether or not this appears to be the door leading from the second floor hallway into the vestibule going into the lunchroom.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; it does.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BvTmTvx1/ce-497.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/V644hHZf/ce-498.jpg)
JohnM
Verrrrry interrresting..... Thank you Mr M.... So Mr Truly testified that officer Baker was in the vestibule...( area 24) NOT the lunchroom......when he ordered Lee to "come here".....
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
Surely you know that Baker testified that he was INSIDE the lunchroom when he asked if Lee worked there.....
So Fritz tells Oswald that they’ve checked out his P. Parade alibi and that Oswald need not worry about being charged with murder?
If Mr. Ford’s ingenious conjecture is correct, then Fritz confused Oswald To such degree that Oswald at the midnight press conference makes that statement “ I don’t know what all this is about” followed up by response to shooting the President with “ I haven’t been charged with that?
So What to make of Oswald the next day in the hallway recorded on film in a brief moment saying “ I categorically deny these charges”?
Mr. Ball: And you asked him again, didn't you, what he was doing at the time the President was shot?
Mr. FRITZ: Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL: What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ: Well, he told me about the same story about this lunch.
Mr. BALL: He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
Mr. FRITZ: Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
Mr. BALL: With whom?
Mr. FRITZ: With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
Mr. BALL: Did he tell you what he was eating?
Mr. FRITZ: He told me, I believe, that he had, I am doing this from memory, a cheese sandwich, and he also mentioned he had some fruit, I had forgotten about the fruit until I looked at this report.
Mr. BALL: Did he say that was in the package he had brought from home?
Mr. FRITZ: Yes, sir; there was one reason I asked him about what was in the package, we had had a story that had been circulated around the meantime about some chicken bones, I am sure you heard of that, and I wanted to find for sure what he did have in his lunch and he told me about having--he told me they did not have any chicken out there and I also talked with the Paines and they told me they didn't have any chicken in the icebox, they did have some cheese.
Mr. BALL: But he said he had had lunch with Junior?
Mr. FRITZ: Yes, sir; and with someone else.
Mr. BALL. Did you find out that there was an employee named Junior, a man that was nicknamed Junior at the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. FRITZ: Probably we have it here, some of the officers probably did, we had all these people checked out. I didn't do it myself probably.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/df/bf/qPtBvRjq_o.jpg)
You sure know how to split a hair. Baker's position as far as he got is "B-2".
"Mr. BELIN - As you called you say you remembered moving forward
and. meeting him right in the doorway which would be marked with
the arrow with number 24 on it on Exhibit 497, is that right?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - After you got there, did you move until the man came up
to you?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
"As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9," 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."
(Officer Marrion Baker, affidavit 11/22/63 - during the taking of which Mr Oswald was brought into office in front of Officer Baker)
The man caught walking away from the rear stairway several floors up was not Mr Oswald. Officer Baker had already met him down at the front entrance (see first press statements from DPD 11/22/63!)
Thumb1:
Mr Fritz let the truth slip a little earlier in his testimony:
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."
(Note BTW that 'leaving the building' here means departing the Depository building, i.e. going down into the street and away. Mr Oswald didn't leave the building until he left the front steps to go home------------he saw the 'excitement' from the front steps and after that decided to leave the building.)
Thanks to the earthquake revelation of the Agent Hosty draft interrogation report 11/22/63, we can piece together exactly what Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz:
1. I broke for lunch and came downstairs
2. I bought a Coca Cola from the machine in the second-floor lunchroom
3. I came back down to the first floor and started eating my lunch
4. While down there I noticed Junior and (Norman) come in
5. I then went outside to watch the P. Parade (I was standing beside Mr Shelley when it all happened)
6. Just after that a police officer came running up into the front entrance etc
In the first official report of that first interrogation (by Agents Hosty & Bookhout), these claims were either fudged or distorted. In the second report on that same interrogation (by Agent Bookhout ALONE), the timeline and facts were completely distorted into the following garbage...............
1. I encountered a police officer and Mr Truly in the second-floor lunchroom (---> post-assassination)
2. I came down to the first floor and ate lunch (---> post-assassination)
3. I then went outside where I got chatting with Mr Shelley (---> post-assassination)
Thumb1:
Baker wasn't as familiar with the floors in the Depository on the day of the assassination. He had his gun drawn as Truly and he went up the stairs; he wasn't counting stairs or floors. But it was a lower floor; that much he would be expected to remember.
Also, Baker wouldn't lie under oath. Maybe a person of your character might.
~Grin~
Try as you might, Mr Organ, you won't succeed in turning the encounter with the man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up into a second-floor lunchroom encounter with Mr Oswald. And Officer Baker's failure to identify the suspect just brought into the homicide office as the man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up in the Depository only augments the hopelessness of your enterprise.
And that's before we even get to the fact that the DPD told press 11/22 that the encounter happened at the front entrance, just as Mr Oswald did.
Perhaps your explanation is that Mr Oswald was granted access to freshly printed newspapers?
No, in 2019 we received stunning confirmation of what some smart folks had already suspected: Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he left the second-floor lunchroom well BEFORE the motorcade arrived, and went outside to watch said motorcade. He never confirmed any post-assassination lunchroom encounter. The chasm between Agent Hosty's initial draft interrogation report's treatment of this phase and the official reports' tells the tale: your heroes suppressed Mr Oswald's claims because these claims were veridical.
Thus Spake the Warren Gullible! :D
If Baker's failure to recognize Oswald precludes Oswald being the man he encountered on "the third or fourth floor", doesn't it also preclude Oswald being the man Baker encountered at the front entrance?
Truly and Baker would have to be in cahoots to lie under oath about the Oswald encounter occurring on the second floor.
Also, since the "conspirators" had Baker's "third or fourth floor" affidavit, why didn't they have Truly and Baker lie that the encounter took place on either of those floors; moves Oswald closer to the sixth floor?
The "Dallas Morning News" of Nov.23 (with news from the previous evening) reported ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building
shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was
identified as an employee".
No reference to the front entrance.
Uh, no-----------the man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up was suspicious and hence memorable, the guy at the front entrance not at all.
Mr Baker's affidavit makes absolutely no reference to the all-important fact that the man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up is the selfsame man he has just seen being brought in in handcuffs. You can't explain this, can you, Mr Organ?
Officer Baker told the truth in his 11/22/63 affidavit. Afterwards he was pressurized into supporting the lunchroom fiction. He knew Mr Oswald didn't shoot JFK.
Super-embarrassing for DPD to admit that their officer made such an extraordinary blunder as to set an obviously suspicious man (caught walking away from the stairway several floors up!) loose.
Also NB!-----the real possibility existed that Mr Oswald's front-entrance alibi would come to light (via e.g. a photo or a courageous witness or three). A story placing Mr Oswald several floors up so soon after the shooting would expose Officer Baker & Mr Truly as liars. A lunchroom story much less risky (physically possible for Mr Oswald to have come up a floor via the front stairs and then gone through the office area or corridor)
Oh dear, Mr Organ, you should do your homework before wading in!
There are multiple references to a front-entrance encounter just after the shooting, e.g.
“As an officer rushed into the building Oswald rushed out. The policeman permitted him to pass after the building manager told the policeman that Oswald was an employee.” (Washington Post 11/23, quoting Chief Jesse Curry)
"Police said that a man who was identified as Oswald walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman “I work here” and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said." (Sydney Morning Herald, 11/24).
"As the Presidential limousine sped to the hospital the police dragnet went into action. Hicks said at just about that time, Oswald came out of the front door of the red bricked warehouse. A policeman asked him where he was going. He said he wanted to see what all the excitement was all about." (London Free Press, 11/23, quoting Det. Ed Hicks)
Amazing that Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes heard the same story from Mr Oswald. Mr Oswald must have been telepathic!
Here's what actually happened: Officer Baker raced up the steps and, seeking someone to show him the nearest stairway to the roof, asked Mr Oswald (standing by the front door) if he worked there. Mr Oswald said yes, but then Mr Truly arrived and offered to escort Officer Baker. This was later misrepresented as the officer challenging/stopping Mr Oswald.
Officer Baker then met a genuine Person of Interest (not Mr Oswald)--------------several floors up.
All this was known to Captain Fritz the afternoon of 11/22. Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade", and his story of encountering an officer and Mr Truly at the front entance, checked out.
Thumb1:
i) yes, he works at the Depository
ii) yes, he was there, at his place of work, at the time.
Yes. And on November 22nd, Baker associated that man with Oswald.
That's the whole reason the encounter (the only one in his affidavit) was mentioned at all. Because as Baker went to give his affidavit, he saw Oswald and remembered him from the earlier encounter. Baker got the room level wrong, understandable given he was never in the building before and wasn't making note of the floor level at the time.
"Mr. BAKER - I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw
him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him
down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into
the building and on up what we are discussing now."
Baker's affidavit doesn't say the man he encountered in the Depository wasn't Oswald (maybe he didn't know Oswald's name when he made his affidavit).
And we have his testimony that upon seeing Oswald, he was compelled to add detail about the encounter.
Otherwise, the encounter was of no significance as it was just a workman vouched for by Roy Truly.
Not at all embarrassing (your semantic gyrations; now that's embarrassing), as Truly vouched for the man. Oswald was unarmed so how was Baker knowingly letting a killer go?
Hard to believe early press reports would get something garbled up. How about the early press report of the mortally-injured Kennedy being removed from Dealey Plaza in a bus?
The Fantasy Island reboot will premiere a week from tomorrow. I take it you're booked. :D
Nope-----the affidavit makes no such linkage. You lose!
The words you quote disprove your claim: Officer Baker tells us here that he went to City Hall in order "to give the affidavit, the statement" about his encounter & the actions of himself and Mr. Truly. Going in to give his statement, he was already well aware, in retrospect, of the likely significance of the encounter with the man caught walking away from the rear stairway several floors up. That encounter was the chief point of the statement he went in to give.
OK, so all he has to do is say, "I have just seen this man brought into the Homicide Office in custody". Yet he doesn't. You lose!
Where in his testimony does he say that upon seeing Mr Oswald he was compelled to add detail about the encounter? Or are you just compelled to make this detail up because your argument is so weak?
Why would a Depository employee have been incapable of being the gunman? Kindly explain your logic, Mr Organ!
Where are you getting 'knowingly' from, Mr Organ? Learn to read, sir!
The decision to let a man caught walking away from the rear stairway several floors up was a major error of judgment. Again, why would being an employee rule someone out as a gunman?
Ah, so now you accept that there were indeed---------contrary to your earlier assertion---------multiple reports of a front entrance encounter! Thumb1:
And you obviously can't explain Mr Oswald's own telepathic placing of the encounter just there! Thumb1: Thumb1:
Another weak cope :)
"Mr. BAKER - I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw
him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him
down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into
the building and on up what we are discussing now."
Since the details of the encounter takes about 15% of the affidavit, I doubt Baker was mainly going to give his affidavit about the encounter. Hardly the "chief point". And in his testimony, Baker says he saw the man mentioned in the only encounter in the affidavit, Oswald.
Nah. You lose because Baker says nothing about your fantasy encounter with Oswald at the entrance. Instead he sees Oswald and then makes his affidavit describing the encounter inside the building. Direct linkage.
"I saw him when I went to give the affidavit."
He's ruled out because Truly vouched for him. Should Baker have let the man go, or shoot the man and Truly? No error in judgment at all. BTW, why would Baker and Truly lie about a second-floor with Oswald when they supposedly had a fourth-floor encounter that would put Oswald nearer the sixth floor? Why would Oswald go along with the encounter with Baker and Truly at the back of the building?
(https://i0.wp.com/www.drlindseyfitzharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/D6rGT3MW4AY2_dn.jpg)
You're good at gas-lighting. I suggested to you that early press reports aren't reliable. That's why inquires are conducted.
All we have from you is semantics and showing your gullibility by citing early press reports. Yawn.
Did Fritz add the part about Oswald being surprised by officer with gun pointed at him?
If encounter is at the TSBD front door or just inside the front lobby , Baker hasn’t drawn his gun yet,
so Oswald as PM would not likely have made any statement about a gun
Pauline Sanders would have likely elaborated more detail on seeing officer if some encounter happened right at the front door if it involved officer with gun drawn?
"Mr. BAKER - I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw
him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him
down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into
the building and on up what we are discussing now."
Since the details of the encounter takes about 15% of the affidavit, I doubt Baker was mainly going to give his affidavit about the encounter. Hardly the "chief point". And in his testimony, Baker says he saw the man mentioned in the only encounter in the affidavit, Oswald.
Nah. You lose because Baker says nothing about your fantasy encounter with Oswald at the entrance. Instead he sees Oswald and then makes his affidavit describing the encounter inside the building. Direct linkage.
"I saw him when I went to give the affidavit."
He's ruled out because Truly vouched for him. Should Baker have let the man go, or shoot the man and Truly? No error in judgment at all. BTW, why would Baker and Truly lie about a second-floor with Oswald when they supposedly had a fourth-floor encounter that would put Oswald nearer the sixth floor?
Why would Oswald go along with the encounter with Baker and Truly at the back of the building?
(https://i0.wp.com/www.drlindseyfitzharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/D6rGT3MW4AY2_dn.jpg)
You're good at gas-lighting. I suggested to you that early press reports aren't reliable. That's why inquires are conducted.
All we have from you is semantics and showing your gullibility by citing early press reports. Yawn.
What if Oswald/PM did NOT precede Baker into the TSBD lobby?
Here’s the scenario
Oswald /PM was observing Baker approaching the front entrance steps and remained in that west corner of entrance landing as Baker runs up the east side of the center handrail front steps and Baker enters the TSBD front lobby area.
PM may or may not have have observed Truly run up the steps , however Truly could easily have NOT noticed Oswald in the west corner.
Oswald told his interrogators that he had gone out to watch the Presidential motorcade. There is footage in two films showing someone looking like Oswald standing on the steps watching the motorcade. Game over.
Fred
Oswald told his interrogators that he had gone out to watch the Presidential motorcade. There is footage in two films showing someone looking like Oswald standing on the steps watching the motorcade. Game over.
Fred
someone looking like Oswald
Game over.
Sigh. Some people are so determined to keep Oswald away from the steps.
Fred
Sigh. Some people are so determined to keep Oswald away from the steps.
Fred
No, Oswald himself said he was inside at the time, don't you believe him?
Reporter: "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."
Sigh. Some people are so determined to keep Oswald away from the steps.
Fred
The man Baker describes as wearing a “light brown jacket” is in question if the encounter with PM takes place 5 to 10 seconds post Darnell film cut, since PM appears to have the sleeves rolled up.
If Oswald is PM and can get inside the TSBD lobby and make it to the front storage room, it’s conceivable he left his jacket there and could put it on just before meeting Baker in the lobby at the front staircase as Oswald comes out of the storage room.
However, it’s dependent on what time it takes for Baker from his position at the Darnell film cut And Baker actually reaching the front steps and how quick Baker ascends 7 steps with people blocking him and if Baker stops on the landing to wait for Truly to join him, before entering.
The distance from west corner of entrance landing to center of an inward swinging front door is only approx 8ft.
Distance from front door to storage room door is approx 20 ft.
30 ft therefore approx max distance / by 5ft per sec pace = 6 sec
Add 3 sec for pushing front door inward and opening storage room door.
PM thus CAN conceivably be IN the storage room and UNSEEN by Baker at the moment Baker enters TSBD lobby thru the front entrance door.
In 5 more seconds Oswald could conceivably have put on his jacket while in the storage room , and exits about the time Baker crosses 15 ft of looby floor , reaches the front staircase , and Baker draws out his gun as he stated “upon reaching the FIRST staircase.
Mr.Truly now enters the TSBD, sees Baker with gun drawn at the front staircase, runs over and sees Oswald and verifies Oswald is an employee.
So in conclusion, Baker and Truly possibly encountered Oswald INSIDE the TSBD and Oswalds statement of being IN the building “at the time” is not necessarily in conflict with Oswald having momentarily stepped “out” onto the front entrance landing perhaps just 30 sec before the shooting started, then returning INTO the building again just 10 sec( or less ) seconds post shots fired.
The only conflict begins when it’s realized that an Oswald encounter with Baker, by the front storage room on the ground floor makes it impossible that Oswald just came down from 6th floor and traversed 120 ft approx more ground floor distance in only 30 sec fromlast shot fired by theoretical 6th floor shooter Oswald at the SW corner window.
Unless there was a double Oswald😳
~Grin~
Mr Oswald did not use the word "inside". The fact that you need to--------yet again---------put a word in his mouth that he never used tells us just how desperate you are. In his terse exchange with the reporter, Mr Oswald merely confirms that he was at his place of work at the time of the shooting. BFD.
Since 2019, of course, we know that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he "went outside to watch P. Parade". There is only one place that is both in the building (i.e. part of it) and outside------------enclosed front entranceway Thumb1:
Now! Consider this exchange-----------------
Mr. BALL. You asked him why he left the building, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He told you because he didn't think there would be any work?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
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.....................
Question! What does 'leaving the building' mean here?
Thumb1:
Even though I've demonstrated that not one employee which I previously quoted on numerous occasions described the front steps as being "inside", in fact they all indicated they were outside on the steps, yet you still persist in insisting that Oswald for some unknown reason would think otherwise and let's be frank here, even Oswald would have known that if he says he was on the steps that would have been a perfect alibi?
Watch all of the following video and every time Oswald is asked if he killed/shot the President, all he does is deny but if he was actually outside on the steps he would just simply say that he was outside at the time watching the President and thus beyond all doubt conclusively prove his innocence, it's a total no brainer., well to anyone with a brain that is. *smirk*
Even at the midnight press conference when he has time to prepare some sort of defence and he has the Worlds Press at his command and has the ultimate opportunity to give the perfect alibi, yet when Oswald is again asked if he shot the President all Oswald can muster is that he requests legal assistance and the reason is that he knows that he has no alibi because as we know Oswald was inside shooting the President.
Just ask yourself if YOU were outside watching the President, what would YOU tell the Press when asked if YOU killed the President? Would you speak in gobbledegook and agree that you were inside at the time even though YOU were outside, or at EVERY opportunity would YOU emphatically say I was on the steps watching the President therefore it couldn't have possibly be me! End of line.
JohnM
Already dealt with, Mr Mytton. Captain Fritz, knowing Mr Oswald had an alibi, pretended to him that he was on the hook not as the gunman but as an accessory. Hence Mr Oswald's lack of interest in telling the world he was on the front steps at the time of the assassination.
Thankfully, however, the coming to light in 2019 of the Hosty draft interrogation report confirmed that
a) Mr Oswald stated clearly in custody that he went outside to watch the P. Parade
b) this claim was suppressed because it was known to be true
Upshot: you lose (yet again)! Thumb1:
Already dealt with, Mr Mytton. Captain Fritz,....blah blah blah
Thankfully, however, the coming to light in 2019 of the Hosty draft interrogation report confirmed that
a) Mr Oswald stated clearly in custody that he went outside to watch the P. Parade
b) this claim was suppressed because it was known to be true
So you put the word 'inside' into Mr Oswald's mouth. Shows your desperation. Thanks for confirming!
No, Oswald himself said he was inside at the time, don't you believe him?
Reporter: "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."
@1:19
JohnM
Pay close attention this time because your inability to understand the basic facts is truly embarrassing, My post had nothing to do with Fritz, all I asked was how Oswald who has the Press recording his every word, how would Oswald defend himself when asked if he shot the President and all the ammunition Oswald has, is to deny, and he even goes on to say that because he lived in Russia he was a Patsy again a lacklustre response from someone who knows he has no alibi, but if indeed he or anyone else on the Planet Earth was in a similar predicament and having the unprecedented platform of being completely accessible to the Press, they would just outright say they had a "perfect alibi" and clearly and emphatically declare that "I watched the President as he passed by the building and if you don't believe me check the cameras or ask my workmates because I was OUTSIDE!"
And I thought that speaking to your childlike brother Alan J. was as bad as you people can get.
It was written on a piece of paper why would "they" simply suppress instead of destroy a piece of paper that "they" apparently never wanted to see the light of day? Doh!
No wrong again, let me repost my original post, I quoted exactly what Oswald said, see Alan the words between the "quotation marks" indicates what was said, I simply paraphrased to make it clearer (~snippety snip!~)
How to reconcile how Oswald could trust Will Fritz, thus Oswald making the P.Parade statement (alibi) per Hosty note, yet Oswald not declaring this alibi publicly to the press neither preceding nor after the interrogation period?
Now! Consider this exchange-----------------
Mr. BALL. You asked him why he left the building, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He told you because he didn't think there would be any work?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
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.....................
Question! What does 'leaving the building' mean here?
Bumped for Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
Wow, four worthless opinionated posts of regurgitated nonsense in a row, your posting diarrhea in a vain attempt to stay relevant is duly noted. Hilarious!
Thumb1:
JohnM
~Grin~ You're getting rattled, Mr Mytton,.....
Rattled? You can't be serious? You're the one desperately relying on excessive posts and casting vicious aspersions, not me.
JohnM
~Grin~
In the following exchange, Mr Mytton, what does 'leaving the building' mean?
Mr. BALL. You asked him why he left the building, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He told you because he didn't think there would be any work?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
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.....................
Thumb1:
It's devastatingly clear what is being said but if you want to read some sort of paranoid delusion into what they said, then good luck to you.
JohnM
:D
OK, Mr Mytton, so why don't you devastate me with a simple explanation of what 'leaving the building' means in this exchange? You don't want people to think you're running away from the question, do you?
Mr. BALL. You asked him why he left the building, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He told you because he didn't think there would be any work?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
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.....................
Thumb1:
I really don't care where your ever increasing bizarre interpretations lead but your continued failure to elaborate on your newest fantasy only demonstrates your complete lack of faith in your own accusations.
JohnM
~Grin~
So you throw in the towel on answering the question. Noted! Thumb1:
It is of course devastatingly clear why you don't want to answer the question, because the meaning of the words 'leaving the building' is devastatingly clear:
One has only left the building when one has descended all the front steps and stepped out on to the pavement. Going through the glass front door and standing on the landing or on one of the steps does not constitute leaving the building, although it does constitute going outside. Until one has actually stepped down onto the pavement one has not yet left the building, i.e. one is still technically in the building.
Now for the all-too-fleeting exchange with the reporter:
Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
Mr Oswald: I work in that building
Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?
Mr Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir
The word inside is not used here. All Mr Oswald is confirming is that he had not left the building.
Now! Had the reporter thought to ask the obvious follow-up, it would have gone like this:
Reporter: Where in the building were you at the time?
Mr Oswald: Front steps
There would have been no logical contradiction whatsoever between Mr Oswald's second reply to the reporter ("Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir") and this (hypothetical) third reply above. He went outside to the front steps and watched the motorcade from there: he did not leave the building, which was his place of work.
Nor is there any logical contradiction whatsoever between Mr Oswald's claim in interrogation to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" and his confirmation to the pressman that he was "in the building" at the time. Indeed putting these two things together yields only one possible location: front steps.
Don't cry, Mr Mytton! Thumb1:
You don't want people to think you're running away from the question, do you?
Oswalds “Naturally if I work in that building” without further elaboration defining the most critical detail of “out on the front entrance terrace”, is the problem imo
And this is because this lack of candor about such crucial detail is BEFORE, Oswald has been interrogated by Fritz
So how can Mr. Fords explanation for Oswald remaining silent because of what Fritz may have told Oswald be valid for Oswalds lack of candor before Fritz has interrogated Oswald?
And this is because this lack of candor about such crucial detail is BEFORE, Oswald has been interrogated by Fritz
“When the police car bringing Oswald from the Texas Theater drove into the police headquarters at about 2 p.m. on Friday, some reporters and cameramen, principally from local papers and stations, were already on hand. The policemen formed a wedge around Oswald and conducted him to the elevator, but several newsmen crowded into the elevator with Oswald and the police. When the elevator stopped at the third floor, the cameramen ran ahead down the corridor, and then turned around and backed up, taking pictures of Oswald as he was escorted toward the homicide and robbery bureau office. According to one escorting officer, some six or seven reporters followed the police into the bureau office.80”
Source: The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, Warren Commission Report: Table of Contents, Chapter 5
Are not the very 1st questions by reporters shouted at Oswald at this point in time?
Are not the very 1st questions by reporters shouted at Oswald at this point in time?
No worries but besides your self serving interpretations, you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room, if Oswald was innocent and had the perfect alibi he wouldn't just deny shooting the President, Oswald would use all the ammunition in his defence and at every opportunity would just simply say that he was outside on the steps watching the President.
Now that I have manipulated you into spilling the beans, how can any sane person blame me for staying away from your question? which as I predicted would have an equally incomprehensible explanation, I liken it to and the closest analogy is being out in public and being followed by some wild eyed maniac who's babbling incoherently while wearing a tinfoil hat.
Who in their right mind would attempt to have a civilized conversation with this person?
JohnM
Ok, if Oswald has no comments recorded by press cameramen until after 2 hrs of interrogation, then it must be in that early interval of interrogation that Oswald for some reason chose not to publicly disclose his out front steps alibi at his 1st opportunity encounter with press cameramen.
Oswald at some point during the several intervals of interrogation made the P.Parade statement so de facto revealed his crucial alibi (privately)in presence of FBI agent Hosty.
We know that this happened in the very first interrogation. The fact that Mr Oswald did not subsequently yell his alibi to the pressmen tells us that Mr Oswald did not feel any need to yell his alibi to the pressmen. This in turn tells us how Captain Fritz was handling the awkward fact that his suspect had an alibi: he made said suspect believe that he was on the hook for something other than having fired shots at Pres. Kennedy.
Allman and the man who with him had no memory of the man being Oswald. Oswald didn't say there were two men.
Some interesting reasoning, but....
The shots were initially thought by many to have come from (or in the direction of) the triple underpass. Whether Oswald was inside the building or out on the front steps then becomes a non issue and consequently he wouldn't need to go public with any alibi or even sell an alibi to Fritz.
Classic Nutter tactic to invent a need for Oswald to announce publicly a "perfect alibi".
:D :D :D :D
O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive! From an initial Hosty note which I have told you on multiple occasions in no way supports what you think it does
After the second-floor lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly
, Oswald encountered Mrs. Reid about 12:33.
I believe Oswald then encountered NBC reporter Robert MacNeil at the front entrance late 12:33. MacNeil said the man directed him to a phone where his call was logged in at 12:34. It may be in the 12:34 range that the Depository entrance was guarded by police. I wouldn't say the entrance was "sealed off" because Billy Lovelady, for example, was out on the steps having a smoke about 12:45-50.
Allman being the man encountered by Oswald is just a possibility advanced by Gary Mack, who, like Allman, was in Dallas media. Allman and the man who with him had no memory of the man being Oswald. Oswald didn't say there were two men.
Do we have any account of Terrence Fords movements once he went in the front door with Allman? It seems Allman was on the phone inside alone, so where did Terrence Ford go?
Oswald encountered Mrs. Reid about 12:33
Highly unlikely, based on the available evidence.
Mr Pierce Allman #1:
And then I turned around, ran back down the hill, ran up the sidewalk, went into the depository building, asked the guy where the phone was, went inside, got on the phone
Mr Pierce Allman #2:
I... went up the steps of the Depository building and there was a guy in the doorway and I ran up to him and asked him where a phone was, and he jerked his thumb and said 'In there'. I thanked him and went on in.
Statements #1 and #2 are describing the exact same event! Thumb1:
"All for now gentlemen, back later this week to reengage. Best wishes to all to
remain well, healthy & safe, free of any potential exposure to any COVID-19
variants still lingering about."
Who -- in the history of the Forum -- proclaimed a one-day absence like that? ::)
What a narcissist.
"All for now gentlemen, back later this week to reengage. Best wishes to all to
remain well, healthy & safe, free of any potential exposure to any COVID-19
variants still lingering about."
Alan Ford
Who -- in the history of the Forum -- proclaimed a one-day absence like that? ::)
What a narcissist.
Back later this week to reengage, listen & learn.
It's getting crowded at the bottom of the LN barrel.... Thumb1:
Imo it’s possible that the meeting of Allman with Oswald occurrd at approx 2 min 15 secs post shots which allows that Oswald could have Followed after Baker and Truly have entered the TSBD at 35 sec post shots.
It’s dependent on if the passenger elevator was still operational ( power not cut yet) and if it was on the 1st floor.
If so, Oswald enters 15 secs behind Baker/Truly into TSBD lobby and as Baker/Truly are inside 2nd set of doors and focused on Truly getting thru the counter top , Oswald crosses floor unnoticed , reaches the passenger elevator on the 1st floor , takes it to 2nd floor.
The timing therefore Oswald exiting passenger elevator is approx 65 sec post shots, which then if Oswald goes down 50 ft hallway then 30 ft hallway at approx 5ft/sec pace would coincide with passing thru the Vestibule And opening 2nd floor lunchroom door approx 85 sec post shots. That coincides with approx rime of Baker/Truly arriving on 2nd floor landing using the rear staircase
15 secs of encounter with B/T and Oswald puts on his jacket from where in the lunchroom or closer he had taken it off when he was in the Lunchroom at 12:15 ( see by Carolyn
Arnold).
Oswald exits 2nd Fluor lunchroom approx 105 secs post shots goes down rear staircase, (10 sec ) crosses 1st floor diagonally towards Truly front desk area. (10 sec )goes thru counter top (probably left open by Truly ) , (5 sec)crosses front lobby floor (10 sec) and exits front entrance door at approx 140 secs post shots or approx 2 min 20 sec post shots
This may be about right for Alllman meeting Oswald at the steps if Allmans Interview with Newman’s on the GK took approx 1 min 30 secs
From the Henry Wade late night conference...at 3:34, not in a lunch room but "saw this man...in a corner". He then talks nonsense about the defendant missing although the manager just cleared him. This stuff has been stitched together hurriedly.
You have the name of the cab driver?
Well if it’s a CERTAIN fact that the CE 163 blue jacket was found in the Domino room a month after the assassination, then I could dismiss the plausibility of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter entirely on the grounds there’s really NO reason left for Oswald(PM) to have ever gone back up there. He wouldn’t have bothered Imo to return his coke bottle either, which is why that bottle at the steps right where PM is standing, may be that bottle.
Thens it’s a matter of a meeting with Allman occurring about just after meeting Baker/Truly at 35 sec post shots.
If it’s about a 20 sec interval of meeting part of which is about 5 sec or more for Truly to move up the steps to join Truly, then it can work out with Allman meeting Oswald as early as 60 secs post shots pertaining IF the interview of Newman’s was only 30 sec and IF the total distance of ground traversed is approx 250 ft.
From the Henry Wade late night conference...at 3:34, not in a lunch room but "saw this man...in a corner".
Why can't Mr Oswald have simply lingered at the front entrance for a couple of minutes after the shooting, as others did?
Why can't Mr Oswald have simply lingered at the front entrance for a couple of minutes after the shooting, as others did?
If you're a LNer that would fly in the face of your tale that Lee was fleeing the scene....
However I believe that Lee said that he stood around outside for a few minutes before telling Shelley that he was going to take the afternoon off because there wouldn't be any work done that afternoon. I believe there are photos that show Lee Oswald standing on the street in front of the TSBD. He has his hands in his pockets ( just like the photo taken in Minsk) and he's watching the activity in the railroad switch yard. He's wearing a brown shirt and gray trousers.
10. The probability factor that Oswald could have been such an obstruction in front of the TSBD door that it caused a collision
with a DPD cop with his gun drawn and subsequent Mr.Truly having to vouch for Oswald, and this event was totally unnoticed by Mr Williams, Mr Shelley adjacent
and Pauline Sanders also,
makes this an scenario defying reasonable probability and thus less plausible than other possibilities.
11. An alternative possibility that does not require one to have to result to label Baker/Truly as abject liars, does not require a leap beyond reasonable probability, yet preserves the principle PM=Oswald theory, is the Oswald Follows After Baker/Truly scenario, and is predicated on the passenger elevator being used by Oswald to 2nd floor which allows a more probable coincidental timing of an 85 sec post shots sighting by Baker of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Can you point us to this photo, Mr Cakebread?
Where is Lovelady on record having stated something specific about seeing Oswald encounter Baker and Truly at the entrance door of TSBD?
(https://i.imgur.com/su9eZwP.jpg)
This says that Mr Shelley saw Mr Oswald periodically before noon, but never saw him after that. Right? NOPE. It only creates that impression by saying nothing at all about whether Mr Shelley saw Mr Oswald at the time of the actual shooting. The word "after" (the President's accident) does the crucial work of time-leaping misdirection here.
(https://i.imgur.com/MW5c9j2.jpg)
This says that the last time Mr Dougherty saw Mr Oswald was on the sixth floor shortly before noon. Right? NOPE. It only creates that impression via the phrase "after lunch". What's being left out here? Thanks to Mr Jack Dougherty's interview with Mr Gill Toff a few years after the assassination, we know the answer: Mr Dougherty's sighting of Mr Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom shortly before the motorcade (i.e. DURING lunch).
(https://i.imgur.com/5DBnj4a.jpg)
This says that the last time Mr Lovelady saw Mr Oswald was around 11:50am. Right? NOPE. It only creates that impression via the weasel word "contact".
Mr. Ford , you are going to have to write a book soon :)
Thanks for additional information on these critical witnesses secondary and third party statements, which the WC JFK witness page unfortunately does
Not reference.
It's how one reads ...
(https://www.freshnessmag.com/.image/t_share/MTM2ODM2Mzg3MDExNTAzNzEz/rxart---between-the-lines-coloring-books---0.jpg)
But what about the NEXT day , Saturday when Oswald is being taken in the hallway and he’s stating that he “categorically denies these charges“?
Surely Oswald was by now been charged with some serious crime, therfore the reason for Oswald to make such statement?
Yet apparently not yet charged with shooting the POTUS, and that being reason not to shout his out front steps alibi?
There is no statement as far (as I’m aware) in the JFK witness page from DPD officer Barnett about stopping an Oswald who was then “let go” because Truly vouched for him.
The time would have been between 2 min 30 sec post shots ( earliest) and 3 min sec ps ( latest) by Barnett’s own estimate, of himself locking the TSBD front door.
Pierce Allman met the man he thinks was Oswald , just inside the front door, the door being partly open. ( his video statement)
But if this is Just literally after Baker/Truly entered, and Oswald is there in the doorway, apparently Allman was also oblivious to seeing Baker in the lobby or thru the clear glass doors (2nd set) when Allman does to the phones available in this 1st floor lobby area.
The timing for Allman to reasonably NOT have seen Baker in lobby or with Truly trying to open the counter top desk (thru the 2nd set of glass doors) would have to be approx 65-70 secs post shots when B/T are past this desk office area and traversing towards the rear elevators and stairwell. ( B/T just missed seeing Adams and Styles having exited a side door by the west elevator).
So my estimate for Pierce Allman of approx 60 sec post shots reaching the TSBD front door if the interview with Newmans is 30 sec or less, and distance is approx 250 ft or less is possibly verifiable via an 2013 or later interview with Allman.
Now why Mr Williams on one side and Pauline Sanders on the other side do not see Oswald or Truly is still a mystery :)
It SEEMs to defy probability, however Oswald is basically a nobody at this point in time and so I guess it’s possible for such person to be virtually invisible
DPD cop with gun drawn in white helmet on the other hand and a well known “and recognizable Boss” also having his hat on, it’s probably going to require Duncan’s Gorilla Unseen in the very midst of basketball players 😳
But what about the NEXT day , Saturday when Oswald is being taken in the hallway and he’s stating that he “categorically denies these charges“?
Surely Oswald was by now been charged with some serious crime, therfore the reason for Oswald to make such statement?
Yet apparently not yet charged with shooting the POTUS, and that being reason not to shout his out front steps alibi?
It SEEMs to defy probability, however Oswald is basically a nobody at this point in time and so I guess it’s possible for such person to be virtually invisible
DPD cop with gun drawn in white helmet on the other hand and a well known “and recognizable Boss” also having his hat on, it’s probably going to require Duncan’s Gorilla Unseen in the very midst of basketball players 😳
I truly do not know WHEN Lee became aware that JFK had been killed.
As far as he is given to understand right up to his death on the Sunday, he is charged with shooting Officer Tippit and complicity (via rifle) in the murder of Pres. Kennedy. These are the charges he emphatically denies.
Oswald would have been pretty sure when he saw a a red halo around Kennedy's head.
JohnM
...... and i bet he smirked after seeing the red. Kennedy killer. He should never have been born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistick_Krewe_of_Comus
Mistick Krewe of Comus -
The Mistick Krewe of Comus, founded in 1856, is a New Orleans, Louisiana, Carnival krewe. ... Abbreviation, MKC. Named after, Comus.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4471-rex/?tab=comments#comment-34138
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted July 20, 2005
.....
.......
Of course, other Queens of COMUS include the daughter of General Robert E. Lee as well as the daughter of Jefferson Davis
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/100520469/constance-ivy-fedoroff
Constance Ivy Burke Fedoroff
.....
Queen MKC 1950.
Family Members
Parents
Photo
William P. Burke
1900–1980
"..With a rebel yell more, more, more
He lives in his own heaven
Collects it to go from the seven eleven ..."
https://account.star-telegram.com/paywall/subscriber-only?resume=187524003&intcid=ab_archive
Dec 1, 2017 — "Robert Lee Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald and a former resident of Fort Worth, .."
Are you sure that Lee was being charged as an accomplice ??..... You may be right...but I'm pretty sure that on 11-23-63 Hoover said that the white house needed to release a statement that stated that Lee Harvey Oswald was simply a lone nut killer who had no accomplices.
"As i entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were."
Question #1!
Do you believe there were several people standing around behind the glass door (i.e. on the inside) and that these were the people Officer Baker asked about the stairs?
Question #2 for anyone who answered Yes to Question #1!
Who can these several people standing around behind the glass door have been?
Thumb1:
...... and i bet he smirked after seeing the red. Kennedy killer. He should never have been born.
Oh boy... What's this, typical to LNs, emotional stuff decades after fact?
Fun fact!
The SS 'reconstruction' of Mr Oswald's alleged descent from the sixth floor to the lunchroom ends with the LHO stand-in sitting down at one of the lunchroom tables:
(https://i.imgur.com/Do8m8By.jpg)
Wherever did they get this idea from? :D
Yep, Mr O'Blazney is an emotional guy. He wrote this a couple of years back:
"and what, pray tell, mssr. 'prayerdude', explains your cognitive dissonance? anybody but oswald. i remember having a nice chat with mssr. bugliosi back in the day. that, and other conversations changed my mind, for i was almost like you. and then there was leo damore, whose book deprived ted kennedy of his mantle as president. and before that, lane and garrison, et. al. they polluted the minds of millions...... MILLIONS !!! mae didn't help, either. nor did sarah mcclendon, whose wheelchair i used to push into the white house for press conferences (they don't have press conferences anymore.....sigh+), passing notes to tim mccury from her. oh, those were the days !!. everything changed when W was illegally named 'the chief'. they wouldn't let me in then after that numbskull was erected, as i had an FBI file, et. al., but she bellowed "the president shall hear of this !!"....... then they let me in. did you know she was responsible for an 11 million-dollar makeover in order to have handicapped people accessible into the white house? (read: americans with disabilities act)"
???
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/peter-janney/the-autodaf-of-lisa-pease-and-jamesdieugenio-tomas-de-torquemada-and-the-spanish-inquisition-return-in-a-new-era-of-suppression-of-freedom-of-thought-and-adherence-to-a-rigid-dogma-namely-thei/
The Autodaf of Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition return in a new era of suppression of freedom of thought and adherence to a rigid dogma - namely their own prejudices!
By Peter Janney
July 6, 2012
....In addition, Ms. Pease can't even seem to fathom or consider how "Lt. William L. Mitchell," a man who told police he was jogging on the towpath when he passed Mary Meyer — allegedly just before the murder took place — told police that a "Negro male" matching Wiggins' description was following her in an effort to frame Ray Crump. "Mitchell" would then testify against Crump at the murder trial nine months later in July 1965 as part of the CIA's assassination operation. It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial, or that his known address during that time was documented as a "CIA safe house" by three separate former CIA employees. At the time of trial in July 1965, Mitchell told a reporter that he had since retired from the military and was now a mathematics instructor at Georgetown University — yet no record of his employment there could ever be located, nor was there ever any bona-fide military service record located for "Mitchell," either in the Pentagon where he was listed in the directory at the time of the murder, or in the main military data base in St. Louis. This was thoroughly researched by the Peabody Award-winning journalist Roger Charles, as discussed in my book, a fact that Pease fails to mention in one of her many deliberate omissions, which also included Damore's consultation with L. Fletcher Prouty (as documented by Damore's attorney James H. Smith) to finally understand who "Mitchell" was, before Damore confronted him. Of course, Lisa Pease is entitled to whatever flawed point of view she wants to embrace, but she's not entitled to her own set of facts.
The rest of Pease's long-winded misstatements criticizing author Leo Damore, Timothy Leary, Robert Morrow, Gregory Douglas and other sources who I attempted to unravel — explicitly noting their deficiencies and limitations — completely obfuscates the clarity of the emerging picture: Placed in a larger context, and juxtaposed with firm documentation, the aggregate unfolding scenario clearly indicates that Mary Meyer's life was ended by a CIA assassination. But in the Pease-DiEugenio fantasy world, people are either all white or all black, complete truth-tellers or liars, completely reliable or unreliable. There are no shades of grey; there is no ambiguity; and there is no room for the analysis of intricacy and complexity....
I don't waste my time with anyone who even hints of duplicity or dishonesty. Mark O'Blazney is your mirror opposite. Try asking Mark a sincere, serious question, he has nothing to hide and is always willing to help other sincere posters. He is cynical and sarcastic, having been exposed to both Leo Damore and to Peter Janney! He knows more about Washington DC of the past sixty years than anyone else I've noticed and he never takes himself too seriously. You, OTOH ..... ?
Fun fact!
The SS 'reconstruction' of Mr Oswald's alleged descent from the sixth floor to the lunchroom ends with the LHO stand-in sitting down at one of the lunchroom tables:
(https://i.imgur.com/Do8m8By.jpg)
Wherever did they get this idea from? :D
Wherever did they get this idea from? :D"...the Oswald stand in "
The idea probably came from Baker who told the Oswald stand in that " Lee Harvey Oswald was sitting at the table drinking a coke, when I opened the lunchroom door"
As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?
Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.
Mr. DULLES - Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn't quite hear.That multi-colored jacket keeps showing up...going from light brown to grey to white to blue and back again.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.
Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0270a.jpg)
"...the Oswald stand in "
Would that not be the Oswald sit in? :-\
For our audience for the umpty-umpth time----https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htmThat multi-colored jacket keeps showing up...going from light brown to grey to white to blue and back again. (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0270a.jpg)
"...the Oswald stand in "
Would that not be the Oswald sit in? :-\
For our audience for the umpty-umpth time----https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htmThat multi-colored jacket keeps showing up...going from light brown to grey to white to blue and back again. (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0270a.jpg)
..this highlights the problem with rabid JFKA CT's, outside this single case, they have no real life experience!Why are these snipes and pot shots necessary? A [trained in observation] policeman described the lunchroom man in affidavit and testimony. Wes Frazier who drove Oswald to work describes his [shirt-jacket] as baggy several times. So he couldn't remember the color. What color of shirt did you wear 2 days ago?
Why are these snipes and pot shots necessary? A [trained in observation] policeman described the lunchroom man in affidavit and testimony. Wes Frazier who drove Oswald to work describes his [shirt-jacket] as baggy several times. So he couldn't remember the color. What color of shirt did you wear 2 days ago?Just to be clear, that quote isn't from me.
The claim that people that you don't even know... have "no real life experience" is based on some imaginary grandeur psychic abilities I suppose?
BTW Frazier is absolutely certain Oswald wore a light gray jacket to work that morning.Right... Oswald wore a grey jacket on the way to work and then after he left work, he took a cab wearing a blue jacket and went home and then [supposedly] changed into a grey jacket.
Just to be clear, that quote isn't from me....I posted part of a John Mytton postThe quotes were not posted correctly then. Also, there were no links to follow the [not very useful] information.
That's not what he demonstrated.
You still don't get it.
LOL
Right... Oswald wore a grey jacket on the way to work and then after he left work, he took a cab wearing a blue jacket and went home and then [supposedly] changed into a grey jacket.
BTW--What color [again] of shirt did you wear 2 days ago?
The quotes were not posted correctly then. Also, there were no links to follow the [not very useful] information.
Even so... you appear to agree that an opposing viewpoint is from "rabid individuals who have no life experience".
Not "jacket".
Jacket.
No wonder you're so all over the place, also on the forum, currently.
"...he took a cab wearing a blue jacket..."
You've been listening to Walt too much.
He described light blue pants made of a khaki material and a similar jacket.
He could be saying the jacket was also a very light colour and made of a khaki material.
If so, you're example scans as - wore a light grey jacket to work, got a cab wearing a light coloured jacket, went home and changed into a light grey jacket.
Mind blowing.
You've been listening to Walt too much.
He described light blue pants made of a khaki material and a similar jacket.
Bull sh--!.....
He (Whaley) described his passenger's ( who was NOT LHO ) clothing as BLUE trousers and a BLUE jacket that made up a UNIFORM. Uniforms usually have matching Jacket and trousers. Think of a policeman's uniform.
AND what's more Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a Jacket . Why do you persist in attempting to morph Whaleys passenger into Lee Oswald. Are you really this confused ?....
described light blue pants made of a khaki material and a similar jacket.
"...he took a cab wearing a blue jacket..."And you are waffling too much. Similar means very much like in appearance does it not? Regardless whether this supposed [taxi] jacket was blue, grey, or pink with yellow polka dots, the cab driver testified that his passenger wore one did he not? "Oswald" the bus passenger didn't [according to those witnesses]
You've been listening to Walt too much.
He described light blue pants made of a khaki material and a similar jacket.
He could be saying the jacket was also a very light colour and made of a khaki material. *Mind blowing.
Wherever did they get this idea from? :D
The idea probably came from Baker who told the Oswald stand in ( John J. Howlett ) that " Lee Harvey Oswald was sitting at the table drinking a coke, when I opened the lunchroom door"
Bullsh*t to you too.
Whaley only describes the pants as faded blue and made of a khaki material. That's a fact.
He describes the jacket as being similar to the pants. That's a fact
If the jacket was the same as the pants, as in a uniform, he wouldn't have used the word "similar", he would have said it was the same.
Whaley does not describe a blue jacket. That's a fact
(and remember...you like to deal with facts)
It hurts to be labeled "confused" by you Walt
(I know I shouldn't have to point out the inherent irony in the above statement but I feel I must)
Erm...I'm sure you've added this for some good reason.
So the jacket is now a "jacket" because it's actually CE 151.... LOL
You fail again because Whaley already dealt with the shirt, claiming it was CE 150, so Oswald is now wearing two long sleeved shirts!
Awesome watching an LN suicide mission real time.
The reason I put "jacket" is because I don't think it was a jacket.
I think it was CE 151
Whaley does not describe a blue jacket. That's a fact
:D
Amazing the studied cluelessness of the 95% Warren Gullible mind!
Mr. Ball. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. Whaley. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. Ball. Look something like it? And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. Whaley. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. Ball. That is right.
Mr. Whaley. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Mr. Ball. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. Whaley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball. You said that a jacket--
Mr. Whaley. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. Ball. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.
Mr. Whaley. Yes, sir.
Bullsh*t to you too.
Whaley only describes the pants as faded blue and made of a khaki material. That's a fact.
He describes the jacket as being similar to the pants. That's a fact
If the jacket was the same as the pants, as in a uniform, he wouldn't have used the word "similar", he would have said it was the same.
Whaley does not describe a blue jacket. That's a fact
(and remember...you like to deal with facts)
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had.Right...it all came back to him.
Jerry, Baker trip over his words when he testified before the WC..... In recalling the scene to his minds eye, and describing the the location where he called to the man who was sneaking away from the stairs . He said that it was dark in there by the elevators. Which I'm sure you know is a sharp contrast to the well lit second floor lunchroom where he encountered Lee Oswald.
Alan Ford is desperately trying to bring back the topic. Kudos.
There are presently 3 threads discussing Whaley and Oswald's Jacket [been discussed for two years now]
Let's end those here :)
Right...it all came back to him.
Now!
Mr Roy Truly, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, 11/27/63, talking about Officer Baker:
(https://i.imgur.com/PhNVy22.jpg)
Ain't it interesting that the SS's own belief that Mr Oswald was seen SITTING in the lunchroom-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/0CaosuU.jpg)
-------------tallies so perfectly with what Mr Truly told the press at this time?
Friends, we are a long, long, long way away here from Officer Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit account:
"As we reached the 3rd or 4th floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man & he turned around & came back toward me."
This is a VERY astute observation, Mr Cakebread! Thumb1:
Mr. Baker. I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.
(...)
Mr. Belin. Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?
Mr. Baker. At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt. Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side.
"That particular day", lol
This most certainly does NOT describe the lunchroom:
(https://i.imgur.com/3nm4qzU.jpg)
However! Has Officer Baker just given us an important clue as to which floor he really encountered a light-brown-jacket-wearing man who was walking away from the stairway?-----------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/E0yBJ1g.jpg)
Now!
Mr Roy Truly, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, 11/27/63, talking about Officer Baker:
(https://i.imgur.com/PhNVy22.jpg)
Ain't it interesting that the SS's own belief that Mr Oswald was seen SITTING in the lunchroom-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/0CaosuU.jpg)
-------------tallies so perfectly with what Mr Truly told the press at this time?
Friends, we are a long, long, long way away here from Officer Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit account:
"As we reached the 3rd or 4th floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man & he turned around & came back toward me."
A couple of weeks after the assassination, Roy Truly was interviewed by a reporter from the magazine US News and the reporter quoted Truly as saying that Lee Oswald was sitting at a table in the second floor lunchroom, drinking a coke, when DPD officer Baker confronted him.It would not matter if LHO was standing up, sitting down or standing on his head...the idea that he just decided to run down to the lunchroom and calmly get a nice refreshing soda after supposedly shooting at the president and hiding a rifle is just plain silly.
It would not matter if LHO was standing up, sitting down or standing on his head...the idea that he just decided to run down to the lunchroom and calmly get a nice refreshing soda after supposedly shooting at the president and hiding a rifle is just plain silly.
Now I understand that Gerald Ford performed the feat of starting at the 6th floor stairs and clomped down to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 40 seconds. ....so what?
The idea of the Boston bomber getting into a boat in someone's backyard is a silly idea. Obviously, Oswald did not decide to run down to the lunchroom and buy a soda after shooting JFK. He was heading down the stairs to escape, heard someone heading up the stairs, and he headed toward the lunchroom to avoid detection. The soda is a prop just like the clipboard that he carrying around on the 6th floor to give him the appearance of having a reason to be there unless you think Old Lee was real thirsty and guzzled it because he is out the door of the building and on a bus down the street just minutes later with no soda.Ah the time traveling Richard Smith...shoulda been a writer for the Warren Report.
The soda was just a prop:D
It would not matter if LHO was standing up, sitting down or standing on his head...the idea that he just decided to run down to the lunchroom and calmly get a nice refreshing soda after supposedly shooting at the president and hiding a rifle is just plain silly.
Now I understand that Gerald Ford performed the feat of starting at the 6th floor stairs and clomped down to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 40 seconds. ....so what?
Ah the time traveling Richard Smith...shoulda been a writer for the Warren Report. :D
The Boston bomber was --hiding. Not a silly idea...a desperate one. Or was the boat just a prop?
the idea that he just decided to run down to the lunchroom and calmly get a nice refreshing soda after supposedly shooting at the president and hiding a rifle is just plain silly.
This is one for " Ripley's Believe it or Not"
Believe it or not Jerry....When Curry first learned of Baker's encounter with Lee Oswald in the lunchroom.....he told reporters that Oswald was such a fiend that when Baker confronted him he was calmly drinking a Coca Cola just seconds after he had murdered the president. That's the spin that Curry put on the lunchroom encounter.....and that caused a huge problem because Curry had acknowledged that Lee was DRINKING A COKE at the time that Baker burst into the lunchroom. When the WC "investigators" re-enacted Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald's flight from the "Sniper's Nest" to the second floor lunchroom they discoveed that there simply wasn't enough time for Lee to have got the coke from the vending machine prior to Baker's arrival.
So Curry's statement had to be expunged.....
As you've pointed out the idea that Lee was calmly drinking a coke to celebrate his deed is completely insane ...but the fact that it happened, highlights the lengths they would go to to frame Lee Oswald.
(https://i.imgur.com/E0yBJ1g.jpg)
The fourth floor??
Imagine the NYTs getting a detail wrong! LOL.
And they had a "snack bar" at the TSBD? Was that next to the sauna?
It would not matter if LHO was standing up, sitting down or standing on his head...
A couple of weeks after the assassination, Roy Truly was interviewed by a reporter from the magazine US News and the reporter quoted Truly as saying that Lee Oswald was sitting at a table in the second floor lunchroom, drinking a coke, when DPD officer Baker confronted him.
the idea that he just decided to run down to the lunchroom and calmly get a nice refreshing soda after supposedly shooting at the president and hiding a rifle is just plain silly.
This is one for " Ripley's Believe it or Not"
Believe it or not Jerry....When Curry first learned of Baker's encounter with Lee Oswald in the lunchroom.....he told reporters that Oswald was such a fiend that when Baker confronted him he was calmly drinking a Coca Cola just seconds after he had murdered the president. That's the spin that Curry put on the lunchroom encounter.....and that caused a huge problem because Curry had acknowledged that Lee was DRINKING A COKE at the time that Baker burst into the lunchroom. When the WC "investigators" re-enacted Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald's flight from the "Sniper's Nest" to the second floor lunchroom they discoveed that there simply wasn't enough time for Lee to have got the coke from the vending machine prior to Baker's arrival.
So Curry's statement had to be expunged.....
As you've pointed out the idea that Lee was calmly drinking a coke to celebrate his deed is completely insane ...but the fact that it happened, highlights the lengths they would go to to frame Lee Oswald.
This is not rocket science. Oswald was attempting to avoid detection by exiting the stairs, entering the lunchroom, and appearing to be drinking a soda.
First he switched the lights off!
It very much does matter if Officer Baker's 11/22 affidavit gives us an 'employee' who was "walking away from the stairway"Alan Ford gave us this observation-----
If you believe that 'a man walking away from the stairway' on 'the third or fourth floor' was Mr Oswald by the second-floor lunchroom, then you'll believe anything.https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2253.msg64940.html#msg64940
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street ..... I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.Baker was perhaps in error on his stair climbing count but who knows?
Alan Ford gave us this observation-----https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2253.msg64940.html#msg64940
That is based on Baker's affidavit... https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htmBaker was perhaps in error on his stair climbing count but who knows?
There is a M L Baker hand written statement--- something after "second floor" (sic) was crossed out. "Drinking a coke" was also crossed out [for some reason] And this was right before the release of the Report.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aBTInu_OfUU/WV3x3uWqBAI/AAAAAAABMRw/_g6vClvxpJQpknWKuttxfSDWn9kT8geMQCLcBGAs/s1600/Marrion-Baker-9-23-64-Affidavit.png)
There is a M L Baker hand written statement--- something after "second floor" (sic) was crossed out. "Drinking a coke" was also crossed out [for some reason] And this was right before the release of the Report.
This affidavit is nothing but a cheap lawyer's trick......They knew that it had been firmly established that Baker had encountered Lee In the lunchroom DRINKING A COKE, and in the first days following the murder of John Kennedy they used the "Drinking a coke " issue as a way of showing what a monster and inhuman fiend Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald ( Booooo Hissss) was.
So since that was firmly planted in the public's mind they couldn't simply erase the event and say that it never happened.....They need to expunge it in an official affidavit. Thus they had an FBI agent write the affidavit to look like Baker had written it, The crossing out of the words "drinking a coke" was left legible so it looked like Baker had revised the affidavit. There was no reason for the crossing out of words...They could easily have scrapped that piece of paper and re-written the affidavit, but that would not have have officially expunged the Drinking a coke issue.
The claim that Oswald's presence in the lunchroom with a coke somehow means he did not assassinate JFK because he would not have paused to have a beverage is absurd because no one, including the WC, suggested that Oswald's presence in the lunchroom was planned. He headed there to avoid detection on the stairs. He did out of necessity. No because he was thirsty.
If he had a soda, it was merely to give him an excuse for being there. And there is no more sign of the soda when he exits the lunchroom moments later to encounter Mrs. Reid.
All of which tells us that Mr Smith still can't explain the match between this-----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/kOYwUcr.jpg)
------------------and this----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/V2ovLT9.jpg)
Mr Smith gets ANOTHER detail wrong. I'm in shock! :D
Please try to express this in terms of a coherent point. You have posted a picture of a man sitting down, what is appears to be an incomplete newspaper clip,
and a point about Mrs. Reid. What detail here is wrong?
~Grin~
You can't think of a coherent Warren Gullible explanation for the match between what that frame shows and what Mr Truly is quoted as saying, and so you try to buy time by playing dumb-----------------smart move, Mr Smith! Thumb1:
Oh, just your sublimely silly claim that "there is no more sign of the soda when he exits the lunchroom moments later to encounter Mrs. Reid"! :D
A full coke.
Which you referred to two posts back as "no more sign of the soda" :D
Yes, where did it go? If Oswald has a full coke while exiting the lunchroom but no coke moments later
Moments later, lol
But all kudos to you, Mr Smith, for putting your hands up like a man and saying, 'Yeah, I goofed real bad when I described an invisible full coke' Thumb1:
Try to answer the question. How long do you think it took Oswald to reach the bus if he left the building and walked to it a short distance down the street where he got on?
Compare that to how long it takes to drink a full coke while walking and discard it before reaching that point. So what happened to it? Did he immediately discard a full coke after buying it or not?
He certainly didn't leave the building within moments, lol. He stayed at least long enough to point a credentials-flashing crewcut man to the nearest telephone
He presumably finished his coke out on the front steps, which is where he was for the P. Parade. He had the coke in his hand when Officer Baker went tearing up those steps right after the shooting.
As for where he left the empty bottle, who cares? Could have been anywhere
Now a question for you, Mr Smith, lest you think your lame attempt to wriggle out of the original problem is going to work!
Why do we have Mr Truly describing to the press Mr Oswald sitting at one of the tables in the lunchroom AND that very scene reflected in the SS's filmed recreation of Mr Oswald's alleged descent from 6 to lunchroom?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Thumb1:
He certainly didn't leave the building within moments, lol. He stayed at least long enough to point a credentials-flashing crewcut man to the nearest telephone
He presumably finished his coke out on the front steps, which is where he was for the P. Parade. He had the coke in his hand when Officer Baker went tearing up those steps right after the shooting.
As for where he left the empty bottle, who cares? Could have been anywhere
Now a question for you, Mr Smith, lest you think your lame attempt to wriggle out of the original problem is going to work!
Why do we have Mr Truly describing to the press Mr Oswald sitting at one of the tables in the lunchroom AND that very scene reflected in the SS's filmed recreation of Mr Oswald's alleged descent from 6 to lunchroom?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Thumb1:
Psssst Mr. "Smith"..... The old Coca Cola bottles were rather small ( 8 oz ?) It was very easy to empty the bottle in just a couple of gulps....
I don't think it makes any difference whether Oswald was sitting or standing.
Give it a try within the timeframe. Oswald has no bottle when he reaches the bus only minutes later.
Who actually saw Oswald get on the bus minutes (plus a fraction) later?
Cecil Mc Watters said that he saw Lee climb aboard the bus.....
And Lee said that he had boarded a bus....
Psssst Mr. "Smith"..... The old Coca Cola bottles were rather small ( 8 oz ?) It was very easy to empty the bottle in just a couple of gulps....I saw the Fat Lady show at the State Fair when I was a kid...For her performance every half hour, she would drink a case [24] of Coke. Actually, the small Coke was 6 1/2 ozs. She would glug one down and then tell jokes in between :)
Original Coke bottle sizehttps://soyummy.com/coke-bottle-history/
By 1955, Coca-Cola started to offer different sizes in addition to the standard 6.5-ounce bottles. They offered 10-, 12-, and 16-ounce bottles. They also introduced the very first king-size bottle at 26 ounces.
Who actually saw Oswald get on the bus minutes (plus a fraction) later?Who would walk up 6 blocks of obviously snarled one way traffic just to get on a bus and then expect that bus to move along normally?
No...we actually don't.QuoteAnd Lee said that he had boarded a bus....No, we don't know that Mr Oswald said this
No, Mr McWatters said he saw a man who might have been Mr Oswald climb aboard the bus
No, we don't know that Mr Oswald said this
This affidavit is nothing but a cheap lawyer's trick......They knew that it had been firmly established that Baker had encountered Lee In the lunchroom DRINKING A COKE, and in the first days following the murder of John Kennedy they used the "Drinking a coke " issue as a way of showing what a monster and inhuman fiend [Oswald] was.
Oh yes we do know, that Lee told Fritz that he boarded a bus....Read Thomas Kelley's report on page 626 of the Warren Report.
Oh yes we do know, that Lee told Fritz that he boarded a bus....Read Thomas Kelley's report on page 626 of the Warren Report.Oswald was giving the Feds a song and dance....
On November 23 at 10:25 a. m. Oswald was brought from the jail for an interview. Present at this time was FBI agent Jim Bookhout, Forrest Sorrells, special agent and in charge of Secret Service, United States Marshal Robert Nash, and Homicide officers. During this interview I talked to Oswald about his leaving the building, and he told me he left by bus and rode to a stop near home and walked on to his house. At the time of Oswald's arrest he had a bus transfer in his pocket. He admitted this was given to him by the bus driver when he rode the bus after leaving the building.
Oswald stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes and went to a movie.
In response to questions put by Captain Fritz, Oswald said that immediately after having left the building where he worked, he went by bus to the theater where he was arrested;https://australianpolitics.com/warren/app11.shtml
Oswald was giving the Feds a song and dance....https://australianpolitics.com/warren/app11.shtml
Oswald's story kept changing---
Neither Fritz nor Kelley ever saw Oswald get on a bus so ...How do we really know?
There are some things that just ring of the truth.....Lee simply said that he boarded a bus but it got stuck in traffic so he got off and walked to the Greyhound taxi stand and hired a CITY cab to take him to the rooming house. He said that the fare was 85 cents.
Oswald was giving the Feds a song and dance....https://australianpolitics.com/warren/app11.shtml
Oswald's story kept changing---
Neither Fritz nor Kelley ever saw Oswald get on a bus so ...How do we really know?
Oswald was giving the Feds a song and dance...
Riiiiiight!..... Lee wanted to cut his throat and was simply lying about the event that was a strong alibi for his whereabouts at the time that JD Tippit was shot. Are you saying that Lee had a death wish, and he wanted to be convicted of the murder of Tippit?
So you're saying the impression that Mr Oswald kept changing his story-----------i.e. lying-------------was created by dishonest 'investigators' who were present at his interrogations?
Mr Oswald kept changing his story
That's a gross exaggeration.... Lee Never "Kept changing his story"....
The way the reports read indicate that Lee simply told Fritz that he had traveled from the TSBD to the theater by bus.....
Mr. BELIN - Could you describe the man that you saw running down toward the station wagon?There are photographs that support this testimony.
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, he was a white male in his twenties, five nine, five eight, something like that; about 140 to 150; had kind of medium brown sandy hair--you know, it was like it'd been blown--you know, he'd been in the wind or something--it was all wild-looking; had on--uh--blue trousers--
Mr. BELIN - What shade of blue? Dark blue, medium or light?
Mr. CRAIG - No; medium, probably; I'd say medium. And, a--uh--light tan shirt, as I remember it.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him?
Mr. CRAIG - No; nothing except that he looked like he was in an awful hurry.
Mr. BELIN - What about the man who was driving the car?
Mr. CRAIG - Now, he struck me, at first, as being a colored male.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRAIG - I drove up to Fritz' office about, oh, after 5--about 5:30 or something like that--and--uh--talked to Captain Fritz and told him what I had saw. And he took me in his office---I believe it was his office---it was a little office, and had the suspect setting in a chair behind a desk---beside the desk. And another gentleman, I didn't know him, he was sitting in another chair to my left as I walked in the office.
And Captain Fritz asked me was this the man I saw--and I said, "Yes," it was.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Will you describe the man you saw in Captain Fritz' office?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, he was sitting down but--uh--he had the same medium brown hair; it was still--well, it was kinda wild looking; he was slender, and--uh-- what 1 could toll of him sitting there, he was--uh---short. By that, I mean not--myself, I'm five eleven--he was shorter than I was. And--uh--fairly light build.
Mr. BELIN - Could you see his trousers?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't see his trousers at all.
Mr. BELIN - What about his shirt?
Mr. CRAIG - I believe, as close as I can remember, a T-shirt--a white T-shirt.
Mr. BELIN - All right. But you didn't see him in a lineup? You just saw him sitting there?
Mr. CRAIG - No; he was sitting there by himself in a chair--off to one side.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect say?
Mr. CRAIG - Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What about this station wagon?"
And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."
And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now."
And he was leaning over the desk. At this time, he had risen partially out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly at Captain Fritz.
Mr. BELIN - What was he wearing-or could you see the color of his trousers as he leaned over the desk?
Mr. CRAIG - No; because he never--he just leaned up, you know, sort of forward--not actually up, just out of his chair like that (indicating) forward.
Mr. BELIN - Then, did you say anything more?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I then left.
Mr. BELIN - Well, in other words, the only thing you ever said was, "This was the man,"--or words to that effect?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did Captain Fritz say anything more.
Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't believe---not while I was there.
There are photographs that support this testimony.
No, according to those 'investigators' present at his interrogations Mr Oswald simply lied about this on the Friday and then 'admitted' to it the following day.
Not at all hard to believe the 'investigators' simply lied about what he said---------------especially when we KNOW they buried his claim that he visited the second-floor lunchroom BEFORE the P. Parade and after that "went outside to watch P. Parade"
Mr Oswald simply lied about this on the Friday
Please present the evidence about the discussion of Lee's mode of transportation that occurred on Friday.
I never said he did. Re-read what I wrote!
Nonsense, Mr Cakebread! Mr Oswald is quoted as having stated in the very first interrogation that he went HOME by bus (where he changed some clothing) before going to a movie.
The suggestion being put forward in this thread is as follows:
Whatever Mr Oswald really did tell them, they kept evolving the story they put in his mouth so as to fit the story they were writing and modifying. If that lent the impression of a suspect who kept changing his story, all the better. Mr Oswald in fact made a simple claim and stuck to it across all of his interrogations. That simple claim being known to be veracious AND disastrous for the Tippit timeline, it was suppressed.
I believe this may well be the man
-----------seen by Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig getting into the Rambler
-----------seen by several witnesses (incl. Mr Amos Euins) at the sixth floor SE window
-----------caught by Officer Baker walking away from the rear stairway on the "third or fourth floor"
-----------seen by Tippit witnesses
(https://i.imgur.com/M0NBwmV.jpg)
Cf?
I
(https://i.imgur.com/ikM4qtS.jpg)
Nonsense, Mr Cakebread! Mr Oswald is quoted as having stated in the very first interrogation that he went HOME by bus (where he changed some clothing) before going to a movie.
No, I don't believe Lee said anything about his mode of transport during any interrogation on Friday. I've looked fpr any such staatement by Lee Oswald, and I can't find any mention of his mode of transport.... I've got to tell you Mr Ford....It pisses me off to be sent looking for information that doesn't exist.
Good grief!
"Oswald stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes and went to a movie" (Bookhout/Hosty report on first interrogation 11/22/63)
Good grief!
"Oswald stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes and went to a movie" (Bookhout/Hosty report on first interrogation 11/22/63)
Good grief!
"Oswald stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes and went to a movie" (Bookhout/Hosty report on first interrogation 11/22/63)
No record other than hearsay (various reports) that Oswald said anything about what he did. That's the problem with the DPD. No official record. How convenient.DPD didn't have a tape recorder [they said]. Neither did the FBI? The Secret Service? No one went home to get one.
A couple of court reporters could have been called in and would have done the job.
It was a deliberate choice not to have an authentic record of what was being said.
Elementary, my dear Watson!
Whatever Mr Oswald really did tell them, they kept evolving the story they put in his mouth so as to fit the story they were writing and modifying. If that lent the impression of a suspect who kept changing his story, all the better. Mr Oswald in fact made a simple claim and stuck to it across all of his interrogations. That simple claim being known to be veracious AND disastrous for the Tippit timeline, it was suppressed.
Le did NOT "keep changing his story".... In fact he simply said that he went home by bus...That wasn't totally accurate but I don't believe that it was intended to be a blatant lie.... Lee simply didn't see the point in describing the details of how he traveled to Oakcliff.
And to be totally honest ...he MAY not have wanted to reveal that he was in a hurry to get to the theater, because he wasn't going to the theater to simply watch an old war movie. He was going there to meet his handler and start his sojourn to Cuba.
If he had told Fritz that he had hired a Taxi to take him to his room, naturally Fritz would have asked him why he was in such a hurry ......and why did he leave the area at the TSBD when there was so much mesmerizing activity happening there.
But back to the basic ..... Lee DID NOT "keep changing his story" When Fritz asked him if he had ridden in a taxi, he readily admitted that he had in fact taken a taxi to the rooming house.
I thought that nobody behind closed doors told the truth but based on numerical order, you seem to pick and choose what you want to believe? How odd!
JohnM
No record other than hearsay (various reports) that Oswald said anything about what he did.
That's the problem with the DPD. No official record. How convenient.
It's much more difficult to alter tape recordings than hand scribbled notes....and they sure as hell didn't want any copies of any tape recording to be heard by the public.
The big problem with exposing the truth is the fact that so few will accept that the investigators were the conspirators.
The 'investigators' certainly conspired to pin this double crime on Mr Oswald and Mr Oswald alone. However this does NOT at all necessarily mean they were in on the assassination conspiracy itself
It is highly unlikely that there was any intention by the assassination conspirators to set up Mr Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter
I believe this may well be the man
-----------seen by Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig getting into the Rambler
-----------seen by several witnesses (incl. Mr Amos Euins) at the sixth floor SE window
-----------caught by Officer Baker walking away from the rear stairway on the "third or fourth floor"
-----------seen by Tippit witnesses
(https://i.imgur.com/M0NBwmV.jpg)
Cf?
(https://i.imgur.com/ikM4qtS.jpg)
Why highly unlikely???..... Don't you believe that they would have a patsy ready to be the scapegoat?
If by 'they' you mean the assassination conspirators rather than the post-hoc 'investigators', then the evidence is they made no effort to set Mr Oswald up as a gunman, let alone a lone nut gunman. That was the impossible job of the 'investigation'. Which is why the Warren Report is such a joke!
If by 'they' you mean the assassination conspirators rather than the post-hoc 'investigators',
"Conspirators" ----- "Investigators" Is there a difference? Some men wore both hats.....
If by 'they' you mean the assassination conspirators rather than the post-hoc 'investigators',
"Conspirators" ----- "Investigators" Is there a difference? Some men wore both hats.....
Other than Fritz, I can't really see anyone else who fits the bill.
Well one in a key position is enough ....But have you ever checked out Gerald Hill?
I think someone needs to be getting in touch with Mr Roberdeau.
.... Good Day Dan.... Perhaps someone was mis-identifying that the "Thornton" road sign on an 11-22-63 map was the "Stemmons" road sign. The closest edge of the "Thornton" sign, to the westernmost side of the TSBD front door entrance steps, was a bit over 126 feet, = 42 yards. (Elm Street was nearly exactly 40' wide)
Best Regards in Research, Don
Well one in a key position is enough ....But have you ever checked out Gerald Hill?W R Westbrook?....Kenneth Croy?....Harry Olsen?
Question!
Why is Mr Bill Shelley's name handwritten at the top of an interrogation report that doesn't once mention his name?
(https://i.imgur.com/aA3TYPY.jpg)
Now!
The above interrogation report makes no mention of Mr Shelley. However, Mr Shelley's name is handwritten in, indicating that he is in some IMPORTANT way relevant to things said in Mr Oswald's first interrogation session.
Well! The above report is followed up with a report on the SAME interrogation session only this time the report is written by Agent BOOKHOUT alone-----------------it is not a JOINT report, like with the first report.
However! As we discovered in 2019, Agent HOSTY---------co-author of the JOINT report above----------ALSO wrote a SOLO report, BEFORE Agent Hosty did, on that SAME first interrogation. Agent Hosty's original report records with perfect clarity that Mr Oswald stated that he
--------visited the second-floor lunchroom for a Coke BEFORE the P. Parade (NO mention of any officer-'n'-Truly encounter there!)
--------then went downstairs to one to eat his lunch
--------"Then went outside to watch P. Parade"
Mr Oswald, in that first interrogation session, named Mr Shelley (his supervisor, whom he had seen at City Hall shortly before his interrogation) as one of the people he was near as he watched the P. Parade and heard the shots. He can have fully expected Mr Shelley to confirm his presence on the steps.
Unlike in the JOINT interrogation report (by Agents Bookhout & Hosty), the Bookhout SOLO report DOES mention Mr Shelley, and in a way that makes his being named by Mr Oswald SAFE, i.e. in a way that reinforces the fake new timeframe that has been given to Mr Oswald's claims:
--------visited the second-floor lunchroom for a Coke DURING WHICH VISIT a cop came in with Mr Truly
--------then went downstairs to eat lunch
--------Then went outside and stood around with Mr Shelley, who indicated work would not be resumed for the rest of the day
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca–cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home.
This is the switcheroo, folks:
Then went outside to watch P. Parade (Hosty solo report)-------------------->Then went outside several minutes after the P. Parade (Bookhout solo report) Thumb1:
I had noticed that someone's name had been typed over in the Bookhout report for 11-22-63 ....The name Bill Shelly had been typed over the original entry.... Was there a simple mistake or was the name changed for some other reason.???
The really odd thing I noticed when I was looking for Hosty / Bookhout report is the closing sentence of that report.....( page 613 WR) That final sentence reads...Quote...." Oswald frantically denied shooting Dallas police officer Tippit" or shooting President John F. Kennedy."...unquote
The weird thing is NO WHERE in the reports of the initial questioning of LHO is there any mention of Fritz asking Lee anything about the shooting of Tippit..... So why would Lee "frantically deny shooting Dallas police officer Tippit" Fritz hadn't questioned him the shooting of Tippit. I don't believe this denial actually happened...I believe that Bookhout made that bit up....
Question!Notice the "KP" at the top. That stands for "Key Persons." This copy of the report was from Shelley's KP folder. "Key Person" is the term the WC used for people they wanted to call to testify, or considered particularly significant. A sort of dossier was created for each of these key people, and it was filled with reports, affidavits, depositions, memos, and similar documents that relate somehow to that person, at least as far as the WC staff was concerned. Some of these documents only relate tangentially or indirectly to the KP they are attached to. In Shelley's case, there is also a memo from Eisenberg to Rankin laying out the former's suspicion of Jack Daugherty as a possible suspect. IIRC it specifically mentions Roy Truly's name, but never mentions Shelley.
Why is Mr Bill Shelley's name handwritten at the top of an interrogation report that doesn't once mention his name?
(https://i.imgur.com/aA3TYPY.jpg)
Looks like "SHELLY" is corrected for "SHELLEY"
Mr Oswald was given to understand that he stood accused of two things:
1. INVOLVEMENT in the shooting of Pres. Kennedy (not the actual pulling of the trigger)
2. The SHOOTING of Officer Tippit
Mr Oswald made this clear in the midnight press conference-------------------which was suddenly shut down as soon as he was told he had been charged with the SHOOTING of Pres. Kennedy
He was played, but good------------------and that's why he never shouted his ironclad alibi to the pressmen
Fritz immediately focused on Lee's actions at the TSBD
As I recall Leavelle was kind of assigned (or assigned himself) to the Tippit shooting.
I don't think the FBI had any interest in the Tippit shooting as such, it only complicated things for them.
.... Good Day Dan.... Perhaps someone was mis-identifying that the "Thornton" road sign on an 11-22-63 map was the "Stemmons" road sign. The closest edge of the "Thornton" sign, to the westernmost side of the TSBD front door entrance steps, was a bit over 126 feet, = 42 yards. (Elm Street was nearly exactly 40' wide)
Best Regards in Research, Don
Hi Don,
This was from quite a while ago.
As I remember I had a couple of schematic drawings of Dealey Plaza that agreed with each other in the scale they were using but disagreed with your map.
If I remember correctly it turned out these schematic drawings were wrong and your map was right.
Is there a latest update for your map and, out of interest, do you agree with the identification of the four ladies standing together wearing head scarves as Calvery, Hicks, Reed and Westbrook?
.... Good Day Dan.... Thumb1: There is an update coming that I have been working on for 4 years in my spare, personal times for the free Dealey Plaza Detailed Map that includes additional evidence, key information's, witnesses photo/film photogrammetrically precise determined locations, etc.
When all of these new map components references have been solidly confirmed + quadruple-checked for 111% accuracy, I will certainly provide it publicly for us all. Thumb1:
Best Regards in Research,
Don
Donald Roberdeau
United States Navy
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges clearly
①___________②___③
For your key considerations + independent determinations....
Homepages Website: "Men of Courage: President Kennedy-elimination" Evidence, Witnesses,
Photographers, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, Suspects, + Key Considerations....
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html
The Dealey Plaza Detailed Map: Documented 11-22-63 Victims Precise Locations +
Reactions, Evidence, Witnesses Locations, Photographers, Suspected Bullet Trajectories,
Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, + Important Information + Key Considerations, in One
Convenient Resource....
http://i.imgur.com/rGmmWxD.gif
( 2017 updated map, + new information.... Updated map coming)
Discovery: Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS's
Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly
Towards the Grassy Knoll ....
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html
Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While JFK was Still Hidden
Under the "Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree"....
http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif (http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif)
Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in-garbage-out....
http://i.imgur.com/r8Ga26x.gif
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
U.S. Department for Homeland Security Terrorists-Alert Status For the United States: (https://i.imgur.com/ssa8IQp.gif)
http://dhs.gov
(https://i.imgur.com/ssa8IQp.gif[/url)
Notice the "KP" at the top. That stands for "Key Persons." This copy of the report was from Shelley's KP folder. "Key Person" is the term the WC used for people they wanted to call to testify, or considered particularly significant. A sort of dossier was created for each of these key people, and it was filled with reports, affidavits, depositions, memos, and similar documents that relate somehow to that person, at least as far as the WC staff was concerned. Some of these documents only relate tangentially or indirectly to the KP they are attached to. In Shelley's case, there is also a memo from Eisenberg to Rankin laying out the former's suspicion of Jack Daugherty as a possible suspect. IIRC it specifically mentions Roy Truly's name, but never mentions Shelley.
Mr Oswald was given to understand that he stood accused of two things:
1. INVOLVEMENT in the shooting of Pres. Kennedy (not the actual pulling of the trigger)
2. The SHOOTING of Officer Tippit
Given to understand?? How?? There is no reference to the Tippit murder in any of the notes taken by Fritz, Hosty, or Bookhout....
Fritz immediately focused on Lee's actions at the TSBD, and he asked Lee where he was when the parade passed by the TSBD.... But there's not even a hint that he asked Lee about his whereabouts from 1:00 to 1:15 pm.....
The top priority was to position Lee inside the TSBD, away from the entrance.
The fact that the interrogation reports don't go there does NOT mean they didn't go there in the interrogation itself. Mr Oswald's answers to questions put to him on this issue must have been as dangerous to the overall case against him as his statement that he went outside to watch the P. Parade
Not that I have the slightest belief in the ridiculous "Fritz keeping Oswald silent scenario" but wasn't the start of Oswald's first interrogation about 2:25 which wasn't long after Oswald arrived at the Police station?, do you have any evidence that Oswald agreeing with being in the building happened before 2:25?
Oswald's "Naturally, if I work in that building" declaration to the press occurred at 7:55 PM Dallas time, according to these notes written by Seth Kantor:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0193b.htm
Oswald had already been interrogated extensively by 7:55.
.... Good Day Dan.... Thumb1: There is an update coming that I have been working on for 4 years in my spare, personal times for the free Dealey Plaza Detailed Map that includes additional evidence, key information's, witnesses photo/film photogrammetrically precise determined locations, etc.
When all of these new map components references have been solidly confirmed + quadruple-checked for 111% accuracy, I will certainly provide it publicly for us all. Thumb1:
Best Regards in Research,
Don
Donald Roberdeau
United States Navy
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges clearly
①___________②___③
For your key considerations + independent determinations....
Homepages Website: "Men of Courage: President Kennedy-elimination" Evidence, Witnesses,
Photographers, Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, Suspects, + Key Considerations....
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html
The Dealey Plaza Detailed Map: Documented 11-22-63 Victims Precise Locations +
Reactions, Evidence, Witnesses Locations, Photographers, Suspected Bullet Trajectories,
Outstanding Researchers Discoveries, + Important Information + Key Considerations, in One
Convenient Resource....
https://i.imgur.com/8vSS1dp.gif
( 2017 updated map, + new information.... Updated map coming)
Discovery: Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS's
Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly
Towards the Grassy Knoll ....
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/01/discovery-close-jfk-assassination.html
Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While JFK was Still Hidden
Under the "Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree"....
http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif (http://i.imgur.com/rfRH5jX.gif)
Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in-garbage-out....
http://i.imgur.com/r8Ga26x.gif
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
U.S. Department for Homeland Security Terrorists-Alert Status For the United States: (https://i.imgur.com/ssa8IQp.gif)
http://dhs.gov
(https://i.imgur.com/ssa8IQp.gif[/url)
Somebody on the west side of that entranceway is waving something at the passing parade, and that somebody is not Mr Carl Edward Jones-------------I was researching this some time ago and it was a lady handkerchief. Will try to find photos.
(https://i.imgur.com/b9PJs2i.gif)
(Yellow box---------disregard red arrow):
(https://i.imgur.com/dzFMlCB.gif)
Who is the person under the yellow arrow?
(https://i.imgur.com/IogdnSm.jpg)
Seconds before this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Rwcjau.gif)
Seconds after this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ARUAcDb.gif)
If Carolyn Arnold was such a critical witness that could place Oswald in that corner as PM such that somebody thought it necessary to blot her out with black something spray, then it’s doubtful imo that those conspirators would have allowed Mrs Arnold to live much longer after the fact. She would have had one of those untimely deaths like so many other witness did.
The odd coda to Mr Ronald B. Fischer's 11/22/63 affidavit statement:I have lost the track on what you are looking to show here but I am pretty sure that the object you are referring is a lady handkerchief. You have to understand that it was not on the steps but closer to the street. I have circled three ladies and one of them was waving with the handkerchief while the limo was passing by in Towner film. I had a better photo but could not find it.
I do remember one particular thing that happened just at the time I saw a man up there. There was a girl walked in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a rather tall girl, and looked to me like she might be an employee of that building. She was walking in while everybody else had been coming out.
The time frame here is some 30 seconds before the assassination.
Who might this "rather tall girl" have been? Ms Carolyn Arnold, perhaps, whom a March '64 statement by Mr Bill Shelley places in the doorway at the time of the shooting?
(https://i.imgur.com/JEdYnIV.jpg)
Did she leave the group she was with out by the street and return to the doorway just in time for JFK's passing the building? If so, did she as she reached the doorway notice someone in that doorway (or perhaps behind the glass door) who (later) wasn't meant to be there----------someone she had just minutes before this noticed sitting in the second-floor lunchroom? And was she told by the 'investigating' authorities to shut up about it?
Certainly I am struck by the curious vehemence with which, in her 1978 conversations with Mr Anthony Summers and Mr Earl Golz, she denied having had any cause to even look in the direction of the the doorway after going out near the street................
(https://i.imgur.com/Xh6gPzc.jpg)
Think we the lady doth here protest too much? Bear in mind: the FBI report which was being read out to her did not have her looking back at the doorway at the time she would have been "trying to watch the parade", but several minutes before this. She seems needlessly spooked by what she is hearing......
I can't help wondering if she might not be the person waving what Mr Jackson has suggested is a lady's handkerchief:
(https://i.imgur.com/nX0UBAb.gif)
IF so, then might she have something to do with the physically impossible shadow that was so crudely added down Mr Lovelady's right side in the Wiegman film?
(https://i.imgur.com/VDCsIi0.jpg)
Elimination of her visible presence on the steps----------------discrediting her in advance in case of the unhappy eventuality that she, a game-destroying witness, goes public at some stage with her story?
Just a thought! Thumb1:
I have lost the track on what you are looking to show here but I am pretty sure that the object you are referring is a lady handkerchief. You have to understand that it was not on the steps but closer to the street. I have circled three ladies and one of them was waving with the handkerchief while the limo was passing by in Towner film. I had a better photo but could not find it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pxv8r6C7/hand.jpg)
Thank you, Mr Jackson, but I'm honestly not seeing what you're seeing here?You do not see it because it is not the same moment.
(https://i.imgur.com/QVTlmmv.jpg)
You do not see it because it is not the same moment.
I am aware of that (i.e. that Wiegman is not showing the same moment as the Towner frames) but I fail to see a) where you are getting a handkerchief from b) what makes you think the hand-waving-an-object* belongs to one of the women you mention rather than to someone back in the entrancewayBecause I am quite sure I had another photo/frame of that ladies in front and one of them with hankerchief.
*Just down and to the left of the red arrow here:
(https://i.imgur.com/nX0UBAb.gif)
Because I am quite sure I had another photo/frame of that ladies in front and one of them with hankerchief.
Well I'd sure like to see it, as the Bell film frames showing the same scene/time as the Towner film frames show those ladies waving nothing, handkerchief or otherwiseHere, I have tried to extract from your GIF. Right hand is raised holding the handkerchief and in your GIF two waves are seen towards the limo. Try yourself, take a handkerchief and wave towards somebody in front of you.
Here, I have tried to extract from your GIF. Right hand is raised holding the handkerchief and in your GIF two waves are seen towards the limo. Try yourself, take a handkerchief and wave towards somebody in front of you.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwMXmjjK/hand2.jpg)
I believe it belonged to one of the ladies in front.
Once again, Mr Jackson, the Bell frames show no such waving from any of these ladies. That simple objective fact is--------with respect---------in no wise trumped by your subjective and rather arbitrary drawing of a hand outline on the Towner frame above.Well, I respect your oppinion of course but still think you are wrong. The only object between Tina Towner and Roy Edward Lewis on the steps is that hand with the handkerchief.
The waving hand/object are much further back------------in the entranceway:
(https://i.imgur.com/nX0UBAb.gif)
Well, I respect your oppinion of course but still think you are wrong. The only object between Tina Towner and Roy Edward Lewis on the steps is that hand with the handkerchief.
Bell is on a different angle and moment.
Reassertion of claims (that the hand/object are out near the street, that the object is a handkerchief) is not demonstration of same!Bell film shows an object above ladies heads and it is right there.
A different angle, yes of course-------but Bell shows those three women quite clearly from the front (no waving, no nothing)
A different moment--------no
Again with respect, Mr Jackson, you are putting an imaginary object into the hand of one of these women and assigning to that woman an imaginary action
Here, I hope you will be able to see the raised hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG55NqvH/ezgif-com-gif-maker.gif)
Thank you for this, Mr Jackson, but I see a face and hair, and no hint of a waving hand or handkerchief.Well, you need to cross your eyes a little bit..
Glad to see that we now agree that Bell is indeed showing the same moment as Towner
Well, you need to cross your eyes a little bit..
Maybe someone can make better GIFs for you but do not expect to see handkerchief engraving...
Yes, I got confused with Hughes/Bell/Towner/Weigman/Darnel... films.
No, it's still just a lady's head. If you look at the superior reproductions of the Bell frames starting here------------------Ah, I forgot on Robin gallery, will try to make better GIF for you later tommorow.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=9&pos=4
------------------I'm confident you will see your error
Ah, I forgot on Robin gallery, will try to make better GIF for you later tommorow.
Handkerchief came in latter frames than your link.
Sorry, but no error...
Here, I hope you will be able to see the raised hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG55NqvH/ezgif-com-gif-maker.gif)
I invited you to "look at the superior reproductions of the Bell frames starting here"----as you browse through the subsequent frames you will seek in vain for a raised hand waving a handkerchiefWent through Robin Unger's Bell gallery and it is missing several important frames so I can not make good GIF from it.
What programs are people using to create these gif effects?https://ezgif.com/maker
(https://s10.gifyu.com/images/BellTowner.gif)Thank you very much Chris, great GIF.
https://ezgif.com/maker
(https://s10.gifyu.com/images/BellTowner.gif)
Superb gif, Mr Davidson---------------painstakingly syncing up the two films clips! Thumb1:Absolutely. There are at least three flips.
Mr Jackson, is this where you are seeing a handkerchief?
(https://i.imgur.com/BcVYGYN.jpg)
Absolutely. There are at least three flips.
Mrs Garner was on the 4th floor by the rear staircase and saw Baker/Truly coming up using the staircase =
Encounter on 4th floor improbable
Whatever those flickers are, they are too far east to be the object we're seeing in Towner. (------------->Different camera angles)I am very sorry but you.obviously have couple of problems on resolving.the subject... One of them is addmiting you are wrong...
I am very sorry but you.obviously have couple of problems on resolving.the subject... One of them is addmiting you are wrong...
Everything here is in perfect alignment, no need to discus futher. Thank you.
They are not aligned. Your 'handkerchief' in Bell is too far to the east to be the waving object we see in Towner.Please show where do you think Tina Towner is in Bell film?
Please show where do you think Tina Towner is in Bell film?
Why? What's the relevance?Are you serious!? You are writing about aligment and now asking what is the relevance of where Tina Towner is!? You obiously have very, very serious trouble of admitting you might be wrong here. It is a very simple yet important question for you and your respond only show how low credibility and seriousnes you have on this forum.
Are you serious!? You are writing about aligment and now asking what is the relevance of where Tina Towner is!? You obiously have very, very serious trouble of admitting you might be wrong here. It is a very simple yet important question for you and your respond only show how low credibility and seriousnes you have on this forum.
Calm down, Mr Jackson............... You asked me to please show where I think Ms Towner is in the Bell film. Not having said a word about Ms Towner in the Bell film, I merely asked you to explain your surprising request.Since you can not answer simple question on Tina Towner possition in Bell film, I really have no time to help you out in realising you are wrong. What is seen in both Bell and Towner films is waving handkerchief. Please find somebody else to help you out. All the best.
For you to state that I am now asking what is the relevance of where Ms Towner is is just silly: the angle at which she is filming the relevant area is after all central to my analysis of your 'handkerchief'. What I am asking is what is the relevance of finding her in the Bell film. Get it now?
As for my observation that your 'handkerchief' cannot be the waving object we see in Towner because it's in the wrong place, I stand by it fully. Can you refute it? Or would you prefer to deflect?
Since you can not answer simple question on Tina Towner possition in Bell film, I really have no time to help you out in realising you are wrong. What is seen in both Bell and Towner films is waving handkerchief. Please find somebody else to help you out. All the best.
I'm sorry, Mr Jackson, but wishing the problem away doesn't make the problem go away.Absolute nonsense.
Let's try this again, shall we?
Look at Mr Davidson's synced gif again.
Directly behind White Cowboy Suit Man from Towner's POV is the eastern column of the entranceway. Yes? Good!
Directly behind White Cowboy Suit Man from Bell's POV is the edge of the wall sign. Yes? Good!
To go from Towner's POV to Bell's POV, one would have to move significantly to one's left (i.e. west). Yes? Good!
Now! Let us imagine that you are right about the waving object: it is being waved by the woman in black standing just behind the man in light-colored manual clothes.
You are looking through Ms Towner's camera. You keep your eye on the waving object: it is almost directly over the head of the man in light-colored manual clothes. You start moving left and don't stop until you are west enough to be seeing from Bell's angle. What do you see now?
I'll tell you what you most certainly do not see: the head of the man in light-colored manual clothes well to the left (as you look) of the handkerchief.
And yet this is what your 'handkerchief' claim would have us believe we are seeing. It's a physical impossibility. And like I say----------the fact that these frames have been so expertly synced by Mr Davidson leaves you no wriggle room here, no option of saying that these are slightly different moments in time and so the handkerchief in Bell has moved further east, etc.
(https://s10.gifyu.com/images/BellTowner.gif)
Absolute nonsense.
Really, Mr Jackson? Then you should have absolutely no difficulty in showing me where I've gone wrong.No, I do not have any dificulty to show where you are wrong as I have show you already but you obviously have huge dificulty in understanding a very simple thing.
Over to you...........................
No, I do not have any dificulty to show where you are wrong as I have show you already but you obviously have huge dificulty in understanding a very simple thing.
I just have dificulty in understanding are you joking with me or you really really do not understand...
My animated gif simulates the view of Tina Towner shifting toward Bell’s view. The focus is on the four characters from left to right: KhakiManA, HankyGirl, 5'11" Danny Arce, and Cowboy. The simulation does a good job, imo, of corroborating the superb graphic of Davidson along with Patrick’s correlation of the (apparent) wind-blown flapping handkerchief seen in both films.
(https://i.imgur.com/AVYaawg.gif)
James
...why I am wrong when I say your 'handkerchief' in Bell is in the wrong place to be the waving object we see in Towner...It is obvious from a plane it is the same object but you are not able to accept you are wrong.
It is obvious from a plane it is the same object but you are not able to accept you are wrong.
I’ve been pondering the issue of the white object in PM’s hand and the bottle (large white label) left at the step virtually where PM would have stepped down one step ( thus 5’2” height discrepancy explained).
And I’ve thought what reason did Oswald have to return into the TSBD at all?
If it’s probable that the jacket was left in the Domino room, and curtain rods/bag left behind, and the white label bottle not taken up to the 2nd floor lunchroom, then what’s the reason for Oswald not just to take off immediately after he finds out (from Mr.Shelley?) that work has been canceled for the rest of day?
Perhaps to go up the 2nd floor coke machine to get another soda pop?
Why not take the bottle Oswald had been previously drinking when captured in the Weigman film?
The answer may be that this 1st bottle of soda was NOT bought from any machine inside the TSBD but was actually a bottle that Oswald had gone OUT of TSBD to buy approx 12:01 pm.
Well considering the Hosty note is probably not some fabricated version, since it’s apparent the Fritz was worried enough not to include such note, then the bottle must be a coke bottle.
So my attempt to reconcile Mrs Reid was probably a wasted effort 🙄
Since BW Frazier didn’t see any smaller lunch bag , what about Oswalds lunch?
My height argument is on pp. 6-7 of Death of the Lunchroom Hoax https://jfkinsidejob.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/DEATH%20OF%20THE%20LUNCHROOM%20HOAX%20_Final_.pdf It estimated PrayerMan's height as 5' 2-1/2", and I know that John Mytton's computer graphic skills obtained an approximate value of 5'4".
Has this person ever been identified?you mean 'prayerman' after he took off his shirt? no, but really, 'prayerman' was just a dude off the street, trying to get a pic' o' da' prez' as he was goin' by that last mile+
(https://s10.gifyu.com/images/PM-alternative2daed39c970a2110.gif)
Possibly it was one of the Houston St. warehouse guys, Franklin Wester or Gordon Smith. I'm working on a distant memory from my (References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited ) days around 2013, but I think neither of them acknowledged watching the motorcade. This photo looks like it was taken around 1:00 PM, so perhaps one of them walked up to the Depository to see what was going on. Just a guess. As far as I know there are no pictures of Wester or Smith, nor even Eddie Shields, who was the foreman down there. A bookkeeper in his 60s, H.S. Aiken, kept his office down there. Charles Givens occasionally also worked down there.
The Sixth Floor Museum has forwarded me a scan from the Darnell film, which has higher resolution than anything I've seen on the internet. I am going to seek permission from the copyright holder, which is NBC Universal, to post it on-line for the benefit of the research community.
...
Photo-researchers should have much more to eleborate with this image. I am told it is a Full HD scan made at 1920 x 1080 pixels. The Museum is not sure which generation of Darnell film it originated from. Personally I can't imagine a newsfilm losing any significant amount of quality during the early phases of copying, and we don't even know whether this may in fact be a scan from the original film.
Hopefully NBC Universal will respond favorably during the coming week...
I strongly suspect that the main reason the identification of Oswald was based on the "hairline" of the Prayer Man figure. A close-up of Darnell (taken from the Prayer Man website) reveals the figure does indeed appear to have a hairline similar to Oswald:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLDDmC8g/PM-1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It must be noted that this picture is covered with "distortions", most probably a product of enhancement.
Exactly, so let's look at that frame in the unenhanced version, as shared by the superb Mr Robin Unger. The receding hairline is already quite evident in this unenhanced (i.e. undistorted) version-----------------
(https://i.imgur.com/etY5GbJ.jpg)
Thumb1:
"Unenhanced" :D :D
When we look closer the distortions, although softened (through further enhancement, no doubt), are still present (circled red).
The distortion running through Prayer Man's head is still clearly present (red arrow).
Prayer Man's hairline is a product of initial enhancement which appears to have been "softened", leaving "Oswald's hairline".
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRm86gcr/PM-3.png) (https://postimg.cc/479KrfF2)
This image--------presented honestly by the honest Mr Unger---------should have been your reference, Mr O'Meara, not the ridiculous version you drew your silly tendentious conclusions from
(https://i.imgur.com/etY5GbJ.jpg)
~Grin~
Translation: It looks like LHO's hairline; I wish it didn't look like LHO's hairline; so here are some makey-uppey reasons I've come up with for why it is in fact the full head of non-receding gray hair of an obese woman who was standing to Wesley Frazier's east.
Of course, Mr O'Meara, we all know that if it was Mr Frazier you didn't want to be in the doorway in Darnell you'd be BSing us with all the reasons why his hairline is merely an optical illusion caused by 'enhancement', 'distortion', etc. etc. Weak sauce!
"This image--------presented honestly by the honest Mr Unger---------should have been your reference, Mr O'Meara, not the ridiculous version you drew your silly tendentious conclusions from."
The "ridiculous version" was taken from your place of worship - the PrayerMan website.
And if you're saying those distortions aren't there, on both versions, it's you who looks ridiculous.
It's there for everyone to see.
No way around that one Alan Thumb1:
Hello Brian,
Mr. Buell Frazier has stated on several occasions that Mrs. Sarah Stanton was standing to his left. Never once has he ever stated she was to his right.
Mr. Buell Frazier has stated on at least two occasions that he has no clue who the Prayer Man is. That alone proves the Prayer Man is not Sarah Stanton because he would know who the Prayer Man was If he was indeed talking to that person.
There are several questions with the PM=Sarah Stanton theory.
1. When did Stanton move to that corner?
If it was before Frazier, Williams and Shelley occupy the top landing then its plausible.
If Stanton remains with Sanders , however until the landing becomes crowded with the presence of Frazier, Williams, Shelley, then it’s less plausible she would try to squeeze thru.
2. What about Billy Lovelady’s WC statement “beside me” when describing where Stanton was in relation to himself?
PM was standing several feet behind Lovelady, so should not Lovelady have said “behind” me?
3. What about a statement that Mr Lovelady allegedly made regarding pointing out the person with hands raised shading her eyes in the Altgens 6 photo as being an office woman who worked on the 2nd floor office?
4. The object in the hand of PM could plausibly be a white coffee cup if PM were Stanton, however , would not such small quantity have been consumed in the 15 minutes prior to PM being seen in the Weigman film frames at 12:30pm?
5. Since a soda bottle appears to have been left coincidentally at the step where PM may have stepped down one step, and since the Hosty note suggests that Oswald had just purchased a coke before going out to watch the P.Parade, and since that quantity being 3x more approx than coffee cup , the probability (imo) is more in favor of PM=Oswald .
6. Since Stanton did not describe seeing Baker going up the steps , can this be rationalized if Stanton is on the east side of the hand rail (opposite Lovelady) as having been distracted?
7. If Stanton did leave “immediately” to return into the building, which is the more likely probable position from which to have done so? From the west corner where her way to the front door is blocked by several persons still on the landing, or from a position on the east steps?
7a. If she did leave immediately , should she not have seen Baker, Truly, and Oswald also as they all collide getting into the lobby?
There are several questions with the PM=Sarah Stanton theory.
I strongly believe that a Prayer Person is Pauline Sanders.
Couple of years ago I found her recent photo on Facebook with the same right hand possition as Prayer Person and it was very, very similar.
Unfortunetly, I lost that photo and cannot find it any more.
The missleading thing here is that you are reffering to statements on who was standing where while the limo was passing by but not the positions in Wiegman film.
Do you know about when that photo of Sanders was taken?I had found her nephew on Facebook based on her obituary. It was published on Facebook like in 2012-13 but the actual photo was earlier. Tried to find it again but lost all the track. I recall that I found her on Ancestry.com but I do not have access now. Also, there is Pauline Sanders on Find a grave but I somehow think that Linda Z. linked it wrongly.
I had found her nephew on Facebook based on her obituary. It was published on Facebook like in 2012-13 but the actual photo was earlier. Tried to find it again but lost all the track. I recall that I found her on Ancestry.com but I do not have access now. Also, there is Pauline Sanders on Find a grave but I somehow think that Linda Z. linked it wrongly.
I had that recent photo and the figure and hairline was very, very similar but I lost it at my broken laptop.
It is very interesting to see that in general, we do not have many later photos of witnesses. I was looking for Roscoe White photos after 1963 but none available publicly on the net. Seems that most famlies are not interested to research their relatives participation on 11/22/63.
I strongly believe that a Prayer Person is Pauline Sanders.
Couple of years ago I found her recent photo on Facebook with the same right hand possition as Prayer Person and it was very, very similar.
Unfortunetly, I lost that photo and cannot find it any more.
The missleading thing here is that you are reffering to statements on who was standing where while the limo was passing by but not the positions in Wiegman film.
I had found her nephew on Facebook based on her obituary. It was published on Facebook like in 2012-13 but the actual photo was earlier. Tried to find it again but lost all the track. I recall that I found her on Ancestry.com but I do not have access now. Also, there is Pauline Sanders on Find a grave but I somehow think that Linda Z. linked it wrongly.
I had that recent photo and the figure and hairline was very, very similar but I lost it at my broken laptop.
That's too bad about the photo. I know that there are a couple of older photos of Sanders that were published and both of those are group photos pictured with other women. She was seated in one of the photos and her hair was very short. Most of the witness photos are hard to come by and really aren't the best photos to make an accurate determination.Yes, there are two photos that Linda Z. linked to Pauline Sanders but I think they are wrong.
This one?No. What is the source of this photo?
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncfnT7VC/Pauline-Sanders-post-assassination.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yes, there are two photos that Linda Z. linked to Pauline Sanders but I think they are wrong.
PM does not (imo) appear to be
wearing glasses. 🙄
Question for Mr Gilbride!
Is this is the frame of which you were sent a clearer copy from the Sixth Floor Museum?
(https://i.imgur.com/45H75dw.jpg)
It's Lovelady!
It's Shelley!
It's a fat woman!
It's a black man!
It's a random stranger taking photographs that never got developed!
It's a child!
Just some of the wild & wacky theories we have heard over the years from Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps!
It's Oswald!
:D :D :D :D :D
Maybe it's Mr Jack Dougherty? You know, the guy you think is Mr Lovelady's identical twin! :D
:D :D :D
I almost forgot about your "Lovelady-On-A-Box" theory. Brilliant stuff.
Not as brilliant as your "Dougherty-A-Giant-Amidst-Pygmy-DPD-Men" one! Thumb1:
Honestly Alan, yours is miles better.
Lovelady stood on a box,
in a change of clothing,
with a totally different hairline.
Yes, to be able to see what was going on-----------big deal!
He simply took off his shirt----------big deal!
Cinquesque levels of stoopid here! :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/43L0KhNx/Lovelady-or-Dougherty-frame-0024.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvnpkL5W/Lovelady-in-DPD-frame-0014.jpg)
Lovelady claimed he took a group of officers up to help with the search.
Any officers helping with the search had arrived long before the Alyea clip was taken.
What was he trying to see so desperately he thought he could see it stood on a box and not by wandering around?
It's as if you're just making it up (alert the media!)
Are you just making things up again?
In every photo of Lovelady that day he is wearing his distinctive shirt but suddenly he decides to leave it somewhere so he can show the officers up to the 6th floor.
Maybe he was stood on the box looking for his shirt :D :D
Your track record of fraudulent use of photographic evidence precedes you.
My first thought isn't, "Wow! Alan's got a point here"
It's "What is he up to now".
So here is a picture of Lovelady in profile taken from the Martin film:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xv5YfLvd/Screenshot-125.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Not even Alan can deny this clearly shows Lovelady's hairline (actually, I don't quite believe that)
Note how far back his hairline goes, it is receding back in line with his ears.
There is then a small piece of hair and then a distinctive bald patch.
Learn how images work, Mr O'Meara (yannow---lighting/contrast/aspect ratio/etc.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMsvRTJD/Lovelady-martin-bald-spot-no-yes.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
PM does not (imo) appear to be
wearing glasses. 🙄
The White Shirt Man (WSM) is probably Lovelad
1.The 6th floor = more heat gain rising to the upper floor and sun radiation penetrating roof reaching 6th floor.
2.Many more human bodies generating 300 BTU/hr/person= more heat gain
3.Sun streaming in where the white shirt man is standing = more hear gain
4. Anxiety and climbing staircase =faster heart rate = more heat gain
Therefore it’s not unreasonable to suggest that WSM is Lovelady who removed his flannel shirt due to the heat gain causing ambient temperature to be above the average 72-76 degree comfort zone.
And then all the other reasons Mr.Ford has adequately listed. 👍
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xv5YfLvd/Screenshot-125.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDwk72vG/Screenshot-167.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/63sbCBdz/Screenshot-144.png)
(https://postimages.org/)
I believe that the images above show the same person and believe it is Roscoe White.
I believe that the images above show the same person and believe it is Roscoe White.
Then provide a profile picture of White confirming this.Not many photos of Roscoe White available online. It would require a serious research and contacting family.
Not many photos of Roscoe White available online. It would require a serious research and contacting family.
If PM was some random person who was taking some photos, then it’s unusual that no photo from this vantage point has been presented in the vast collection of photographic data in the archives.
It could something like “babushka lady” (allegeded to be Beverly Oliver) , and the camera and photos were confiscated.
However, no one has identified themselves as PM or claimed to have had a camera confiscated while taking photos from that position at the front steps of TSBD.
If the object was a camera , should not more of PMs face be obscured by the object if the camera is of the type with viewfinder in line with the lens? Such would require camera raised to obscure at least one eye.
And if the camera was of the type as Marina Oswald used for the BY photo requiring looking down into a viewfinder on the top then it would be unnecessary to raise the camera at all from the mid level position.
The position of the hands would be how one would hold a camera.
You need to try harder. Two minutes work: https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwhiteR.htm https://www.tpaak.com/problems-in-black-and-whiteThank you Denis, I am familiar with these but still not more than 5-6 useful photos are available. As I see it, the left ear, hairline, shape of the head and body type, I believe that the person on the steps and in DPD is Roscoe White. Also, you have to consider statements of police officers (can not search names right now) who stated they took Roscoe with them from DPD and went to Ruth Paine house. So, even he was off duty, he was inside DPD and I believe many photos showing him in that plaid shirt inside DPD on 11/22/63 are not available.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5725622/roscoe-anthony-white
Thank you Denis, I am familiar with these but still not more than 5-6 useful photos are available. As I see it, the left ear, hairline, shape of the head and body type, I believe that the person on the steps and in DPD is Roscoe White. Also, you have to consider statements of police officers (can not search names right now) who stated they took Roscoe with them from DPD and went to Ruth Paine house. So, even he was off duty, he was inside DPD and I believe many photos showing him in that plaid shirt inside DPD on 11/22/63 are not available.
LOL
It’s almost as funny as the PM=Sarah Stanton theory :)
What happened to Gilbride and his Darnell scan? No new updates from him at all.
Fred
This frame from Darnell has been doing the rounds on the internet. I cannot vouch for its integrity, though it does go wider than previous frames I have seen (I've never seen the suited man in the background on the far right of frame before).That frame quality does look very similar to my pre-COVID19 2019 viewing recollections from the SFM’s Reading Room DVD. Thanks for posting it Mr. Ford! The entire Darnell film at that quality is quite a treat to view.
If this frame is indeed representative of what authenticated clearer Darnell frames would show, then (as Mr James Hackerott, who has inspected the version in the Sixth Floor Museum, has before argued) the cut of the upper garment in the chest/neck area of 'Prayer Man' does not seem favorable to the hypothesis that this is Mr Oswald-----------looks more like a woman...................
(Note: please ignore the red arrow, which was added by someone else to illustrate a different issue!)
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbGG8yK3/Darnell-new-frame.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/MvGfK9z2)
Thumb1:
That frame quality does look very similar to my pre-COVID19 2019 viewing recollections from the SFM’s Reading Room DVD. Thanks for posting it Mr. Ford! The entire Darnell film at that quality is quite a treat to view.
This frame from Darnell has been doing the rounds on the internet. I cannot vouch for its integrity, though it does go wider than previous frames I have seen (I've never seen the suited man in the background on the far right of frame before).
If this frame is indeed representative of what authenticated clearer Darnell frames would show, then (as Mr James Hackerott, who has inspected the version in the Sixth Floor Museum, has before argued) the cut of the upper garment in the chest/neck area of 'Prayer Man' does not seem favorable to the hypothesis that this is Mr Oswald-----------looks more like a woman...................
(Note: please ignore the red arrow, which was added by someone else to illustrate a different issue!)
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbGG8yK3/Darnell-new-frame.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/MvGfK9z2)
Thumb1:
Friends, for clarification!
1. I came across the above Darnell frame in a post made by Mr Bart Kamp 1 June 2022. Here's the 'home' of the image: https://servimg.com/view/19524087/2490#
2. This is a DIFFERENT Darnell frame (i.e. from a different MOMENT) to the 'iconic' frame that was at the heart of the original Prayer Man claim. Therefore----------differences between the two frames can NOT be cited as evidence of alternation!
Thumb1:
If you abandon the Oswald = PM theory, then you will have to return to an earlier theory that there was SOMEONE who resembled Oswald on the front steps whom the conspirators at FIRST thought was Oswald, but whom later found out the person was not Oswald.
Otherwise, if the Lovelady shadow anomaly is due to the necessity to blot out Oswald then would the conspirators have let Lovelady and Frazier live knowing these 2witnesses no doubt had to have seen Oswald? Even if they remained silent, could the conspirators risk them breaking their silence?
For further clarification!
I now believe that
a) Prayer 'Man' is most likely NOT Mr Oswald but possibly one of the following:
-Miss Carolyn Arnold
-Mrs Pauline Sanders
-Mrs Jeraldean Reid
Everything--------on my scenario----------flowed from the simple fact that, within a very few hours of the assassination, the 'investigating' authorities knew that Mr. Oswald was up in the building's front entrance for the assassination.
They had to act fast, and they did, cobbling together a story they HOPED but could not be CERTAIN would hold over time.
They COULD have put 'I was on the sixth floor' in Mr. Oswald's mouth in the interrogation reports, but DIDN'T... because they KNEW that PROOF (photographic or otherwise) might yet emerge that he was in fact in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
They COULD have had Officer Baker/Mr. Truly encounter Mr. Oswald on, say, the fifth floor with a rifle in his hand, but DIDN'T... because they KNEW that PROOF (photographic or otherwise) might yet emerge that he was in fact in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
They COULD have gotten a controlled witness (or three!) to securely ID Mr. Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter, but DIDN'T... because they KNEW that PROOF (photographic or otherwise) might yet emerge that he was in fact in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
They COULD have faked up a photo of Mr. Oswald firing from the sixth-floor window, but DIDN'T... because they KNEW that PROOF (photographic or otherwise) might yet emerge that he was in fact in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
They COULD have faked the results of the paraffin test on Mr. Oswald's cheek, but DIDN'T... because they KNEW that PROOF (photographic or otherwise) might yet emerge that he was in fact in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
A story had to be created that catered to TWO different scenarios:
a) Mr. Oswald as sixth-floor shooter
b) Mr. Oswald as in the doorway
Enter: second-floor lunchroom story--------------a story designed to be physically possible on both scenarios.
PM is not likely Pauline Sanders because Sanders located herself at the EAST side of the front landing and at one point Sarah Stanton was beside her. Stanton we think then moved away from Sanders down a few steps and just east of Billy Lovelady on the east side of the center handrail. Stanton is supposedly the white fluffy shirt person with both hands raised shielding her face from sun.
PM is not likely Mrs Reid because Reid said she was standing NEXT to Mr.Campbell at the time the shots were fired.
Mr. Campbell at the time of shots fired was standing out on the sidewalk near the curb of Elm st. He can be seen in the Weigman film on the curb and beside him is a woman who appears to be older woman
Carolyn Arnold was supposedly nearby Mrs Reid out on the sidewalk in front of TSBD from where Carolyn supposedly looked back towards the TSBD entrance steps approx 12:25 and saw Oswald standing in the front lobby ( thru the glass partition wall)
Now if Arnold were PM then was Carolyn Arnold only 5’3” tall?
Does anyone believe that Mr. Oswald, in interrogation, was not asked where EXACTLY he was at the time of the assassination?
It's a given that he was, right?
Well.......... This went one of four ways:
a) Mr. Oswald gave a specific location (e.g. doorway; domino room; second-floor lunchroom; upper floor)
b) Mr. Oswald refused to give a specific location
c) Mr. Oswald said he couldn't give a specific location because he did not hear any shots and so did not know for sure when the shooting took place
d) Mr. Oswald gave a specific location, but then changed his story under further interrogation.
RE. a) above: Not ONE of the interrogation reports sees fit to tell us SPECIFICALLY where Mr. Oswald said he was
RE. b) above: Not ONE of the interrogation reports sees fit to tell us that Mr. Oswald REFUSED to give a specific location
RE. c) above: Not ONE of the interrogation reports sees fit to tell us that Mr. Oswald said he COULD NOT speak to his specific location
RE. d) above: Not ONE of the interrogation reports sees fit to tell us that Mr. Oswald CHANGED his claimed location under further interrogation.
It's very simple: Mr. Oswald claimed he was out on the front steps to watch the P. Parade. Because this claim was known to be true, it COULD NOT be reflected in the official interrogation reports. However, precisely BECAUSE it was known to be true, no OTHER claimed specific location could be put in Mr. Oswald's mouth.
Hence the VERY WEIRD silence of the official interrogation reports on Mr. Oswald's answer to the single most important question put to him in all the interrogations: Where were you when the shooting happened?
Thumb1:
From page 22 of Hosty's Assignment: Oswald.
Captain Fritz: You were working in the book depository today. Is that right?
Lee Oswald:....Yes...
Captain Fritz; Were you there when the president's motorcade went by?
Lee Oswald:.... Yes...
Captain Fritz:...Where were you when the president went by the book depository?
Lee Oswald:... I was eating my lunch in the 1st floor lunchroom.
You can determine gender from an alleged “neck cut”?
Agent Hosty is giving this misleading account years later, when the risk of Mr. Oswald's presence on the steps coming to light has receded. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for us, his own contemporaneous draft interrogation report came to light in 2019, and it says something completely different
Kelly says he was at the 10:30 interview on Saturday, Nov. 23rd. Those he states present were Bookhout, Fritz, US Marshall Robert Nash, Secret Service agents Grant and Sorrels, and Boyd and Hall.
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
went to work."
Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."
The part of Capt. Fritz's report dealing with the Saturday morning interview stated Oswald:
"said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him
to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
Mr. Frazier and his sister."
Ms. Arnold is placed in the doorway by Mr. Shelley in an FBI interview. When she was asked about her reported sighting of Mr. Oswald behind the doorway years later, she got awful defensive. She may have left the group out by the street at the last minute (being heavily pregnant and wanting to get out of the sunlight) and, on her way into the entranceway, noticed Mr. Oswald just behind the glass door (just before he came outside). The FBI might have screwed with the timeframe on what she told them (as well of course as suppressing her earlier sighting of Mr. Oswald in the lunchroom several minutes before the motorcade).
Kelly says he was at the 10:30 interview on Saturday, Nov. 23rd. Those he states present were Bookhout, Fritz, US Marshall Robert Nash, Secret Service agents Grant and Sorrels, and Boyd and Hall.
"He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
went to work."
Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:
"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."
The part of Capt. Fritz's report dealing with the Saturday morning interview stated Oswald:
"said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him
to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
Mr. Frazier and his sister."
Any possibility that this white ring effect in this newer Darnell version of PM is due to the white T-shirt showing thru a brown shirt not fully buttoned at the neck?
I asked the ? Why the conspirators didn’t blacken out PM and answered my own ? by suggesting that at the time the image was so obscured already they didn’t think it was any possible proof of Oswald out front.
Since Mr. Ford as pointed out , the shadow anomaly on Lovelady has not yet been adequately explained (nor replicated via experiment) and so as CTs :) we of course suspect purposeful obfuscation of this area for some reason.
I thought we had arrived at the CT reason for the anomalous shadow on Lovelady due to a necessity to hide the right ARM of Lovelady because his sleeves were not rolled up.
This was supposedly to cover for the early quick alteration of the Altgens photo 6 (Cronkite version) trying to make it appear that a raised forearm belonged to Lewis, the black man at the bottom of the steps NW side. The shirt sleeve appears rolled up.
However after this quick alteration, they realized they made a glaring mistake , because Lewis sleeve was NOT rolled up AND there was still the anomaly of a horizontal dark object ( looking much like a bottle )
So the 2nd correction to Altgens photo was to make the raised arm and the dark horizontal slash (bottle) disappear entirely by graphing in texture of Loveladys shirt sleeve so as to make it appear as Loveladys right arm .
But the conspirators made one more error which is that Loveladys arm has no hand at the end of the shirt sleeve AND the shirt sleeve appears to be extend IN FRONT of part of Lewis face which is another anomaly because Lovelady was BEHIND Lewis several desk steps back.
From the Shelley FBI report 3/18/64:
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbMBfz2s/Shelley-sees-Arnold.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thumb1:
I’m not yet convinced that the “enhanced” version of Darnell discounts the possibility that earlier images of PM appears to indicate a V shaped white space indicative of a t-shirt exposed by a loosely worn brown shirt such as Oswald wore.
I also notice clear photos of Oswald when he was in handcuffs that indicate the “roundness”of his white T-shirt seen thru his open brown shirt.
Mrs Pauline Sanders:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3Cv4bLz/Pauline-Sanders-post-assassination.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If PrayerMan is her, then that's surprising but not in itself v. interesting in terms of the case.
If PrayerMan is not her, then whoever PrayerMan is would be both surprising AND v. interesting in terms of the case!
Thumb1:
I believe that Prayer person was Pauline Sanders. Back in 2017 I have found picture of her with her nephew on Facebook with the same right arm position but I have lost that picture in my old laptop. Trying to find it on Facebook again but no success. I have lost the track of her nephew name and where exactly I have made a connection (Find a grave or Ancestry) but I am more than sure it was Pauline Sanders holding a white coffee cup.
If she's PM, then she stood on the east side of the entranceway when she first came out (ca. 12:20) but moved west (probably to get a better view of the motorcade as it came on to Houston etc)
She would certainly be the most straightforward female candidate! Thumb1:
I haven't been taking part in this discussion. Instead I have been reading parts of it once in a while, but now I have a question.
Perhaps this has already been discussed earlier (if so, I apologize bringing it up again), but I have a picture in my files of an empty bottle of some soft drink standing on the ledge next to the stairs with police officers standing around it. I could of course be mistaken, but the image refered to as Prayer man seems to holding an object with two hands that could be a bottle.
I don't think a woman, back in those days, would be drinking from a bottle but a warehouse worker might. Is there anything known about this bottle and how it possibly relates to Prayer man?
I haven't been taking part in this discussion. Instead I have been reading parts of it once in a while, but now I have a question.I believe Prayer Person was holding a coffee cup that was available on the ground floor of TSBD as seen on this photo.
Perhaps this has already been discussed earlier (if so, I apologize bringing it up again), but I have a picture in my files of an empty bottle of some soft drink standing on the ledge next to the stairs with police officers standing around it. I could of course be mistaken, but the image refered to as Prayer man seems to holding an object with two hands that could be a bottle.
I don't think a woman, back in those days, would be drinking from a bottle but a warehouse worker might. Is there anything known about this bottle and how it possibly relates to Prayer man?
This GIF is great to see it was a coffee cup most probably...
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5CSRzNc/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
If PM is a woman 5’2” and took off her glasses and she took longer than 15 minutes to drink a small mug of coffee (or small styrofoam cup)
which she brought with her approx 12:15 when she was with Sarah Stanton, and she is NOT the small short woman at the east side of steps seen in the same frames at the same time that PM is in the west corner…
Then itgere a possibility PM could be Pauline Sanders who just forgot she she moved from where she stated she was which was the east side of the landing.
And of course she was wearing a dark dress that day also…
With her hair in a different style than the photo of her..
Of the reasons suggested so far to negate that PM is Oswald, the strongest one imo is the unresolved shadow anomaly on Lovelady in Weigman film frame coincident with ( if certified) the person with forearm raised holding bottle ( in the Cronkite version Altgens 6 photo) located exactly at that darken out area of Lovelady.
To explain this new speculative location for Oswald as the reason for the shadow anomaly of Lovelady is going to appear so incredulous that I’m almost afraid to attempt it. 😵💫
Since there is the LN criticism of the “out front” location for Oswald based on Oswald’s statement of “naturally if I work IN that building “ in response to the question : Were you in the building at the time “?
So I’m considering the idea that Oswald initially was in the front lobby looking thru the glass partition when Carolyn Arnold (looking back) saw him at approx 12:25, and that Oswald did not actually come out to stand on the steps until just a few seconds AFTER the shots were fired.
This might address the probability question of how Oswald could be next to and in FRONT of several persons yet he was apparently unnoticed or not remembered by such persons.
The psychological effect therefore might be the phenomenon of “missing the Gorilla in the midst of the basketball players” because of shock effect of shots fired causing focus of mind to flight or fight response.
The enclosed, raised-steps entranceway was in the front part of the building. As such it was 'in the building', albeit not INSIDE it. (The Warren Gullibles always pretend the reporter asked 'Were you INSIDE the building at the time?') To leave the building fully, one had to descend the steps and hit the sidewalk.
I submit that Mr Oswald left the building TWICE in the space of a few minutes:
1. Running down off the front steps within seconds of the shots ringing out
[---------->Re-entering the building a few minutes later with Mr Shelley via the west door]
2. Re-exiting several minutes later by the front door, where he was stopped by an officer and let pass only after Mr Truly vouched for him as an employee
Mr Holmes, not being privy to Mr Oswald's previous statements on these two exits, erroneously conflated them into one
If so, Mr Shelley's change of story for the WC would be explained: I remained on the steps until after Gloria came running up and told us all what had happened. LHO-Calvery encounter: erased!
Perhaps Mr Carr asks Ms Reid that otherwise bizarre question because he is struck by the similarity between Ms Reid's story and the female employee story he has heard via one of the Oswald women: I saw Lee with a coke; I told him the Pres. had been shot
Well!
We have two statements, each attributed to Mr. Ochus Campbell, that Mr. Oswald was seen in a storage room on the first floor shortly after the assassination.
Exhibit #1! Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63 (by Mr. Kent Biffle):
(https://i.postimg.cc/FKGK1qD2/Campbell-DMN.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Exhibit #2! New York Herald Tribune, 11/23/63:
(https://i.postimg.cc/sx8TGg4R/Campbell-storage.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Note that the DMN article gives an indirect quote, whereas the NYHT one provides a direct quote.
And there are not one but two eyebrow-raising details in that direct quote from Mr. Campbell:
---------1. "We saw him (Oswald) in a small storage room on the ground floor"
---------2. "he did not have permission to leave the building"
Well, if no. 2 here is referring to the time when Mr. Truly and Officer Baker have just run into the buidling, then Mr. Campbell's statement is most odd. All employees, at that time, had permission to leave the building. Why, most of the building's employees had left the building to view the P. Parade! There was no prohibition on employees leaving the building when on their lunch hour-----------we know, for instance, that a catering truck came by for anyone who wished to buy lunch.
This indicates that Mr. Campbell is talking about somewhat later timeframe: several minutes later, when the building was locked down.
So..................... how could Mr. Biffle have gotten the wrong end of the stick?
Here's what I think may have happened:
----------------Mr. Biffle heard, early on, that Mr. Truly & an officer had run into a 'worker' inside the building just after the assassination, and the officer had challenged this man at gunpoint, before releasing him on the word of the building manager. What Mr. Biffle did NOT hear was any NAME for this employee, nor the all-important detail: this 'worker' was caught by the rear stairway several floors up the building (as would be reflected in Officer Baker's affidavit later that day).
----------------Mr. Biffle also heard, at a considerably later point, when the word 'Oswald' was on everyone's lips, Mr. Campbell say what the NYHT reporter heard him say, i.e. that this Oswald was seen in a small storage room on the ground floor shortly after the shooting. Mr. Biffle understandably but erroneously put two and two together, and came out with five: this Oswald guy must have been the worker Mr. Truly had vouched for to the gun-toting cop. And so Mr. Biffle conflated the two sightings.
All of which would leave us with Mr. Oswald spotted in or by one of the two small storage rooms on the first floor several minutes after the shooting.
On the scenario I have been exploring in recent posts on this thread,
----------Mr. Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade (just as he claimed)
----------then, when shots rang out, he ran down off the steps, with Mr. Bill Shelley in front
----------they both heard from Ms. Gloria Calvery that Pres. Kennedy had been shot
----------they both headed west to the edge of the railroad yards, where they stood around for a little while watching all the excitement
----------they both re-entered the building, via the west door
----------Mr. Oswald was spotted by the storage room on the first floor (perhaps by several people, including Mr. Ochus Campbell [remember: the direct quote has him say "We saw him"])
----------At some point after this, Mr. Oswald went to the front entrance to leave: by this time, an officer (Lt. Kaminski) was posted there: he stopped Mr. Oswald, and only let him go after Mr. Truly vouched for him
Mr. Oswald related all this to Captain Fritz in that first interrogation, and his claims were ruthlessly distorted in the official interrogation reports. Meanwhile, important work was undertaken------------through the addition of a magic shadow (down Mr. Lovelady's side) in Wiegman, and the creation of a 'post-Cronkite' version of the Altgens photograph----------- to erase visual evidence of Mr. Oswald's presence in the doorway at the time of the shooting
(https://i.postimg.cc/fTbrBk2Z/Wiegman-Weisberg-Archive2-arnold.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkqntWqN/Cronkite-Altgens-LHO-arm-coke-gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Thumb1:
Wouldn't it have been easier to destroy the negative of the altgens photo rather than go to all the trouble of altering it?
No, as it had already been shown live on national television by Mr. Walter Cronkite. Millions and millions of Americans were already aware of its existence
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNz4r1Qd/Altgens-cronkite.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thumb1:
Oh ok, so you think it had been changed AFTER it had been shown on TV by Cronkite?
Remember! Mr. Oswald told Captain Fritz he wore THIS shirt to work that day:
There is no mention of what shirt Oswald wore in any of the interrogation reports.
Good observation there Mr.Ford. It would explain the shadowing of Lovelady and the bottle anomaly.
And if it can be shown by some geometry that hand raising the bottle is in the same spot as the shadow anomaly that’s would be helpful.
I ask Jerry Organ or Mr.Mytton (or other LNs) for any computer 3d models to see if this lines up correctly , since if an LN admits it works then the newly possible theoretical position of Oswald on the front steps can be established as a reasonable probability.
It has long been assumed by researchers on both sides of the debate that the Hughes film shows Mr. Billy Lovelady shielding his eyes from the sun at near-bottom left (=west) of the doorway, just above Mr. Carl Edward Jones---------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/CM3vs4xD/Lovelady-in-Hughes.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I'm not so sure about that........
Note: Would not Oswald have had to pass by in front of PM to get to the west side part of front steps?
Note 1: this scenario is about the only way to plausibility explain Oswald having had a 2nd floor lunchroom lunchroom encounter with Baker at 90 sec post shots, given the Hosty note placing Oswald outside of TSBD at time of shots fired.
It may be necessary to determine if Oswald’s body outline fits there between Lovelady and the left elbow of PM, in the Weigman film clip already posted in this thread. ( the shadow anomaly)
As it appears to me, if considering that Loveladys right shoulder is in some of that darkened right side, then the horizontal distance between his right side body and the left elbow of PM may be too narrow for an Oswald body to fit without having obscured part of PMs left elbow.
I’m[/b]
Seeing in that enlarged gif that Chris posted, what appears to be 2 blotches of red that when combined together in the horizontal line, are way too wide to be just one body.
So I’ll be the one to ask: could there be TWO persons with red shirts next to each other that cause this image?
Unless it is some distortion by the camera, I’m
Seeing in that enlarged gif that Chris posted, what appears to be 2 blotches of red that when combined together in the horizontal line, are way too wide to be just one body.
So I’ll be the one to ask: could there be TWO persons with red shirts next to each other that cause this image?
Alan,
It's impossible to tell what the time elapse would be.
Why?
If you use the Bell/Towner sync and plot it, their LOS intersect creates a wider turn radius than most believed to have occurred.
Truly described it and that was at least one reason for the Towner splice. imo
Another would probably be, as you have long suspected, the action upon the TSBD steps so clearly in view from Towner's position.
With that said and the splice time/wider radius being discounted, it would have been a distance of approx 25ft traveled at an 8.6mph average speed = 25/12.64ft persec = 2 seconds.
Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Thank you very much for this informative response, Mr. Davidson------------much appreciated! Thumb1:Here is a link to what I did post previously. If you scroll down just a bit you can read the brief responses we had.
Here is a link to what I did post previously. If you scroll down just a bit you can read the brief responses we had.
Sorry I mis-spoke about the prior collage being posted, as I truly thought that was the one.
Anyhow, keep up the excellent work.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3524.msg135170.html#msg135170 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3524.msg135170.html#msg135170)
Took the two clearest frames and enlarged them.
Doing this, it could be the tree foliage/camera movement is creating the appearance of two different bodies.
?
(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/Bell-6th-Floor2.gif)
Yes, I'm not convinced (at least not yet) that we are necessarily seeing two different shirts in Bell.Nice summation.
The key point IMO is the fact that we are seeing an unbroken horizontal stretch of red in Bell.
The disposition of that part of the red shirt of our man in Hughes not blocked by Mr. Carl Edward Jones
--------------(red [right shoulder]-white[tshirt]-red[left shoulder])--------------
simply does not allow for what we're seeing in Bell
--------------(red-red-red)----------------.
And Bell's vantage point would yield MORE blockage of our man in red by Mr. Jones!
(https://i.postimg.cc/CM3vs4xD/Lovelady-in-Hughes.gif)(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/Bell-6th-Floor2.gif)
Now! Someone might suggest: 'Maybe Carl Edward Jones lowered his body momentarily, thus making visible to Bell the buttoned lower part of Lovelady's shirt?'
Nope. Towner rules that out: it can be synced to the Bell frames, and it shows Mr. Jones still standing upright as he was doing in Hughes, still blocking our man in red just like he was doing in Hughes.
I cannot, in short, see a logical way for our man in red in Hughes to be Mr. Lovelady.
Thumb1:
Nice summation.
Short of someone trying to convince us that the same person covered the white t-shirt by buttoning up their red overshirt in approx 2 sec (unrealistic), I'm not seeing another alternative other than what you have described.
Precisely, Mr. Davidson!Was Lovelady coerced into testifying to parallel Oswald actions?
Which leaves us with two red-shirted men in the west half of the doorway:
1. Mr. Billy Lovelady
2. A slender white male in a reddish shirt over a white tshirt, apparently drinking from a bottle
Who on EARTH can #2 be?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yjdyq5KP/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
If ONLY we had a Depository employee who
a) fits the description of #2
b) claimed to have gone outside to watch P. Parade
It's so frustratingly hard to work out.........................
;)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis08.jpg)
Where was this fellow (red sweater) during the assassination?
Was Lovelady coerced into testifying to parallel Oswald actions?
Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down.
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
The red shirted person in Bell(plotted) is (basically/very close) to where Lovelady? is in Hughes. That person is on the west side of the center railing and closer to the west wall opening
Connecting back to Bell's pedestal:
Are we sure about that, given Bell's POV? I've been thinking the red shirted person in Bell is at or close to the Lovelady-in-Altgens/Wiegman position (i.e. up several steps and right over by the center rail)? Cf. his relation to Ms. Maddie Reese (green arrow) in white down below in Bell.
Connecting back to Bell's pedestal:
(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/Bell-LOS.png)
Much thanks for this, Mr. Davidson!Surely.
If it's not too much trouble, could you give us the map with the red lines going all the way back to Mr. Bell's pedestal?
Thumb1:
Surely.
The first one was connecting him to the center of the pedestal.
I believe he was at the north end according to the photo, so that is where I made this connection.
(https://s9.gifyu.com/images/Bell-LOS.png)
Many thanks, Mr. Davidson! Thumb1:
Perhaps the yellow traffic pole offers another useful point of reference?
(https://i.postimg.cc/L61mRhBh/Davidson-Lovelady-in-Bell-frame-0009-traffic.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/BX4rBSzG)
Pinpoint the traffic pole on a map, then.
Alan,The splice is between 2+3
Another would probably be, as you have long suspected, the action upon the TSBD steps so clearly in view from Towner's position.
The splice is between 2+3
A little clearer, hopefully:
(https://s9.gifyu.com/images/Towner.gif)
Wow, Mr. Davidson, excellent stuff!
Have you any thoughts as to what is going on there (the flapping)? I never bought the 'It's a woman in the crowd' claim.
It's the strangest darn thing, this Towner scene
Perhaps completely OFF-TOPIC! (Or perhaps not................):
Question! Why were so many people standing packed together on the EAST side of the doorway , and so few standing on the WEST side? What was it about those west steps that made folks so west-averse??
Think about it. What------------other than somebody already standing there-----------might stop you from taking up your position on a certain part of the steps?
Friends, there are still some details to be teased out here and there, and some jolly back-and-forth to be had, but I believe we are now at the point where we can-------------for the very first time ever------------track Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald's exact positions/movements during the assassination.
POSITION A
Mr. Oswald is just behind Mr. Carl Edward Jones at the bottom of the west side of the entrance way.
Wiegman frames, four seconds between them:
(https://s9.gifyu.com/images/Wiegman.png)
Perhaps completely OFF-TOPIC! (Or perhaps not................):
Question! Why were so many people standing packed together on the EAST side of the doorway , and so few standing on the WEST side? What was it about those west steps that made folks so west-averse??
Think about it. What------------other than somebody already standing there-----------might stop you from taking up your position on a certain part of the steps?
'But!' I hear you cry, 'Altgens Altgens Altgens!!! It refutes your claim because it shows Jones not Lewis!!!!!!'
Indeed it does, at least in its 'canonical' reiterations.
Ah yes, Altgens Altgens Altgens. That's where the real fun and games begin...................
(https://i.postimg.cc/3x8yLdb4/Cronkite-Altgens-sharp-large.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/d3GbTQ2w/Altgens-Groden.jpg)
Thumb1:
Here's what happened. The authorities, in their desperation to keep a lid on Mr. Oswald's presence on the steps, made the mother of all goof-ups.
-They studied any front doorway images they had managed to get their hands on
-They saw Mr. Oswald in Wiegman: We'll have to black him out
-They saw Mr. Oswald's right arm/coke in Altgens: We'll have to deal with that
-They looked again at Wiegman: Hey, see that black guy standing at the bottom of the steps? He might be useful here. Who is he?
-They scoured some aftermath photos, and found-------or thought they had found---------this black man: Let's take this profile of his face and paste it into Altgens to help hide the Oswald bits
e.g.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LdXyXw5/Carl-Jones-flipped.jpg)
-A profile pic was the best they could throw at the thing. It wasn't perfect, as it had the man looking the wrong way, but needs must..........
-However, what they didn't know was that, in looking at the black-and-white Wiegman frames, they had misidentified Mr. Roy Edward Lewis as Mr. Carl Edward Jones!
-They did some retouching to Mr. Jones's face to blend it in, and retouched Mr. Oswald's upper arm/hand to make it look like Mr. Lovelady's left arm:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3x8yLdb4/Cronkite-Altgens-sharp-large.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/d3GbTQ2w/Altgens-Groden.jpg)
A bit of further retouching, and hey presto----------the 'canonical' post-Cronkite Altgens photo was born. The result was a hot mess, but it did the job.
Mr. Jones in 'canonical' Altgens does not refute the evidence for Mr. Roy Edward Lewis being at the bottom of the steps; the evidence for Mr. Roy Edward Lewis being at the bottom of the steps proves that Altgens was doctored
Fascinating exchange from 24:28 here. The lady questioner is quite right to point out the problem, but she hasn't worked out that the wrong man's face was used!
Mr. Lewis knew and knows exactly where he was standing at the time of the assassination. When he first saw Canonical Altgens, he must have been pretty perplexed!
Thumb1:
Full moon or another Chinese balloon floating overhead? This stuff is far out even from a CTer. Take this "evidence" to the NY Times or Tucker Carlson. Tell them you have proven that Oswald was not a shooter and that there was a conspiracy to kill the president. Get back to us with their response.
Atlantic Monthly might be interested. They're doing a series exposing conspiracy cults.
The guy in the red sweater ...
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis08.jpg)
... appears momentarily (he's sitting or stands for the President) through some foliage in a film clip. But he must be Lovelady or Oswald?? They're so desperate to get Oswald on the steps (in front of people on the steps who would have noticed him).
Full moon or another Chinese balloon floating overhead? This stuff is far out even from a CTer. Take this "evidence" to the NY Times or Tucker Carlson. Tell them you have proven that Oswald was not a shooter and that there was a conspiracy to kill the president. Get back to us with their response.
For what reason would conspirators need to paste one black man over top of another black man?
Theres an inconsistency with red shirt man in Hughes film when he’s holding up his hand (holding the speculative bottle) : His sleeves appear covering his forearm.
Not even sure if the quick gesture being made by Red shirt man is a bottle brought to mouth. It could be just a salute to the POTUS.
The white shirt of Red Shirt Man is extremely white which suggests the thicker long sleeve white shirt that Lovelady was wearing when he was caught on film
On the 6th floor having removed his red plaid flannel shirt.
So!
Two key things that for nearly six decades prevented Mr. Oswald's alibi from being firmly established:
1. The fact that Mr. Oswald's own claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" was suppressed and not known to researchers (until 2019!):
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzS25RNB/Hosty-parade-crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
2. The fact that both men on the left here-----------------Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald and Mr. Roy Edward Lewis------------------were all along mistakenly identified as Mr. Billy Nolan Lovelady and Mr. Carl Edward Jones:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yjdyq5KP/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
Given that Mr. Oswald, standing in the entranceway with a Coke bottle in his hand, is rather unlikely to have shot Pres. Kennedy, the only meaningful LHO question now becomes:
Was Mr. Oswald knowingly involved in the assassination plot?
Decent and honest researchers can disagree on that question.
As for the Warren Gullibles, they have spent years of their lives chasing Mr. Oswald's ghost up on six-------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1yStWVJ/Hughes-window-SN.jpg)
Imagine wasting all that time and energy defending a hoax! Truly, Oswald Derangement Syndrome is a pitiable condition..............
Thumb1:
Oswald himself admitting to being in the building. We don't even have to play the contrarian defense attorney game on that one (i.e. how do we know the DPD wasn't lying about what he said?) because he answered the question on camera in response to a question from the press. Only someone touched in the head can believe they can make heads or tails of those fuzzy pictures. And none of Oswald's co-workers ever indicated that he was on the street with them. This is tin foil Bigfoot nonsense.
Oswald himself admitting to being in the building.
I know that Oswald said to reporters he worked in the building, but where and when exactly did he say he was in the building at the time of the shooting?
He was specifically asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting.
No he wasn't.
Oswald: I work in that building
Reporter: Were you in the building at the time
Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir
What else was he going to say?
It doesn't get anymore vague than this, yet to Richard it's an admission that he was in the building during the shooting. Hilarious!
To more reasonable people it's obvious that Oswald simply confirmed that he worked at the TSBD and that he was there when the shooting took place.
Ok, I’m on board with Mr.Fords latest scenario with exception of conspirators pasting image of Jones over Lewis to hide the bottle , which it does not really do imo.
I think the main selling point here is the impossibility of the red blotches in Hughes all belonging to just one person because how far apart they are.
No he wasn't.
Oswald: I work in that building
Reporter: Were you in the building at the time
Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir
What else was he going to say?
It doesn't get anymore vague than this, yet to Richard it's an admission that he was in the building during the shooting. Hilarious!
To more reasonable people it's obvious that Oswald simply confirmed that he worked at the TSBD and that he was there when the shooting took place.
Vague? HA HA HA HA. You literally have the question and answer on film. You don't even need the time machine. He was specifically asked if he was in the building AT THE TIME. And Oswald responds "Yes." What do you mean "what else was he going to say"? How about "no" if that was the case. If he was out on the street AT THE TIME, as this endless thread has suggested, then a perfect opportunity to say so. Unreal.
Vague? HA HA HA HA. You literally have the question and answer on film. You don't even need the time machine. He was specifically asked if he was in the building AT THE TIME. And Oswald responds "Yes." What do you mean "what else was he going to say"? How about "no" if that was the case. If he was out on the street AT THE TIME, as this endless thread has suggested, then a perfect opportunity to say so. Unreal.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD — “I work in that building.”
REPORTER — “Were you in the building at the time?”
LEE HARVEY OSWALD — “Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.”
At what time?
And there we have it, straight from the Warren Gullible's own mouth: Mr. Oswald's answer makes no sense if he was out on the street at the time.
There'll be no argument from me on that point!
Poor Mr. Smith has of course just blown up his own argument. He thinks---------he actually thinks!---------the man in the reddish shirt in Hughes is out on the street.
Why does poor Mr. Smith think this? Because he thinks---------he actually thinks!----------the enclosed front entrance belongs to the street rather than to the building!
No wonder he's lost!
:D :D :D
In that Townes film gif, the red blob that is approx at the west side entrance wall where red shirt man is in Hughes and Bell film, seems to move right and down.
Meanwhile at the same time imo, there is another stationary portion of red near the center handrail but you can’t quite make out a figure. That’s about where Lovelady would be if he’s next to Sarah Stanton ( she being on the east side of the handrail.)
Roy Lewis jacket that Jerry Organ posted earlier , appears to me to be too dark a hue of red to be matching Lovelady.
Oswald was asked if he was in the building at the time. He responded yes. There is no ambiguity about this. Oswald puts himself "in the building". Not standing outside.
Don't you think under the circumstances if Oswald had been standing outside in the presence of his coworkers - thus providing him with an airtight alibi for murder - that he would be screaming that to anyone who would listen?
I wonder if the critics even thought that there might be some variation in color between two different camera systems and processing methods.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/be/DCkZwpU8_o.jpg)
I wonder if the critics even thought that there might be some variation in color between two different camera systems and processing methods.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/be/DCkZwpU8_o.jpg)
Friends, while we patiently await Mr. Organ's response as to his current understanding of Mr. Lewis' exact whereabouts at the time of Bell, let us note that he has chosen to process a Bell frame that doesn't show the white tshirt.
Now I wonder what might be the reason for this curious choice he has made?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mD8pL3hD/Lovelady-Bell-Altgens-Davidson-CROP.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/TP8zYT5M/Bell-lovelady-tshirt-davidson.gif)
If only the shirt under Mr. Lewis' cardigan weren't so darn................... BLUE!
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/be/DCkZwpU8_o.jpg)
:D
You really think I'm suggesting where Lewis is in the Willis Photo is where he's at in the Bell film? You can't be that thick.
LOL.
Oswald was asked if he was in the building at the time. He responded yes. There is no ambiguity about this. Oswald puts himself "in the building". Not standing outside. Don't you think under the circumstances if Oswald had been standing outside in the presence of his coworkers - thus providing him with an airtight alibi for murder - that he would be screaming that to anyone who would listen? Oswald knew that no one could place him outside the building because he was on the 6th floor shooting the president "at that time." He tried to pawn off his presence in the building as the result of "working there." Sound familiar? He didn't work outside the building. That was the best he could do since he was guilty and had no other option.
I want to further help Mr. Organ by urging folks reading to pay NO attention to the BLACK man in BLUE just in front of Reddish-Shirted Man in Hughes:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
At a merely cognitive level we can see that this must be Mr. Roy Edward Lewis. But at a deep metaphysical level we know it cannot be him, for he is at this time behind and up a few steps from Ms. Maddie Reese, wearing a powerful white button. For people to start trusting their cognitive faculties, without understanding either metaphysics or camera systems and processing methods, would be a danger to democracy itself
Thumb1:
Friends, let's keep this simple.
The case against Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald as the sixth floor shooter now requires the preposterous scenario that Mr. Roy Edward Lewis rather than Mr. Billy Lovelady is responsible for the upper garments we see here in Bell:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2ZV3bbr/Organ-Lewis-crop-alone.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/5Nv5CMVy/Lovelady-Bell-Altgens-Davidson-shirt-tshirt.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/TP8zYT5M/Bell-lovelady-tshirt-davidson.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/tgQzMMC7/Lovelady-1971-crop.jpg)
Another way of saying this is that the case against Mr. Oswald as the sixth floor shooter has just completely collapsed.
Thumb1:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/001~1.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/5Nv5CMVy/Lovelady-Bell-Altgens-Davidson-shirt-tshirt.jpg) |
I thought the shirt colors were supposed to match.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5Nv5CMVy/Lovelady-Bell-Altgens-Davidson-shirt-tshirt.jpg) (https://images2.imgbox.com/5c/03/GsDsakKM_o.gif)
Nice dodge, Mr. Organ! Thumb1:
I'll ask again: where in the doorway do you believe Mr.-Lewis-in-Bell is?
So, no answer
How expected !
So, no answer
How expected !
You know the answer. It is in in the film clip. This is just contrarian rabbit hole nonsense. I'll play along, though. Oswald was asked if he shot the president. He responds that he works in the building.
What other time would the press be asking Oswald about under the circumstances when they asked him if he was in the building "at the time" while also shouting questions asking if he shot the president? They knew only one thing about him. He was the suspect in the assassination. There is no "assumption" about what is being asked or his answer which is on film. Unreal kookery. These are the self-proclaimed "unbiased" arbiters who have no agenda. This is just more rabbit hole nonsense. Like when Marina makes dozens of references to the "rifle" or questions about the "rifle" but in one instance refers to seeing the "wooden stock" of "the rifle." Magically, the object becomes just something made of "wood" in the contrarian fantasy. Which, of course, a rifle is made of.
'I still can't explain how Mr. Redshirt in Hughes can be Billy Lovelady, so I'm going to wave my hands around some more'
:D
Take it up with Oswald. He confirmed he was in the building "at the time."
..................the far from tangential question of the black man just in front of Redshirt Man (a.k.a. Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald) in Hughes:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
Friends, we have already seen how, in March '64, Mr. Carl Edward Jones tells FBI he was sitting on the steps at the time of the assassination.
But what does Mr. Roy Edward Lewis tell FBI about where he was?
"I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building"
Unless he means he stood behind the glass front door, this is actually a pretty perfect description of the black man dressed in blue in Hughes:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
Thumb1:
Why is what we know to be Mr. Carl Edward Jones' cream-colored clothing showing up blue in Hughes?
(https://i.postimg.cc/259ByDyf/Roy-Edward-Jones-crop.jpg)
Answer!
It's showing up blue because it is blue, because he's not Mr. Carl Edward Jones, because he's Mr. Roy Edward Lewis---------with cardigan off!
This stuff is right up there with Greer-Shot-Kennedy and Ralph Cin-que's Doorman-is-Oswald/Ruby-Didn't-Shoot Oswald.
Here are better scans of the Hughes frame (with no severe limitation on color as with GIFs) and the Jones outfit is not bluish.
~Grin~
The enclosed front entranceway was part of the building. As you have recently learned yourself (!), it was not "out on the street". Hence Mr. Oswald was not out on the street at the time, nor anywhere else at the time--------------no, he was in the building, which was the building where he worked.
How it must kill you that the reporter didn't ask Mr. Oswald, "Were you inside the building at the time?"
Actually I wish he had asked that too, as it would have saved us all a lot of time. Thankfully, however, we found out in 2019 that Mr. Oswald told Captain Fritz where he was at the time:
Thumb1:
The question and Oswald's response are on film. Anyone can watch it for themselves.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD — “I work in that building.”
REPORTER — “Were you in the building at the time?”
LEE HARVEY OSWALD — “Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.”
Nice dodge, Mr. Organ! Thumb1:
I'll ask again: where in the doorway do you believe Mr.-Lewis-in-Bell is?
Re-bumped for Mr. Organ! Thumb1:
The answer is ten-or-more pages ago. I'll play the Riddler, like you do: Why can't Mr. Ford remember things posted a few day ago? Retention problem?
Apologies, Mr. Organ! I assumed you would have wanted to adjust your original estimated location---------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLrntRsM/Organ-redshirt-location.jpg)
--------------in the light of Ms. Maddie Reese's raised right forearm having been identified in Bell.
But no, this is still your estimation. Good to know! Thumb1:
Is that part of the oval over the lower line your estimation of where the man in the red shirt's head would be?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2zDsSZ0/Organ-redshirt-location-arrow.jpg)
Thumb1:
Is there something wrong with you?
And Mr. Oswald is on film. Anyone can now see him for themselves and understand how this cannot be Mr. Billy Lovelady:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
I, Richard Smith, can explain how Reddish Shirt Man in Hughes is Billy Lovelady. My explanation is as follows:............................................
Over to you, Mr. Smith!
Thumb1:
Ask any random person if they can see Oswald or anyone in that clip. Better yet take this to the NY Times and ask if they see Oswald in the clip. Pack an overnight bag as some men with nets may be called.
~Grin~
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
I, Richard Smith, can explain how Reddish Shirt Man in Hughes is Billy Lovelady. My explanation is as follows:............................................
If you're really so confident this is Mr. Lovelady in Hughes, then you should be only too happy to give your explanation. If you keep running away from the challenge, everyone reading can draw their own conclusions!
Thumb1:
I know who it isn't based on his own words and the evidence. Not interested in playing whack-a-mole about every blurry image. Again, though, if you think that shows Oswald standing outside please rush immediately to the NY Times and show this to them. It is Pulitzer Prize winning stuff.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2StZwPDT/Organ-redshirt-crop-lines.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/63BcnH4T/Bell-Reese-arm.gif)
Notice anything?
That's right. The respective elevations of Redshirt Man & Ms. Reese in Bell are an uncanny match for the respective elevations of Mr. Lovelady & Ms. Reese in the Wiegman frame.
Same movement; same height.
Are we sure this is a coincidence?
Thumb1:
~Grin~
Thanks for confirming that you can't defend your kooky claim that this is Mr. Lovelady! Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
This doesn't just mean that Mr. Oswald is at a substantial height advantage over Mr. Lewis, but also that he is at a substantial distance behind him.
Just like Prayer Person in Wiegman.
Are we sure this is just a coincidence?
Thumb1:
Could it be---------we find ourselves wondering-----------that they are showing the same two men, one of whom (=the one standing higher up) is, in the later clip, simply repeating a hand movement (drinking) he made in the earlier clip?
Are you paying attention yet?
Thumb1:
'But!' I hear you cry, 'LHO is catching plenty of sunlight in the Hughes clip, whereas Prayer Person is in shadow.'
To which you hear me reply: 'Well, quite..................................................'
Thumb1:
'But!' I hear you cry, 'LHO is catching plenty of sunlight in the Hughes clip, whereas Prayer Person is in shadow.'
To which you hear me reply: 'Well, quite..................................................'
Thumb1:
And if you want to get a good idea of what Mr. Oswald/PrayerMAN must have looked like the original, un-doctored Wiegman frames, all you have to do is take a look at Hughes:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2GKw0PF/Prayer-Man-in-Wiegman-Scan-Nov-2015-small-ER.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/cHzGQwk2/Lovelady-in-Hughes.gif)
When the frame of red shirt man is enlarged, I don’t see any indication of any black squares like Loveladys red and black (grid square) pattern.
Yes, Mr. Ford, Reddish shirt man in Hughes film.
Post an enlarged frame and the shirt appears to me to be even more sold red without any black squares. That which seems improbable if that were Loveladys red and black square shirt.
Conclusion: Red shirt man raising hand in Hughes film is not likely Lovelady unless some computer can see some black squares that my eyes can’t see.
A little later, after Wiegman filmed, which means that shadow would be extending even less eastward, than what is seen in this frame.
(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/StepShadow.png)
The front steps were almost fully in sunlight. The preposterous Wiegman magic 'shadow'-----------
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2GKw0PF/Prayer-Man-in-Wiegman-Scan-Nov-2015-small-ER.jpg)
------------banked on folks' ignorance of this simple fact.
Ok Mr.Ford, I will try to be a Skeptic since the dedicated LNs probably consider the whole Oswald Out Front theory totally absurd, thus will ignore this thread.
So Here are some Skeptic ?:
1. Did the conspirator/ cover up squad miss how similar Red shirt man in Hughes film is to Oswald?
2. If no, to 1, Then since Red shirt man is fully visible, they must have thought that the public could be convinced the man was Lovelady, therefore took no steps to alter the Hughes film?
3. The movement of the left arm of Red Shirt man in Hughes is up and down in 1 sec. Can we be certain the action of a bottle being raised, making contact with lips, a portion of liquid escapes bottle into the mouth, and the hand holding bottle returns to waist level, can occur in a mere 1sec?
Here's how those tasked with doctoring the images went about mimicking the texture of natural shadow:Alan,
----They could see that PrayerWOMAN was standing in a place that put her in natural shadow
----A part of her shadowed head was sticking up over the bathed-in-light head of Mr. Oswald (PrayerMAN): this gave the technicians their reference
----The technicians set themselves the task of conforming the obscurity of Mr. Oswald's face & upper body to that of the background head of PrayerWOMAN
----They extended the magic 'shadow' eastwards until it went down Mr. Lovelady's right side
since Red shirt man is fully visible, they must have thought that the public could be convinced the man was Lovelady, therefore took no steps to alter the Hughes film?
But I think what we're really seeing here is a deliberate mix-up by FBI-----------------------one that created enough ambiguity to allow a certain impression to be given (both the short-sleeved shirt in the Feb photograph and Mr. Lovelady's 11/22 shirt may be described as "red" and "white vertical striped"), while leaving room to correct that impression should folks notice the problem.
And why would such a deliberate mix-up be contrived? Because the 'investigating' authorities didn't want to photograph Mr. Lovelady in his actual 11/22 shirt.
And why not? Because of Redshirt Man in Hughes
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHzGQwk2/Lovelady-in-Hughes.gif)
They did not want to photograph Mr. Lovelady in his actual 11/22/63 shirt: Hughes, with its image of Redshirt Man, was concerning enough in this regard, but a color photo or film could yet emerge showing Mr. Oswald's reddish shirt in the doorway at close quarters.
But nor could they photograph him in one resembling Mr. Oswald's reddish shirt: such a claim would be immediately falsified by the emergence into the public domain of an image of Mr. Lovelady from 11/22/63.
The early researchers who knew that something was off with the whole Lovelady Shirt business all made the same mistake of relating it to AltgensDoorwayman, and assuming that what the 'investigating' authorities were covering up was the fact that Altgens showed Mr. Oswald rather than Mr. Lovelady. This erroneous belief led them badly astray. However, it now turns out that they were a LOT closer to the truth of the matter than those clowns trying to put Mr. Oswald up on the sixth floor!
As for the Prayer Man folks, they were a LOT closer to the truth----------------not alone were they (like the LHO=AltgensDoorwayman folks) 100% correct as to the question 'In which part of the building was LHO?', they have been proven 50% correct in their identification of WHICH figure in the doorway he actually is:
!
No, Prayer Person in Darnell is NOT Mr. Oswald.
!!
But yes, PrayerMAN in Wiegman IS Mr. Oswald-----------------for he is the same man IN THE SAME PLACE whom we see in his reddish shirt in Hughes, only here he's had artificial shadow added to hide his facial features:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2GKw0PF/Prayer-Man-in-Wiegman-Scan-Nov-2015-small-ER.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/g2yz3CfD/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
Amazing to think that we've been looking at Mr. Oswald in Hughes for all these years and not realizing it!
Thumb1:
So far the Red Shirt Man =Oswald theory seems to be plausible.
No one has demonstrated (yet) that a red shirt with such large black square grid pattern as Loveladys shirt , can appear seemingly so solid reddish brown as in Hughes film.
I’m going along with the theory so far because it does look like a bottle in the hand of Red Shirt Man (imo) in that enlarged GIF Mr.Ford posted from Hughes film.
But of Mr. Lovelady's head, red shirt, white tshirt-------------which we know from the simultaneous Bell to be in full sunlight just west/behind/above her
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYYy5L9L/Bell-lovelady-tshirt-davidson.gif)
--------------we are shown NOTHING. He has been completely blacked out.
Three truths are told!---------------------
1. Mr. Billy Nolan Lovelady spent the motorcade standing over close to the center railing
2. Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald spent the motorcadeup at the SN windowstanding over by the brickwork just behind the western column
3. Neither man shot Pres. Kennedy
So he had the perfect alibi ... but told investigators he was in the lunch room.
Alternatively!
This is the base of the white west column-------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXHXcdPq/Bell-white-column.jpg)
-------------and Ms. Reese is after all standing one step up just on the west side of the center rail.
Bell's angle is a little to the east of this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5HpY9vF/TSBD-front-entrance-1967.jpg)
Ms. Ruth Dean in blue is standing against the center rail.
The foliage is covering the heads of Ms. Reese and Ms. Dean. Mr. Lovelady has been leaning on his right foot and craning his neck to see Pres. Kennedy: we are now seeing him straighten up again:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq4bRnRQ/Bell-tshirt-larger.gif)
I think the blue and white that are showing up just beside Mr. Lovelady (to our left as we look) MAY be related to, respectively:
----------Mr. Roy Lewis' waving of an object
----------Mr. Oswald's white tshirt
Not Mrs. Dean. Probably the lower of the men with their hand over their eyes in Altgens.
Hmmm.... I think the blue belongs to Ms. Dean but what I have been seeing as Mr. Lovelady's head sticking out in Towner may in fact be the right elbow of the gentleman you refer to:
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnPTbX6r/Towner-not-bell.gif)
So-----------------where in the heck is Mr. Lovelady?
If the red arrow in the gif is actually the lower west edge of the concrete structure, horizontally flipping a frame and aligning it, might help with the people location. Just a thought.
(https://s9.gifyu.com/images/Bell-Flopped.gif)
If the red arrow in the gif is actually the lower west edge of the concrete structure,
What is supposed to happen here by posting the same fuzzy photos and shaky films over and over again with arrows pointing in every direction? I would be curious to know the ultimate purpose. Could that be articulated?
The intelligent folks reading know exactly what is at stake in this. You------by definition-------don't.
Thumb1:
Would one of these "intelligent" folks (which apparently doesn't include yourself since you can't articulate an answer) enlighten me as to the purpose of posting the same fuzzy photos over and over and over on this forum? What is expected to happen? For example, does the DPD frequent this forum and you hope they will reopen the case based on your "evidence"?
In which case, the doorway behind the foliage goes substantially farther west than we've been giving it credit for.............
Thumb1:
~Grin~
'I wish you people would stop looking into who was where on the west side of the doorway'
I'm just curious if you expect something to happen after making your claim a hundred times or more. Or are you in the midst of some uncontrollable compulsion disorder and actually can't stop? It's just curiosity. You can knock yourself out posting the same fuzzy pictures and films and making the exact same claims over and over until the end of times for all I care but thought you might enlighten us as to what. if anything, you hope to happen. Have you given it any thought? I gather you have made no effort to provide your evidence to any law enforcement or media source to confirm your claims. You have limited your efforts to an Internet forum. Does that strike you as odd if you actually believe this proves that someone other than LHO assassinated the president? If I believed that I had such evidence, I would run to the DPD or Tucker Carlson and make my case.
No amount of trolling from you can stop what is happening here, Mr. Smith. May you find the serenity to accept this thing you cannot change, and the courage to immerse yourself in a new hobby!
Thumb1:
2. This landmark is surely a useful reference in plotting Mr. Bell's POV
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCM4Wm9w/Davidson-Lovelady-in-Bell-frame-0015-concrete.jpg)
The map suggests that it and its counterpart to the east are bracketing the doorway almost perfectly
Perhaps this Bell frame with 3D animation overlay will be of interest.
(https://i.imgur.com/MUgD7qQ.gif)
Perhaps this Bell frame with 3D animation overlay will be of interest.
(https://i.imgur.com/MUgD7qQ.gif)
LOL, if Mr. Bell had been standing somewhere completely different, you'd be on to a real winner here, Mr. Organ!
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNBw3MH3/Organ-Bell.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/qvKQBGrZ/Bell-doorway-wide-shot-smaller.jpg)
This is as comically inept as your claim that Redshirt Man in Bell is obviously NOT Lovelady but a black guy in a brown cardigan over a blue shirt! :D
How does this undermine my graphic?
Hackerott supplied the proper width and height for the doorway in the Bell film,
LOL, you've shown us how beautifully things would 'align' if Mr. Bell were standing here! :D
I am a BIG fan of Mr. Hackerott's work, but I'm afraid his reconstruction of Mr. Bell's POV and the doorway scene is off in some key respects, e.g.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tXqX965/Hackerott-bell-overlay-Lovelady-Reese-distance.gif)
We'll work it out, however, and when we've done so you will be just as embarrassed by this catastrophically bad Mittonesque 'analysis'-------------
------------as you now are by your hilarious claim that Redshirt Man in Bell is a black man wearing a brown cardigan over a blue shirt.
But by all means, Mr. Organ, keep lecturing me about 'poor photo-interpretation skills'---------your lack of self-awareness is always most entertaining! :D
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e7/76/JbcdjzW8_o.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/4a/mSkfPum4_o.jpg) |
Mr. Lovelady's hand to Ms. Reese's right elbow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tXqX965/Hackerott-bell-overlay-Lovelady-Reese-distance.gif)
Your comparison picture is a different scale than that of the still from Hackerott's 3D.
BTW, what graphic by Mytton do you think is wrong?
Hi Jerry, I hope you are well. My initial morphs were a bit sloppy and no doubt Ford will ignore my later gifs and post an earlier gif, yawn.
But besides Oswald on film indicating he was inside at the time we have Lovelady's "blacked out" shirt which is actually nothing of the kind and we can clearly see the "blacked out" stripes on his shirt and therefore we should see Ford's Oswald somewhere behind but as expected Oswald isnt there because as history has recorded he was on the 6th floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvPFY4Xf/love-shirt-new2ca.gif)
I rest my case. Thumb1:
JohnM
Which theme throws up a simpler explanation than the one I offered a few pages back for why the fake shadow in Wiegman had to start with Mr. Lovelady's right side rather than just with Mr. Oswald/PrayerMAN---------------the undoctored frames showed with painful clarity the pattern of Mr. Lovelady's shirt:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTHqTH49/mytton-lovelady-contrast-striped-shirt.gif)
Thumb1:
https://www.mhanational.org/finding-therapy
Good on you, Mr. Smith-------we all wish you well on your mental health journey. And thank you for pointing your fellow Warren Gullibles to what could be a vital resource at this unprecedentedly difficult time.
Thumb1:
But that's not all Bell is telling us:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq4bRnRQ/Bell-tshirt-larger.gif)
Watch the downward & eastward movement of Mr. Lovelady's left hand. Then watch his head. Then watch the straightening up of his torso.
He is not moving his feet over to this new spot, for they are already there. He has been leaning into his right foot, and craning his neck to follow the limousine. And now he is returning to his previous upright posture
Same movement from 1st step down from landing to 2nd step down from landing (Mr. Lovelady having gone back up a step between Bell and Altgens/Wiegman).
Thumb1:
Alternatively, of course, Mr. Lovelady is moving down a step-------------------
Your comparison picture is a different scale than that of the still from Hackerott's 3D.
Mr. Lovelady is a lot further east than the 3D graphic has him.
This in turn explains why Mr. Lovelady is blocked by Ms. Toni Glover in Hughes
Thumb1:
Mr. Lovelady's hand to Ms. Reese's right elbow:About the wonky vertical scaling, I must have used the wrong 'master" frames to generate the initial fading animation I posted. This animation has better registration with the breeze blocks and doorway. I'll have a talk with the quality control guy in the morning >:(
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tXqX965/Hackerott-bell-overlay-Lovelady-Reese-distance.gif)
About the wonky vertical scaling, I must have used the wrong 'master" frames to generate the initial fading animation I posted. This animation has better registration with the breeze blocks and doorway. I'll have a talk with the quality control guy in the morning >:(
(https://i.imgur.com/MV4K8pS.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bYn39RMx/ezgif-com-gif-maker-3.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif)
Mr. Oswald's body language here is interesting. He takes a drink of his Coke and then looks down to his right, lifts his head back up, and then (very quickly) takes another look down.
What's nice is that, even at this distance, Mr. Hughes' camera is picking up the difference in tone between Mr. Oswald's shirt and Mr. Lovelady's
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJNG8GrP/LHO-shirt-speer.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/FRb6HgjX/Lovelady-shirt-70s.jpg)
This moment in Hughes is literally the only time anywhere we get a color glimpse of their shirts together.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/hugheshouststlostbzoonfuew.gif) What I posted (GIF from search) | (https://i.postimg.cc/bYn39RMx/ezgif-com-gif-maker-3.gif) Ford's version with hue and saturation extremes, and filter-effect: Maybe "noise" (sparkles to simulate film grain) or artificial "sharpening" |
Indeed, this is the only time anywhere we ever get to see a color image of Mr. Oswald wearing the shirt he brought to work that day..............
Thumb1:
I don't see another red shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NzsdSZR/Belltowner-flash-larger.gif)
Friends, now that Mr. Lovelady has been distinguished from Mr. Oswald on the front steps, [.............]
283 pages of your obsession. Nothing resembling the bloat of it except Doyle acting out his symptoms.
Alan replied to my post in just under ten minutes.
Does he live inside this thread? Is this thread a cry for caregiver intervention?
Keep searching those genealogical archives, Mr. Scully, at this rate you should have the case cracked by 2123! Thumb1:
'Kay, thanks!
google.com
https://books.google.com › books (https://books.google.com/books?id=pJ9PDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT349&lpg=PT349&dq="coup+in+dallas:"+scully+lemann&source=bl&ots=fp3nzkux2l&sig=ACfU3U22el3Jt8c7hrQtQjlUHr5LcS7QHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7krbA3Mj9AhWslGoFHRWvBGkQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q="coup%20in%20dallas%3A"%20scully%20lemann&f=false)
H. P. Albarelli · 2021 · History
"Monroe & Lemann law firm handled the regional interests of the Whitney dynasty. ... researcher Tom Scully established beyond doubt that Stephen Lemann and Garrison were closely related by marriage..."
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...books.google.com › books (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mary_s_Mosaic/OGOCDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mary%27s+mosaic+mitchell+scully&pg=PT348&printsec=frontcover)
Peter Janney · 2016
FOUND INSIDE
Discussing his critical post of Mary's Mosaic in an email to a University of Georgia law professor, Scully ... 2 Mr. Scully focused his attack on the conclusions I had presented about the prosecution witness William L. Mitchell, ...
Fight Back & Win: What to Do when You Feel Cheated Or Wronged books.google.com › books (https://www.google.com/search?q=Fight+Back+%26+Win+What+to+Do+when+You+Feel+Cheated+Or+Wronged+thomas+scully&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=us&ei=w5wGZK63K6Cs5NoP7K-8oAo&ved=0ahUKEwjupKWs3sj9AhUgFlkFHewXD6QQsJ4FCAM)
2002 · Snippet view
FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 5
What to Do when You Feel Cheated Or Wronged ... Senior Designer Martha Grossman Illustrator Philip St. Jacques Copyeditor Nancy Stabile Proofreaders Susan Congor Nancy Wallace Humes Thomas Scully Karen Tsakos READER'S DIGEST ILLUSTRATED ...
I rest my case: textbook narcissism
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2156.msg58544.html#msg58544
August 18, 2019
"...I discovered this three weeks ago and posted it on another forum on July 28th. Despite 1100 page views of that thread since then, save for one reply, quoted below, no interest has been shown,
More importantly, Mr. Lovelady himself now needs to go quite a ways east (at the very least as far as the yellow arrow shows), and his posture needs to reflect the fact that (in Bell) his left arm is down in front of his body, rather than forming the easternmost part of it----------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/nz9rDr3k/Hackerott-bell-overlay2-marked.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/RV7k0mLn/Bell-lovelady-tshirt-davidson.gif)
Mr. Roy Edward Lewis (in front of Mr. Oswald) raising his left arm to wave at Pres. Kennedy as he comes onto Elm St.:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrZ3gB8D/Lewis-Hughes-arm.gif)
[Credit for source GIF: Mr. Jerry Organ]
Thumb1:
Could it be that what I have been seeing as Mr. Oswald's raised right arm holding a Coke is in fact Mr. Lewis' raised left arm, and the 'Coke' is part of the flapping object we see in Towner?
Could BOTH areas marked in red here belong to this flapping object, which the person continued to wave at the Parade even after the limousine had passed?
And there we have it. The jealous little narcissist can't generate enough attention with his trademark zero-stakes info dumps, so he comes onto a genuinely important thread and spams it with off-topic self-obsessed garbage. Sad!
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2639.msg93357.html#msg93357
Re: Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )
Alan Ford « Reply #7 on: July 10, 2020,
You're engaged in a 285 page, "spam thread" a record volume on this forum, a "conversation" primarily with yourself.
Your intent is to maintain this thread as the first page thread with the most recent post.
That is it... the extent, at this point and for several years, of your effort here.
Roy Lewis does NOT place himself at the bottom of the steps, but rather at the TOP of the steps. (Per his more recent interview)
Lewis describes in his interview WHEN he came out , that it was just AFTER JFK limo has turned onto Elm st, and at which point Lewis saw JFK “brush his hair”. This makes it improbable that Lewis would be in Hughes film at the bottom of the steps as JFK limo is going up Houston st, BEFORE it turned on Elm.
Roy Lewis shirt is a much darker blue than the very light blue shirt of the black man at bottom
Of the steps in the Hughes film gif.
Roy Lewis pants are much darker than the almost white pants of that same black man in Hughes film gif.
The face in Wiegman film and Altgens film
Does NOT match the face of Lewis.
The black and white Weigman film and the b&w
Altgens photo show clearly the black man has very light , almost white shirt and pants.
In another black and white photo of Lewis, (see prayerman site) his shirt and pants appear as dark as his jacket is , which jacket is wrapped around his waste. It’s highly improbable that the very light blue and almost white pants of black man in Hughes could appear so dark as in another b&w photo of Roy Lewis taken with in an hour later out front of TSBD.
If Lewis had a habit of wrapping his jacket around his waste when he took it off, then if he is the black man at bottom of steps in Hughes, Weigman, and Altgens , it follows that there should be a jacket around the waste. There is no jacket to be seen around the waste of the black and it’s unlikely he just dropped the jacket on the steps somewhere.
It’s highly improbable that Lewis dark blue shirt and dark pants could appear as light grey almost white as in Weigman film and Altgens photo.
Imo, the Very Light blue tone of the shirt of black man in Hughes film is an effect caused by the gif enhancement process.
Therefore because of the above as well as the FACE dimensions (longer nose, more oval shape head ) and height of the black male in any photo or film segment that show some closer detail, the black man has to be Carl Jones.
Making the necessary correction to the Lovelady position will of course offer a more accurate representation of where in the doorway he is in Bell (more towards the center). This will allow us to cross-refer nicely with Mr. Lovelady's fleeting appearance, just a couple of seconds prior, in Hughes:
Given that Mr. Bell is NOT filming the doorway head-on, but is slightly west of it,
I still suspect that lower white area is actually sunlit entranceway steps.
I don’t have the skills that Mr.Ford has at posting photos etc., so I just comment on what my opinion is after observing what already has been posted in this thread ( which is becoming a almost a library at this point:)
It’s still my opinion that the black man is more likely to be Carl Jones.
It’s curious that the WC investigators seem to have avoided a more rigorous interview with Jones and Lewis.
In that more recent interview of Lewis , near the end of it, a women questions why it appears that the black man in Altgens photo is looking towards Daltex building. Lewis looks at the screen and is not able to give any reason, , and he seems a bit confused.
Note: the abbreviation BDM will be used for “black doorman” to designate the black man whom is at the lower west side steps of TSBD and whom Is either Roy Lewis or Carl Jones.
The b&w Weigman film clips shows the pants and shirt of “black doorman” (BDM) being a very light tone of gray approaching almost as white as other shirts of other persons such as Sarah Stanton (fluffy shirt person raising both hands to shade her eyes).
Now! Let's separate out the questions:
Q1. Is the black man in front of Mr. Oswald in Hughes Mr. Carl Edward Jones?
Q2. If he is NOT Mr. Jones, is he Mr. Roy Edward Lewis?
Seems to me the black man showing up in blue in Hughes in front of Mr. Oswald at the time of the assassination may well be none of the the black men shown in the photograph with the black & white arrows.
This person is surely too tall to be a woman. Who the heck is he?
As for our friend in blue, standing just in front of Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, he may after all be NEITHER of these two men but a DIFFERENT black man:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq5t8Fnx/Roy-Edward-Lewis.jpg)
So! I have a simple question: Was Mr. Charles Givens dressed in light blue clothing that day?
Word reaches law enforcement that a black manual worker name of Givens has been saying he saw Oswald at the time of the shooting.
'Where did he see him?'
'Front steps.'
'Uh oh.......... We gotta get a hold of this Givens fellow, pronto. The fact that he has a police record should work in our favor.'
Mr. Oswald is on the fourth step up, which would appear to put Mr. Lovelady, when he makes his fleeting leaning appearance in Hughes, up on the landing:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLkL2Lwk/LHO-Lovelady-in-Hughes.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/FKzNGwhp/Hughes-LHO-Lovelady-contrast.gif)
For the longest time, I thought THIS was somebody in the background being revealed when the object flapped up:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y00DQmzk/Towner-flash-frame-0005-unfurled.jpg)
But watching the clip slowed down, I now believe it's actually the flapping object itself, unfurled into its square/rectangular shape
(https://i.postimg.cc/fL2BWRnP/Towner-waving-slow.gif)
What in the heck is this object? A flag??
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfQbbM6M/Cuban-flag.jpg)
Is Mr. Oswald waving a Cuban flag at the P. Parade, and taking a photograph of his protest as he does so?
No, there must be something solid that has been attached to the right-hand side of the flag, and Mr. Oswald must be gripping that something in his left hand. Something like a piece of wood. Something like a metal bar. Something like a-----------------curtain rod.
Let us assume that Mr. Oswald has decided to use Pres. Kennedy's visit as an opportunity to burnish his pro-Castro credentials (via a nearly-selfie----------those who accept the authenticity of the backyard photos might like to think of it as something in the same genre). He then hears shots ring out. He then learns that Pres. Kennedy was hit.
He then enters a very Louis Witt state of mind, with a great big helping of fear on top..........
He leaves the curtain rods behind somewhere in the building, but hides the flag on his person and takes it with him, disposing of it somewhere along his route to the Texas Theatre. He is no fool, and is all too alive to the very real prospect that his disastrously ill-timed protest on the steps will put him on the hook as an accomplice in a pro-Castro assassination plot. When the cops arrive at the Texas Theatre, his worst nightmare materializes. But-----NB!------he does not believe he is being picked up as the shooter-------------------------he believes he is being picked up on account of his flag-waving stunt, which he assumes the cops are interpreting as evidence of his involvement in the assassination plot.
When Fritz grills him on the curtain rods, Mr. Oswald mistakenly thinks the reason for this grilling is the flag-waving stunt, and so he denies all. He has no idea he's actually being accused of having brought the murder rifle to work that morning, let alone of having himself used it to shoot Pres. Kennedy from the sixth floor!
Now again, ask yourself: If Mr. Oswald were to wave something at a P. Parade, what might he be likely to wave?
Now how in the world did everyone in Dealey Plaza including the SS agents, miss seeing a guy on the front steps of TSBD waving a Cuban Flag?
The SS noticed the DC man with his hand raised and they saw the Umbrella man, but they missed the Cuban Flag man right on the front steps of TSBD?
Now since Oswald might have been paranoid enough to think that displaying a Cuban Flag in the midst of Texans and the POTUS might be a dangerous act , then I guess it’s a possible reason to leave money and wedding ring for Marina.
Possible, but probable, due to lack of evidence of Oswald ever having had a Cuban flag, or displaying such flag in the Hughes film or anywhere else.
Oswald did not display a Cuban flag in New Orleans when he was handing out those “Hands off Cuba” leaflets in the midst of Anti Castro Cubans and getting himself in a fight with one of them.
No Cuban flag in the Back Yard photo either.
In fact, since the Anti Castro Cubans displayed the same flag, then Oswald probably never would have displayed a Cuban Flag if his intent was to demonstrate himself being a PRO Castro /Marxist .
Now maybe Mr.Ford can find a RED Communist /Marxist flag being waved , somewhere in a Hughes film gif.
And then THAT might actually be a much more probable reason why Oswald could have speculated that waving Such flag in the midst of Texans , might very well be Oswald’s last day on earth, thus he left ring and money to Marina. 🙈
Or it maybe there was no plan to wave flags , there was no attempt to shoot at JFK, and Oswald left money and his ring as a natural last act of respecting his wife’s decision, and to look for his children. 🧐
Mr. Mason, we agree that Towner shows something sizeable being waved in that doorway, yes? I say it's a flag; what do you think it is?
And what in the heck are these things that look like the legs of a junior mannequin?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1SFGyMY/Darnell-objects.gif)
She has just seen something that has troubled her enough to go pick the sack up and draw attention to it
Was this something the real LHO-Reid encounter?
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgYbRB6b/Reid-in-Darnell.jpg)
Mr. Oswald had brought the flag outside wrapped in a long bag made out of TSBD wrapping paper. Having taken up his position in the doorway, he furtively took the flag out of the bag in time to have it ready to wave at Pres. Kennedy. After making this political gesture, he rolled the flag up again around its makeshift curtain-rod flagstaff and put it back in the bag. Then he left the steps and disposed of the bag as described above.
This is what caught Officer Baker's attention.
At this point in time, I’m only on board with the No. 1 speculative theory of Red shirt man in Hues film gif =Oswald
Just as the observation that the ( with exception the black male in front lower west steps is more likely Carl Jones than Roy Lewis)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zNNDs8Z/funny-TSBD.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I may have just blown this case wide open.
As a number of researchers have noted in the past, a certain motorcycle policeman seems to be heading not straight for the front steps but for a point somewhat east of them
:D
This from the guy who's still stuck way, way back at the 'No, I can't explain that shadow down Lovelady, but I know it means nothing' stage of denial.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vHdbkSBX/Prayer-Man-in-Wiegman-(References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited )-Scan-Nov-2015-small-ER-text.jpg)
Now! Back to the question:
Is this police officer wearing gloves?
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZryFrjd/Front-steps-for-wiegman-shadow-12-58-gloves.jpg)
Really?
I believe my explanation was that Lovelady was just turned to the side, looking out over his shoulder.
Maybe it's one of those big foam hands you get at sports events with "Go Oswald" written on it.
Why is Fritz wearing a black oven mitt? It's the key to understanding the whole mystery. I bet you can't answer that question. And if you can't answer that question, you'll never understand what's happening.
I understand it's been tough on you Alan, all those years spent peddling the nonsense that Sarah Stanton was in fact Oswald stood in the corner of the front landing, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath you.
In a way it's admirable as I'm sure there were a lot of disciples of the Church of Prayerman who couldn't face how stupid they'd been and who now live in complete denial.
At least you've toned it down a bit and are finally using common sense.....wait on a second...........what's that??
Oswald down by the front steps waving a Cuban flag tied to a curtain rod??
:D :D :D
Mrs Reid stood outside holding the rifle bag??
:D :D :D
You really are priceless. I bet the Prayerman lot are glad you left ;)
Is this officer wearing gloves?
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZryFrjd/Front-steps-for-wiegman-shadow-12-58-gloves.jpg)
Thumb1:
Apropos!
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8zqKJ4Y/Flag2.jpg)
: it appears the only person who can possibly be waving this flag is the white man in the reddish shirt standing directly behind that black man
it seems more probable imo, that the “flapping” effect may just be the camera blur of Oswald having having moved over and down one step for a few seconds ,
Although I’m kind of amused myself by this amazing ability Mr.Ford has of constructing a theory, (to almost LOL) , I’m never the less going to stay with it for a little longer, until some one definitively proves a 1963 camera that Hughes used, could morph black checkerboard square pattern of Loveladys shirt into the reddish brown seemingly solid texture ( as it appears to me anyway).
Maybe an experiment should be conducted setting up the same type camera where Hughes was and have a man wearing Loveladys shirt be filmed at that 12:30 time of day in November, and at the correct distance.
Not sure I follow logic of using a Cuban flag and waiting to very last sec to display the flag, which it doesn’t even appear to have been accomplished in the 1st place.
So imo, the reddish and whitish blob in Towner film , that Mr Ford perceives to be a Cuban Flag, MAY instead be Oswald moving from against the west wall to the position in front of and just below Lovelady.
Although I’m kind of amused myself by this amazing ability Mr.Ford has of constructing a theory,
I’m never the less going to stay with it for a little longer, until some one definitively proves a 1963 camera that Hughes used, could morph black checkerboard square pattern of Loveladys shirt into the reddish brown seemingly solid texture ( as it appears to me anyway).
Maybe an experiment should be conducted setting up the same type camera where Hughes was and have a man wearing Loveladys shirt be filmed at that 12:30 time of day in November, and at the correct distance.
And then Oswald moved BACK to the west wall and took probably his last drink of coke , such that he got captured in Altgens photo doing exactly the same raising the arm up like he did earlier in Hughes film?
Ford is taking advantage of severely-compromised animations, possibly from the "Lost Bullet" morphed "enhancements". I know I posted one of those GIFs (found through a search), but I wouldn't use it for frame-by-frame analysis once I saw the artifacts in enlargements.
Less manipulated versions of Hughes show dark-bluish reflections off the glass doors and not a reddish blob.
Here is my latest simulation of the Book Depository doorway, featuring Mr. Billy Lovelady’s changes of location and posture from the beginning of Wiegman’s film (W1) to four to five seconds (IIRC) later for his second sweep of the doorway (W2). Ike Altgens took his famous image #6 showing Mr. Lovelady in a somewhat twisted configuration.. My 3D simulation is taken from Wiegmans’s camera as it moves in the moving motorcade. A comparison with the Altgens position is also modeled, capturing the transit of Lovelady from the landing to one step below. Note, without the bending and twisting he could not be standing erect in the final Wiegman scene (W2), as he would be too tall (relative to the hat of Mrs. Ruth Dean portrayed in black here. And too short to be on the second step below). Also note that I did not model the actual articulations necessary to drop a step but used a simple line-of-site from the landing to second step locations. Lovelady’s white undershirt is not something I can model with my software. I’m using a ‘checker’ pattern of large red and white tiles. The chest tiles meet at the vertical center of the models torso.
(https://i.imgur.com/iD9V52W.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/kbRMVaH.gif)
Here is my latest simulation of the Book Depository doorway, featuring Mr. Billy Lovelady’s changes of location and posture from the beginning of Wiegman’s film (W1) to four to five seconds (IIRC) later for his second sweep of the doorway (W2). Ike Altgens took his famous image #6 showing Mr. Lovelady in a somewhat twisted configuration.. My 3D simulation is taken from Wiegmans’s camera as it moves in the moving motorcade. A comparison with the Altgens position is also modeled, capturing the transit of Lovelady from the landing to one step below. Note, without the bending and twisting he could not be standing erect in the final Wiegman scene (W2), as he would be too tall (relative to the hat of Mrs. Ruth Dean portrayed in black here. And too short to be on the second step below). Also note that I did not model the actual articulations necessary to drop a step but used a simple line-of-site from the landing to second step locations. Lovelady’s white undershirt is not something I can model with my software. I’m using a ‘checker’ pattern of large red and white tiles. The chest tiles meet at the vertical center of the models torso.
(https://i.imgur.com/iD9V52W.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/kbRMVaH.gif)
Is Mr. Lovelady still in transit? It doesn't look at all like it------------------the height/location of his head relative to other stationary markers does not change from frame to frame
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jntj3h9W/Wiegman-lovelady-head-height.gif)
I may be wrong, but I don't believe that's what James is saying at all.
As Weigman's camera sweeps in front of the TSBD there are two distinct moments the area of the front steps are shown.
One is as the camera naturally sweeps around going past the the area of the steps (WI) and a second time when the camera suddenly pans back to that area for a very brief moment (W2).
In WI (as James shows in his graphic) it appears that Lovelady is on the top step. When the camera pans back to the steps it seems as if Lovelady has moved down a step or two.
I'm assuming that James' graphic is showing that movement between W1 and W2.
And, even though I've examined Altgens 6 dozens of times, I haven't taken on board how Lovelady's body is twisted so that it is almost front-on to Altgens' position. This would make it side-on to Weigman's position.
All we have to do is imagine that Lovelady's body position is the same as in Altgens 6 but, instead of looking towards Altgens, Lovelady is looking to his left. And Hey Presto! This is what we see in Weigman's frames (W2).
Exactly as I've been saying all along. Thumb1:
Huh? You said Mr. Lovelady is looking over his shoulder, lol
And no, we are certainly not being asked to imagine that "Lovelady's body position is the same as in Altgens 6"!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jz0r40Y8/Hackerott-Lovelady-positions.gif)
All of which said! I do see now that 3D Mr. Lovelady's left leg goes down a step:
(https://i.imgur.com/kbRMVaH.gif)
However, this makes matters worse. If Mr. Lovelady's left foot is already taking him forward/down a step, then having him bend forward deeply like a 95-year-old is fanciful, to say the least. And the idea that he then stays there in that geriatric posture across several frames is downright absurd.....................
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzX0PtzK/Hackerott-Lovelady-lean.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/Jntj3h9W/Wiegman-lovelady-head-height.gif)
Not that even THAT extreme contrivance yields a visually credible reconstruction of what Wiegman is showing.
We need to see a scaled 2-image overlay GIF containing:
a) this Wiegman frame
(https://i.postimg.cc/pL7MkZWh/Wiegman-Weisberg-Archive-Lovelady.jpg)
b) the proposed 3D equivalent
Thumb1:
Hmmm...
A couple of points to make.
I take it that you do now agree that James' graphic represents Lovelady's movement between W1 and W2?
People's heads can turn to the left and to the right without their torso moving it's all in the neck.
If Lovelady's body is turned facing Weigman side-on, as Altgens 6 seems to suggest, when he turns his head to the left he is looking towards Weigman's position over his left shoulder.
Huh? You said Mr. Lovelady is looking over his shoulder, lolHere is the requested 2 frame GIF depicting my W2 pose with a Weisberg full frame image. The doorway frame required reprocessing with a camera tilt to match the reference frame. Note that while reviewing my notes I realized I transposed the values for “TorsoRot” for the W1 and W2 positions. I’ve corrected that mistake in this and future forthcoming work. I’m redoing the animations, but I don’t expect substantive changes. Not sure what to do with the Bobblehead GIF?
And no, we are certainly not being asked to imagine that "Lovelady's body position is the same as in Altgens 6"!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jz0r40Y8/Hackerott-Lovelady-positions.gif)
All of which said! I do see now that 3D Mr. Lovelady's left leg goes down a step:
(https://i.imgur.com/kbRMVaH.gif)
However, this makes matters worse. If Mr. Lovelady's left foot is already taking him forward/down a step, then having him bend forward deeply like a 95-year-old is fanciful, to say the least. And the idea that he then stays there in that geriatric posture across several frames is downright absurd.....................
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzX0PtzK/Hackerott-Lovelady-lean.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/Jntj3h9W/Wiegman-lovelady-head-height.gif)
Not that even THAT extreme contrivance yields a visually credible reconstruction of what Wiegman is showing.
We need to see a scaled 2-image overlay GIF containing:
a) this Wiegman frame
(https://i.postimg.cc/pL7MkZWh/Wiegman-Weisberg-Archive-Lovelady.jpg)
b) the proposed 3D equivalent
Thumb1:
Here is the requested 2 frame GIF depicting my W2 pose with a Weisberg full frame image. The doorway frame required reprocessing with a camera tilt to match the reference frame. Note that while reviewing my notes I realized I transposed the values for “TorsoRot” for the W1 and W2 positions. I’ve corrected that mistake in this and future forthcoming work. I’m redoing the animations, but I don’t expect substantive changes. Not sure what to do with the Bobblehead GIF?
(https://i.imgur.com/ODXiSEm.gif)
There could never be two heads there at the same time, it would have been a dead giveaway. Therefore, a little more creative artistry was in order.
The shadow knockout under the chin/across the neck wasn't done very well, but the white chested extended shirt was.
(https://s10.gifyu.com/images/WiegmanAltered.gif)
Now if Someone can insert a body that represents Oswald’s 5’-9” 135 lb body into the gap between Prayer Woman and Lovelady and about a step or 2 up from the ground level and try to simulate the movement that is described by Mr Ford “as flapping”, that would be most helpful.
Pres. Kennedy having passed the building, Mr. Oswald is no longer waving the flag-------------his little stunt is done.
Compare this far less tortured orientation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0SHdc5r/Wiegman-Lovelady-1967.gif)
To get a perfect alignment, imagine the 1967 photographer moving a little east, and Mr. Lovelady's head following him (without any other movement of his body).
Many thanks, Mr. Hackerott, your going to this trouble is genuinely appreciated.It is not evident that the posture is simply wrong. This is not the first time I was forced to accept such a posture. Back in 2018 I wanted to locate Lovelady’s location in the doorway for the Altgens 6 photo. That was a long time ago but I’m still forced accept that conclusion. I cannot place a standing 5’8” model on either one (too tall) or two steps down (too short) from the lading. See the below slide for my reasoning.
Is it not evident from this overlay that 3D Lovelady's posture is simply wrong?
Compare this far less tortured orientation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0SHdc5r/Wiegman-Lovelady-1967.gif)
To get a perfect alignment, imagine the 1967 photographer moving a little east, and Mr. Lovelady's head following him (without any other movement of his body).
It is not evident that the posture is simply wrong. This is not the first time I was forced to accept such a posture. Back in 2018 I wanted to locate Lovelady’s location in the doorway for the Altgens 6 photo. That was a long time ago but I’m still forced accept that conclusion. I cannot place a standing 5’8” model on either one (too tall) or two steps down (too short) from the lading. See the below slide for my reasoning.
(https://i.imgur.com/kwPUKbk.png)
By all means explore a scenario, Mr. Mason, but I do wish to be clear as to what my claim is:
Mr. Oswald is the man in the reddish shirt in Hughes. He is standing behind the black man. He does not move from this position, and is still there in Wiegman (as PrayerMAN), facing forward just like in Hughes, but now with fake shadow covering his person so as to prevent identification.
I am putting him on the fourth step up throughout the motorcade sequence. Note the brickwork behind the white west column, and its position relative to that fourth step up:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMdx1jMQ/bottle-steps-arrows.jpg)
Now look at PrayerMAN in Wiegman, and how close his right elbow is to the back edge of the brickwork. This cannot be PrayerWOMAN back on the landing-----------the distance from elbow to brickwork is just too small.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXymcLzf/Wiegman-faster.gif)
Pres. Kennedy having passed the building, Mr. Oswald is no longer waving the flag-------------his little stunt is done.
Thumb1:
Mr. Oswald is the man in the reddish shirt in Hughes. He is standing behind the black man. He does not move from this position, and is still there in Wiegman (as PrayerMAN),
I thought you'd abandoned the wrong-headed idea that PrayerWoman was Oswald.
Mr. Oswald is the man in the reddish shirt in Hughes. He is standing behind the black man. He does not move from this position,
Where in the conspirators added shadow area of Lovelady was the body or at least the head of Oswald located?
If Weigman film is preceding Hughes film in recording the front steps
Well, I cannot accept the premise
that Prayer figure in Weigman film could be Oswald and then the SAME figure as seen in Darnell film is a woman.
What are the visual details that clearly distinguish that the PM figure in Weigman film can NOT plausibly be the same PM figure in Darnell film?
Is there consideration given to the fact that when Weigmans film is recording PM that the perspective is different (due to angle and location of Weigmans car, than the perspective from Darnell’s camera recording PM later?
Two different people:
1. PrayerMAN in Wiegman, standing on fourth step up = Mr. Oswald
2. PrayerWOMAN in Darnell, standing back on landing = Mrs. Pauline Sanders (NOT Mrs. Sarah Stanton!)
:D :D :D :D
Just when I think you can't get any more bananas....
Look at height of raised right elbow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YS7m2SVH/Hughes-LHO-hand-raised.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/TYSVxffd/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif-frame-0001.jpg)
----------Same person, same spot, same orientation of body (facing south, not turned southeast like PrayerWOMAN)
----------BUT! Different camera angles
----------AND! Every photo-trickery effort made to make it seem that PrayerMAN in Wiegman = PrayerWOMAN in Darnell
Mr. Oswald didn't change location from Hughes through to Wiegman
Look at the height of Lovelady's elbow in the Hughes film and note, it's the same level as his head.
Now look at PW's and note it is down by the side of her body.
Completely different postures explaining why the elbows can seem an equivalent height.
Also note in the Hughes clip, it appears Lovelady's shirt is almost hanging off his left shoulder.
Now look at the Weigman pic below that and note that this, too. shows his shirt almost hanging off his left shoulder.
Just like this picture does:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLpZZ9Z2/Wiegman-Lovelady-shoulder.gif)
Sure, if you misinterpret the film
'his shirt almost hanging off his left shoulder', lol
(https://i.postimg.cc/05wvxLfD/Altgens-Groden-crop.jpg)
Thumb1:
In the Hughes film Lovelady raises his elbow up to around head height.
Look at the Hughes clip above and, in particular, the Weigman still. The shirt is hanging off his left shoulder.
Showing the Altgens clip doesn't make any difference to the clip/still that has been posted.
Just to get back to your phenomenal assertion that Prayerwoman becomes Prayerman.
(https://i.imgur.com/qHIlwtM.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/afcAlmE.jpg)
Just look at how different they are.
Just look at all the differences. ;D
Look at how different the arm positions are.
Rethink Time For Ford?
Is this man waving a small flag?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3DqBD5c/Bell-man-waving-flag-marked.gif)
While you're doing all this, the rest of us can be having a good laugh at the thought, "Mr. Dan O'Meara thinks that person on the west side of the landing is an obese woman with white hair":
(https://i.imgur.com/afcAlmE.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/vBcBx5Kn/Sarah-Stanton-crop.jpg)
Loony toons!
:D
Up to just a few weeks ago, it was assumed that Reddish Shirt Man in Hughes is shielding his eyes.
He's not-----------------he's taking a drink from a bottle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6q0Rk2MC/LHO-Hughes-bottle.gif)
Apropos!
Let's imagine that there were a way, logistically, of making the Mr. Lovelady who appears in Bell/Wiegman/Altgens be Reddish Shirt Man in Hughes. (There isn't such a way, but let's forget that for a moment).
You cannot--------------in the time it takes for the limousine to travel half its own length---------------
So if Oswald / Red shirt Man in Hughes film did NOT move from the west wall then the reddish blob to the east and down in front of steps which is the flapping/ moving anomaly ( in Towner film) is too far from Oswald/Cokeman, to be a flag being unfurled (imo).
Then there is still the problem where Oswald is in Wiegman film.
If Oswald did not move after Hughes film, or in Towner film, then he cannot be prayerwoman (PW) nor close enough to Lovelady to be the reason for shadow anomaly of Lovelady in Weigman film.
Not even a super-high-speed westwards kangaroo hop across the fourth step could bring Reddish Shirt Man over to the Lovelady spot in time.
Mr. Lovelady simply cannot be Reddish Shirt Man.
Rethink Time For Ford?
Is this man waving a small flag?
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3DqBD5c/Bell-man-waving-flag-marked.gif)
There is “something” in Towner film causing JFK to turn his head 90 degrees looking at the front entrance area.
So… Where do we go from here Mr.Ford? :)
Well, Mr. Mason,
IF the flapping object is indeed in the doorway
And upside down US flag?
Cf (perhaps):
Mr. BALL. Now tell us what happened after the President's car had passed your window.
Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back.
Is it possible that Lovelady can be up in shadow in the Hughes film, then move down to the base of the steps to be the red shirt man who seems to have his arm raised HIGH and waving at JFK in thus Towner film GIF?
It may be a little more complicated than something catching his attention...
(https://i.ibb.co/XkyPPxP/Towner-Unger-full.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
Ask yourself: what might the weirdly 'missing' frames just before this have shown?
(https://i.ibb.co/d59CmRJ/Towner-Splice.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nL2dPF8)
What if they showed something curious in Pres. Kennedy's behavior-------------something that was NOT a reaction but something else entirely.................?
Thumb1:
Unless............ there is a person in red (mostly covered by foliage in Bell) further out on the sidewalk?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RCsv1JP/Bell-full-saturated-RED.jpg)
Could Ms. Madie Reese's coat be showing up pinkish in Towner because it actually is a faint shade of pink (which faint shade gets lost in Hughes & Bell due to much greater distance from camera)??
(https://i.ibb.co/XkyPPxP/Towner-Unger-full.gif)
Is this indeed Ms. Madie Reese in the doorway or could it be a person standing out in front on the sidewalk?:
(https://i.ibb.co/XkyPPxP/Towner-Unger-full.gif)
If the latter, then they're nowhere to be seen a few seconds later in Wiegman.................
Someone saw that long paper bag in that pile of items/trash there on the east side of the entrance steps ( which is a curiosity itself)
Other than that, the only remaining possibility would seem to be that this in Bell------
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4J3XJnn/Bell-full-saturated-frame-0045-legs.jpg)
-------is a portion of this in Towner-------
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0Qs1T2X/Towner-LOST-BULLET-2-Reese.jpg)
--------rather than what I've always assumed it to be, namely the legs of a woman standing on the east side of the doorway.
b) One of these people is Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald; the other is Mr. Billy Nolan Lovelady
No wonder Mr. Lovelady had to tell so many lies afterwards! He had been on the same team as Mr. Oswald-------which (as far as they had been given to understand) was Team Kennedy.
Pres. Kennedy was told to watch out for flags being waved in the Depository doorway by two guys in red shirts.
Here is Mr. Bill Shelley:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cL437QrX/bill-shelley-2-cropped.jpg)
Note how low his pants hang under the waist.
Note a second fact, not evident from the photograph: he has the distinguishing feature of having red hair (a fact revealed some years back by Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier).
Well, I believe this red-haired, low-hanging-trousered man caught in Hughes walking AWAY from the scene, carrying something in his arms as he crosses the Main/Houston intersection, may possibly be none other than Mr. Shelley in a casual jacket:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vm43hRcq/Man-in-Hughes1-arrow.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/Dz4PsqMR/Man-in-Hughes2-arrow.jpg)
It's kind of hard to tell if this is indeed Shelley, because the face isn't really clear in the photos. The head shape does appear to be the same.
Not too many red-headed men in Dealey Plaza. And not too many folks walking with purpose away from the scene. I think the probability that this is Mr. Shelley is strong.
If it's him, then we can start with his same-day affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8qKmcCB/Shelley-affidavit-back-to-building.jpg)
All true, except he's left out a little southwards excursion he took beyond the hot zone in order to dispose of whatever it is we see him carrying in Hughes.
Like Messrs. Oswald and Lovelady (and, one presumes, Truly), Mr. Shelley has cooperated in facilitating what he has understood to be a White House-approved staged incident (presented to him perhaps as an exercise to test SS response?). In the doorway for the motorcade, he hears the shots and is not perturbed. But when Ms. Gloria Calvery tells him out by the "corner of the park" that Pres. Kennedy was actually hit, he is stunned. With quick thinking (and perhaps after a quick exchange here with Mr. Oswald), he gets walking....... Having dumped whatever it is needs dumping, he returns to the building.
The simplest scenario is just Oswald bringing out the paper bag containing a provocative flag he intended to wave, at about 12:27, and then moving eastward off the steps to discard the flag and bag about 12:31
Not too many red-headed men in Dealey Plaza. And not too many folks walking with purpose away from the scene. I think the probability that this is Mr. Shelley is strong.
If it's him, then we can start with his same-day affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8qKmcCB/Shelley-affidavit-back-to-building.jpg)
All true, except he's left out a little southwards excursion he took beyond the hot zone in order to dispose of whatever it is we see him carrying in Hughes.
Like Messrs. Oswald and Lovelady (and, one presumes, Truly), Mr. Shelley has cooperated in facilitating what he has understood to be a White House-approved staged incident (presented to him perhaps as an exercise to test SS response?). In the doorway for the motorcade, he hears the shots and is not perturbed. But when Ms. Gloria Calvery tells him out by the "corner of the park" that Pres. Kennedy was actually hit, he is stunned. With quick thinking (and perhaps after a quick exchange here with Mr. Oswald), he gets walking....... Having dumped whatever it is needs dumping, he returns to the building.
Mr. Lovelady, meanwhile, has had his horrible 'Calvery revelation' seconds after Mr. Shelley---------and at the front entrance.
The story Messrs. Shelley and Lovelady will tell about going west to the railroad yards will be a little fiction designed to cover the interval during which Mr. Shelley (and, perhaps, Mr. Lovelady elsewhere) was away from the scene.
Mr. Oswald, in custody, will mention Mr. Shelley's presence out front, but will say nothing to blow his or his own cover as participants in a non-lethal false-flag operation.
I believe Messrs Lovelady, Shelley, Truly and Oswald went into 11/22 entirely free of nefarious intent towards the person of, or foreknowledge of the attack on, Pres. Kennedy. It was Mr. Oswald's deep misfortune to be the one served up afterwards as the scapegoat-----for everything.
Well what do you think Mr.Ford?
Is that Lovelady in the foreground ( at ground level ) waving a flag (or something) up in the air
I agree Mr. Ford. The head shape appears to be the same and so do the large ears. Would you agree with that? So yes, it's a strong possibility that it is Shelley.
The man seen at the sixth-floor window 4-5 minutes after the assassination by Mrs. Mooneyham may have been Mr. Truly. Or he may have been Mr. Lovelady. Or he may have been Mr. Dougherty. Or he may have been Mr. Oswald. ("I'll keep this cop away from the sixth floor," Mr. Truly mutters to Mr. Oswald by the first-floor storage room, "Get up there and get rid of the damn XYZ.")
In the course of the 'investigation', the FIRST LHO-Truly-Baker encounter near the front door is deleted but the SECOND one up at the lunchroom is kept.
There’s not enough time for Oswald to go up to the 6th floor after a possible trek from outside entrance steps up to the 2nd floor lunchroom (via the outer hallway) and then return to the 1st floor in time to get out of the TSBD before it was locked down as early as possible 3 min post shots per DPD officer Barnett.
Mr Oswald knew the precise system that had been put in place several minutes after the shooting-----i.e. Mr Truly at the front door vouching for employees to a police officer-----
3. He LIED about returning to the first floor to return to eating lunch, because he needed to account for missing minutes and wished to hide the fact that those minutes had been devoted to going up to the sixth floor to clean something up
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/sanders-standing.jpg)
I don’t think there’s enough resolution in Darnell to see chromosomes or genitalia.
Its a shame that one fuzzy white ring appearing around the neck of Prayer Person which is claimed to be the result of a better version of the film vs the many posts of a copy of the film we viewed for many years, can completely eradicate a rather lengthy analysis that had rational logical reasons why Prayer person was Oswald.
Now, instead of the logical place Oswald would likely have gone, had he exited the TSBD front door at 12:29, and from where he would easily have been unnoticed in that west corner, a new narrative has us deep into the most fantastic scenario of Oswald now moving in FRONT of people and taking out a flag and waving it!
Not too many red-headed men in Dealey Plaza. And not too many folks walking with purpose away from the scene. I think the probability that this is Mr. Shelley is strong.
If it's him, then we can start with his same-day affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8qKmcCB/Shelley-affidavit-back-to-building.jpg)
All true, except he's left out a little southwards excursion he took beyond the hot zone in order to dispose of whatever it is we see him carrying in Hughes.
Several people have viewed the 6FM copy of Darnell. To my knowledge, not a single one has come back with the declaration 'Yep, looks like Oswald!' Now why do you think that might be?
Only two that I know of, and neither said “looks just like Pauline Sanders”. Or even “looks like a woman”. You’re way overthinking this neckline thing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLkL2Lwk/LHO-Lovelady-in-Hughes.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/FKzNGwhp/Hughes-LHO-Lovelady-contrast.gif)
Brief recap!: When Mr. Oswald (green arrow) leans to his left, we catch a glimpse of his reddish-sleeved right arm in the glass behind him (yellow arrow)
But there is more!: That lean also affords us a fleeting glimpse of something else being reflected in the glass. Orange arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kj7phNvL/Hughes-LHO-flag-reflection.gif)
After the assassination, Mr Lovelady found himself having to look again and again at the Altgens photograph (because of erroneous claims that the 'man in the doorway' was Mr Oswald rather than himself). His memory of relative positions at the time of the shooting was thus set in stone by that image. He confidently pointed out to Mr Dom Bonafede a lady shielding her eyes in that photograph, a lady who he said worked on the second floor. His recognition of this lady in the photograph, who is the person he sees standing next to him to his east, explains why he mentions her in his testimony:
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Had Mr Ball not (nervously!) interrupted Mr Lovelady here, he would have named the person "right behind" him as Mr Joe Molina, who indeed appears to be 'right behind' him in Altgens.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/69/b95RPugR_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
What's this?
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRYFzDTQ/Wiegman-object-in-background.gif)
So from Towner to these Wiegman frames: ~12-13 secs
Skin tone?
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsY2vX8H/Bell-movement.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq2LPJKv/Bell-movement-face-B.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/6qSnTqWf/Bell-movement-face-A.gif)
This is NOT out by the street with the line of spectators-----------it is in the background
the same tack as Mr. Roy Truly and Co. at the Depository: hang Mr. Oswald----------the one man they know whose name will be linked to the crime----------out to dry.
Mr. Oswald, Mr. Truly, Mr. Shelley & sundry other TSBD men have been on the same team: facilitation of the White House-approved false flag operation (deliberately missed shots from the TSBD) that will be blamed on pro-Castro elements (incl. specifically [though not as gunman] the 'known' Castro sympathizer Mr. Oswald) and will serve as a pretext for C-Day (12/1/63).
Friends, I inadvertently deleted all but one snippet of my last post but two. (Note to self: the MODIFY button works different to the QUOTE button!)
Here again are the basic points covered in that deleted post, in which I summarized the conclusions I have come to based on the available evidence:
1. Mr. Oswald signed up for participation in a White House-approved off-books false flag incident to involve deliberate misses from the TSBD.
2. This shockingly provocative action would be blamed on pro-Castro elements.
3. The point of the staged missed-shots incident: to serve as pretext for C-Day (12/1/63)
4. Mr. Oswald--------a 'known' pro-Castro troublemaker but in actuality a govt. asset---------would become the public face/name of the outrage, the inside man at the TSBD who helped make it all happen. There would be evidence pointing to his involvement (though NOT as gunman), which fact would allow the incident to be sold to the public as a pro-Castro provocation.
5. Mr. Oswald signed up to play this role. He expected to be whisked away from Dallas (perhaps flown out of Redbird?), in all probability never to see his wife & children again. The world would be told that he had fled to Cuba.
6. Mr. Oswald, like a number of others at the TSBD, played his part----------in his case, right up to and including signaling in the form of flag-waving as Pres. Kennedy was passing.
7. However, as soon as he learned to his horror that Pres. Kennedy was actually hit, he knew he was in deepest trouble. The false-flag operation had turned into an actual assassination of the very man who had greenlit the false-flag operation. And Mr. Oswald would be exposed by name, because that had been baked into the false-flag plan.
8. He ended up making his way to the Texas Theatre to meet a contact he was told would be there. But his goose was already cooked. To his great credit, he never broke cover even under the unimaginable stress of arrest & interrogation. Right up to the end, he hoped for rescue by those he had served. But instead he got a bullet from Mr. Jack Ruby.
9. The assassination came as a complete shock to all those who had (like Mr. Oswald) taken part in good faith in 'Conspiracy A' (the false-flag operation). They found themselves horribly exposed.
10. Those in the TSBD (Messrs. Truly, Shelley et al.), who had been on the same team as Mr. Oswald, had no choice but to hang him out to dry.
11. The Kennedy loyalists (incl. Mr. Robert Kennedy) were in an impossible situation. The last thing they could afford-----------for their own sakes as well as for the sake of Pres. Kennedy's memory----------would be for the true facts behind the assassination to come out. And so, in order to cover up the ethically and politically abhorrent (and utterly reckless) false-flag operation, they gave full backing to the truly absurd LN theory. Mr. Robert Kennedy even meddled in the autopsy ('on behalf of the family'.) A real investigation would be apocalyptic for all concerned. Under no circumstances could the world know that Pres. Kennedy had gone into Dealey Plaza expecting to hear gunfire.
12. Of course, the complete post-assassination paralysis of ALL those behind the false-flag operation had been factored in by those behind 'Conspiracy B' (the actual assassination plot, which piggybacked on 'Conspiracy A').
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3k167LQ/Towner-Unger-full.gif)
“It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States. All you’d have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there’s nothing anybody could do.”
(Pres. John F. Kennedy, morning of 11/22/63
What happened to your multi-racial assassination death squad [MADS] wandering around the TSBD building?
Is that out of the window, like your utterly deluded belief that "Prayerman" was Oswald?
So, now rather than just sliding into the shadows where he might be unnoticed, Oswald is front and centre of the TSBD steps waving a flag with "Viva Cuba" on it, held up by the curtain rods he got from the Paines garage?
Clearly, the years you have spent defending the Prayerman horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns have taken their toll on you.
4. Mr. Oswald--------a 'known' pro-Castro troublemaker but in actuality a govt. asset---------would become the public face/name of the outrage, the inside man at the TSBD who helped make it all happen. There would be evidence pointing to his involvement (though NOT as gunman), which fact would allow the incident to be sold to the public as a pro-Castro provocation.
Mr. Oswald, meanwhile, re-enters the building. His Plan A (leave Dealey Plaza at once) has been trumped by the shocking news Mr. Shelley has told him about Pres. Kennedy. He now needs to take care of something else of an evidentiary nature that is inside the building.
The ludicrous notion of LHO Acting Alone was ENTIRELY the invention of the 'investigation'. And the tone of that 'investigation' was set very early on by Deputy Attorney General, and JFK ultra-loyalist, Mr. Nicholas Katzenbach:
The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.
Those who had designed something that would look like a pro-Castro conspiracy, now-----------in the wake of their non-lethal false-flag operation having been trumped by an actual assassination-----------simply HAD to push the opposite line: 'Oswald and Oswald alone'.
However!
That would not be the end of the story, if Mr. Robert Kennedy had anything to do with it. As a (the?) prime architect of the false-flag operation, he knew that a genuine fact-finding official investigation would be anathema. And so he had to bide his time. He publicly endorsed the ridiculous findings of the Warren Commission. But he was determined to identify, and take revenge on, whoever had murdered his brother. The only way was under-the-radar inquiry and investigation, not anything the public would see. If elected President at some point in the future, he would be in a position to take things to the next level.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBtTR8D9/Shelley-18-March-Lovelady-seated.jpg)[/url]
I think I see what Mr.Ford sees, that white element appears to me to rather SQUARE!
And it’s BETWEEN the two reddish blobs and the right edge of that white square does appear to be slightly obscuring part of the reddish blob that right and slightly higher than the left reddish blob.
That right side reddish blob is pretty much where Lovelady was when he was NEXT to Sarah Stanton ( white shirt mass blob with both hands raised to shade her face in the Altgens 6 photo).
So this white square is either a banner or flag and I’m wondering if it meant “surrender” as in a symbolic gesture like Umbrella man was supposedly suggesting “appeasement” opening the black umbrella?
6. Mr. Oswald, like a number of others at the TSBD, played his part----------in his case, right up to and including signaling in the form of flag-waving as Pres. Kennedy was passing.
6. Mr. Oswald, like a number of others at the TSBD, played his part----------in his case, right up to and including signaling in the form of flag-waving as Pres. Kennedy was passing.
7. However, as soon as he learned to his horror that Pres. Kennedy was actually hit, he knew he was in deepest trouble. The false-flag operation had turned into an actual assassination of the very man who had greenlit the false-flag operation.
Mr. Fords theoretically is staring to kind of mesh with Doyle’s version of Armstrongs double Oswald theory.
My money is on this guy as the man who was firing from the SN window, who was encountered by Officer Baker by the rear stairs, and who shot Officer Tippit and then disappeared down the alley off Patton:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
This was all about generating a pretext for C-Day (12/1/63). Public outrage. A shocking provocation justifying a robust response.
Mr. Sergio Carbo, AP Correspondent in Miami, 11/19/63:
"I believe that a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change its policy of peaceful co-existence [with Cuba]"
The "coming serious event" to which the indiscreet Mr. Carbo was obliquely referring was not the assassination but the 'pro-Castro' provocation in Dealey Plaza.
What Happened: Pres. Kennedy never makes it to the Trade Mart. His team is left shellshocked, grief-stricken------and scrambling to avoid the public thinking this had anything whatsoever to do with Cuba.
And thus it is we get what is perhaps the single most bizarre part of the Warren Commission account of the assassination: LHO was a LONE NUT. His motive cannot be established.
Mr. Oswald-----------who was chosen for his designated role in the false-flag operation precisely because of his distinctive pro-Castro political profile-------------must now be de-politicized as the assassin. All the things that made him a perfect participant in Conspiracy A (the false-flag event) now make him a disastrous person to play the role of Assassin Acting Alone.
He may even have been the man who hitched a lift from Mr. Ralph Yates a couple of days before the shooting. Given that the TSBD was facilitating the false-flag operation, all post-11/22 assurances from them that Mr. Oswald was at work at that time are less than solid. If they were working with him to facilitate the false-flag incident, he would have been given all latitude to quietly come and go as he needed. Had the false-flag incident gone as planned (i.e. non-lethally), Mr. Truly might well have been telling reporters about Mr. Oswald's having come to work late that Wednesday morning. 'I was surprised, but didn't give it too much thought at the time.'
A plan that includes Mr. Oswald in the doorway waving a flag at the passing Pres. Kennedy is NOT a plan that will simultaneously have Mr. Oswald being impersonated at the SN window. All that is needed is to establish the INVOLVEMENT of the Soviet defector and Castro-supporting Mr. Oswald in the missed-shots provocation.
And, thanks to Officer J. W. Foster, Mr. Eugene Aldredge and others, there can be no serious doubt that there WERE indeed missed shots fired that day. This is important, as it suggests that whoever fired from the sixth floor dutifully performed their part of the false-flag operation
Thus is resolved the hitherto baffling paradox of post-JFK-assassination Mr. Robert Kennedy:
1. A man who plays a key role in the cover-up of his brother's murder
2. A man who passionately wants to get to the bottom of his brother's murder.
Grief, guilt------------------and rage
This is getting so complicated
an alternative CT theoretically that I respectfully ( cause I like Mr Fords ability to think outside the circle , box or any other closed figures) , have to suggest perhaps we’ve been misled to abandon PM=Oswald too quickly merely by the introduction of a newer Darnell version of PM that’s weirdly MORE distorted than the 2013 (the version which looks more like Oswald.)
On the contrary, the false-flag solution I have offered makes things much simpler, clarifying at a stroke some previously mystifying aspects of the assassination
PM in Darnell is not Mr. Oswald, who is no longer on the steps by this point. Those who pushed PM=LHO were much, much closer to the truth than those who dismissed the very idea from the get-go. But the continued obsession of some with PM in Darnell is no more productive than was the continued obsessive pushing, well after the claim had been refuted, of Altgens Doorwayman as LHO.
Hi Alan and Zeon, Oswald's encounter with Ochus Campbell must have been around two or three minutes after the head shot. So him being on the steps still as Prayer Man is right where he should be. I just found Miss Avery Davis to the left of Sarah Stanton. Vickie Adams knew her from the fourth floor girls. Vickie says that she spoke to her and Joe Molina on the stairs and bingo----- we have Vickie, Avery, Joe, and Sandra Styles all together in Darnell on the stairs.
Sorry, but that's not remotely possible.
And this woman on the landing is not Mr. Oswald:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp9DskNc/Darnell-new-frame-cropped.jpg)
(Nor------------not that it greatly matters at this stage-------------is she Mrs. Sarah Stanton. She's probably Mrs. Pauline Sanders.)
Hi Alan, It is not remotely possible for the ladies to be on both sides of the stairs at once. It is definitely not Pauline Sanders. She is to the left of Frazier!
(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/detailedframes.jpg?w=1024&h=512)
Mr. Sandy Larsen really did wonderful work with this gif:
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQr3H7W2/Baker-run-Larsen.gif)
Look at Officer Baker in the first frames, and you'll assume he's heading straight for the doorway. But then the actual doorway comes into view. It's quite a jolt.
He's not heading for the doorway at all. Nor is the running woman just a little north-east of him heading for the doorway. They are both heading straight for this woman and what she is holding up:
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGz73Y3F/Darnell-bag.jpg)
Her reaction to the assassination has been to go over to the mailboxes and pick up a paper sack. She must have just seen something that disturbed her enough to make her do this--------------and to draw attention
I would give a lot to know who is the lady holding up the long paper sack: Officer Baker is running straight for her................
However.............
It finally WAS noticed and picked up, and its significance immediately understood by law enforcement.
Hi Alan, Here is a picture of Detective Sims bringing his white raincoat back out of the TSBD.
In this Darnell frame your paper sack appears to be held by a lady with no feet. It could just be a reflection on the second post office box of someone.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8zqKJ4Y/Flag2.jpg)
Hi Alan, Yes that is Detective Sims jacket being carried in by him
Huh?
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MdDrpzq/Darnell-woman-with-paper-sack.gif)
Funny looking white raincoat!
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8zqKJ4Y/Flag2.jpg)
Hi Alan, I thought you were talking about the shadow on the second post office box holding up the bag because it is a man with his left arm being covered by the bag thing. He has a bright belt buckle.
Hi Alan, I do not think all of them were the stiff fabric like now. Did you notice the weird defect in the Skaggs' picture.If you notice in this Skaggs' picture there is a weird distortion of a mostly two legged thing stepping off of the steps of the TSBD. So weird things can happen in this area.
~Shrug~
Hi Alan, Here is Detective Sims' white raincoat where you can see the collar on the bottom.
No, I can't see that, at all.
Hi Alan, Here is another picture from a different angle in a Cook/Cooper frame. Do you see the bottom collar now?
Nope.
And "white raincoat", lol
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfcbTXJF/Sims-banner-2tone.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/10b2YRz/Flag-colors.jpg)
Hi Alan, Here is an identical white raincoat worn by a Dallas Policeman in an Allen photograph. One side of the collar is black!
Yeah, 'identical' in the sense of totally different.....................
Hi Alan, No, identical in the sense of Dallas Police issued raincoats.
Well, if you can show us a sample of the fetching two-tone number DPD issued for that season, we're all eyes
Hi Alan, Yes, it would be on the Dallas police man in Allen and on Sims' shoulder. The raincoat is only two-tone on the collar--- one side is white; the other side is black. It is an assumption only at the moment! Have you seen this Parkland picture? Is this your flag/banner or Connally's raincoat. I believe the clothes are from the limo and people in the limo.
Then she picks up the paper sack. Then she draws loud attention to her shocking find. Here she is in Darnell, holding up the paper sack and, with her right hand, pointing at the banner on the ground:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnrcMNDR/Darnell-flag.gif)
Officer Marion Baker has seen her and is dashing over to her.
He speaks with the lady and looks at the banner. She tells him the man went into this building by the front door.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bYGmntNT/Storage-Room-campbell.jpg)
Very shortly, he will have an encounter (PERHAPS the first of two) with Officer Baker and Mr. Truly.
Now, Mr. Joe Molina gave it as his firm recollection that the very first person to enter the building after the shooting was Mr. Roy Truly. But Darnell would seem to contradict his recollection.
I believe Mr. Oswald himself may have just this second re-entered the building
There is a tall man, dressed in white, and apparently dark-complected, standing on a lower step by the EAST column, his left elbow out in front of that column:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRKkZjcv/Figure-in-white-east-doorway.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/FFBycZkW/Towner-figure-in-white.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QVGXpw3Z/Jones-in-Couch-marked.gif)
Pre-motorcade:
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJRBWz5h/Hughes-man-Houston-Main.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/k4RHp2qC/Hughes-man-Houston-Main2.jpg)
Cfthis fellow in BLUE:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JcXfnSs/Lovelady-Hughes-longer-frame-0003-blue.jpg)
Mr. BLUE's face ain't there in the version of Altgens shown to the American public by Mr. Walter Cronkite:
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2XvXWGT/Cronkite-Altgens-sharp-large.jpg)
Well!
It's an extraordinary thing, but not a SINGLE person (outside the two known fabulators, Messrs. Shelley & Lovelady) saw Mr. Truly and Officer Baker go in the front entrance TOGETHER. We have Mr. Molina remembering Mr. Truly's entrance, and Mrs. Pauline Sanders remembering Officer Baker's. And that's it.
Here's what I think may have happened: they went in SEPARATELY. Mr. Truly went in BEFORE Officer Baker, who spent some time by the mailboxes speaking with the lady about the paper sack & banner.
Well the other black guy named Lewis seems to have fuzzy memory of where he was on the steps of the TSBD.
If Lewis had taken off that dark reddish brown jacket ( which he had on when he was standing next to the BIG Carl Jones in the off white shirt with shirt pocket bulging)then IDK if the dark blue shirt would register as that light a bluish color or not.
Could it be Lewis who had taken off his reddish brown jacket as the man waving some kind of red something in the foreground of Towner film?
Could this very small area of DIAGONAL BLUE + TSHIRT WHITE ONLY be what these few Bell frames are actually showing? Leaves are covering the portion of red shirt above and below, so we're ONLY seeing diagonal blue + white--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCkh0v2D/Bell-Tshirt-blue-white-area-extra-saturation.gif)
As I've shown previously in Hughes, when Mr. Oswald lowers his right arm and leans slightly west after drinking from the bottle, interesting reflections appear momentarily in the glass entrance behind him.
YELLOW ARROW: The reflection of Mr. Oswald's right shirt sleeve
PINK ARROW: The reflection of a portion of the flag he is holding behind him in his left hand
(https://i.postimg.cc/yd73TpSd/Hughes-LHO-flag-reflection.gif)
But that's not all. The reflection of the piece of flag (orange arrow below) appears simultaneously with the actual glimpse we get (NOT a reflection) of a higher portion of the flag just behind Mr. Oswald (blue arrow below).
(https://i.postimg.cc/0Nk9WTZL/Hughes-flag-and-reflection.jpg)
Look at these THREE things that appear, just as Mr. Oswald lowers his Coke and leans a little west:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)
The fact that the appearance of these three phenomena coincides with Mr. Oswald's movement is no fluke. His movement is what's making them come momentarily into view. All three phenomena belong to him.
We are but a moment away from the flag being whipped out and waved energetically at Pres. Kennedy.....................
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3k167LQ/Towner-Unger-full.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/mZVzRGP2/TOWNER-UNGER-FULL-speed.gif)
We are but a moment away from the flag being whipped out and waved energetically at Pres. Kennedy
Is this little flag you're talking about the same thing as the gigantic "sheet/banner" you refer to earlier?
Nope
;D
So, according to your latest bananas theory Oswald had a flag AND a banner.
Great stuff Thumb1:
~Grin~
'Who cares what Towner shows? Who cares what Darnell shows? Who cares what any of the films show? I refuse to allow Oswald go out on those front steps, and my word is FINAL!'
You're quite the cranky little fanatic, Mr. O'Meara.
You were the PM zealot, not me.
And look where that got you.
I've wasted half an hour of my life going through some of the tripe you've been posting recently.
As I understand it, rather than have Oswald sneaking unnoticed into a shadowy corner you now have him front and centre of the front steps waving a flag and then unfurling a gigantic banner right in front of everyone on the steps.
I'm sure I speak for everyone who cannot be bothered dealing with you when I ask - how come not a single person reported seeing Oswald undertaking this bizarre behaviour in plain sight?
Dozens of people must have witnessed this fantastical behaviour but not a single person ever mentions it.
How can that be?
I stand by the claim that Mr. Oswald was telling the truth when he told Capt. Fritz that he "went outside to watch P. Parade"
Dozens of people? Do tell us more
Do you stand by Kelley's quote when he states Oswald told him he never went saw the parade?
Or Oswald's quote when he says he was in the building at the time of the shooting?
Anyone on or around the front steps of the TSBD.
Why is there no mention of Oswald by anyone when asked if they saw him at the time of the assassination?
Why, if he is doing this in front of all these people, did nobody see him?
Name a single person who can corroborate, even in the most tenuous way, that Oswald was out front waving his flag and unfurling his banner.
Just one person.
There must be one.
I've addressed these points multiple times already. Do your homework before asking dumb questions, Mr. O'Meara
The woman who went over to the mailboxes and picked up the long paper bag, duh.
As for the others, most folks in the doorway (and there weren't 'dozens', lol) were focused on what was happening down the street. And anyone who might have noticed Mr. Oswald's actions would have required extraordinary courage afterwards to go on the record with what they saw. The pressure to fall in line with the official story was immense.
Thankfully, however, the visual record allows us to put together what really happened. You, being embarrassingly inept when it comes to studying the visual record, are incapable of refuting my analysis. And so you huff and puff like the Warren Gullible Lite you are at heart
Thumb1:
Here we go again.
Not a single witness to support your fantasyland nonsense.
~Grin~
I have the visual record to support my analysis. You lack the ability to muster a coherent counter-analysis of that visual record. And so you huff and puff like a jealous little troll
I have the visual record to support my analysis.
Your utterly bizarre interpretation of a handful of pixels does not count as "support" from the visual record.
Seriously, if DPD officer Bakers purpose for running towards the TSBD was because he thought the gunman might be on an upper floor of the building , then his primary goal was to go to the TSBD entrance door, rather than anywhere else.
A false-flag incident involving missed shots fired from the sixth floor. By 'pro-Castro Cubans'. With whom Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald is playing the role of confederate.
We now have an explanation for the notorious fact that Mr. Oswald was taken off the FBI's watch list six weeks before Pres. Kennedy's visit to Dallas:
(https://i.postimg.cc/D01rcR4C/LHO-FBI-watch-list.jpg)
He was needed for the White House-approved false-flag operation planned for 11/22.
A week after being taken off the watch list, he starts working at the Texas School Book Depository.
Seriously, if DPD officer Bakers purpose for running towards the TSBD was because he thought the gunman might be on an upper floor of the building , then his primary goal was to go to the TSBD entrance door, rather than anywhere else.Zeon, I’m not sure what you expected from the 3D modeling of Baker’s Run scene. I did the basic work of this animation several years ago when Sandy Larson first discussed Baker’s apparent path to the depository, but I never posted it.
Perspective lines need be verified by a computer model before just relying on somebody who drew 2 blue lines overlayed on the Darnell film segment to declare with any certainty that Baker was not heading for the steps.
Even if the perspective lines can be verified, it’s still doubtful Baker would have been distracted enough by some person with a paper , to stop and waste time , rather that continuing his primary goal to find the shooter he suspected was still on an upper floor of the TSBD.
Motorcycle cop believes there is an active shooter inside a building and he elects to ride his motor around the corner and then run to the scene? This is not standard protocol.
The Weaver photo shows how easy it would have been for Officer Baker to keep going north on Houston and park his bike right by the TSBD or Dal-Tex. No thick line of spectators; no danger of causing anyone injury
(https://i.postimg.cc/T19ftqS7/Weaver.jpg)
Why didn't he just do that? Why did he instead lose precious seconds by going around the corner onto Elm?
Here's the explanation he gave the WC:
"Well, I immediately revved that motorcycle up and was going up there to see if I could help anybody or see what was going on because I couldn't see around this bend."
OK, that does make sense.
But it indicates that his decision to stop his bike and get off was not made until he had take the corner from Houston onto Elm. And it may well be that what finally prompted him to do so was the sight of the woman we see him running towards in Darnell.
If Darnell showed us nothing but mailboxes in the area to which Officer Baker is running, then his action in sprinting towards there would be perplexing. But Darnell shows us something of great interest in that place, and thus explains exactly why he's running that way:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1D7Y3T0/Baker-run-Larsen.gif)
This woman and what she was drawing attention to had to be completely written out of the story afterwards, of course. Officer Baker had to pretend he ran straight from his bike to the front steps. Because what that woman saw and drew attention to in the seconds after the shooting, if known, would have all on its own destroyed the case against Mr. Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter.
this woman on the landing is not Mr. Oswald:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp9DskNc/Darnell-new-frame-cropped.jpg)
(Nor------------not that it greatly matters at this stage-------------is she Mrs. Sarah Stanton. She's probably Mrs. Pauline Sanders.)
???
So now you're saying [...]
How can we tell the Prayer Man folks know deep down their continued pressing of the LHO=PM claim is an error? They never, ever talk about this frame:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp9DskNc/Darnell-new-frame-cropped.jpg)
It's as though it doesn't exist!
The Weaver photo shows how easy it would have been for Officer Baker to keep going north on Houston and park his bike right by the TSBD or Dal-Tex. No thick line of spectators; no danger of causing anyone injury
(https://i.postimg.cc/T19ftqS7/Weaver.jpg)
Why didn't he just do that? Why did he instead lose precious seconds by going around the corner onto Elm?
Here's the explanation he gave the WC:
"Well, I immediately revved that motorcycle up and was going up there to see if I could help anybody or see what was going on because I couldn't see around this bend."
OK, that does make sense.
But it indicates that his decision to stop his bike and get off was not made until he had take the corner from Houston onto Elm. And it may well be that what finally prompted him to do so was the sight of the woman we see him running towards in Darnell.
If Darnell showed us nothing but mailboxes in the area to which Officer Baker is running, then his action in sprinting towards there would be perplexing. But Darnell shows us something of great interest in that place, and thus explains exactly why he's running that way:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1D7Y3T0/Baker-run-Larsen.gif)
This woman and what she was drawing attention to had to be completely written out of the story afterwards, of course. Officer Baker had to pretend he ran straight from his bike to the front steps. Because what that woman saw and drew attention to in the seconds after the shooting, if known, would have all on its own destroyed the case against Mr. Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter.
Baker electing to ride around the corner and then run on foot toward/into the TSBD
Baker electing to ride around the corner and then run on foot toward/into[someone standing near the entrance to] the TSBD
And are you insinuating that he was part of the conspiracy? If so, count me out!
Depends at what point following the assassination your "conspiracy" is referring to. A person's story/testimony can be "massaged" into many different versions to fit whatever the desired narrative might be. You do Know that they did 3 "walk through's" with Baker prior to his WC Testimony? These "walk through's" included the motorcycle riding, running into the TSBD, etc. By the time Baker gave his WC Testimony, he was like an actor inna stage play. He knew where his "marks" were, he had his lines down to a T. The Baker WC Testimony was a farce. His LIVE actions, (or lack thereof), on 11/22/63 reveal far more than his rehearsed/canned WC testimony.
Previously discussed and posted:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/?do=findComment&comment=471704 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/?do=findComment&comment=471704)
(https://s6.gifyu.com/images/S4AKa.png)
The version Alan posted awhile ago had no specific provenance.
The version Alan posted awhile ago had no specific provenance. There was a question of whether that version had been altered, in general(not by Alan). Don't know that answer, but I do know if you take one of the original Darnell frames Robin supplied and scale it up somewhat, here's what you get.
Is this similar to what Alan posted and James described at the 6th floor museum? Decide for yourself until a better version arises.
Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
The version I posted was originally posted by Mr. Kamp (the red arrow is his), who evidently failed to see the significance of what he was posting.
One (just one) of the interesting things about it is the fact that it goes wider east than any previously available version. This is the only version where you'll get to see this fellow (green arrow):
(https://i.postimg.cc/j56xXr6M/Darnell-new-frame-wider.jpg)
Therefore it certainly is not an altered version of anything that was previously in the public domain.
And it's full of revelatory detail.
Thumb1:
Hi Everybody, And please notice that a lady dressed in black is obscuring Lee from at least the waist down.
Pauline and Sarah are on the East side of the steps.
Exactly. The "scoop neckline" may be a fraud. Either way, it looks nothing like Sarah Stanton.Robin supplied the frames from the Blue-Ray version of "JFK" the movie.
Robin supplied the frames from the Blue-Ray version of "JFK" the movie.
Here are consecutive frames from the non blue-ray version.
Note the morphing shoulder/neck area on PrayerPerson and the hair area of Frazier.
The reason I use the phrase "it looks like".
(https://s6.gifyu.com/images/S4AdK.gif)
Robin supplied the frames from the Blue-Ray version of "JFK" the movie.
Here are consecutive frames from the non blue-ray version.
Note the morphing shoulder/neck area on PrayerPerson
Hi Chris and Alan, And notice the solid ankle [around the fourth or fifth step] of the lady wearing the black dress
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDRFgm2W/Darnell-non-bluray.gif)
Mr. Greg Doudna writes:
'Is it certain there is a Prayer Man in the Weigman film at all?
Serious question.
I see a spot of light in Prayer Man's position in Weigman, which could correspond to the spot of light at the viewer's right [east] of Prayer Man visible in Darnell, but is that particular spot of light connected to or part of Prayer Man at all, in either photo? Or is that spot of light something from inside the building showing through the glass front separating the front landing from the inside of the doorway, unrelated to the presence of Prayer Man? And there is no Prayer Man in Weigman?
Is it excluded that Prayer Man could have first arrived in the position seen in the Darnell film some seconds after the Z313 head shot? And Darnell is the only film evidence of Prayer Man?'
Mr. Doudna is both very right and very wrong.
He's very wrong to suggest that there is no Prayer Man in Wiegman. There clearly is a person there.
He's also wrong to keep warming his hands by the snuffed-out flame of PM-in-Darnell=LHO.
However!
He's very right to query the assumption that Prayer Man in Wiegman must be the same person as Prayer Man in Darnell. For some time now I myself have been querying this assumption, which I suspect has caused no end of confusion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8KJy27F/PM-Wiegman-Darnell.gif)
PM/Darnell is on the landing; PM/Wiegman is down at least one step.
Their bodies are oriented differently (compare the position of the left elbows).
Now of course, it's perfectly possible for PM/Wiegman to change position by the time of Darnell (~25 secs later), stepping up on to the landing to become PM/Darnell.
But it's far from a given that this is what happened.
And it's no less possible for someone OTHER than PM/Wiegman to change position by the time of Darnell, for instance moving across the landing to become PM/Darnell.
I believe the latter is just what happened, and that PM/Darnell is dark-haired Mrs. Pauline Sanders. Why, she may even be wearing the selfsame red garment we see in this post-assassination photo:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0rFmkz1/Darnell-new-frame-shadows.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/PJKJKJSj/Pauline-Sanders-post-assassination.jpg)
As for PM/Wiegman, I believe he may be
EITHER
Mr. Oswald, standing just where we saw him standing seconds before this in Hughes, only now he's had a fake shadow placed over him:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/fLByPkb3/Wiegman-slow-faster.gif)
OR
Mr. Bill Shelley, lighting a cigarette------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLByPkb3/Wiegman-slow-faster.gif) (https://i.postimg.cc/GtSqctRX/Wiegman-slow.gif)
------------Mr. Oswald having already left the steps to pull his pro-Castro banner stunt.
In short, I believe that PM/Wiegman is of infinitely more interest to the case than PM/Darnell
Thumb1:
GREEN ARROW: Mr. Billy Lovelady
PINK ARROW: Mr. Joe Molina
BLUE ARROW: Mr. Otis Williams
RED ARROW: Mrs. Sarah Stanton
(https://i.postimg.cc/FK9CngpV/Wiegman-IDs.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/BQTdY6ss/Altgens-IDs.jpg)
Notes.
1. Mr. Shelley told FBI he was OUT OF SHOT in the Altgens photograph. He was------------being to Mr. Lovelady's WEST. I believe he is one of two v. strong candidates for Prayer Man in Wiegman.
2. Mr. Lovelady pointed Mr. Dom Bonafede to a woman in Altgens shielding her eyes as a lady who worked on the second floor. He told WC that beside him was 'Sarah'. In both instances, the reference is to Mrs. Stanton. Mr. Lovelady's 'memory' of who was where on the steps was obviously influenced by his viewing of the Altgens photograph, which makes it look like Mrs. Stanton is right beside him.
2. Mr. Lovelady pointed Mr. Dom Bonafede to a woman in Altgens shielding her eyes as a lady who worked on the second floor. He told WC that beside him was 'Sarah'. In both instances, the reference is to Mrs. Stanton.
Thanks Alan. I was unfamiliar with the Bonafede article. That nicely disposes of Doyle's fabricated claim that Lovelady ever "placed Stanton in the prayerman position".
Hi Alan, The red arrow points to Joe Molina. Thank you for everything!
I'm done playing Whac-A-Mole with your nonsense, Mr. Welch (and it is nonsense, however well-meaning). Im afraid you join demented Mr. Doyle on my ignore list
We now have an explanation for the notorious fact that Mr. Oswald was taken off the FBI's watch list six weeks before Pres. Kennedy's visit to Dallas:
(https://i.postimg.cc/D01rcR4C/LHO-FBI-watch-list.jpg)
He was needed for the White House-approved false-flag operation planned for 11/22.
A week after being taken off the watch list, he starts working at the Texas School Book Depository.
So what happens to this Conspiracy A plan for Mr. Oswald once Conspiracy A is superseded in the most horrific manner imaginable by Conspiracy B?
Mr. Oswald is left hanging. He now represents a disastrous human remainder. The promised govt-facilitated escape from Dallas cannot materialize. And NB: the flight of 'Oswald' from Red Bird must be called off. All the effort that has gone into associating Mr. Oswald with a pro-Castro CONSPIRACY must now go into isolating and depoliticizing him as a gunman acting alone.
After his arrest, Mr. Oswald still hopes for an intervention by those he has served. But they have already reached a merciless but necessary decision: this man may not keep his cover in custody indefinitely; nor can he stand trial, where a defense team will bring out dangerous facts; he's got to go.
Here we go again with claims of "ORIGINAL" Wiegman and Darnell Films. In "Pictures Of The Pain", Trask says Wiegman reported seeing SA Lem Johns UP the knoll. Where is Lem Johns on the Current Wiegman Film?? 60 yrs out, and we do Not know what we have with there continuing to be Holes in the Wiegman Film along with it purported to have been filmed "continuously" for decades. Using the Wiegman Film as the foundation for any conclusion is an immediate DQ.
Hi Royell, I hope you are doing well! We do have SSA Lem Johns jumping on the back and into Camera Car 1 in Couch! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Here are pictures of Secret Service agent Lem Johns running and then jumping into the back of Camera Car #1. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Couch/20160719-210621.JPG)
In this picture Cameraman Thomas Atkins is in the middle of the frame while Officer Clyde Haygood is trying to park his motorcycle.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Couch/20160719-211044.JPG)
Exactly who is accountable for ID'ing the back of this man as being SA Lem Johns jumping into a Camera Car ??
Hi Royell, Please see below! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Democracy Dies in Darkness
Subscribe
Sign in
clock
This article was published more than 9 years ago
OBITUARIES
Search Death Notices
Place a death notice
Request a News Obituary
Former Secret Service agent Lem Johns dies at 88
By Terence McArdle
May 11, 2014 at 7:07 p.m. EDT
Lem Johns, with dark hair, stands partially obscured behind Jacqueline Kennedy, right, as President Lyndon Johnson takes the oath of office on Air Force One in 1963. (Cecil Stoughton/AP)
Share
Comment
0
Lem Johns, a Secret Service agent who guarded Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson during the Kennedy assassination, returned on Air Force One to Washington as Johnson was sworn in as president, and later headed Johnson’s presidential security detail, died Saturday at his home in Hoover, Ala. He was 88.
His death was announced by his grandson, Michael Johns, according to the Associated Press.
On Nov, 22, 1963, the day of John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Mr. Johns was one of three Secret Service agents riding in a convertible behind Vice President Johnson and his wife, Lady Bird, in the presidential motorcade. Agent Jerry Kivett drove the agents’ car and monitored radio reports of the parade.
Suddenly, they heard the first two shots.
Though unsure whether he had heard gunshots, vehicle backfire or firecrackers, Mr. Johns jumped from the security car and made a dash for the car carrying Johnson.
However, after a third shot, the entire motorcade sped up. Mr. Johns, on foot, was left behind on the street.
Rufus Youngblood, the chief agent in the Johnson security detail, used his body to cover the vice president and Mrs. Johnson as their car followed the Kennedy vehicle and a Secret Service car to Parkland Hospital.
Amid the chaos, Mr. Johns climbed aboard a car carrying photographers, then moved to the sidecar of a police motorcycle en route to Parkland. He found Johnson and the other Secret Service agents at the hospital, waiting as surgeons worked on Kennedy. Texas Gov. John B. Connally also was wounded but survived.
When Kennedy died, an unmarked police cruiser took Johnson and agent Youngblood to Love Field where Air Force One waited to fly Johnson to Washington. Mr. Johns, who had been seeking a secure hospital exit for Johnson and Youngblood, had to leave for the airport in another police car. Once at the airport, Mr. Johns screened all those who boarded Air Force One while awaiting the arrival of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and the casket carrying the president’s body. There were concerns about the possibility of an attempt on Johnson’s life.
I think the driver of Camera Car 1's name is John Holt. He confirmed right away on 11-22-63 that they picked up a SSA in their car in Dealey Plaza.
From around 54:00 to 56:03 John Holt gives his live account of picking up SSA Lem Johns in Dealey Plaza.
Hi Royell, You are most welcome my friend! I just found this on Denis Morissette's site. Thank you for your valuable input! Sincerely yours, Michael
DEALEY PLAZA
According to Craven, he was running after the last shot. He told Richard Trask that he ran up the grassy knoll to follow a policeman who running up the hill. He found himself with SS agent Thomas “Lem” Johns, an agent originally with Vice-President Johnson. Not seeing anything special, Craven started filming the people on the ground (TPOTP, page 375).
Craven believes he took some film of the limousine going under the overpass. He also recalls getting back in he car with SS agent Johns. Just beyond the overpass, near the ramp leading to the freeway, Dan Rather was standing holding a bright yellow grapefruit bag. He was waiting for any film thrown to him. “Our production crew in the motorcade was going to throw me several reels of exposed films as they passed. I had a cab waiting to rush the film to KRLD. Although I did not see the president, I knew that something was wrong, so I jumped into my cab and went straight to KRLD studio”. (TPOTP, pages 375-376)
Craven added, “I know I was rolling as we made the that right turn coming up to the Depository- I thought I had seen a flash or a puff of smoke, but it never showed up, because I had a wide angle lens on, and it was so far away, you wouldn’t have seen it” (TPOTP, page 383)
Thanks again Michael. Personally, I believe Johns was assigned to that Knoll area on 11/22/63. He was Not inside that LBJ SS Car. None of the Joe 6 Packs all over Dealey Plaza saw him get out of that car and run down Elm St as he claimed. That never happened. And I also believe the SS is lying about it because it is connected to that 9 inch blood pool in the same knoll area in which Johns was sighted.
Hi Royell, I just found this picture of the Vice President's SS Car with the left rear door open and maybe somebody starting to get out on Houston Street near Elm Street. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xESc5U3HVmI/WcPCny_RMNI/AAAAAAAAPRw/WRfgvFAKZXohhPiiePK_Cf_B4UZKvmizgCLcBGAs/s640/01k%2BMayors%2BCar%2B%25283%2529.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_14.jpg)
That car door was already open. You can see that same door being ajar on the Altgens Photo. You can see the JFK Limo in the still frame above. It's front bumper has yet to reach the TSBD front door. Per the WC, this is too early for a shot to have been fired.
So!
Conspiracy A (the plan for missed shots to be fired from the TSBD sixth floor as Pres. Kennedy is riding through Dealey Plaza)
Conspiracy B (exploiting Conspiracy A to carry out a real assassination on Pres. Kennedy)
Key to the success of Conspiracy A is that 'pro-Castro' Mr. Oswald become THE named conspirator whose involvement identifies this as a pro-Castro provocation. All for the purpose of creating a compelling pretext for C-Day (1 Dec).
Hi Royell, Thank you! Yes, you are correct! With Tina Towner's concentration on Jackie, and Ike Altgens not able to take another quick picture, do we have any film of the Vice President's SS Car when Lem could have jumped out of the open car door? Thank you for your valuable input! I really appreciate it! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989crop2.jpg)
Michael - SA Lem Johns was allegedly seated in the (R) Rear/Back Seat of the LBJ SS Car. That (L) rear door you're looking at would have done him no good in possibly exiting that car. And yes, there was another SA Agent there in the back seat seated/positioned next to that door that is ajar. There are: (1) No Dealey Plaza witnesses that saw SA Johns exit that LBJ SS vehicle while it was on Elm St, (2) There are No image(s) of SA John running down Elm St toward the LBJ Convertible, (as he claims), (3) There are No image(s) of Johns standing in Elm St as/after the JFK Motorcade sped away, (as he claims). I believe that Johns was sighted by Wiegman UP the Knoll because Johns was assigned some sort of on the ground foot duty there inside Dealey Plaza. His close proximity to the blood pool testified to by Mal Couch can Not be over stated. I also believe whatever caused that blood pool spurred the Chism Family to suddenly run across the knoll and down the sidewalk while handing off their child. I have never heard a reason for the Chism Family's belated Mad Dash down Elm. And they were physically close to that blood pool/Elm St Ext before going pell-mell.
Hi Royell, Good to learn! Thank you very much!! So was the blood pool supposed to be in front of the Chisms? I do not have computer graphic skills. Do you have the ability to put an arrow where the pool of blood is supposed to be. The Chisms are hard to figure out! A bullet is supposed to strike the street in front of them[I'm guessing] [They are all three standing in the street!]. They see the President jump up in his seat probably reacting to the neck wound. Then they see the head shot. Marvin Faye grabs Ricky and her and John run towards the North Arcade where the young boys are standing. Then Marvin Faye hands off Ricky to John as they are running across the grass diagonally more towards the Grassy Knoll area. I do not know what exactly happens next because John said he was tackled by men who thought he was a gunman, BUT did he still have Ricky??? Thank you as always for your awesome input! Sincerely yours, Michael
Couch was called to give WC Testimony in order to detail what he saw coming outta the sniper's nest window as his Camera Car #3 traveled down Houston St. Couch went off script with his testimony about seeing a roughly 9 inch blood pool. Couch was vague about the exact location of the blood pool, and the WC Attorney did not pursue any questioning regarding it. Best I can tell, that blood pool would be on the other side of the Elm St Ext/across the street from the TSBD, down toward the corner/triangle area. Most people do Not realize how close the Elm St Ext is to the East Knoll Grass area. If you were to lean out of that Shelter that Zapruder filmed Sitzman & The Hester's in front of, you could almost drop a rock onto the Elm St. Ext. The Shelter and the Elm Ext are that close together. Something dramatic suddenly spurred the Chism Family into sprinting across the Knoll. Considering that Wiegman filmed the Chism Family beginning their sprint, means they did not begin running until roughly 1 minute after the Kill Shot. And I believe their run direction was Directly Away from whatever they feared.
Hi Royell, Yes, then we are seeing the same thing! I call that the North Arcade. I think others call it the North Pergola. Please see below. Thank you for all that you do! Sincerely yours, Michael
If you add this picture and put it first in the group of pictures on Pat Speer's site, you get the two young boys standing behind the Chisms when they are on Elm Street.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9XvDxu0FAMfFOtJT9_Vr9u5o3iVcXcUoko0vCAIYIQBrJN8tOhRR8tofjBiGJcGbSPfBaJXHlAB-W2ac0Bn-rWPX87OPZt1W0EHXMSJGE5L62RGc=w1280)
Next you have the two boys inside of the North Arcade with the Chisms nearby. One boy appears to be looking out at the Elm Street Extension inside of the Arcade!
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/z8FUScC3N20gDtl7qXVEueTzXvFGbpT7gOp5-ZW5B7xrUgUCdDSybPUMJXZ-amGpCi2npP1zdeRsAy18ttVUtpvkmEGon22_sppxUuDHGwy9l43v=w1280)
Then something scares the boys and the Chisms.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/r2kiixiTH11WxtlpMvZn3LzWvimV9JBKOEaHBw6rC1t42PRdkUjvKlbCBuomlUASIBu5HaD_UNdIafd1QUAfXUcGgbNtH6ObMqY8CYB4reEmhZI2=w1280)
The Chisms continue running and Marvin Faye hands off Ricky to John.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/2RJfVu83NmX5gWLakH2YthYlsyIBiBHzCgLmr_Z265Oa3X3DJpYTBzgTBh_rTbQshkK_du6sFmME_6p3xd6Tdj6v8l8VZK00tD-R4TJIsQTJJ2JU=w1280)
Then it appears that John must be carrying Ricky when he was tackled later because they thought he was a shooter.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/tMwPTlCCRNmqEOg7CBHEeQB2nVuCC60_Ke71gdek1UhEvRp9iAgjIuHYF10-NL-vpeS-oLR7fIR5yB3wIjqx6XfwvNYa3xzxJV3StkEkmY0QHs7G=w1280)
There's a Color Photograph that shows Elm St down toward the Triple Underpass. It shows 1 of the Buses going under the Triple Underpass. It also shows a "Blues Brothers", (Belushi/Ackroyd), looking gent. He is walking up The Steps and around a seated Emmitt Hudson as he moves toward the Pergola Shelter that was directly behind Zapruder. The Newman family are shown to be on their feet, and we see the back of the Dark Complected Man as he is walking down the sidewalk toward The Steps. When this photo is uncropped, it reveals a guy/kid further up The Steps area and he is looking over the picket fence in the direction of the parking lot. Do you know if this guy/kid is one of those guys you previously mentioned in the shelter area? I don't know who took that photo or any of the story behind the guy/kid looking over the picket fence. Can you can help me here? My guess is the photo was taken roughly 2-2.5 minutes after the kill shot.
That car door was already open. You can see that same door being ajar on the Altgens Photo. You can see the JFK Limo in the still frame above. It's front bumper has yet to reach the TSBD front door. Per the WC, this is too early for a shot to have been fired.
After Mr. Oswald's arrest, did Conspirators B simply sit back and
------------------boggle at the sheer unexpected audacity of the establishment in trying to pass of Mr. Oswald as a LONE GUNMAN?
IMO , JFK was probably NOT in the loop on this theoretical false flag shooting plan that Mr. Ford has proposed as an alternative, because it would have been counter productive to the “better “ relationship that JFK and Kruschev had established after the 62 Missile Crisis, primarily to avoid nuclear war and from which the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine was developed.
@Michael Welch: Mr.Ford and myself are often in agreement after MUCH discussion in which I play the role akin to Dr.Watson ( hopefully the smarter version one) throwing out hypotheticals to Mr. Ford ( Sherlock Holmes) and thru this dialogue perhaps a logical alternative to the WC theory may be derived.
I’m quite open to changing my mind on such hypotheticals however , especially if there is some visual detail demonstrated by some means of graphic overlay or geometry or some photographic phenomenon explanation such as GIF/ computer pixel translation of a film.
In the case of “Red Shirt Man” (RSM) in Hughes film on the front steps (west side), raising arm
up and down, having been conventionally labeled as Billy Lovelady, neither Mr. Ford nor myself arbitrarily leaped to the alternative proposition that this person may actually be Oswald instead.
We have questioned why the shirt of RSM does not seem to be the red and black square pattern of a plaid type shirt that Lovelady was wearing as in the Bronson film clip. The shirt appears to be too solid a texture of reddish/brownish tone to be the checkerboard square plaid shirt.
Maybe we are mistaken, so if Mr. Welch has some other more clear film version of Hughes or can demonstrate that a GIFs translation of Hughes film could morph black and red squares so the shirt would appear similar to Oswald’s solid texture reddish brownish ( pinkish?) shirt that Oswald actually had on that Friday Nov 22/63 , which shirt Oswald took off at his boarding house… then.. breathe.. that would be helpful.
Well, Mr.Welsh, here is one of the reasons I thought which supported MrFords proposal that Red Shirt Man (RSM) in Hughes film was Oswald and not Lovelady:
1. RSM is raising his hand up and then down and it’s not likely a “salute” but is more likely a bottle being raised to mouth. If so, then there’s only 2 possible persons who could be outside on the front steps who would have a bottle of coke, Oswald and or Lovelady, and so the question is at what time did each buy their respective cokes?
Lovelady had to have bought his coke several minutes BEFORE 12:00pm because the women of the 2nd floor office are occupying the 2nd floor lunchroom from 12:00-12:15 approx, thus they would have seen Lovelady or he vice versa see them if Lovelady bought the coke after 12:00pm.
Lovelady could not have bought the coke after 12:15 either since he was OUTSIDE on the front steps with Sarah Stanton and Bill Shelly by that time.
That means that Billy Lovelady had a coke from about 11:59 until 12:29 if he is RSM in Hughes so there is a question would not a 16 0z bottle of soda have been consumed in a 30 minute period of time?
Oswald on the other hand did not likely buy his coke until at the earliest 12:17 which would be just AFTER he was seen seated in the 2nd floor lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold.
So Oswald only had his coke for approx 11 minutes if he is RSM in Hughes film, therefore there is higher probability that there would be some % of liquid still left in the bottle at 12:29.
Hi Zeon, Please call me Michael. The Coke is irrelevant because you have clear photographic evidence taken within three seconds of the same person. However if you concentrate on the Coke, it appears the right hand goes too high, and he would be drinking only a sip at his forehead! Thank you for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
He wasn't anywhere near outside. He was busy upstairs shooting the president. You and Ralphie oughta get a room.
He wasn't anywhere near outside. He was busy upstairs shooting the president. You and Ralphie oughta get a room.
Since It does not seem logical that JFK would have jeopardized the improved relations between USA and USSR after the successfully negotiated end to the 62 missile crisis,
Mr. Oswald's actual location in the doorway has been found
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/hjqrzvM2/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
Apologies, Mr. Mason, only seeing this now (it got lost amidst the off-topic deluge courtesy of Messrs. Welch & Storing).....
I believe the Towner film gives the lie to the idea that Pres. Kennedy was out of the loop:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3k167LQ/Towner-Unger-full.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/mZVzRGP2/TOWNER-UNGER-FULL-speed.gif)
He's leaning forward to look at Mr. Oswald.
A change-of-mind mechanism was built into the plan: Pres. Kennedy will see the flag-waving, know from that the operation is a go, and can choose with a pre-agreed gesture-signal (brushing of hand through hair) whether or not to give the final green light. He gives it.
I believe this explains the hitherto puzzling fact of excised Towner frames just before this in Towner: the unspliced version showed Pres. Kennedy making it a little too obvious that he is keen to check out the doorway
(https://i.ibb.co/d59CmRJ/Towner-Splice.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nL2dPF8)
Friends, it is hard to convey how foolish I find the behavior of those who continue to stake all on the PM-in-Darnell=LHO claim.
Coming up to the 60th anniversary, they are creating the utterly false impression that Mr. Oswald's claim that he "went outside to watch P. Parade" can ONLY be vindicated by the finding that he is Prayer Man in Darnell.
In doing this, and with such vehemence and such disregard for what the latest evidence shows, they are setting the stage for what will look to everyone else like the complete collapse of the Oswald-Out-Front idea.
And this just at a time when
a) the PM-in-Darnell=LHO claim has been euthanized by the clearer Darnell frame that has emerged
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0rFmkz1/Darnell-new-frame-shadows.jpg)
b) Mr. Oswald's actual location in the doorway has been found
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/hjqrzvM2/Hughes-coke-bottle.gif)
2013 saw an important research push. But 2023 trumps it by a big margin.
As I have had cause to note before, the capacity of many CTers to look a gift horse in the mouth is most impressive.............. But: the penny WILL drop. Thumb1:
Hi Royell, I do not know if I can help you with that particular picture. I can do this: Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
In this Cabluck photograph we have two boys running on the sidewalk. The two boys from the North Arcade have left the Arcade and are running too.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/6d688d2efb1aec2b799eda49a2517016.jpg)
In the next Cabluck photograph, the four boys are running together. Robert MacNeil has just left the Press Bus and is on the sidewalk near Ike Altgens, and he is running too.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/6fed8642746e10dee644a50c2eda1f14.jpg)
In this Cabluck and Cancellare combination, it has the boys labelled.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/CabluckCancellarecomposite.jpg)
Here is an uncropped version of the Cancellare photograph including Robert MacNeil this time.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/CancellareUnger.jpg)
This is Bond 6. Maybe this is the picture you were thinking of.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Bond_6_Life_1967.jpg)
Michael - Thanks but none of these is the photo I am looking for. Bond gets close to that same time frame and LOS, but still no cigar. The Photo I seek is highlighted in "The Killing Of A President" by Groden on pages 54-57. Personally, I believe that "Gordon Arnold Area" from the picket fence over to the short block wall is an area on the Knoll that we do Not know jack about. Darnell has some blurry frames from down inside that general area, but nothing anybody can hang their hat on as to DETAIL within this possible shooter space. This is the same area that Lee Bowers was eyeballing shortly before the JFK Motorcade went onto Houston and then quickly onto Elm. From his 2nd story railroad tower vantage point, Bowers was looking Straight Down both sides of the Picket Fence. That day, nobody had a better look at both sides of the Picket Fence Area before, during, and after the JFK Assassination than Lee Bowers. Nobody.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/couple.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/couple.jpg)
Hi Duncan, Thank you for your reply! As far as I can tell, after studying this some more, Black Dog Man remains a Man. The young black couple are there, but further down by the wooden seat where they break their bottle or bottles which Marilyn hears and the liquid is seen on the concrete in Darnell. Thank you for your valuable input! With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Michael
@Michael Welch: Thank you for your input on Billy Lovelady in Weigman film and the Altgens 6 photo which do coincide.
But as Mr. Ford has already explained, the Hughes film had Lovelady right adjacent to the west wall and so it’s a question if Lovejady did actually move to the center handrail position during the Towner film and if that’s the explanation for this swath of red seen thru the foliage in Towner film that’s too wide ti be just one person OR..
Are there TWO persons with reddish shirts and Oswald was the one in Hughes against the west wall while Lovelady was at the center hand rail ( middle ) of the steps but was obscured in Hughes film by the blue shirt man in the pedistal?
I think Alan and I arrived at this latter scenario because of the 4 anomalies in Altgens 6 photo and Weigman film:
1. The strange shadow on the right side of Lovelady’s body in Weigman film clip
2. The Cronkite version of Altgens 6 photo which shows what appears to be a forearm raised up with what looks like a bottle (darkhorizontal slash) that cuts across the white shirt part of Loveladys body.
3. The 2nd version of Altgens 6 photo which shows the firearm ( and bottle) have been basically erased by coloring over it with the shirt texture pattern of Loveladys shirt.
4. This right arm shirt sleeve of Loveladys has NO HAND at the end of it AND the end of the sleeve ( cuff) weirdly looks like it’s overlapping part of the face of the black man whom is supposed to be Carl Jones , ( big guy with cream colored long sleeve shirt ).
[Mr. Doudna is] very right to query the assumption that Prayer Man in Wiegman must be the same person as Prayer Man in Darnell. For some time now I myself have been querying this assumption, which I suspect has caused no end of confusion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8KJy27F/PM-Wiegman-Darnell.gif)
PM/Darnell is on the landing; PM/Wiegman is down at least one step.
Their bodies are oriented differently (compare the position of the left elbows).
New Question: Can a person stand where Prayer Man in Wiegman is standing, and facing forward out of the doorway, without catching a healthy amount of direct sunlight on much of his body?
Red Shirt Man in Hughes certainly can't do it. So how is it that Prayer Man in Wiegman is able to pull it off?
IF (and it's still an if) Prayer Man in Wiegman is Mr. Oswald, just as he was Red Shirt Man in Hughes, then we can identify how the 'investigating' authorities made the easy identification of him on the steps impossible: using aerial imaging, they added fake shadow not just down Mr. Lovelady's side but down much of Mr. Oswald's body too.
And then they told Mr. Lovelady to pretend to have been in the Oswald spot, way over by the west wall of the doorway.
At the time these Hughes frames are taken,
-----------------Mr. Oswald is standing over west in the doorway, on the fourth step. He takes a sip of Coke. We see no flesh of his LEFT hand, because he is holding the flag behind him
-----------------A laid-back Mr. Lovelady is SITTING on one of the upper steps, content with getting a glimpse of Pres. Kennedy when he passes right by the building. He has a decent enough view, as there is no one standing in front of him.
But then, without warning, and just as Pres. Kennedy is about to come into Mr. Lovelady's view, Mr. Oswald blocks his view by waving a flag--not up high, but to his side
And this is what Towner shows. Look closely at the flag when it is at higher elevation------------we get a glimpse of Mr. Lovelady's shirt behind it.
After scaling and stabilizing that area, it appears as if the black gentleman against the west wall rises up possibly one step. Watch just to the left of the red clothing, it comes out from beneath the big shadow block. The orientation of those two appear to match what is seen in Hughes (except maybe the step up part) a few seconds earlier. But, still no ID on what appears to be the red shirted arm farthest east.
You may have to play it repeatedly for eye adjustments.
https://vimeo.com/870842433?share=copy (https://vimeo.com/870842433?share=copy)
Michael,
I don't see any objects in Hughes, that represent what we see in Bell, relating to what appears to be the red arm sleeve.
It looks like a left arm connected to a person(maybe a step lower) who would be facing more towards the person labeled as Lovelady in Hughes.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2639.msg143009.html#msg143009 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2639.msg143009.html#msg143009)
Friends, forget Prayer Woman in Darnell for a moment. (Of forever, if you're being sensible.)
Where exactly is Prayer-Man-in-Wiegman standing?
(https://i.postimg.cc/43jHvjc6/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif)
Not on the landing, that's for sure.
-----------------A laid-back Mr. Lovelady is SITTING on one of the upper steps, content with getting a glimpse of Pres. Kennedy when he passes right by the building. He has a decent enough view, as there is no one standing in front of him.
But then, without warning, and just as Pres. Kennedy is about to come into Mr. Lovelady's view, Mr. Oswald blocks his view by waving a flag--not up high, but to his side
(https://i.postimg.cc/mZVzRGP2/TOWNER-UNGER-FULL-speed.gif)
Friends, we will never dispel the confusion that has reigned for six decades unless we attain clarity on the 'guiltocent' Mr. Oswald's impossible predicament in custody.
For us, his going out on to the front steps for the motorcade ===========> his INNOCENCE (of the crime of shooting Pres. Kennedy)
For him, his going out on to the front steps and what he did out there =============> his GUILT (of involvement in a 'pro-Castro' conspiracy)
Hi Chris, After studying this some more, it could be this mysterious lady in Hughes who is wearing a red dress, a white overcoat, and a white hat who ends up in that spot! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, MichaelShe appears to be on the south side of Elm. I believe that's her starting near the corner in Hughes, stepping up onto the curb. If she made it to the location of the red sleeve seen in Bell, it doesn't appear as if she would be tall enough to land where we see the red sleeve from Bell's pespective. imo
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gerda_Dunckel_2.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)
(https://s9.gifyu.com/images/Bell-Red-Shirts.png)
She appears to be on the south side of Elm. I believe that's her starting near the corner in Hughes, stepping up onto the curb. If she made it to the location of the red sleeve seen in Bell, it doesn't appear as if she would be tall enough to land where we see the red sleeve from Bell's pespective. imo
Here's a back/forth loop for tracking movement.
Hi Chris, Yes, that looks like her! To me after studying it some more, it looks like the Mystery camera carrying Lady in Blue, Rosemary Willis, and the Lady in White with the Red Sleeves showing, all bunch up together in between Billy and Maddie on film. There is a white head and a red dress left arm that is sorted out in the Bell film to the right of Billy. That is why it looks like the person is facing Billy because it is the lady in the red dress and the white coat and white hat facing West on South Elm Street. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi Chris, Yes, that looks like her! To me after studying it some more, it looks like the Mystery camera carrying Lady in Blue, Rosemary Willis, and the Lady in White with the Red Sleeves showing, all bunch up together in between Billy and Maddie on film. There is a white head and a red dress left arm that is sorted out in the Bell film to the right of Billy. That is why it looks like the person is facing Billy because it is the lady in the red dress and the white coat and white hat facing West on South Elm Street. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, MichaelAnyone on the south side of Elm St, who ends up in front of the steps from Bell's perspective, is too low to be the red sleeve person. In fact, look at the people running towards the steps across the street from the TSBD. The person with the red sleeve is high up on the TSBD steps.
The Mystery Camera Lady
(https://s6.gifyu.com/images/S6Nhv.gif)
Thank you Duncan! Thank you Chris! The Mystery Camera Lady in Blue does appear to be stopping to take a picture and would bunch up with Rosemary Willis and the Lady in White. However, like you say Chris, they would be too low in Bell. Ironically Chris, the two people you point out as possibilities to be on the steps are not on the steps. Roy Edward Lewis is out on the grass near the Presidential limo, and Carolyn Arnold is standing out on Elm Street with her girlfriends! Thank you both for everything that you do! With Much Gratitude and Admiration, MichaelEliminated. Thanks for that. I didn't see her in Bell, initially.
I would caution against the assumption that the figure taken to be Mr. Lovelady in Bell is too wide to be one person.Alan,
All that said, I still think we may be getting a bit of Mr. Oswald's reddish shirt in Bell.
Alan,
I have never been under the assumption that the red clothing in Bell belonged to one person.
Yes, agree. One of those two red clothed figures in Bell could be Oswald.
(https://s6.gifyu.com/images/S6Nhv.gif)
For the longest time, I've been working off an unstabilized version of the above gif. Now that Mr. Davidson has kindly stabilized it, so much helpful detail leaps out.
Look for instance at these two women [red arrows]:
(https://i.postimg.cc/MHrXKNvT/Bell-waving-marked.jpg)
Each is simply waving with her hand------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTvLqQqK/Bell-spectators-cropped.gif)
This supplies a second reason----------along with the location of the hands (too far east of the man [light-blue arrow])*-----------to definitively rule out either of these women as the source of the fluttering object in Towner. The latter is certainly no hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fTMqDmhM/Belltowner-saturation-towner.gif)
If you doubt this double reason to rule out either of these women as the source of the waving object in Towner, just take look at these synced Bell & Towner frames. Make sure to check out the very different spatial relations between
a) the lady in back's waving hand and the head of the man in khaki (Bell)
b) the waving object and the same khaki man's head (Towner)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0549M2Fw/Bell-Towner.gif)
This has large implications. For it leaves us with absolutely no alternative to the conclusion that the object we see being waved energetically in Towner is coming from the doorway.
There is literally nowhere else it could be coming from. (If you don't believe me, look at the full scene in Bell in the Quote section at the top of this post--------ain't no one there between street spectators and doorway.)
Once you have let this fact sink in, consider another. There is only one person in the right position in that doorway to be waving this object: the man in the reddish shirt whom we've just seen in Hughes
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)
And, to cap it all off, the presence of a figure at sitting height can be made out when the waving object is at higher elevation. We should just be seeing empty steps behind there, but no:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SshRJctt/Belltowner-towner-slow.gif)
A man standing, waving the object: Mr. Oswald:
(https://i.postimg.cc/HW4kZJzx/Towner-red-shirt.jpg)
A man sitting, being blocked by the object being waved: Mr. Lovelady
The woman on the left of the two you identify with the red arrows is waving what appears to be a flag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTvLqQqK/Bell-spectators-cropped.gif)
There is only one person in the right position in that doorway to be waving this object: the man in the reddish shirt whom we've just seen in Hughes
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)
No, just a hand flapping up and down quickly as it's being waved. (Compare the other woman's flapping hand, which is just a little slower.)
And even if it were the world's tiniest flag, it's too far east of the man in khaki's head to possibly be the object we see in Towner flapping behind him. Remember, these Bell-Towner frames are synced, so there's zero wiggle room for you here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0549M2Fw/Bell-Towner.gif)
Note also in the above synced frames that the way the waving object in Towner moves is NOT in sync with the movement of the woman-in-Bell's hand. The waving object in Towner moves down and to its left; the lady's waving hand undergoes no such change. That's because they are two entirely different objects.
Ms. Towner is well to the EAST and NORTH of Mr. Bell. The angle at which she's filming these streetside spectators is thus v. different. Accordingly, the woman you refer to in Bell is in this area in Towner:
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Hd3YSJ/Belltowner-waving-woman.jpg)
Look how far west of her the Towner flapping object is.
The woman is not even close to in the right position to be responsible for the waving object we see in Towner.
What is the white blob element( that may have a slight % of red) , just to left of and behind blue shirt man on the pedestal (BPM)raising both his hands up , in Hughes film?
I do, however, disagree that the pixel movement you seem to be talking about in Towner is something "flapping". It seems to be an illusion created by running the film backwards and forwards.
The blurry, pixelated movement you seem to be referring to could easily be someone changing position on the steps.
The initial frames show a hand waving by whom ever is in white.
The first red arrow that pops up points to an area of red. The successive arrows follow the continuation of that color until it disappears at the end.
The red area in the first frame with the red arrow is the easiest to see.
If you enlarge the area and put the digital densitometer on the figure who is regarded as Lovelady and the separate red spot you get a match. I'll post this next.
I believe this matches what we see in Bell in terms of two separate individuals with the similar red color clothing on.
https://vimeo.com/872062164?share=copy (https://vimeo.com/872062164?share=copy)
So Alan you no longer believe that PM is Oswald? Including in the Weigman film?
Fred
Where Chris Davidsons red arrow points to in that last post of Hughes film clip is the white blob that I was asking about. So do THREE of us agree now , that white blob with sliver of red probably Lovelady sitting on the steps partly obscured by the blue shirt girl on the pedestal?
Mr. Shelley tells this to FBI on 18 March 1964.
I suspect Mr. Lovelady may indeed have been seated in the doorway as Pres. Kennedy was passing. His view, however, was suddenly obscured by the energetic waving of a flag by his co-worker, Mr. Lee Oswald. An irritated Mr. Lovelady rises to his feet to see over the flag.
This would explain the fact that a standing Mr. Lovelady is not evident in Towner
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3k167LQ/Towner-Unger-full.gif)
Mrs. Madie Reese is shown in Bell with her right hand raised to her face, making no appreciable movement at all.
And Mr. Blue (the black man in front of Red Shirt Man) has just raised his left arm in Hughes, revealing that he is holding nothing in it.
The only person who can possibly be energetically waving that object in the doorway is Red Shirt Man.
Where Chris Davidsons red arrow points to in that last post of Hughes film clip is the white blob that I was asking about. So do THREE of us agree now , that white blob with sliver of red probably Lovelady sitting on the steps partly obscured by the blue shirt girl on the pedestal?It's seems hard to imagine that by correcting the color cast in Towner that we end up with the white blob in Hughes.
It's seems hard to imagine that by correcting the color cast in Towner that we end up with the white blob in Hughes.
Here's Towner slowed down to 6fps and stabilized. Does it appear as though that person (white blob Hughes/orange figure Towner) is waving with both arms not including the flag object bouncing around?
I'm not seeing that figure as sitting down.
https://vimeo.com/872621384?share=copy (https://vimeo.com/872621384?share=copy)
Surely,
(https://s6.gifyu.com/images/S6qTx.gif)
Miss Towner's POV is giving us a blend of this lady's unsleeved right forearm and that of the lady standing and waving a few feet behind her. Mr. Davidson's stabilized version of Towner allows us to see the flapping up and down of the hands
The third important thing the stabilized gif shows us is just how energetically------nay, urgently------nay, frantically------the flag (or somesuch) is being waved
Where is Oswald’s head? (In Towner film)
The Towner film is showing us TWO figures in red:
a) Mr. Lovelady watching the motorcade from a seated position
b) Mr. Oswald waving a flag energetically at the motorcade from a standing position.
Any possibilities for this person?
Universally lightened:
https://vimeo.com/874304340?share=copy (https://vimeo.com/874304340?share=copy)
(https://s6.gifyu.com/images/S6Rys.png)
Why are /DPD/FBI even allowing any TSBD employee to be hanging around on the 6th floor at the time all there doing their investigation/ arranging evidence?
The guys face looks like Lovelady but what the reason Lovelady is by himself on the 6th floor is uncertain.
Maybe Lovelady had been given an order by Fritz to hang around on the 6th floor as an elevator operator?
Dougherty overacting being an innocent observer?
The man who is the spitting image of Mr. Billy Lovelady is either
a) Mr. Lovelady, standing on something
b) A Lovelady lookalike, who happens also to be current holder of the Dallas's Tallest Man prize.
Tough one............
As I have this man down as the potential shooter, it's interesting to note his passing resemblance to Oswald.
As for the tallest man in Dallas - I reckon Dougherty was around 6'4" at the time of the assassination. There's no reason to believe the man in Chris's pic is any more than that.
What is clear is that the mystery man is not a police officer. He can only be an employee of the TSBD. And not an office worker.
This leaves two realistic choices - it is either Lovelady on a box wearing different clothes or it's the very tall Jack Dougherty wearing his own clothes.
So, after all your huffing and puffing, you are now forced to accept that Mr. Lovelady standing on a box is indeed a realistic explanation?
Splendid. Your wild notion that 'mystery man' (~grin~) might be your accused assassin Mr. Dougherty can now be consigned to the trash can--------along with what little was left of your credibility as a student of the visual record.
Thumb1:
Hi Alan and Dan, Back in 2013 when I saw this picture, I said stuff like it has to be Jack Edwin Dougherty because he could whip Billy Nolan Lovelady with one hand tied behind his back. Steve Logan chimed in and said that it was Billy and he was sure of it. Gary Mack wrote me and said that he has a crystal clear copy of the Alyea film, and it was definitely Lovelady. I disagreed with both of them, and I posted a picture from a FBI Mugshots page of a man with a policeman with a pencil behind I think his left ear, dressed in a white shirt that looked like Dougherty to me. I have searched for probably six months, and I cannot find this page with that picture anymore. Later on I think it was a man named Clyde Billington who out of the blue posted this Allen picture and said that it was Jack Dougherty on the West side behind the glass and Ochus Campbell in the doorway. I said that it probably was Jack but the man in the doorway is Otis Williams. Mr. Billington never responded or posted another post again. A couple of years later, I decided that it was Billy Lovelady. But today, I could go either way. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/mURI_temp_b3627c4a.jpg)
The Fantastical Mr Ford rides in on his unicorn again.
Your "Multi-racial Assassination Death Squad Roaming Around the TSBD Building" theory [MADS for short] is the product of a truly fevered imagination.
Only to be outdone by your "Oswald Rolling Out a Banner" theory.
But none are as ridiculous as your "Prayer Man" theory.
What a joke that was. Glad to see you woke up from that nightmare but, oh, those wasted years.
I believe the man behind the window is this guy:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JdcBHsx/Allen-suspect.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
He is widely believed to be Robert Edwards, one of the eye-witnesses who testified that the man in the SN was wearing an open-necked white shirt - an item of clothing Oswald wasn't wearing that day and did not have in his possessions.
Here's a side-by-side of the mystery man in Alyea and Lovelady, taken from the Martin film. It's the best match for their profiles I could make, both men at almost full profile.
As far as I'm concerned they are clearly two different people. The hairline of each man, particularly around the ear, are completely different, as is the shape of their heads.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnDXZzDp/Lovelady-or-Dougherty2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The mystery man is dressed in casual clothing, certainly not that of a law enforcement officer. This means he can must surely be an unidentified TSBD employee.
He does not appear to be dressed as an office worker. He appears to be wearing a lighter coloured/white t-shirt under an off white, open-necked shirt. He is not wearing a tie.
This suggests he is one of "Truly's boys".
Under these circumstances he can only be Jack Dougherty.
Dougherty was around 6'2" tall when he was 18 years old, the mystery man is a noticeably tall person.
Dougherty testifies that by the time he reached the sixth floor the rifle had been found and the Alyea clip is taken on the sixth floor not long after the discovery of the rifle.
All those photos are of men wearing white shirt WITH A COLLAR!
Our 6th floor Billy Lovelady similar looking face man has on a white shirt WITHOUT a collar.
And as to the reason the other men on the 6th floor are keeping ON their the jackets is because they are DOD, FBI, and HAVE to because it’s required uniform.
(One exception was Lt.Day who is his short sleeve shirt handling the MC rifle )
Lovejady on the other hand was just an TSBD employee most notably a labor worker as opposed to office personnel and it was standard practice to allow these workers, like Oswald , to work in just their T-shirt because the building could get hot on some floors like the 5th and 6th not having central AC .
Yeah Zeon, we've gone past having to make up silly excuses for why Lovelady might have taken his shirt off.
We're on to photographic evidence that demonstrates the two men are completely different.
It was an honest mistake, made because I assumed the guy in the Martin and Hughes films was Lovelady. Now I'm not so sure.
It was an honest mistake, made because I assumed the guy in the Martin and Hughes films was Lovelady. Now I'm not so sure.
What object is covering the jaw/chin line?
So!
Back to reality................
I have four simple questions for anyone on Team Keep LHO Off Dem Steps (well, anyone other than Mr. O'Meara, who is excused on compassionate grounds) that doubts my claim that Towner shows Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald in the doorway waving a flag at Pres. Kennedy whilst Mr. Billy Lovelady is seated on the steps just to his east:
1. What do YOU believe is being waved here?
2. Where do YOU believe it is being waved from?
3. Who do YOU believe is waving it?
4. To whom do YOU believe the red area behind the flag, marked below by yellow arrows, belongs?
If you look to the left of the woman you identified there is another woman dressed in black. As the limo passes she raises her arm and is waving something. She can be seen quite clearly in this gif:
Wow----------great work, Mr. O'Meara! What keen eyes you have!
Now try actually reading the next bit of that post of mine (#2714) you've so cackhandedly tried to respond to.
This will end about as well for you as your 'It's not Lovelady it's Dougherty!' humiliation. But will you make mature use of yet another teachable moment? Fat chance ::)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LJkKFrW/Towner-Alan.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Not even close, lol.
Look at the SYNCED Bell-Towner frames in the GIF below. Use this man in khaki as your reference point:
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvWRdVRk/Belltowner-man.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0549M2Fw/Bell-Towner.gif)
The up-and-down flicker coming from the hand of the woman you identify is too far east of the man in khaki's head to possibly be the object we see in Towner flapping behind him.
And: the way the waving object in Towner moves is NOT in sync with the flickering movement from the woman-in-Bell's hand. The waving object in Towner moves erratically down and to its left; the lady's waving hand undergoes no such change, being a much more placid up-and-down affair. That's because they are two entirely different objects.
And: thanks to Mr. Davidson's stabilized GIF of Towner, we can see the flapping hands---------to the east (viewer's right) of Mr. Oswald's flag:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MCL62bC/Towner-hands.gif)
The ladies' hands line up closely because of Miss Towner's POV, from a spot well east and north of Mr. Bell.
Not even close, lol.
Hmmm..seems pretty close to me.
Apologies, Mr. O'Meara. It was inconsiderate of me to point out that these Towner-Bell frames are synced--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/0549M2Fw/Bell-Towner.gif)
-------------without explaining to you what synced means.
I'm now going to explain to you what it means to say that these frames are synced.
It means that their clocks are synchronized. That is to say, they are simultaneous. Which is to say, they are showing the exact same moments in time.
Now that I have explained to you what synced means, you might find your way to grasping how impossible it is for the up-and-down flutter from the lady in black's hand to be responsible for the waving object shown in Towner. Once again, use the head of the man in khaki as your reference point. You will see that that lady's hand is clearly too far east to be the waving object shown in Towner. Miss Towner's POV renders such a solution quite absurd.
POV means 'point of view', by the way
Her hand is on the end of her arm.
Mind blown.
She has an object in her hand she is frantically waving.
Next to where her hand is (at the end of her arm, remember) we see an object flapping about in Towner.
Good grief.
Last time we sparred in this thread, I actually had to explain to you that standing on a box can make a man appear taller than if he is standing on the floor. It took a while for you to absorb this esoteric insight, and there was much huffing and puffing from you before you finally surrendered to reality, but we got there in the end.
Now I have to explain to you how POV (= point of view) works.
Hmmm.... How to explain it in a way even you might understand?
Let's try this: We see so much more of Mr. Danny Arce behind Cowboy Man in Bell than in Towner. How can this possibly be? Have you any idea, Mr. O'Meara? That's right------it's POV. Miss Towner's POV is very different to Mr. Bell's.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0549M2Fw/Bell-Towner.gif)
Now listen up real carefully. This is the science bit....................
Given that the SYNCED Bell frames are clearly showing the fluttering coming from the lady in black's hand to be noticeably to the EAST of the head of the man in khaki's head--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/8c1QdzCd/Bell-spectators-sync.gif)
---------then there is simply no way on earth that the SYNCED Towner frames are going to show that same fluttering MUCH LESS EAST of, and in fact part of the time DIRECTLY BEHIND, the head of the man in khaki:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0549M2Fw/Bell-Towner.gif)
It's a physical impossibility.
Now, let me help you further out of the latest compound hallucination into which you've fallen.
Because of Miss Towner's POV------------which, in case you missed it last time I explained it, is DIFFERENT to Mr. Bell's-------------the lady in black standing behind the others is blocked from view by the lady in front. (If this confuses you, think of it as a more ample eclipse than the one Cowboy Man is inflicting on Mr. Danny Arce in the same Towner frames.)
You never considered this, did you? That's because you don't understand POV, isn't it?
And your inability to understand how POV works has led you, in your amateur-hour Towner IDs--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/76HTJ0Sv/Bell-Towner-Label.png)
---------to misunderstand where Lady #2 actually is in Towner, and to completely misunderstand where Lady #1 is.
If you want to stop misunderstanding where these ladies are in Towner, then use as your Bell reference points Lady #2's unsleeved, lowered left arm and her unsleeved, raised right arm:
(https://i.postimg.cc/8c1QdzCd/Bell-spectators-sync.gif)
Can you find them? Splendid! Yay you!
Now take a good close look at the synced Towner frames and see if you can find these same two arms:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MCL62bC/Towner-hands.gif)
Once you have found them, the rest will fall into place.
Which will leave you having to find some fresh topic on which to wade in with your kneejerk contrarian nonsense.
Thumb1:
In the pic below I've boxed off what I thought were the right raised arm of Lady#2 and her left lowered arm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8WRLM8h/Grey-Lady-Towner.png) (https://postimages.org/)
In the pic below the woman you identified is in the orange box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LJkKFrW/Towner-Alan.png) (https://postimages.org/)
No, here's what you actually wrote (emphasis added):
You mistook the woman's raised right arm for her face.
Just before this, you had written, with reference to Towner, "we should be able to see the woman dressed in black, with her arm raised, waving something". This was a poor assumption, because it failed to consider that from Miss Towner's POV Lady #1 (lady in black) would be blocked from view by Lady #2.
**
Now let's cut to the chase.
When the flag in Towner is at higher elevation (last frame in the sequence below), it shows BEHIND the man in khaki's head. At this same precise instant, there is nothing------nada, zilcho-------by way of fluttering/waving object visible behind that man's head in Bell. The fluttering from the lady in black's hand is NOT anywhere near far enough west to go behind the man's head, such that it will show up in Towner behind his head. In fact, we can clearly see the white stone of the window grid area back in the TSBD behind both of them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJRgKhC6/Belltowner-comp.gif)
Therefore, the fluttering coming from the lady in black's hand cannot possibly be responsible for the waving object we see in Towner. That waving object is coming from the west part of the doorway, and the person responsible for it is a man in a red shirt who, in pumping the object up and down, is energetically putting his body into the action:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YSNZRqhK/Towner-red-shirt-flag.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/Ss2Z5SKx/Towner-red-shirt-flag-contrast.gif)
In your solution--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/02VbYH2q/Dan-Towner.jpg)
--------you mistook the flag for Lady #1's hand, and the man's red shirt for her raised right arm.
The good news is that you can undo this error in an instant by no longer mistaking the flag for Lady #1's hand, and the man's red shirt for her raised right arm.
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm pointing out so I'd like to take it step by step to make sure we're discussing the same thing.
In the pic below have I correctly boxed off the two arms of Lady#2
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8WRLM8h/Grey-Lady-Towner.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Now this is a yes/no answer [I know how you hate those].
I have either correctly boxed off her arms or I haven't - which is it?
Yes! Thumb1:
And do you agree that in the Bell film just behind Lady#2 and to her right (our left as we look at it), there is Lady#1, dressed in black with her arm raised?
Yes, to the viewer of Bell, Lady #1 appears left of Lady #2 Thumb1:
And do you agree that in Towner, just behind Lady#2 (who we have already identified) and to her right (or left as we look at it) is a figure dressed in black with their arm raised?
I've clumsily tried to highlight this person in the pic below:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZtYKVZX/Towner-Alan1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
No. Lady #1 is comprehensively obscured from Towner's view by Lady #2
What you think is the raised right arm of Lady #1 is in fact the red shirt of the man in the doorway
The body and raised arm are black, not red.
You're having another one of your hallucinations
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4ZkRrDB/Towner-hands-saturation.gif)
Just behind the worker who has his arm across his chest is a figure in black with their arm raised,
In the Bell clip we see Lady#1, dressed in black with her arm raised waving something frantically, stood just behind and to the left (as we see it) of Lady#2
In Towner we see exactly the same thing.
~Yawn~
We see something completely different in Towner.
Bell: the fluttering from Lady#1's hand is clearly NOT, at ANY point, far west enough to go BEHIND the man in khaki's HEAD
Towner: what you are identifying as the fluttering from Lady#1's hand DOES go right behind the man in khaki's HEAD
Look at the paused frame here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyyNsKnH/Belltowner-comp.gif)
If Bell, in these SYNCED Bell-Towner frames, showed the fluttering from Lady#1's hand go far west enough as to be BEHIND the man in khaki's HEAD, then your claim would be worth considering seriously.
But Bell doesn't show anything like that, making your claim no more than a desperate attempt to gaslight.
I've demonstrated, beyond doubt, that in both Towner and Bell there is a figure dressed in black, with a raised arm, behind and to the left (as we look at it) of Lady#2.
You haven't dealt with a single argument I've put forward.
Instead you've tried to insist that the raised, black arm in Towner is actually a red shirt [ ???]
You've insisted that Lady#1 is "comprehensively obscured" behind Lady#2. You've not offered a supporting argument for this and no evidence to support it. You've just blurted it out and, as I know from past experience, you will stick to it as a "fact".
But if Lady#1 is comprehensively obscured behind Lady#2 then Danny Arce should be comprehensively obscured behind White Stetson man. But he isn't. Like Lady#2 he is clearly visible behind the person in front.
And, even if Lady#2 were comprehensively obscured behind Lady#1, her raised arm should still be visible - don't you agree?
But she isn't comprehensively obscured.
She is partially obscured.
And now we have you simply showing Bell and Towner and stamping your little foot down and insisting it can't be so. Simply because you say so.
But I say look again.
See that in Towner the raised arm of Lady#2 is almost touching the shoulder of Khaki Man but in Bell there is a much larger gap between them.
That is the clue that will help you understand what's going on.
No, that's demonstrated only for Bell
You're still lost.
Try shocking your brain out of its latest hallucination by noting that Mr. Danny Arce is further south than the lady in blue, who is in turn further south than Lady#1 (the lady in black)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyyNsKnH/Belltowner-comp.gif)
Then ask yourself: How will this disposition of figures present itself to Miss Towner's camera?
I believe this is where you're going wrong.
The lady in black is stood alongside the lady in blue with a gap between them [IMO]
Even if that were the case, then expecting the fluttering from Lady #1's hand to show up to Miss Towner's camera right behind the head of khaki man would be as idiotic as expecting the lady in blue's head to be hidden behind the head of Lady #2
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyyNsKnH/Belltowner-comp.gif)
Beyond absurd
I'll try again, for what it's worth...
Where is the arm of the lady in black in Towner as far as you're concerned?
I think I’ (may) have figured out why Oswald’s head is not visible in Towner film.
It’s because he has his back up against the West wall as he holds out the the banner using the curtain rod. His head and part of his body are just inside the angle of shadow from the West wall corner going up the steps.
We see a little sliver of her unsleeved raised right arm behind Lady #2's unsleeved raised right arm.
Now. Have you found a rational explanation yet for the fact that the fluttering coming from Lady #1's hand at no point shows in Bell right behind khaki man's head, as 'it' does (according to your bizarre geometry-breaking claim) in Towner? Your continued avoidance of this problem has been screaming volumes Thumb1:
Thanks for this, Mr. Mason, it's an interesting suggestion. Hughes shows Mr. Oswald's head go in and out of that shadow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)
You simply cannot escape the fact that the Lady in Black (#1) is clearly visible in Towner:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZtYKVZX/Towner-Alan1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
You both know it's Lovelady on the steps so give it a rest.
Ok, I think I agree with Dan on this one because of the amazing coincidence of the waving in both Towner and Bell film relative to the black cowboy hat man in white shirt and pants.
What amazing coincidence? Lots of people are waving. It's a Presidential Parade.
The fluttering coming from the hand of the lady in black in Bell is, in the synced frames, at all times clearly east of khaki man's head. Therefore it cannot be what shows up right behind khaki man's head in Towner. A geometric impossibility.
And we see Red Shirt Man (Mr. Oswald) in the same spot he was in in Hughes just a couple of seconds ago, his body now moving in sync with the aggressive downward pumping of the flag:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YSNZRqhK/Towner-red-shirt-flag.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/Ss2Z5SKx/Towner-red-shirt-flag-contrast.gif)
Now that would be an amazing coincidence!
"The fluttering coming from the hand of the lady in black in Bell is...at all times clearly east of khaki man's head"
(https://i.postimg.cc/hv639gTc/Towner-Alan2.png) (https://postimg.cc/bS0Th7mB)
Well, if you can show us a sample of the fetching two-tone number DPD issued for that season, we're all eyes
Hi Chris and Zeon, This is a mystery lady in blue carrying a camera and Rosemary Willis in white and red, running from right to left, and they end up in between Billy and Maddie but are closer to the camera on the south side of Elm Street. They add the various blue or white, and red to Hughes. Thank you both for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i.postimg.cc/1563MzKG/Hughes-doorway-longer.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gerda_Dunckel_11.gif)
~Grin~
Your sly use of ellipses gives away that you know darn well what the problem is.
Here are the words you excised in quoting me: "in the synced frames"
So! Compare the frame you have just posted with ANY one of the synced frames. See the difference in the position of the Lady#1's hand? That difference right there is why your argument is bust.
Thumb1:
I’ll have to wait and see if some people with computer programs that generate perspective views from fixed points in plan view can determine if the flag waving woman’s position can shift from being in front of the perforated wall to be in front of the TSBD entrance.
To continue on with this Oswald flag waving theory , then there must be a plausible explanation for the absence of Oswald’s head and body in the Towner film.
A. The camera was focused on the foreground and thus the background area behind Carl Jones is just dark because it’s out of focus?
B. The original Towner film DID have head and body of Oswald in sunlight and the conspirators/ cover Up artists blackened out this area behind Carl Jones similar to the shadow on Lovelady in Weigman film?
If neither A nor B are plausible then imo, the PM= Oswald theory should be revisited
Reasons to revisit :
1.The arms of PM do NOT appear to be like those of a woman’s bare arms because of what appears to be dark pixelated portions of the forearm that suggest a man’s hairy arm and a muscular shape more similar to Oswald’s arms than to Pauline Sanders.
2. The object in PMs hands are less likely to be a camera, lighter, white bread, or a small white coffee cup than to be simply a bottle of soda held in the hand with a white napkin.
3. The head shape of PM resembles Oswald’s oblong shaped face more so than Pauline Sanders round face
4. PM is not wearing any glasses.
5. The hair shape is more similar to Oswald’s than to Sanders.
6. A vast majority of CTs as well as Marina Oswald herself , think the PM figure resembles Oswald.
7. The west corner of the TSBD entrance is the most probable place Oswald could be and NOT have been noticed.
8. It may be possible that The 5’2” height of PM relative to BW Frazier, can be demonstrated as Oswald standing with BOTH feet on one 7” step lower than the top landing and no part of body is illuminated by sunlight.
9. There is no statement from Pauline Sanders to suggest she moved from east side of the TSBD landing to PMs position.
10. Coincidentally , a bottle was left at the west side step approximately where PM would be standing on one step lower than the top landing.
10b. Sanders did not have a bottle of soda.
11. The bottle by the steps is NOT likely the Dr.Pepper seen in the photo of DPD police officers hands as it is questionable if a police officer would leave a bottle on steps ( littering) rather than discard it properly.
12. Only 2 persons in this thread have claimed that another version of film frames from Darnell film must be accepted as proof that the neckline of PM cannot be Oswald’s .
13. The PM theory fits well with the timeline of Oswald having at 12:25 -12:27 been in the Domino room and saw Harold Norman and James Jarman going past as they reentered TSBD via back loading dock door.
14.To believe that Oswald could be unfurling a flag and vigorously waving it while in FRONT of BW.Frazier and obscuring Loveladys LOS, and that neither of these men would remember that detail has no reasonable explanation. Fear or complicity By remaining silent or “missing the gorilla in the midst of basketball player” because of focus on the POTUS , are all improbable explanations.
15. The last from BW Frazier about who PM was suggests he MAY have actually seen Oswald there as PM because BWF thought at first PM was Lovelady only to realize later that Lovelady had left the steps. BWF Changing his mind to suggest he’s 100% certain PM is not Oswald while simultaneously suggesting 100% UNCERTAINTY who PM is, is an absurd statement. Perhaps at this late stage BWF needs to undergo hypnosis to retrieve what is buried in his subconscious mind.
In conclusion, the PM=Oswald theory is the simpler theory that fits the Domino room 12:25-27 timeline well, allows a very plausible explanation how Oswald was unnoticed standing quietly in the west back corner of the TSBD landing drinking his coke or Dr Pepper, and requires no convoluted alternate plot of mischief involving JFK himself.
Well, Mr Mytton, just because you HaHaHa this alternative speculative theory by Mr Ford , that Oswald was waving a banner/ flag/ something, as part of an JFK directed alternate flag shooting plot…
And just because Oswald never mentioned anything to his wife, mother, brother, or in front of cameras about being out on the front steps at the time of shooting…
And just because there’s an odd absence of any head or body of Oswald , in the Towner film or in the Weigman film , where Oswald is supposedly shaking a flag with his curtain rod flag banner, just behind Carl Jones ..
And just because there is the same amount of white T-shirt shirt of the Hughes “red shirt “ (RSM) man as there is of Loveladys white T-shirt in Weigman…
NEVER THE LESS… I’m remaining a suspicious CT until whatever end, because there’s always hope, and Gandalf said look
for him on the 3rd day at dawn.. and besides we have Aragorn and Gimli the dwarf on our side!
And just because Oswald never mentioned anything to his wife, mother, brother, or in front of cameras about being out on the front steps at the time of shooting…
I could offer the explanation that Oswald decided to remain silent about being outside on the steps because he had Delusions of Grandeur (DOG) disorder, and was already figuring on a grand lawsuit for wrongful arrest after he got the lawyer he preferred who would find some photo of Oswald later..
But I thought my Gandalf saving the day at Helms Deep was just a good an explanation :)
But I thought my Gandalf saving the day at Helms Deep was just a good an explanation :)