JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 06, 2025, 02:17:49 PM
-
Greg Doudna, one of the most careful and objective JFK assassination scholars around, has produced ground-breaking research into the Tippit shooting that indicates Oswald was not involved in Tippit's death. Just last month, Doudna published a ground-breaking article titled "Outline of an Alternative Solution to the Tippit Case" on his website. Here's an excerpt from Doudna's article:
• Fingerprints practically certainly left on the Tippit patrol car by the killer of Tippit, just below the right front vent window and on the right front fender, were found in 1994 to not be from Oswald.
• The killer was identified by the closest witness to see the killer, only ca. 10-15 feet away, with a good view of the back of his head, that the killer had a block cut rear hairline. Oswald had a taper rear hairline, meaning he was not the killer.
• Early police reports, plus individual witness testimonies, said the killer was wearing a white shirt. But Oswald was wearing a dark rust-brown shirt, CE 150. . . .
• Contrary to the conventional narrative, the killer flagged down Tippit to pull over so he could talk to him, not vice versa. This is known from the talking having occurred through the vent window, with Tippit not rolling down his door window. The killer said something to Tippit which lured Tippit out of his car.
• In the conventional narrative Tippit got out of his car to check out a man as a possible suspect in the JFK assassination, and did so without radioing in to his dispatcher that he was doing so. It is not sensible or reasonable that Tippit would not radio in to his dispatcher, simply as a security or safety precaution. Myers says that was not required and not all officers did so every time but this was different--a possible assassin of a president, presumed armed and dangerous. But Tippit did NOT radio it in that he was making that stop or going to talk to that man. The best interpretation is Tippit was stopping either for a reason he did not believe involved police work, or if it did involve police work he had been flagged down by someone he did not suspect of being a threat, neither of which is consistent with Oswald being that man. . . .
• The cabbie, Scoggins, parked around the corner on Patton, according to his grandson reported in 2023, was asked to be there at that location in advance by someone associated with Jack Ruby, suggesting premeditation and a killing planned in advance. (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31455-possible-new-information-relevant-to-the-tippit-killing/#comments (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31455-possible-new-information-relevant-to-the-tippit-killing/#comments))
• The CE 162 light-tan off-white jacket abandoned by the killer at the Texaco station was not Oswald's gray jacket, if the brown shirt fibers are set aside. (The argument on this point is detailed and strong.)
• A murder weapon of the caliber used to kill Tippit was found abandoned in a downtown street of Dallas in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23, 1963, hours after the murder of Tippit, and turned in to the Dallas Police that morning--a .38 Special revolver found with an apple and orange in a paper bag by a street curb, evidently tossed from a moving car.
• Some of Oswald's movements between the rooming house and the theater were seen by a witness who tracked him part of the way--Oswald was on foot--witness Elcan Elliott--and the path Oswald was witnessed on foot has basic timing issue difficulties with Oswald having gotten on foot to the Tenth and Patton crime scene at the time Tippit was killed, even if there had been a known reason for Oswald to have been there, which there isn't. (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1696 (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1696); https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Tippit-Prolegomenon-103-pdf.pdf (https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Tippit-Prolegomenon-103-pdf.pdf))
I encourage everyone to read the entire article.
Another valuable that Doudna has written on the Tippit shooting is "Were the Tippit Crime Scene Shell Hulls Fired from the Revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?" (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1541 (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1541); https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/T-BALLISTICS-108-1.pdf)).
-
• Fingerprints practically certainly left on the Tippit patrol car by the killer of Tippit, just below the right front vent window and on the right front fender, were found in 1994 to not be from Oswald.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the prints lifted from the passenger door and the passenger front fender MUST belong to the killer.
As a matter of fact, the expert who stated that the prints did not belong to Oswald (Herb Lutz studied the prints at the request of Dale Myers) also stated that both sets of prints (the door and the fender) were most likely from the same person. No witness has ever said the killer touched the fender. If the killer never touched the fender and both sets of prints belong to the same person, then the prints on the door are not those of the killer.
-
• Fingerprints practically certainly left on the Tippit patrol car by the killer of Tippit, just below the right front vent window and on the right front fender, were found in 1994 to not be from Oswald.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the prints lifted from the passenger door and the passenger front fender MUST belong to the killer.
As a matter of fact, the expert who stated that the prints did not belong to Oswald (Herb Lutz studied the prints at the request of Dale Myers) also stated that both sets of prints (the door and the fender) were most likely from the same person. No witness has ever said the killer touched the fender. If the killer never touched the fender and both sets of prints belong to the same person, then the prints on the door are not those of the killer.
Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:
Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.
Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)
Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.
-
Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:
Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.
Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)
Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.
Dear Mike,
Self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald was a pretty streetwise guy.
Realizing that he'd probably have to kill Tippit, why in the world would he incriminate himself by putting his prints on the car?
-- Tom
-
Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:
Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.
Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)
Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.
The person who spoke through the car window was Oswald. It's possible that he did touch the car. If he did, he didn't leave enough characteristics of his fingerprints or palmprints for them to be positively identified.
"Contrary to portrayals in the movies and on television, fingerprints are not always easy to find on certain items of evidence. In the author's experience identifiable fingerprints are found on guns, knives, clubs, and the like in less than 10 percent of the cases. This is due to a number of factors including the surface characteristics of the weapon and the way in which the weapon was handled. On the other hand it is not uncommon to find some evidence of the handling of weapons in the form of partial fingerprint impressions, even though these partial impressions usually fall short of being identifiable to a specific individual.
Some types of evidence simply do not tend to retain any evidence of fingerprints, even when touched. Textured surfaces such as vehicle steering wheels, plastic milk jugs, and suitcase handles seldom show any sign of even having been touched. Other problems can include intense heat, humidity, and/or precipitation, which effectively destroy the fingerprints. Thus the probability of finding identifiable fingerprints on fired cartridge cases left at the crime scene, for example, is remote; the combination of the curved surfaces and the heat produced upon discharge tends to vaporize the fingerprints."
https://www.bevfitchett.us/forensic-science/firearms-and-fingerprints-in-the-crime-lab.html
-
It is difficult to believe that someone could shoot a police officer in broad daylight in the presence of numerous witnesses, be captured a short distance away after sneaking into a movie theatre and being reported as acting suspiciously, resist arrest, and have a gun and the same two brands of ammo on him when arrested, and that anyone could argue that there is a scintilla of doubt as to his guilt. Imagine all the things that would have to have gone wrong for Oswald to not be shooter. So much bad luck starting with leaving his place of employment without permission. Going home to get a gun to take to the movies. Crossing paths with the only location of a murder of Dallas PD officers in a periods of years on the way to the movies after leaving the scene of the assassination of the president, being ID'd as behaving suspiciously, deciding not to buy a movie ticket but sneak into the theatre, having the same ammo as the shooter and on and on....
-
Dear Mike,
Self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald was a pretty streetwise guy.
Realizing that he'd probably have to kill Tippit, why in the world would he incriminate himself by putting his prints on the car?
-- Tom
You always answer fact with theory. Two witnesses said the killer touched the door, and one of them said the killer spoke with Tippit through the window below which the prints were found.
-
You always answer fact with theory.
Dear Mike,
You always promulgate a nation-rending interpretation of the JFKA and the Tippit murder.
Why is that?
Have you always been anti-government and paranoiac, or did you start becoming that way only after you'd read Mark "KGB" Lane's books or watched Oliver Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie "JFK" (which was based partly on Jim Garrison's book, "On the Trail of the Assassins," which in turn was motivated by an anti-Clay Shaw / anti-CIA article published in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper three days after overly ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful Garrison had arrested Shaw on the supposition that he had masterminded the homosexual "thrill kill" assassination of JFK) for the third time?
-- Tom
-
You always answer fact with theory. Two witnesses said the killer touched the door, and one of them said the killer spoke with Tippit through the window below which the prints were found.
Who were these three witnesses? You keep referring to them but never name them and quote what they said. Please do so. And which one(s) said he also touched the fender?
The car window was closed. The killer had to talk through the little window vent on the side. And Markham testified that he puts his *arms* on the ledge not his hands. Although she incorrectly said the window was open.
WC testimony:
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
source: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/markham1.htm
Tippit's car window:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12502596895/Keybi15tupl5vnf/tippit car.JPG)
And here with a better view of the open vent:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12502613771/Keymiac7d9tph8f/tippit car 2.JPG)
-
Wrong. I quote from my review of Myers' book:
Myers admits the fingerprints on the front passenger door and on the right front fender
of Tippit's patrol car were from one person, and that those prints are not Oswald's. One
would think this would be evidence of Oswald's innocence. But Myers theorizes that the
fingerprints were made by a bystander and that the assailant did not touch the car (pp.
274-278). The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence indicates the assailant did in
fact touch the passenger door. Mrs. Markham apparently said this to the police at the
scene, and even demonstrated this to them, as we see in the WFAA footage. And,
another witness reported the gunman put his hands on the front passenger door.
Furthermore, why would a bystander have touched the front passenger door and the
right front fender? No witness reported touching the front passenger door or the right
front fender, nor did any bystander report seeing another bystander do so.
Additionally, the location of the passenger-door prints is significant: They were located
just beneath the door's small vent window, and it was through this same window that the
killer apparently spoke with Tippit, as Myers himself points out (p. 67). The vent window,
moreover, was found open when police arrived to the scene. So the most logical
conclusion is that the killer made the fingerprints that were found beneath the vent
window as he spoke with Tippit through that window. But Myers cannot accept this
because the fingerprints are not Oswald’s.
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view)
Only one witness mentioned that Tippit and the killer spoke through the window, so just because no one mentioned seeing the killer touch the fender does not prove anything. The prints below the vent window are consistent with the killer having spoken with Tippit through the window, as the witness reported.
No one cares about your book "review".
Nothing I said is "wrong".
The two witnesses who stated that the killer touched the door were Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt. Markham was on the wrong side of the street to make that determination. Burt was also on the other side of the street and roughly 400 feet away. Burt's angle suggests that he could have seen the killer touch the door, had the killer indeed done so. So, if Jimmy Burt says it, it must be true?
-
No one cares about your book "review".
Nothing I said is "wrong".
The two witnesses who stated that the killer touched the door were Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt. Markham was on the wrong side of the street to make that determination. Burt was also on the other side of the street and roughly 400 feet away. Burt's angle suggests that he could have seen the killer touch the door, had the killer indeed done so. So, if Jimmy Burt says it, it must be true?
Myers has this re-creation of Markham's view of the encounter. As you point out, any shooter would be talking to Tippit on the opposite side of where she could see the discussion. I can't see how she could see the shooter place his hands on the door beneath the window. And nowhere does she mention anything about touching the fender.
Note: The car on the corner on the other side of the intersection was *not* where Tippit's car was parked. He was parked further down the street to the left on 10th Street.
This "apparently" she told the police he touched the door is quite revealing. This is a Mark Lane type argument.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12504847280/Keyfk5vsev2kjnu/Markham view.JPG)
-
Markham interview:
Question: "Was he [i.e, the shooter] on the driver's side or on the other side?
Markham: "On the other side."
Question: "Did he stick his head in the window?"
Markham: "Yes sir, he folded his hands like this, he put them over the window..above the window..and he leaned over like this."
"Above the window." It's not clear to me how she was able to see some of these details; not from where she was. But this is what she said she saw him do.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12504874058/Keyvbcpcuop73t7/markham hands.JPG)
Full interview here:
-
Myers has this re-creation of Markham's view of the encounter. As you point out, any shooter would be talking to Tippit on the opposite side of where she could see the discussion. I can't see how she could see the shooter place his hands on the door beneath the window. And nowhere does she mention anything about touching the fender.
This "apparently" she told the police he touched the door is quite revealing. This is a Mark Lane type argument.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12504847280/Keyfk5vsev2kjnu/Markham view.JPG)
Also.... Jack Tatum drove past Tippit's patrol car as Tippit talked to Oswald through the passenger vent window and Tatum said Oswald had his hands inside his jacket pockets as he leaned forward to talk to Tippit.
-
Also.... Jack Tatum drove past Tippit's patrol car as Tippit talked to Oswald through the passenger vent window and Tatum said Oswald had his hands inside his jacket pockets as he leaned forward to talk to Tippit.
Was Tippit's car that close to the intersection?
-
Was Tippit's car that close to the intersection?
I'm not sure what Jack Tatum driving past the stopped patrol car has to do with the intersection, but Tippit fell 114 feet east of the corner (based on Pete Barnes' crime scene measurements and drawings).
-
Markham's same day (11/22/63) affidavit. "Arms on the door."
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339427/m1/1/?q=Markham
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12506003623/Keydfn6aql9jjfj/Markham affidavit.JPG)
-
I'm not sure what Jack Tatum driving past the stopped patrol car has to do with the intersection, but Tippit fell 114 feet east of the corner (based on Pete Barnes' crime scene measurements and drawings).
Is that Tippit's car in the photo?
If so, my question remains: Was it that close to the intersection?
-
A better view of what Markham likely saw. Tippit's car would have been on the left, down the street, and not on the corner. Again, from Myer's "With Malice."
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12506256548/Key529349b6ibtc/tippit car 3.JPG)
-
Is that Tippit's car in the photo?
If so, my question remains: Was it that close to the intersection?
What photo are you referring to?
-
What photo are you referring to?
Never mind.
Jeez.
-
No one cares about your book "review".
Nothing I said is "wrong".
The two witnesses who stated that the killer touched the door were Helen Markham and Jimmy Burt. Markham was on the wrong side of the street to make that determination. Burt was also on the other side of the street and roughly 400 feet away. Burt's angle suggests that he could have seen the killer touch the door, had the killer indeed done so. So, if Jimmy Burt says it, it must be true?
The point I was leading up to (but ignored by the thread's creator) is that just because Jimmy Burt said the killer put his hands on the door doesn't mean it's a fact that the killer indeed placed his hands on the door.
Jimmy Burt also stated that when Tippit pulled up alongside the guy, he (Tippit) leaned over and rolled down the window. The window was NOT rolled down. Burt made an assumption about the window and therefore could have made an assumption about the killer touching the door.
-
... therefore could have made an assumption about the killer touching the door.
:D He usually ate eggs in the morning but hated oatmeal.
-
He usually ate eggs in the morning but hated oatmeal.
You sound as though you're full of beans.
-
The point I was leading up to (but ignored by the thread's creator) is that just because Jimmy Burt said the killer put his hands on the door doesn't mean it's a fact that the killer indeed placed his hands on the door.
Jimmy Burt also stated that when Tippit pulled up alongside the guy, he (Tippit) leaned over and rolled down the window. The window was NOT rolled down. Burt made an assumption about the window and therefore could have made an assumption about the killer touching the door.
Helen Markham also said the man touched the door. In addition, she, too, said the window was rolled down. I quote from her WC testimony.
<<<
Mr. BALL. The police car stopped?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What about the man? Was he still walking?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The man stopped.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you see the man do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
Mr. BALL. And the policeman was sitting where?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the driver's side.
Mr. BALL. He was sitting behind the wheel?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was he alone in the car?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what happened?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know, the police are nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked, and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes this man made--
Mr. BALL. What did you see the policeman do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. See the policeman? Well, this man, like I told you, put his arms up, leaned over, he just a minute, and he drew back and he stepped back about two steps. Mr. Tippit--
Mr. BALL. The policeman?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The policeman calmly opened the car door, very slowly, wasn't angry or nothing, he calmly crawled out of this car, and I still just thought a friendly conversation, maybe disturbance in the house, I did not know; well, just as the policeman got. . . .
>>>
One of the officers may have rolled up the window before the car was photographed.
We both know that if those fingerprints had turned out to be Oswald's, you would not be reaching and straining to deny that the killer touched the door.
-
Helen Markham also said the man touched the door. In addition, she, too, said the window was rolled down. I quote from her WC testimony.
<<<
Mr. BALL. The police car stopped?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What about the man? Was he still walking?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The man stopped.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you see the man do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
Mr. BALL. And the policeman was sitting where?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the driver's side.
Mr. BALL. He was sitting behind the wheel?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was he alone in the car?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what happened?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know, the police are nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked, and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes this man made--
Mr. BALL. What did you see the policeman do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. See the policeman? Well, this man, like I told you, put his arms up, leaned over, he just a minute, and he drew back and he stepped back about two steps. Mr. Tippit--
Mr. BALL. The policeman?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The policeman calmly opened the car door, very slowly, wasn't angry or nothing, he calmly crawled out of this car, and I still just thought a friendly conversation, maybe disturbance in the house, I did not know; well, just as the policeman got. . . .
>>>
One of the officers may have rolled up the window before the car was photographed.
We both know that if those fingerprints had turned out to be Oswald's, you would not be reaching and straining to deny that the killer touched the door.
Of course Markham believed the window was down since she had just watched the two men converse; one inside the car and the other standing outside the car. You really don't understand this?
-
• Early police reports, plus individual witness testimonies, said the killer was wearing a white shirt. But Oswald was wearing a dark rust-brown shirt, CE 150. . . .
This is incorrect. Oswald was most definitely wearing a white T-shirt in addition to the brown arrest shirt.
-
Markham said the window was down but it wasn't. Again: we have the actual photos of the car and they show it was up. The vent was open.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12502613771/Keymiac7d9tph8f/tippit car 2.JPG)
The part where she said the killer placed his arms - not his hands - on the window ledge is conveniently overlooked.
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
This is really a microcosm of conspiracy reasoning. This is how they evaluate evidence/information. Someone says "A" and that's it if it fits their beliefs, their conspiracy. Any other evidence, including physical, is ignored. If someone said the car was red but photos say it was blue then the conspiracy response is to ignore the physical evidence or claim the photos are faked. X-rays, Zapruder film, backyard photo. Again and again.
-
So we have multiple photos taken at the scene showing the window on the car was up not down and it's still not enough.
You cannot reason with the conspiracy mind. We think if somehow we re-word our answers, select the right phrases, explain it another way, that something will connect. It rarely does.
There are reasonable JFK conspiracy believers - some very smart, smarter than me - and unreasonable believers. It's things like this that distinguish between the two.
-
So we have multiple photos taken at the scene showing the window on the car was up not down and it's still not enough.
You cannot reason with the conspiracy mind. We think if somehow we re-word our answers, select the right phrases, explain it another way, that something will connect. It rarely does.
There are reasonable JFK conspiracy believers - some very smart, smarter than me - and unreasonable believers. It's things like this that distinguish between the two.
Well said.
-
Of course Markham believed the window was down since she had just watch the two men converse; one inside the car and the other standing outside the car. You really don't understand this?
The vent window was open. You really don't understand this?
I see you're dancing around the fact that Markham said the killer touched the car while speaking with Tippit, quibbling by inferring that she must have described a different spot than where they found the fingerprints. Yes, of course.
Again, if those prints had turned out to be Oswald's, we both know you would be citing this as hard evidence of Oswald's guilt.
-
The vent window was open. You really don't understand this?
I see you're dancing around the fact that Markham said the killer touched the car while speaking with Tippit, quibbling by inferring that she must have described a different spot than where they found the fingerprints. Yes, of course.
Again, if those prints had turned out to be Oswald's, we both know you would be citing this as hard evidence of Oswald's guilt.
The vent window was open. You really don't understand this?
But... That is NOT what Markham said. Right? Take your time.
-
• A murder weapon of the caliber used to kill Tippit was found abandoned in a downtown street of Dallas in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23, 1963, hours after the murder of Tippit, and turned in to the Dallas Police that morning--a .38 Special revolver found with an apple and orange in a paper bag by a street curb, evidently tossed from a moving car.
A revolver was found in a brown paper sack nowhere near Dealey Plaza and certainly nowhere near Oak Cliff. What makes this revolver a "murder weapon"? How is it evident that the revolver was "tossed from a moving car"? A lot of assumptions here.
-
Buried in one of Dale Myers' endnotes is the fact that a key witness to the Tippit shooting, William Smith, initially said the killer was not Oswald (p. 615 n 390). An anonymous person informed the FBI that Smith had been at the Tippit scene, that he'd seen the killer, and that Smith had said the man was "not Oswald." Like some other witnesses, when Smith was questioned by the FBI, he changed his tune and gave a story more in keeping with the lone-gunman scenario.
Smith told the FBI he initially did not think the gunman was Oswald because when he first saw Oswald on TV after the assassination it looked like Oswald had light-colored hair. This strikes me as a dubious explanation for Smith's change of story. I've watched all of the post-assassination TV footage of Oswald, and I would invite anyone to find a clip from that footage in which Oswald seems to have light-colored hair.
Of course, Smith might not have said this--we have only the word of the FBI agent who interviewed him that he in fact gave this explanation. Numerous witnesses complained that the FBI agents who interviewed them misrepresented what they said or only mentioned selected parts of their accounts. This is not to say that all FBI agents did this, but we know that some did.
Furthermore, what about the killer's facial features, and his height, weight, and so forth? Given the fact that Smith got a good look at the killer, one would think he should have been able to base his initial opinion on more than just the appearance of hair on a black-and-white TV screen.
-
[...]
Smith told the FBI he initially did not think the gunman was Oswald because when he first saw Oswald on TV after the assassination it looked like Oswald had light-colored hair. This strikes me as a dubious explanation for Smith's change of story. I've watched all of the post-assassination TV footage of Oswald, and I would invite anyone to find a clip from that footage in which Oswald seems to have light-colored hair.
I'll leave obvious optical illusions to others, but I will ask, is the dress below white with gold accents or blue with black accents?
(https://expresswriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/blue-black-gold-white-dress-300x200.jpg)