JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on March 14, 2026, 12:39:00 PM
-
S.M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_4a44e9f30e1740faad7dec65fd9c2afb~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_740,h_738,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_4a44e9f30e1740faad7dec65fd9c2afb~mv2.png)
S. M. Holland and Mark Lane in a scene from Rush to Judgment.
There are some serious inconsistencies with S.M. Holland's statements and testimony about his supposed sighting of "smoke" on the grassy knoll.
Here is his statement to the Sheriff's Department:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_9b5fb3c63a614eddbfe9b6f426532fb2~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_740,h_521,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_9b5fb3c63a614eddbfe9b6f426532fb2~mv2.png)
Holland says that "I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke," and then he heard three more shots. The only puff of smoke he saw came from the first shot.
Which would mean that the fatal head shot would not have come from the grassy knoll, according to Holland.
He also said that "everything is spinning in my head."
Here is the FBI report on S. M. Holland:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_5eb474b2fd0e4e15ba6761ad839d11d6~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_610,h_898,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_5eb474b2fd0e4e15ba6761ad839d11d6~mv2.jpg)
The FBI report states that "one of the officers in the front seat of the Presidential car stood up with a machine gun in his hands and was looking back from the car when it immediately speeded up, throwing this officer back across the front seat."
This did not happen. The Secret Service agent who drew his AR-15 was George Hickey in the follow-up car. And he did not fall back on the seat.
Here is an excerpt of S. M. Holland's Warren Commission testimony:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_0f01427b159c4344bdedfda266707e5f~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_740,h_106,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_0f01427b159c4344bdedfda266707e5f~mv2.png)
Holland located those shots at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository (he wasn't sure how high) and that a later shot came from the knoll and created the smoke. This is not what he said in his initial statement.
Holland also discusses two of the motorcycle officers:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_1d1237725f5b41d08597cc824a7c457d~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_674,h_365,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_1d1237725f5b41d08597cc824a7c457d~mv2.jpg)
Once again, Officer Hargood tried to go up the embankment but he couldn't jump the curb. He left his motorcycle there running and ran up the grassy knoll. Holland clearly saw him and so this was several seconds after the shots.
When Holland was interviewed by Mark Lane, his story changed somewhat:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_3a9fa8abb64a4acc9cd591d1dfb1b4a5~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_472,h_784,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_3a9fa8abb64a4acc9cd591d1dfb1b4a5~mv2.jpg)
Now Holland is saying the smoke came from the second shot, but not from the third shot which hit JFK in the head. And so the head shot, according to Holland, did not come from the grassy knoll.
But then Holland says something different again:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_9ef2420b712246fc9088b335e6653683~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_566,h_203,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_9ef2420b712246fc9088b335e6653683~mv2.jpg)
Now the third shot came from the grassy knoll and the first two shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. It's really hard to understand Holland's sequence of shots.
In 1966, Holland said that the third and fourth shots hit JFK in the head: (pages 85 - 86 in Six Seconds in Dallas)
Thompson: Is it your opinion then ... What is your opinion? That the third and fourth did hit the President?
Holland: My opinion is that the third and the fourth shot did hit the President.
Thompson: In the head?
Holland: In the head.
In any case, the smoke drifted from under the trees:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_ed77a36080834291aa1ff6e09d4987a5~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_740,h_261,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_ed77a36080834291aa1ff6e09d4987a5~mv2.png)
In fact, the smoke lingered:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_fdc60ff4e2144e53868e4325d7cdd965~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_740,h_158,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_fdc60ff4e2144e53868e4325d7cdd965~mv2.png)
Holland was about sixty-five to seventy yards away from where he saw the smoke. The wind was quite strong in Dealey Plaza that afternoon -- so strong that Officer Marrion Baker was blown off his motorcycle.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_3f7f1dfa249041d7af604a6ed82130f8~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_318,h_388,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_3f7f1dfa249041d7af604a6ed82130f8~mv2.jpg)
In addition, the wind might have been even stronger than reports because of the cavernous effect of Dealey Plaza. Vincent Bugliosi talked to Willie Brown, a meteorologist in Asheville, North Carolina:
I've been to Dealey Plaza, and as you know there are many tall buildings in the area. When the wind, like water, is funneled through a smaller channel -- here, between buildings -- the wind will always speed up, sometimes considerably. You're forcing the same volume of air through a smaller area. It's simple physics. In a water example, a wide river may not flow rapidly, but when funneled through a narrow canyon its velocity pics up immediately.
S. M. Holland saw a few things that did not happen -- the Secret Service agent pulling his AR-15 in the Presidential car, and a motorcycle going up the embankment. Perhaps he also got the smoke wrong.
In all likelihood, a lot of what Holland saw melded in his mind. There were several ways he could have seen some smoke -- from cigarettes, from an exhaust pipe, or perhaps steam. Remember the assassination happened quickly and human beings are not video recorders.
Here is what Holland told Josiah Thompson: (page 72 in Last Second in Dallas)
Right under these trees, right at that exact spot, about ten or fifteen feet from this corner, the corner of the fence here, back this way right under this clump of trees, right under this tree ... That's where it was, just like somebody had clump [sic] a firecracker out and leave a little puff of smoke there; it was just laying there. It was white smoke. It wasn't black smoke or like a black powder. It was like a puff of a cigarette.
Yes, it was "like a puff of a cigarette."
Thompson was with Ed Kern of Life Magazine and while Holland denied it was cigarette smoke, here is what he said when they asked him about modern-day guns and ammunition, which shouldn't leave smoke:
The powder still fires. Now I know this much about hunting and guns: the smoke is not near like it was ten years ago. When you shoot you see a black puff of smoke ... just like a steam engine. They have it refined now. But you fire a gun, any gun, from a light underneath this shade you'll see a puff of smoke that'll linger there. It'll be, just like I say, dim, like a cigarette ....
Now Holland says a gun will emit black smoke but he saw white smoke on the knoll, And, once again, he brings up a cigarette. And, of course, he told Thompson that he noticed "three, four, or five cigarette butts" behind the fence.
S. M. Holland told CBS he might have seen cigarette smoke.
It is interesting that Thompson was with Ed Kern from Life Magazine but he doesn't mention anything in Last Second in Dallas about the rifle test his reporters had done -- nor does Thompson say anything about Kern's conclusion that Holland's story was a "picturesque invention after the fact."
Todd Vaughan has another possibility. He recently wrote on Facebook:
I just reviewed my very clear digital copy of the Bell film. It appears both the Presidential Limousine and the Secret Service Follow-Up cars are giving off very visible smoke as they accelerate toward and through the Triple Underpass.
Holland was still watching when this happened. Could he have seen smoke from the limousine and just thought it was from the knoll?
I'll conclude once again, with this paragraph from Stephen White's book, Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?: (page 67)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/325b1c_0a9244d5b0c24029a678ea91f080f744~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_550,h_454,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/325b1c_0a9244d5b0c24029a678ea91f080f744~mv2.png)
-
A man stood up holding a machine gun & then fell down.
After the first shot.
A 4 or 5 or 6 shot burst from the AR15 would hav made smoke.
And the later shot or a later shot (ie after the first) shot was louder.
Hickey accidentally shot jfk in the head.
As per Donahue & Menninger, & as per McLaren (but they somehow did not twig that Hickey fired a long auto burst).
Anyhow, we hav about 4 witnesses who saw a man stand up holding a machine gun.
-
A man stood up holding a machine gun & then fell down.
After the first shot.
A 4 or 5 or 6 shot burst from the AR15 would hav made smoke.
And the later shot or a later shot (ie after the first) shot was louder.
Hickey accidentally shot jfk in the head.
As per Donahue & Menninger, & as per McLaren (but they somehow did not twig that Hickey fired a long auto burst).
Anyhow, we hav about 4 witnesses who saw a man stand up holding a machine gun.
I don't think that anyone disputes SA Hickey stood up with the AR-15 when the JFK Limo was still on Elm St. Too bad there are no images of Hickey doing this at Z313. Of course, Hickey standing up with the AR-15, would have also been at the same time that SA Lem Johns claims to have jumped out of the LBJ SS Car and was running down Elm St toward the JFK Limo. Personally, I believe it is no coincidence that there is absolutely No Image Evidence of these 2 events having ever happened. Both happened at the same time, both in the same general area, and both have been erased from the pictorial history of the JFK Assassination. This specific area, this specific point in time, have become an 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza Black Hole in time. SA Hickey was spotted by Wiegman "up the knoll", when Wiegman ran up there and eventually filmed both Hester's. This Lem Johns sighting is documented in Trask's "Pictures Of The Pain". (This is important due to SA John's claiming he never physically left Elm St). This Lem Johns on-the-knoll sighting, along with Hickey waving the AR-15 around had to be erased from the record. Hence this 11/22/63 "Black Hole" in time.
-
The value of Holland's account is not the smoke stuff, but his being 1 of the 1st individuals to be back inside the parking lot on the other side of the picket fence. Still, as we can see, Holland was no spring chicken on 11//22/63. I think it took him awhile to run?/walk down the Triple Underpass and then hang a (R) and enter the parking lot. Once Holland got on the outskirts of the parking lot, he had to contend with the cars being jammed inside that parking lot. And again, this guy is no Indian Rubber Man. For him to navigate his way around those cars, probably means it took him some time before arriving at the cigarette butts and the mud on the picket fence, etc. By this time a possible shooter was long gone. Also, I have never heard/read of Holland saying anything about seeing DPD Officer Smith back there or of Holland possibly smelling gunpowder. Just my opinion, But I believe that Holland actually got back inside the parking lot several minutes after the kill shot.
-
I don't think that anyone disputes SA Hickey stood up with the AR-15 when the JFK Limo was still on Elm St. Too bad there are no images of Hickey doing this at Z313. Of course, Hickey standing up with the AR-15, would have also been at the same time that SA Lem Johns claims to have jumped out of the LBJ SS Car and was running down Elm St toward the JFK Limo. Personally, I believe it is no coincidence that there is absolutely No Image Evidence of these 2 events having ever happened. Both happened at the same time, both in the same general area, and both have been erased from the pictorial history of the JFK Assassination. This specific area, this specific point in time, have become an 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza Black Hole in time. SA Hickey was spotted by Wiegman "up the knoll", when Wiegman ran up there and eventually filmed both Hester's. This Lem Johns sighting is documented in Trask's "Pictures Of The Pain". (This is important due to SA John's claiming he never physically left Elm St). This Lem Johns on-the-knoll sighting, along with Hickey waving the AR-15 around had to be erased from the record. Hence this 11/22/63 "Black Hole" in time.
Bronson footage shows Hickey rizing then falling at Z313 then fallen back.
Then we allso hav Bell's footage of Hickey holding the AR15 all the way to the TUP, but that footage (two bursts of footage actually) starts a few seconds after Z313.
-
Bronson footage shows Hickey rizing then falling at Z313 then fallen back.
Then we allso hav Bell's footage of Hickey holding the AR15 all the way to the TUP, but that footage (two bursts of footage actually) starts a few seconds after Z313.
So where can I view this footage that CLEARLY shows SA Hickey doing everything you claim? Hickey was seated higher than everyone else inside the Queen Mary. Hickey picking up the AR-15 from the floorboard and then leaning back into a seated position, could be your seeing him, "rizing then falling....". Where are you seeing all of this SA Hickey jack-in-the-box action film footage?
-
:D A dozen people saw steam from a sealed pipeline that smelled like gunpowder.
...and they all have nothing to do with each other.
-
:D A dozen people saw steam from a sealed pipeline that smelled like gunpowder.
...and they all have nothing to do with each other.
As I mentioned earlier, that steam pipe is right on top of the grate that some claim was used by an assassin to escape from the parking lot. The claim being that the alleged "steam" was actually the cigarette smoke from a shooter that then used that grate. The "steam" stuff is just like the "cigarette smoke". Pure imagination.
-
So where can I view this footage that CLEARLY shows SA Hickey doing everything you claim? Hickey was seated higher than everyone else inside the Queen Mary. Hickey picking up the AR-15 from the floorboard and then leaning back into a seated position, could be your seeing him, "rizing then falling....". Where are you seeing all of this SA Hickey jack-in-the-box action film footage?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2836.0.html
Here iz a link to my thread re Bronson's footage.
I dont know whether any Bronson footage can be seen on the web today. Actually the museum might show a 3rd rate footage of their 2017 2nd rate copy.
The photo gallery might today show some frames snapped from the youtube of the museum's 2017 copy (before that youtube was deleted).
U might be able to view the museum's 2019 1st rate copy of the footage if u ask them.
My aforementioned thread might inklood a giff of some snapped frames. Dunno.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.80.html
Here iz a link to Holland's smoke.
-
Smelling gunpowder does not give us an indication of where the gunpowder was discharged. There simply is no forensic evidence of gunshots from anywhere other then the 6th floor of the TSBD. People's impressions. based on what they smelled or heard is not an indication of where the shots came from. Other people hearing the same shots had the impression the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. The physical evidence supports those people's impressions.
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2836.0.html
Here iz a link to my thread re Bronson's footage.
I dont know whether any Bronson footage can be seen on the web today. Actually the museum might show a 3rd rate footage of their 2017 2nd rate copy.
The photo gallery might today show some frames snapped from the youtube of the museum's 2017 copy (before that youtube was deleted).
U might be able to view the museum's 2019 1st rate copy of the footage if u ask them.
My aforementioned thread might inklood a giff of some snapped frames. Dunno.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.80.html
Here iz a link to Holland's smoke.
Thanks for providing the links. They show the 2 women standing near the lamp post far better than SA Hickey. I think you are seeing what you want to see with respect to Hickey.
-
Thanks for providing the links. They show the 2 women standing near the lamp post far better than SA Hickey. I think you are seeing what you want to see with respect to Hickey.
For sure its very blurry. I wish i had the superior 2019 copy/frames.
In the end i had to explain how Hickey managed to shoot & then fall/sit in just 2 Zapruder frames after Z312/313.
And the key problem woz uzing the footfalls of the white shoes of the lady on the grass to try to establish simultanaety of the Bronson footage with the Zapruder footage.
Critics said that Hickey woz sitting at Z313. I sayd that my analysis showed that Hickey woz sitting at Z315.
But in any case my analysis showed that Hickey could hav fired that autoburst without needing to rize much from hiz allready hi sitting pozzy on the 2 leather cases on the backseat. So, the rize needed woz less than say half a head.
-
As I mentioned earlier, that steam pipe is right on top of the grate that some claim was used by an assassin to escape from the parking lot. The claim being that the alleged "steam" was actually the cigarette smoke from a shooter that then used that grate. The "steam" stuff is just like the "cigarette smoke". Pure imagination.
Are we to believe it was actually gun smoke when no one saw a gunman behind the picket fence even though people raced to that area from both Elm St. and the overpass and Lee Bowers had a perfect view of the area from his tower during the shooting.
Or maybe you have another explanation for it.
-
Are we to believe it was actually gun smoke when no one saw a gunman behind the picket fence even though people raced to that area from both Elm St. and the overpass and Lee Bowers had a perfect view of the area from his tower during the shooting.
Or maybe you have another explanation for it.
Exactly WHO saw "steam" being emitted by that pipe at around 12:30? If you want proof of "gun smoke", you should also be asking for proof of "steam". Fair Is Fair. I believe the proof regarding the smell of "gunpowder" is far greater than any alleged proof of "gun smoke" or "steam".
-
We've got one guy in this thread yammering on about impostor Dallas policemen, getaway cars and all sorts of other nuttiness and another who continues to somehow believe that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot JFK from one of the follow-up cars. This is the sad, sad state of JFK assassination research in 2026...
-
We've got one guy in this thread yammering on about impostor Dallas policemen, getaway cars and all sorts of other nuttiness and another who continues to somehow believe that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot JFK from one of the follow-up cars. This is the sad, sad state of JFK assassination research in 2026...
It wasn't any better back in 1991 when I first started engaging online with the Anybody-But-Oswald crowd. It hasn't improved at all since. At no point has it ever been rational. The only thing that has changed is the cult seems to be smaller and getting smaller with each passing year.
We can believe all sorts of nefarious activities were going on at all levels of government or we can believe Oswald did it all by himself. Tough call.
-
Exactly WHO saw "steam" being emitted by that pipe at around 12:30? If you want proof of "gun smoke", you should also be asking for proof of "steam". Fair Is Fair. I believe the proof regarding the smell of "gunpowder" is far greater than any alleged proof of "gun smoke" or "steam".
The steam/smoke claim has for years been advanced by the conspiracy crowd. I have no idea if it was true or not nor do I care. The reason is that modern ammo emits very little smoke and it dissipates almost immediately. If someone actually saw something, we can safely say it was not a firearm unless the shooter was firing a blunderbuss.
-
The steam/smoke claim has for years been advanced by the conspiracy crowd. I have no idea if it was true or not nor do I care. The reason is that modern ammo emits very little smoke and it dissipates almost immediately. If someone actually saw something, we can safely say it was not a firearm unless the shooter was firing a blunderbuss.
Please define what you specifically mean by "modern ammo".
The "Steam/Cigarette Smoke" claim is usually made as a rebuttal to the "Gun Smoke" claim. To me, this means there was indeed something in the air on the parking lot side of the picket fence. Just looking at him, I personally do not regard Holland as a good "eyeball" witness. Still, he was a real life witness. I have not seen or even read a name attached to this steam pipe going off like a tea kettle at 12:30. I have the feeling that this is just another JFK Assassination Urban Legend.
-
Please define what you specifically mean by "modern ammo".
The "Steam/Cigarette Smoke" claim is usually made as a rebuttal to the "Gun Smoke" claim. To me, this means there was indeed something in the air on the parking lot side of the picket fence. Just looking at him, I personally do not regard Holland as a good "eyeball" witness. Still, he was a real life witness. I have not seen or even read a name attached to this steam pipe going off like a tea kettle at 12:30. I have the feeling that this is just another JFK Assassination Urban Legend.
-
Please define what you specifically mean by "modern ammo".
The "Steam/Cigarette Smoke" claim is usually made as a rebuttal to the "Gun Smoke" claim. To me, this means there was indeed something in the air on the parking lot side of the picket fence.
Just looking at him, I personally do not regard Holland as a good "eyeball" witness. Still, he was a real life witness. I have not seen or even read a name attached to this steam pipe going off like a tea kettle at 12:30. I have the feeling that this is just another JFK Assassination Urban Legend.
-
This seems awfully nitpicky. The Wiegman film shows a puff of smoke hanging over some of the trees on the knoll. The fact that Holland wasn't certain which shot corresponded to the puff of smoke does not change the fact that he said he saw a puff of smoke on the knoll, especially given that other witnesses also said they saw a puff of smoke. The smoke could not have come from the steam pipes because they were too far away, nor could it have come from the moving patrol bikes.
Plus, a number of witnesses in the motorcade and on the knoll said they smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder near/on the grassy knoll.
-
This seems awfully nitpicky. The Wiegman film shows a puff of smoke hanging over some of the trees on the knoll. The fact that Holland wasn't certain which shot corresponded to the puff of smoke does not change the fact that he said he saw a puff of smoke on the knoll, especially given that other witnesses also said they saw a puff of smoke. The smoke could not have come from the steam pipes because they were too far away, nor could it have come from the moving patrol bikes.
Plus, a number of witnesses in the motorcade and on the knoll said they smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder near/on the grassy knoll.
I am aware of only Holland and other railroad employees that were standing near him reporting "smoke" above the picket fence. This report of "smoke" could have been more of a "consensus opinion" after they huddled up and discussed things following the kill shot. This discussion would have been after they ventured inside the parking lot as a "group". They acted as a group when they went into the parking lot. I believe the "smoke" stuff is in line with "group think" too.
-
Please define what you specifically mean by "modern ammo".
The "Steam/Cigarette Smoke" claim is usually made as a rebuttal to the "Gun Smoke" claim. To me, this means there was indeed something in the air on the parking lot side of the picket fence. Just looking at him, I personally do not regard Holland as a good "eyeball" witness. Still, he was a real life witness. I have not seen or even read a name attached to this steam pipe going off like a tea kettle at 12:30. I have the feeling that this is just another JFK Assassination Urban Legend.
Why would anyone who believes the conclusions of WC need a rebuttal to something as irrelevant as whether there was steam or smoke coming from the area of the picket fence. We really don't care whether it was steam, smoke, or non-existent. We can safely say it wasn't gun smoke because that wouldn't have been seen by anyone watching the motorcade. By the time anyone turned their head in the direction of the GK, gun smoke would have dissipated.
-
Why would anyone who believes the conclusions of WC need a rebuttal to something as irrelevant as whether there was steam or smoke coming from the area of the picket fence. We really don't care whether it was steam, smoke, or non-existent. We can safely say it wasn't gun smoke because that wouldn't have been seen by anyone watching the motorcade. By the time anyone turned their head in the direction of the GK, gun smoke would have dissipated.
Must have been group think too that none of them saw a gunman behind the picket fence.
There is no credible evidence of a gunman behind the picket fence or anywhere else other than the southeast corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
-
Plus, a number of witnesses in the motorcade and on the knoll said they smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder near/on the grassy knoll.
Unless someone fired a shot while on Elm St., the smell of the gunpowder would have had to travel some distance from the firearm that discharged it. Ergo, the smell of gunpowder on Elm St. gives us no indication as to where the gunpowder was discharged from. Fortunately, we have plenty of evidence that does tell us where the gunpowder was discharged. All that evidence points to one and only one place. The sniper's nest in the TSBD.
-
Unless someone fired a shot while on Elm St., the smell of the gunpowder would have had to travel some distance from the firearm that discharged it. Ergo, the smell of gunpowder on Elm St. gives us no indication as to where the gunpowder was discharged from. Fortunately, we have plenty of evidence that does tell us where the gunpowder was discharged. All that evidence points to one and only one place. The sniper's nest in the TSBD.
So people at ground level reported smelling gun smoke, but no one reported smelling gun smoke inside the sniper's nest. How does this happen?
-
An excerpt from page 121 of Mortal Error.
……….Finally, Donahue found a statement made by S M Holland. Holland was a rail traffic supervisor with the Union Terminal Co. He had watched the motorcade come down Elm St from atop the triple overpass, and he’d received considerable attention due to his claim that he’d seen a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll at the time of the shooting. Holland’s observations about the Secret Service agent appeared in The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report , a 1967 book Donahue had read some years before:
Interviewer: After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret Service men do?
Holland: Well, i noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the car, in the President’s car.
Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the seat. Now I actually thought when they started up, I actually thought he was shot, too, because he fell backwards just like he was shot, but it jerked him down when they started off.
Interviewer: What did he do when he stood up?
Holland: He pointed this machine gun right towards that grassy knoll behind that picket fence.
Holland was transfixed. Holland had put the gun in the agent’s hands at the moment the last shot was fired and said the agent then fell over………..
-
Mortal Error was printed in 1991 & explains that SSA Hickey accidentally shot jfk with an AR15. Bonar Menninger wrote the book & Howard Donahue provided the info.
Donahue realized that Oswald did not fire the headshot in Feb 1968.
Donahue realized that an agent in the follow up car might have fired the headshot in March 1967.
Donahue realized that agent Hickey fired the headshot in about Sept 1968.
In 2024 it was discovered that Hickey had fired an accidental autoburst of at least 4 shots, the last shot being the headshot.
However the first mention in print was in The Sun Magazine on May 8 1977... that a SSA in the follow up car had fired the headshot.
However the first mention that the headshot was an accident was made by SSA Clint Hill on Nov 22 1963.
-
So people at ground level reported smelling gun smoke, but no one reported smelling gun smoke inside the sniper's nest. How does this happen?
I'm not at all surprised you were unable to follow the logic.
First of all, people are not smelling gun smoke. The smoke dissipates almost immediately. What people smell is the residue of the gunpowder discharged into the air and which can travel some distance from the firearm that discharged it. This is why people smelling gunpowder residue on Elm St is no indication of where the residue was discharged from. But this is the kind of nonsense conspiracy hobbyists have clung to for over 62 years because they still have zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
There was only one person in the sniper's nest and I'm not at all surprised he didn't report smelling gunpowder residue there.
-
Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas: Riding in the motorcade behind the President, he stated he smelled gunpowder as they passed the grassy knoll.
Patrolman Joe Smith: A Dallas police officer who reported a "distinctive smell of gun-smoke cordite" and ran toward the knoll.
Tom Dillard: A press photographer in the motorcade who stated he "very definitely smelled gunpowder".
Mrs. Earle Cabell: The wife of the Mayor of Dallas, who was "acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder".
Virgie Rachley: A bookkeeper who reported smelling "gun smoke" while on Elm Street.
Patrolman Earl Brown: Reported smelling gun powder while seeing an officer in the follow-up car swinging a gun.
-
Mortal Error was printed in 1991 & explains that SSA Hickey accidentally shot jfk with an AR15. Bonar Menninger wrote the book & Howard Donahue provided the info.
Donahue was an idiot. I can't say much for anyone who bought into his crap.
-
Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas: Riding in the motorcade behind the President, he stated he smelled gunpowder as they passed the grassy knoll.
Patrolman Joe Smith: A Dallas police officer who reported a "distinctive smell of gun-smoke cordite" and ran toward the knoll.
Tom Dillard: A press photographer in the motorcade who stated he "very definitely smelled gunpowder".
Mrs. Earle Cabell: The wife of the Mayor of Dallas, who was "acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder".
Virgie Rachley: A bookkeeper who reported smelling "gun smoke" while on Elm Street.
Patrolman Earl Brown: Reported smelling gun powder while seeing an officer in the follow-up car swinging a gun.
Not one item above is an indication a shot was fired from Elm St. or from the grassy knoll. It just tells use where certain people were when the smell of the gunpowder reached them. It doesn't tell us where that gunpowder came from.
-
Donahue was an idiot. I can't say much for anyone who bought into his crap.
Donahue did make a major error. This was re the ricochet re Oswald's missed first shot.
Donahue thort that this hit the road pavement & bits ended up hitting jfk & bits ended up in the limo.
This iz koz he tried to tick all of the boxes re the Xray & witnesses re a bullet hitting the pavement & re bits of bullet in the limo etc.
Hiz other error was that he ignored the evidences that Hickey fired a plurality of shots (at least 4).
And then McLaren came along with JFK the Smoking Gun. And he too failed to see that Hickey fired at least 4 shots.
And then i solved the Hickey thing in 2024.
I uzed the good work of Holland re the ricochet offa the overhead signal arm.
But Holland too had some silly ideas re the ricochet.
And then i solved the ricochet thing in 2023.
-
Donahue did make a major error. This was re the ricochet re Oswald's missed first shot.
Donahue thort that this hit the road pavement & bits ended up hitting jfk & bits ended up in the limo.
This iz koz he tried to tick all of the boxes re the Xray & witnesses re a bullet hitting the pavement & re bits of bullet in the limo etc.
Hiz other error was that he ignored the evidences that Hickey fired a plurality of shots (at least 4).
And then McLaren came along with JFK the Smoking Gun. And he too failed to see that Hickey fired at least 4 shots.
And then i solved the Hickey thing in 2024.
I uzed the good work of Holland re the ricochet offa the overhead signal arm.
But Holland too had some silly ideas re the ricochet.
And then i solved the ricochet thing in 2023.
There is ZERO Evidence than a shot hit the "overhead signal arm". You got Holland blowing off about this, and the Sixth Floor Museum giving him the platform to do it, but in FACT, there is literally nothing. Some guy ran into that traffic signal and knocked it down. Gary Mack called Holland about it being down and they went through that thing with a fine tooth comb. Found NOTHING.
With respect to a possible SA Hickey AR-15 firing spree, I do believe there is evidence of this having happened. I can Not say this "spree" struck JFK, but I do believe there is evidence that those shots did cause damage inside Dealey Plaza. I believe Hickey's AR-15 firing burst went in the general direction of Gordon Arnold. If you are interested let me know. I'll direct you to what I believe is Image Evidence of the damage caused inside Dealey Plaza.
-
There is ZERO Evidence than a shot hit the "overhead signal arm". You got Holland blowing off about this, and the Sixth Floor Museum giving him the platform to do it, but in FACT, there is literally nothing. Some guy ran into that traffic signal and knocked it down. Gary Mack called Holland about it being down and they went through that thing with a fine tooth comb. Found NOTHING.
With respect to a possible SA Hickey AR-15 firing spree, I do believe there is evidence of this having happened. I can Not say this "spree" struck JFK, but I do believe there is evidence that those shots did cause damage inside Dealey Plaza. I believe Hickey's AR-15 firing burst went in the general direction of Gordon Arnold. If you are interested let me know. I'll direct you to what I believe is Image Evidence of the damage caused inside Dealey Plaza.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.192.html
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.168.html
https://i.postimg.cc/TPM9r7vX/Hickey-6-shot-burst.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZTraAfTO2JHfKSBQJC-M56QhbAsGc3-CMDUgTeANoK8agQZTvVt6TpuBMiqVGhoq_SMfIHtHvhfoKrr4QIwq-EpDBpey0QvMcCdawe1KKhRh73y6U3M4vg2MB0evlL9-_MuLAbDZOaPBHd5fbD4N7GUhcIY16bH2vfbqAv99vQ_-nAdYA8I7HVmw8-qQ4oUQ-f51jBeKCSB3lOi91_O4pB5p0afQgFEBIwHxcVBVZkZUQYr9xvelG-mGMzSPL2QWCPa7cy5k3geQBBYitN1Nwfs7XWSZcH0MQN-axhuokhVxWELLbhQ61ZBFSG7bS86mckMpNFFtwcqQ84tmf1PUsOcEFTTa0-uKbuFzQUnyyQ93cGS_NP5_xEAMelsuvj7SRGCCUFxOkSFe1k5XCyNK8jJaztyLcNKs_2T-Sl1czAxXZ89bttNR8-itOcO9qoQ501ahD3yG-K-UlNeaLl8QhD-a3aJiaTqnN5NwVc4KZ-cshscvt3ZWjpJiZKvGR8BWy1-LRu5dbA7nm4W5_9sXzzWQkxE_PbnwzklomEm035OkYbGHuWP-xHBTTRSUEHkLkBoA5zTE9RziNbyJqWn8WW5ZYbjRogTr2daW_TAi_uW-nseYaS06D0MseUkzqUW5-tMBcjgbh645kBa1bnyaLnTOp5kAqr_eHx2mNEjis6p7F7rH1_mNrJvQlRqtPdax6suYMPTyoH7JKgdpZeGKzVl7=w682-h372-no?authuser=0
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2GpXdoUZ1ScB4NxbFNknmc2JQZjA6CxOGfC30x--4nznz_M1SYgSKjXVS8rEPrDADgDTnReyHMalPFBPVs5TcjibZOtHTc5MQUDZS9gIp9YZYDOjl7j8KgYESbtcl247iZIBJx1G_JVINPmN-oRKxiE3umGIEQpsDFrA8o5yW9UVxMiX9pLStBUd_oAELu8-UIt9CRfuQXyT4Nqd7oDYRVswhL-dKhW9dQo0f9UFIIhUCUSW20nkd2dW5mGXeSKgA3coloVvIXNkCUpXaUaYKI3kqw2XHrG7FLlfbkOqic-L9IxkcHzLV2RFjhZ2tOTnieRyhHANr_NK3cb38AZlM8dIbD5htbMxx98n5W41z9eAL2hnJdRhX-Tk_th8zY-KqT-wZ4UC4zhGnjDwQwOZKMESAYdAmZPbyiD-qEbjYuWR88QGNGiNB1uVzg0u_vN0r2Om-GtW2MLZkhTa44DJTMUJOWtqAZkRzUMmmxbtWRSlusv2uAwstHRgn-Qk6omHLnkrjSLMhuyy-CZMEKCextAkVcsBYEyGnfq4N7Q41BW-SeL9Gohf3NYfxuwJ1In0dDSpTmiDJt3s5XzKBmk11vGDzS-MdDbsKT_exSSmq9T9Y-tmv1mMhCghNBFk54LFmdbYcU64w0PyecBbB_6iSBoLyi0CtGP0I_bvE_bKsPxuWfmAjRTs_HS_n5Rw=w422-h372-no?authuser=0
-
It is pure speculation as to what happened with Oswald's first missed shot. We are left to make educated guesses. My guess is the bullet skipped off the pavement, struck the curb in front of James Tague, and kicked up debris which caused Tague's superficial facial wound, but that is hardly an established fact. It's one of the few unanswered questions of the JFK assassination that will likely never be answered with any certainty. We don't need to know that because we know what happened with Oswald's second and third shots. That is a certainty.
-
It is pure speculation as to what happened with Oswald's first missed shot. We are left to make educated guesses. My guess is the bullet skipped off the pavement, struck the curb in front of James Tague, and kicked up debris which caused Tague's superficial facial wound, but that is hardly an established fact. It's one of the few unanswered questions of the JFK assassination that will likely never be answered with any certainty. We don't need to know that because we know what happened with Oswald's second and third shots. That is a certainty.
"Educated guesses"? "We don't need to know..."? The guy harping about Proof and Evidence is NOW forced into considering, "educated guesses", and then running away with, "We don't need to know..."? Hilarious back peddling.
-
"Educated guesses"? "We don't need to know..."? The guy harping about Proof and Evidence is NOW forced into considering, "educated guesses", and then running away with, "We don't need to know..."? Hilarious back peddling.
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know where Oswald's second and third shots struck. Nothing that could have happened with that first shot changes the fact Oswald's second shot hit JFK in the upper back and went on to seriously wound JBC. His third shot struck JFK it the back of the head causing an unsurvivable massive brain injury. We have proof of that.
There are a number of things we don't know and probably never will. We don't know Oswald's motive nor do we need to know in order to prove he was the assassin. He would be nice to know but because he never admitted to what he did, he never would have told anyone why he did it. He didn't leave behind a manifesto explaining his actions and there was no social media in those days which often gives clues as to the motives off modern day crackpots.
If you want to be anal and take the position that the case is unsolved because we can't prove every single detail, that's your choice. I'm perfectly content knowing that Oswald was the assassin and there isn't a scrap of evidence indicating he had even a single accomplice in his crime and I really don't care where his first shot went.
-
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know where Oswald's second and third shots struck. Nothing that could have happened with that first shot changes the fact Oswald's second shot hit JFK in the upper back and went on to seriously wound JBC. His third shot struck JFK it the back of the head causing an unsurvivable massive brain injury. We have proof of that.
There are a number of things we don't know and probably never will. We don't know Oswald's motive nor do we need to know in order to prove he was the assassin. He would be nice to know but because he never admitted to what he did, he never would have told anyone why he did it. He didn't leave behind a manifesto explaining his actions and there was no social media in those days which often gives clues as to the motives off modern day crackpots.
If you want to be anal and take the position that the case is unsolved because we can't prove every single detail, that's your choice. I'm perfectly content knowing that Oswald was the assassin and there isn't a scrap of evidence indicating he had even a single accomplice in his crime and I really don't care where his first shot went.
You're avoiding addressing the obvious. You got 3 hulls vs physical evidence of only 2 bullets. That's a Big problem. This "lost bullet" stuff is David Copperfield worthy. When do you saw the lady in half?
-
You've got three hulls and only two bullets. That's a Big problem. This "lost bullet" stuff is David Copperfield worthy.
Dear Royell,
Should Oswald have employed a bullet catcher to catch his difficult "Z-124" bullet in case he missed everything with it (he did)?
-- Tom
-
You're avoiding addressing the obvious. You got 3 hulls vs physical evidence of only 2 bullets. That's a Big problem. This "lost bullet" stuff is David Copperfield worthy. When do you saw the lady in half?
It is absurd to expect every bullet that is fired to be recoverable, especially the bullets from missed shots. Shots that don't hit the intended target can travel great distances and are not going to always be recoverable. It isn't a problem at all that we have 3 spent hulls and only 2 recovered bullets. That missed shot ended up somewhere. We just don't know where that was nor do we need to.
-
It is absurd to expect every bullet that is fired to be recoverable, especially the bullets from missed shots. Shots that don't hit the intended target can travel great distances and are not going to always be recoverable. It isn't a problem at all that we have 3 spent hulls and only 2 recovered bullets. That missed shot ended up somewhere. We just don't know where that was nor do we need to.
For starters, where is there Evidence of a "missed shot"? And didn't the HSCA claim a 4th shot was a "missed shot". This "missed shot" stuff cuts both ways. But this is where you are at. Now claiming that Oswald while standing up, fired a "missed shot" through a 1/2 open window. Ludicrous.
-
It is absurd to expect every bullet that is fired to be recoverable, especially the bullets from missed shots. Shots that don't hit the intended target can travel great distances and are not going to always be recoverable. It isn't a problem at all that we have 3 spent hulls and only 2 recovered bullets. That missed shot ended up somewhere. We just don't know where that was nor do we need to.
There were 2 shots from the Carcano, & we found say 1.25 slugs from the Carcano (a whole slug from Z218)(bits of lead from Z218 in Connolly)(the brass in the limo from the ricochet at Z110)(bits of lead in the limo from Z110)(bits of lead on jfk's head from Z110).
And Hickey fired at least 4 shots & we found say 0.1 slugs from the AR15 (bits of lead in jfk's head & brain from Z312)(bits of lead on windshield from Z312)(bits of lead in limo from Z312--Z300)(smear of lead on kerb near Tague from Z300)(we might be able to add to that 0.1 slugs about 0.75 of a slug ie a partial slug was found up on the TUP in about 1977? possibly from Z300 or Z???).
-
For starters, where is there Evidence of a "missed shot"? And didn't the HSCA claim a 4th shot was a "missed shot". This "missed shot" stuff cuts both ways. But this is where you are at. Now claiming that Oswald while standing up, fired a "missed shot" through a 1/2 open window. Ludicrous.
There were three spent shells and only two recovered bullets. Prima fascia evidence of a missed shot.
The HSCA conclusions were FUBAR. They allowed themselves to be duped by junk science which was never peer reviewed and thoroughly debunked after they published their findings.
Up until now, I hadn't claimed Oswald stood up. However, the first shot would have been fired at more vertical downward trajectory than the first two shots. That would have forced Oswald to raise himself somewhat in order elevate the butt end of the rifle and fire downward at a target moving across his line of fire. This made the first the most difficult of the three since the subsequent shots were fired with his target moving almost directly away from him. The first shot, while being the shortest, was by far the most difficult of the three for the reasons stated. I doubt Oswald stood completely up for that first shot but he probably rose up part way to fire that first shot.
PS. Do you have any credible evidence of anyone other than Oswald taking part in the assassination. Don't feel bad if you don't. After 62 years, nobody else has either.
-
There were three spent shells and only two recovered bullets. Prima fascia evidence of a missed shot.
The HSCA conclusions were FUBAR. They allowed themselves to be duped by junk science which was never peer reviewed and thoroughly debunked after they published their findings.
Up until now, I hadn't claimed Oswald stood up. However, the first shot would have been fired at more vertical downward trajectory than the first two shots. That would have forced Oswald to raise himself somewhat in order elevate the butt end of the rifle and fire downward at a target moving across his line of fire. This made the first the most difficult of the three since the subsequent shots were fired with his target moving almost directly away from him. The first shot, while being the shortest, was by far the most difficult of the three for the reasons stated. I doubt Oswald stood completely up for that first shot but he probably rose up part way to fire that first shot.
PS. Do you have any credible evidence of anyone other than Oswald taking part in the assassination. Don't feel bad if you don't. After 62 years, nobody else has either.
Are you Now running away from a shot striking the traffic signal support beam? In order to hit that traffic signal, a shooter has to be standing up. Not merely "rose up" as you claim. Standing erect was part of that razzle dazzle/visual aid that Max Holland provided on "The Lost Bullet". Your fudging with the firing stance of the shooter shows your awareness of the weak hand you are attempting to play.
"Junk Science"? Says the man that likes to proffer "Hunting Shows" as evidence. Pot meet kettle.
-
Are you Now running away from a shot striking the traffic signal support beam? In order to hit that traffic signal, a shooter has to be standing up. Not merely "rose up" as you claim. Standing erect was part of that razzle dazzle/visual aid that Max Holland provided on "The Lost Bullet". Your fudging with the firing stance of the shooter shows your awareness of the weak hand you are attempting to play.
"Junk Science"? Says the man that likes to proffer "Hunting Shows" as evidence. Pot meet kettle.
Why would I run away from a position I never took. There is no conclusive evidence as to where that first shot hit and where it ended up. It isn't necessary to establish that because we have proof positive of where the second and third shots hit.
I have no obligation to defend Max Holland's hypothesis. I've never been a proponent of his theories. I don't have a weak hand because I'm not even in that game.
As for the hunting shows, it is an observable fact that can be replicated. Cameramen on these shows invariably jiggled their handheld cameras upon hearing the sound of a high powered rifle, even though they knew the shot was coming and it didn't startle them. It isn't just gunshots which cause camera jiggle. Many other sounds can cause it. A handheld camera will almost always have some slight movement but that movement is accentuated when there is a loud noise such as a rifle shot.
-
Why would I run away from a position I never took. There is no conclusive evidence as to where that first shot hit and where it ended up. It isn't necessary to establish that because we have proof positive of where the second and third shots hit.
I have no obligation to defend Max Holland's hypothesis. I've never been a proponent of his theories. I don't have a weak hand because I'm not even in that game.
As for the hunting shows, it is an observable fact that can be replicated. Cameramen on these shows invariably jiggled their handheld cameras upon hearing the sound of a high powered rifle, even though they knew the shot was coming and it didn't startle them. It isn't just gunshots which cause camera jiggle. Many other sounds can cause it. A handheld camera will almost always have some slight movement but that movement is accentuated when there is a loud noise such as a rifle shot.
They found a hole in the floor of the limo (between the Connolys) when they worked on the limo in Dec 1963.
I showed a photo of the hole in my thread.
The bullet hole iz now covered by a layer of titanium or steel on top, so u would need to look from underneath.
-
They found a hole in the floor of the limo (between the Connolys) when they worked on the limo in Dec 1963.
I showed a photo of the hole in my thread.
The bullet hole iz now covered by a layer of titanium or steel on top, so u would need to look from underneath.
Source?
-
Source?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2853.msg158462.html#msg158462
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2853.msg158462.html#msg158462
How is a photo of a reenactment a source for your claim that there was a bullet hole the floor of the presidential limo? You are citing yourself as a source and everything you are presenting is argumentative, speculation, and circular logic.
-
How is a photo of a reenactment a source for your claim that there was a bullet hole the floor of the presidential limo? You are citing yourself as a source and everything you are presenting is argumentative, speculation, and circular logic.
Yeah, but that photo did capture the Traffic Signal Support Beam which your buddy Max Holland claimed Oswald struck while firing from a standing position. You consistently demand "Evidence" from everyone on this Forum, and then YOU support a "LOST Bullet". And that's only because you are stuck doing so due to the 3 hulls being found inside the sniper's nest. Be consistent here. If it's evidence YOU demand, then it's evidence YOU must deliver too. If YOU are gonna claim 3 shots, then YOU gotta find that alleged "Lost Bullet".
-
Yeah, but that photo did capture the Traffic Signal Support Beam which your buddy Max Holland claimed Oswald struck while firing from a standing position. You consistently demand "Evidence" from everyone on this Forum, and then YOU support a "LOST Bullet". And that's only because you are stuck doing so due to the 3 hulls being found inside the sniper's nest. Be consistent here. If it's evidence YOU demand, then it's evidence YOU must deliver too. If YOU are gonna claim 3 shots, then YOU gotta find that alleged "Lost Bullet".
Why do you refer to Max Holland as my buddy. I have never endorsed his theories. His claim that Oswald's first shot struck the traffic arm is a possibility but hardly and established fact. It is completely unnecessary to determine what happened to that first shot because we have definitive proof of what the second and third shots did.
I understand why conspiracy hobbyists resist calls for evidence given that their theories are inevitably based on speculation and imagination. The three hulls are evidence. They are an indication of 3 shots but not proof positive by themselves. Taken in conjunction with everything else we know, it is a virtual certainty that 3 shots were fired. Those three hulls were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle found elsewhere on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The same can be said for the two recovered bullets. Proof positive the Carcano was the murder weapon.
-
Why do you refer to Max Holland as my buddy. I have never endorsed his theories. His claim that Oswald's first shot struck the traffic arm is a possibility but hardly and established fact. It is completely unnecessary to determine what happened to that first shot because we have definitive proof of what the second and third shots did.
I understand why conspiracy hobbyists resist calls for evidence given that their theories are inevitably based on speculation and imagination. The three hulls are evidence. They are an indication of 3 shots but not proof positive by themselves. Taken in conjunction with everything else we know, it is a virtual certainty that 3 shots were fired. Those three hulls were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle found elsewhere on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The same can be said for the two recovered bullets. Proof positive the Carcano was the murder weapon.
Here you go again. Demanding "evidence" from others and then doing a tap dance with Max by posing the "possibility" of a shot striking the traffic arm. What "evidence" is there of a shot striking that traffic arm? You look extremely weak with the double standard you are applying.
-
Here you go again. Demanding "evidence" from others and then doing a tap dance with Max by posing the "possibility" of a shot striking the traffic arm. What "evidence" is there of a shot striking that traffic arm? You look extremely weak with the double standard you are applying.
I guess I should have typed slower so you could follow along. Recognizing something as a possibility requires no evidence. Evidence is needed when someone is stating something as a fact. I have no double standards. If I make a claim, I provide the evidence to support that claim. I don't rely on speculation or suppositions in making my claims. It's perfectly fine to speculate about possibilities as long as one doesn't present them as if they are established facts. Did Oswald's first shot strike the traffic arm. I have no way of knowing. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Unless someone has evidence that establishes that it did or evidence that establishes it could not have, it remains an open question. It's a question that likely will never have a definitive answe.
-
I guess I should have typed slower so you could follow along. Recognizing something as a possibility requires no evidence. Evidence is needed when someone is stating something as a fact. I have no double standards. If I make a claim, I provide the evidence to support that claim. I don't rely on speculation or suppositions in making my claims. It's perfectly fine to speculate about possibilities as long as one doesn't present them as if they are established facts. Did Oswald's first shot strike the traffic arm. I have no way of knowing. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Unless someone has evidence that establishes that it did or evidence that establishes it could not have, it remains an open question. It's a question that likely will never have a definitive answe.
So the man demanding Evidence from others, now admits to pushing a: (1)"possibly", (2) "maybe" and (3) "open question". The knot you are tying yourself into is not easy to watch.
-
How is a photo of a reenactment a source for your claim that there was a bullet hole the floor of the presidential limo? You are citing yourself as a source and everything you are presenting is argumentative, speculation, and circular logic.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3frYKg1R44fdSxFV1NTyfMJUFJpHrCQPgEJuHKrrF4-uUhzTB1UQdeLhyym7im915BI2BlpFqkbeZs2DS9bZfhEe5MfQxx6_yYjrj1bNH5ZhqKySKPIQtbOqi40oce135QyUlUEZUAk-9JoZIGkFnhj=w174-h113-no?authuser=0)
https://sites.google.com/view/oswaldsfirstshot/home
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dShkKXnwGa3RAtNAL2aZM1csdGmxQD_ruJ8ogot8G4aoWfe6HtZ-uU_oH2Ei4RgNKbl9us1FnuVSRATgFRl2MdPz1OBiB7TUBry68pF-VkCZor5HACzgJzzd-xlmG6E495TuI_Vp3yfbj4Kp8bvoVy=w735-h1007-no?authuser=0)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3fRVi5fzFS2WhE2O0uk5M_ixmSLLIIfZNRuDe832qDeGX_0mW-aaWlHeKYHaAQ-ALui7sKiV6PQO2ozDDPiPx10gERzfopE-BXU41byLdTKMRXeW8aTJoKq2sJdOWyc-Gs-TfZjSWBMkcEHtnvdrBne=w735-h1007-no?authuser=0)
https://sites.google.com/view/oswaldsfirstshot/home
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPNYhsVvFb7NjNyOvPCyTnGtmP3XpWWM2GN9PYxT-RiaYBjC1sygstEOSKU718Jyg?key=bmtZbEUzbERLb3l4TW5aeFBrem5tS1dzZVVuNm9B
-
So the man demanding Evidence from others, now admits to pushing a: (1)"possibly", (2) "maybe" and (3) "open question". The knot you are tying yourself into is not easy to watch.
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. What is? I have made very clear my positions on any number of issues. There are many things we know because there is a wealth of evidence for those things. We know Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and wounded JBC. We know Oswald murdered JDT. There is a wealth of incontrovertible evidence to support all of that. There are things we don't know for sure because the evidence is either inconclusive or non-existent. By applying critical thinking to the available evidence, I know what we know and what we don't know. There are issues for which we do NOT have conclusive evidence. The best we can do for those issues is recognize the various possibilities while also recognizing we cannot come to definite conclusions for those things. Not having definite conclusions for some issues, does not preclude us for reaching conclusions for which we have defintive evidence. If you still can't understand what I am saying, try finding a fifth grader to explain it to you.
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3frYKg1R44fdSxFV1NTyfMJUFJpHrCQPgEJuHKrrF4-uUhzTB1UQdeLhyym7im915BI2BlpFqkbeZs2DS9bZfhEe5MfQxx6_yYjrj1bNH5ZhqKySKPIQtbOqi40oce135QyUlUEZUAk-9JoZIGkFnhj=w174-h113-no?authuser=0)
https://sites.google.com/view/oswaldsfirstshot/home
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dShkKXnwGa3RAtNAL2aZM1csdGmxQD_ruJ8ogot8G4aoWfe6HtZ-uU_oH2Ei4RgNKbl9us1FnuVSRATgFRl2MdPz1OBiB7TUBry68pF-VkCZor5HACzgJzzd-xlmG6E495TuI_Vp3yfbj4Kp8bvoVy=w735-h1007-no?authuser=0)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3fRVi5fzFS2WhE2O0uk5M_ixmSLLIIfZNRuDe832qDeGX_0mW-aaWlHeKYHaAQ-ALui7sKiV6PQO2ozDDPiPx10gERzfopE-BXU41byLdTKMRXeW8aTJoKq2sJdOWyc-Gs-TfZjSWBMkcEHtnvdrBne=w735-h1007-no?authuser=0)
https://sites.google.com/view/oswaldsfirstshot/home
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPNYhsVvFb7NjNyOvPCyTnGtmP3XpWWM2GN9PYxT-RiaYBjC1sygstEOSKU718Jyg?key=bmtZbEUzbERLb3l4TW5aeFBrem5tS1dzZVVuNm9B
Did you happen to notice the word "speculation" in the first paragraph of that memo. The alleged bullet hole in the floorboard is speculation, not a conclusion based on evidence.
-
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. What is? I have made very clear my positions on any number of issues. There are many things we know because there is a wealth of evidence for those things. We know Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and wounded JBC. We know Oswald murdered JDT. There is a wealth of incontrovertible evidence to support all of that. There are things we don't know for sure because the evidence is either inconclusive or non-existent. By applying critical thinking to the available evidence, I know what we know and what we don't know. There are issues for which we do NOT have conclusive evidence. The best we can do for those issues is recognize the various possibilities while also recognizing we cannot come to definite conclusions for those things. Not having definite conclusions for some issues, does not preclude us for reaching conclusions for which we have defintive evidence. If you still can't understand what I am saying, try finding a fifth grader to explain it to you.
I believe Oswald was involved in the assassination. What's your "incontrovertible evidence" that he was inside the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM?
-
I believe Oswald was involved in the assassination. What's your "incontrovertible evidence" that he was inside the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM?
For starters, his fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and they were oriented exactly as the would be if he had been facing down Elm St. The shells found in the sniper's nest were positively matched to the rifle found elsewhere on the sixth floor to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there when the rifle was disassembled which it would have to have been to fit in the bag found near the sniper's nest. The bag had Oswald's finger and palm print on it and contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. Fresh fibers were found on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. The only two bullets recovered from the shooting matched the rifle on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. There was a paper trail that proved Oswald ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods and there are several photos of Oswald holding that rifle. In what Bizarro universe could all the evidence be present if Oswald was not the shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest.
As if that wasn't enough, Oswald leaves his workplace without authorization in the middle of the day, goes to his rooming house to retrieve his revolver which he used to kiil JDT less than 45 minutes later. Why don't you embarrass yourself further by asking me to provide evidence Oswald murdered Tippit.
The only way there could have been more evidence Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's nest is if he had take a selfie of himself with the rifle in the sniper's nest at 12:29.
-
For starters, his fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and they were oriented exactly as the would be if he had been facing down Elm St. The shells found in the sniper's nest were positively matched to the rifle found elsewhere on the sixth floor to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there when the rifle was disassembled which it would have to have been to fit in the bag found near the sniper's nest. The bag had Oswald's finger and palm print on it and contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. Fresh fibers were found on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. The only two bullets recovered from the shooting matched the rifle on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. There was a paper trail that proved Oswald ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods and there are several photos of Oswald holding that rifle. In what Bizarro universe could all the evidence be present if Oswald was not the shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest.
As if that wasn't enough, Oswald leaves his workplace without authorization in the middle of the day, goes to his rooming house to retrieve his revolver which he used to kiil JDT less than 45 minutes later. Why don't you embarrass yourself further by asking me to provide evidence Oswald murdered Tippit.
The only way there could have been more evidence Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's nest is if he had take a selfie of himself with the rifle in the sniper's nest at 12:29.
ALL of the above does NOT answer my question. "What's your incontrovertible evidence that he was inside the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM?".
YOU can Not put Oswald inside the sniper's nest when shots were fired. Like I said, I believe he was involved in the assassination. He probably constructed the sniper's nest. He probably was also responsible for the "Wide Open" Huge Gates. Those Huge Gates permitted clandestine entrance and exit from the TSBD. This would include Oswald's exit from the TSBD after he was confronted by DPD Officer Baker inside the lunchroom. Oswald knew their plan was falling apart when he was confronted that quickly. But, you simply can Not put Oswald inside the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM. Again, your bias is getting in the way of any sound judgement on your part. This is a recurring theme, and continues tainting your opinions/observations.
-
ALL of the above does NOT answer my question. "What's your incontrovertible evidence that he was inside the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM?".
YOU can Not put Oswald inside the sniper's nest when shots were fired. Like I said, I believe he was involved in the assassination. He probably constructed the sniper's nest. He probably was also responsible for the "Wide Open" Huge Gates. Those Huge Gates permitted clandestine entrance and exit from the TSBD. This would include Oswald's exit from the TSBD after he was confronted by DPD Officer Baker inside the lunchroom. Oswald knew their plan was falling apart when he was confronted that quickly. But, you simply can Not put Oswald inside the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM. Again, your bias is getting in the way of any sound judgement on your part. This is a recurring theme, and continues tainting your opinions/observations.
If the evidence I listed isn't enough to convince you Oswald was the assassin, I can't help you. It would be sufficient for anyone with an ounce of common sense.
I don't need to put Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Oswald put Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. It's amazing that you accept that Oswald took part in the assassination but can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he was the one that pulled the trigger. The strongest argument that it was Oswald who fired the shots are the fibers that matched his shirt found on the butt plate of the rifle. The recoil of the rifle would forcefully drive the butt plate into Oswald's shirt. Here's where common sense enters into the picture. That is why fibers from Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the rifle. You have zero evidence that anybody else was in the sniper's nice when the shots were fired but you are more than willing to simply ignore all the evidence it was Oswald who fired the shots and assume somebody else did. The forensic evidence alone screams that Oswald did it, but you and every other conspiracy hobbyist over the past six decades are desperate to believe it was anybody but Oswald who did it. Why is that?
I know this is almost a rhetorical question, but what evidence do you have that "Oswald knew their plan was falling apart when he was confronted that quickly". We both know you don't deal in evidence. Assumptions seem much more appealing to you then what the evidence indicates.
One last point. Anybody who believes the nonsense you believe in which isn't supported by a shred of evidence ought not be casting aspersions about other people's "sound judgement".
-
If the evidence I listed isn't enough to convince you Oswald was the assassin, I can't help you. It would be sufficient for anyone with an ounce of common sense.
I don't need to put Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Oswald put Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. It's amazing that you accept that Oswald took part in the assassination but can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he was the one that pulled the trigger. The strongest argument that it was Oswald who fired the shots are the fibers that matched his shirt found on the butt plate of the rifle. The recoil of the rifle would forcefully drive the butt plate into Oswald's shirt. Here's where common sense enters into the picture. That is why fibers from Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the rifle. You have zero evidence that anybody else was in the sniper's nice when the shots were fired but you are more than willing to simply ignore all the evidence it was Oswald who fired the shots and assume somebody else did. The forensic evidence alone screams that Oswald did it, but you and every other conspiracy hobbyist over the past six decades are desperate to believe it was anybody but Oswald who did it. Why is that?
I know this is almost a rhetorical question, but what evidence do you have that "Oswald knew their plan was falling apart when he was confronted that quickly". We both know you don't deal in evidence. Assumptions seem much more appealing to you then what the evidence indicates.
One last point. Anybody who believes the nonsense you believe in which isn't supported by a shred of evidence ought not be casting aspersions about other people's "sound judgement".
So a prosecuting attorney proffers to the jury that the Proof of a defendant being at the murder scene is, "he put himself there"? That's, "My Cousin Vinny" material.
It's Oswald's rifle, so naturally there would be traces of his shirt, prints, skin, etc on the rifle. So what? Same goes for anything connected to the blanket.
I believe that Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime. When Officer Baker confronted Oswald so quickly, Oswald knew something had gone wrong. Maybe Oswald had that false ID on him, and he thought he was lucky that Officer Baker did Not pat him down? So he split via the Huge Gates.
-
For starters, his fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and they were oriented exactly as the would be if he had been facing down Elm St. The shells found in the sniper's nest were positively matched to the rifle found elsewhere on the sixth floor to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there when the rifle was disassembled which it would have to have been to fit in the bag found near the sniper's nest. The bag had Oswald's finger and palm print on it and contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. Fresh fibers were found on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. The only two bullets recovered from the shooting matched the rifle on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. There was a paper trail that proved Oswald ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods and there are several photos of Oswald holding that rifle. In what Bizarro universe could all the evidence be present if Oswald was not the shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest.
As if that wasn't enough, Oswald leaves his workplace without authorization in the middle of the day, goes to his rooming house to retrieve his revolver which he used to kiil JDT less than 45 minutes later. Why don't you embarrass yourself further by asking me to provide evidence Oswald murdered Tippit.
The only way there could have been more evidence Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's nest is if he had take a selfie of himself with the rifle in the sniper's nest at 12:29.
One can only wonder how many evil, evil Deep State bad guys and evil, evil Deep State bad gals were involved in the planning, the patsy-ing, the forging and planting of all of the Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the altering of all of the photos, films and X-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) cover up!
-
One can only wonder how many evil, evil Deep State bad guys and evil, evil Deep State bad gals were involved in the planning, the patsy-ing, the forging and planting of all of the Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the altering of all of the photos, films and X-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) cover up!
-
So a prosecuting attorney proffers to the jury that the Proof of a defendant being at the murder scene is, "he put himself there"? That's, "My Cousin Vinny" material.
It's Oswald's rifle, so naturally there would be traces of his shirt, prints, skin, etc on the rifle. So what? Same goes for anything connected to the blanket.
I believe that Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime. When Officer Baker confronted Oswald so quickly, Oswald knew something had gone wrong. Maybe Oswald had that false ID on him, and he thought he was lucky that Officer Baker did Not pat him down? So he split via the Huge Gates.
Any jury of consisting of people with common sense when presented with the evidence I listed would have no trouble coming to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin and have no reasonable doubt about that. It is only fanatical Oswald deniers who try to create doubt where none exists. The only plausible scenario that takes into account all of the evidence I presented is that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. Every piece of evidence I listed is probative of Oswald's guilt. You might be able to come up with an unlikely theoretical alternative explanation for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to gravitate for the least likely explanation for every piece of evidence I presented, plausibility goes out the window. There is no plausible argument for Oswald's not being the gunman that takes into account, the entire body of evidence.
If you dispute what I just wrote, present us with an alternative. Explain how Oswald's FRESH palm print got on the underside of the barrel which would only be exposed when the rifle was disassembled. Explain why the only fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were the ones from the shirt he was wearing that day. Explain why only his prints were on the rifle bag. Explain how fibers matching his blanket were found on the bag. Explain why his fingerprints were on the boxes stacked by the window oriented as they would be if he was looking down Elm St.
While we're on the subject of evidence, what evidence do you have that "Oswald was supposed to establish his alibi by being inside the lunchroom at lunchtime". What evidence do you have that "Oswald knew something was wrong". Were these the best excuses you could come up with to explain why Oswald did so many things that day that made him look guilty? You continue to dodge every challenge I've made to you to present evidence of your beliefs. 62 years of futility and the conspiracy hobbyists keep flailing away.
-
Being in the lunchroom did Not make Oswald "look guilty". Like I said, I believe he was involved. As to his being a shooter, why use your own rifle, carry it across the 6th floor, and then hide it there? You believe he planned bringing the rifle to work, constructed the sniper's nest, fires the shots and then goes into scramble mode after that? This doesn't fit.
-
Being in the lunchroom did Not make Oswald "look guilty". Like I said, I believe he was involved. As to his being a shooter, why use your own rifle, carry it across the 6th floor, and then hide it there? You believe he planned bringing the rifle to work, constructed the sniper's nest, fires the shots and then goes into scramble mode after that? This doesn't fit.
Of course it fits. It was the only option available to Oswald once he made the decision to kill JFK. We'll never know why he made that decision but we know that he did. It isn't necessary to know why. It was a crime of opportunity. Oswald was dealt a golden opportunity to become infamous but his options were limited. He had to take the shot when it was presented to him using the only tools he had. He smuggled the rifle into the TSBD. He could not have escaped the TSBD if he took his rifle with him. He had to leave it behind.
I'm not sure he even had to construct sniper's nest. A crew was laying a new floor and a lot of boxes had already been moved to the section of the 6th floor. He could have just used what was there or he could have built the wall of boxes himself. We don't know and we don't need to know. He really didn't need that wall of boxes because at the time of the shooting, he was the only one on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the floor a little earlier but he opted to join Jarman and Norman. Interesting to speculate what Oswald would have done had BRW remained on the sixth floor, but not terribly useful.
I keep asking you to present your evidence that Oswald knew something had gone wrong and you keep declining to do so. Why is that?
-
Of course it fits. It was the only option available to Oswald once he made the decision to kill JFK. We'll never know why he made that decision but we know that he did. It isn't necessary to know why. It was a crime of opportunity. Oswald was dealt a golden opportunity to become infamous but his options were limited. He had to take the shot when it was presented to him using the only tools he had. He smuggled the rifle into the TSBD. He could not have escaped the TSBD if he took his rifle with him. He had to leave it behind.
I'm not sure he even had to construct sniper's nest. A crew was laying a new floor and a lot of boxes had already been moved to the section of the 6th floor. He could have just used what was there or he could have built the wall of boxes himself. We don't know and we don't need to know. He really didn't need that wall of boxes because at the time of the shooting, he was the only one on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the floor a little earlier but he opted to join Jarman and Norman. Interesting to speculate what Oswald would have done had BRW remained on the sixth floor, but not terribly useful.
I keep asking you to present your evidence that Oswald knew something had gone wrong and you keep declining to do so. Why is that?
The fact you say, "...we don't need to know..." is an immediate disqualifier in your regard. Your mind is shut tight. If Oswald did leave the wedding ring behind, that bullhorns his involvement in the assassination. I do believe there was an escape plan which would have separated him from his family. So, he carries that rifle all the way across the 6th floor and THEN hides it? And then he jumps through several hoops to get to his boarding house and arm himself with yet another gun? And after all of this he just sits inside a theater that's showing a bad movie? But again, "....we don't need to know....".
-
The fact you say, "...we don't need to know..." is an immediate disqualifier in your regard. Your mind is shut tight. If Oswald did leave the wedding ring behind, that bullhorns his involvement in the assassination. I do believe there was an escape plan which would have separated him from his family. So, he carries that rifle all the way across the 6th floor and THEN hides it? And then he jumps through several hoops to get to his boarding house and arm himself with yet another gun? And after all of this he just sits inside a theater that's showing a bad movie? But again, "....we don't need to know....".
\
Of course we don't need to know why Oswald did it. It would be nice if we could figure it out but not necessary in order to prove that he did. Proving motive is not something that is required to convict a person for murder. All that is necessary is to prove that the accused committed the act. We have ample proof of Oswald's guilt.
Oswald didn't duck into the theater to watch a bad movie. He did that to escape detection from the police who were looking for a cop killer. If not for an alert Johnny Brewer, it might have worked. He could have sat through the double feature until dark and then left with the other patrons. Who knows where he would have gone after that. Who cares. It is a moot point.
You seem skeptical that Oswald would carry the rifle across the sixth floor and then hide it. What was he supposed to do with it? Walk out the front door carrying the rifle on his shoulder. He wasn't stupid. He would have known the rifle would eventually be found whether he left it in the sniper's nest or hid it between rows of boxes. Perhaps he thought, hiding it as he did might by him a little more time to escape. We don't need to read Oswald's mind or second guess every decision he made to know he was the assassin. We have ample proof of that.
The difference between you and me is that most of what I believe is based on rock solid evidence with a few loose ends that are left to speculation, such as Oswald's motive or what his plan was once he left the TSBD. My own belief, which is pure speculation, is he had no plan. I think he was surprised he got away from the TSBD, but that's something we can never know nor do we need to. On the other hand, EVERRYTHING you believe is based on speculation, and then only after you invent one cockamamie excuse after another to ignore each and every piece of evidence that screams to us that Oswald was the assassin.
The assassination of JFK is not a mystery and never has been. Within the first four hours, the DPD believed they had their man and in roughly 12 hours, they had accumulated enough evidence to formally charge him. Since that time, the case against Oswald has only gotten stronger. The only question that remained after that was whether he had one or more accomplices. Two government investigations and legions of amateur sleuths looking for evidence of such accomplices over six decades, no one has found any evidence to identify any accomplices. The JFK conspiracy hobby is an exercise in futility that has been striking out over and over again for 62 years. If you haven't found evidence in that time of any accomplices, what makes you think you ever will.
-
\
Of course we don't need to know why Oswald did it. It would be nice if we could figure it out but not necessary in order to prove that he did. Proving motive is not something that is required to convict a person for murder. All that is necessary is to prove that the accused committed the act. We have ample proof of Oswald's guilt.
Oswald didn't duck into the theater to watch a bad movie. He did that to escape detection from the police who were looking for a cop killer. If not for an alert Johnny Brewer, it might have worked. He could have sat through the double feature until dark and then left with the other patrons. Who knows where he would have gone after that. Who cares. It is a moot point.
You seem skeptical that Oswald would carry the rifle across the sixth floor and then hide it. What was he supposed to do with it? Walk out the front door carrying the rifle on his shoulder. He wasn't stupid. He would have known the rifle would eventually be found whether he left it in the sniper's nest or hid it between rows of boxes. Perhaps he thought, hiding it as he did might by him a little more time to escape. We don't need to read Oswald's mind or second guess every decision he made to know he was the assassin. We have ample proof of that.
The difference between you and me is that most of what I believe is based on rock solid evidence with a few loose ends that are left to speculation, such as Oswald's motive or what his plan was once he left the TSBD. My own belief, which is pure speculation, is he had no plan. I think he was surprised he got away from the TSBD, but that's something we can never know nor do we need to. On the other hand, EVERRYTHING you believe is based on speculation, and then only after you invent one cockamamie excuse after another to ignore each and every piece of evidence that screams to us that Oswald was the assassin.
The assassination of JFK is not a mystery and never has been. Within the first four hours, the DPD believed they had their man and in roughly 12 hours, they had accumulated enough evidence to formally charge him. Since that time, the case against Oswald has only gotten stronger. The only question that remained after that was whether he had one or more accomplices. Two government investigations and legions of amateur sleuths looking for evidence of such accomplices over six decades, no one has found any evidence to identify any accomplices. The JFK conspiracy hobby is an exercise in futility that has been striking out over and over again for 62 years. If you haven't found evidence in that time of any accomplices, what makes you think you ever will.
"....we don't need to know....".
Your own words taint everything you post with respect to Oswald.
-
"....we don't need to know....".
Your own words taint everything you post with respect to Oswald.
Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.
You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.
-
Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.
You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.
"....we don't need to know......". Revealing and Sad at the same time.
-
"....we don't need to know......". Revealing and Sad at the same time.
No, it is understanding the reality of the situation. There are things we can't possibly know but that doesn't mean we have to disregard what we do know. Since conspiracy hobbyists lost their grip on reality a long time ago, I'm not surprised you can't grasp that.
You express beliefs about things you couldn't possibly know, such as your belief that Oswald had somehow figured out something had gone wrong with the plot. You confuse belief with knowledge, but that seems to be a requirement for those who insist Oswald didn't fire the shots that killed JFK.
-
A lot of this uncertainty could have been avoided if Officer Baker had "patted down" Oswald inside the lunchroom. Baker was searching the building for an active shooter. He see's a man walking away from him, and he then just lets the guy go because the guy works there? If Baker had found that Phony ID on Oswald, and you believe that Oswald acted alone, then everything ends right then. This includes the Tippit shooting.
-
A lot of this uncertainty could have been avoided if Officer Baker had "patted down" Oswald inside the lunchroom. Baker was searching the building for an active shooter. He see's a man walking away from him, and he then just lets the guy go because the guy works there? If Baker had found that Phony ID on Oswald, and you believe that Oswald acted alone, then everything ends right then. This includes the Tippit shooting.
So you acknowledge Oswald murdered Tippit. We are making progress.
"If" is one of the most useless words in the English language. It doesn't count for squat. It's easy to second guess Baker after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Baker was under the impression that the shots came from the roof and he was racing up the stairs to see if he could find that person before he came down. He saw someone on the second floor. His curiosity was aroused when he saw someone walking away from him. Once Truly vouched for him, Baker made the judgement call that he should continue up the stairs toward what he though was the source of the gunfire. When a cop pats down a suspect, it's usually to determine if the suspect has a weapon or contraband. With Truly vouching for Oswald, what reason would he have to check Oswald's ID. Truly had just old him he was an employee.
I'm sure Baker wishes he had detained Oswald longer after he found out he was the assassin and that he had killed Tippit. Baker had to act based on the information he had at the time and I don't fault him for letting Oswald go and returning to his trip up the stairway.
-
So you acknowledge Oswald murdered Tippit. We are making progress.
"If" is one of the most useless words in the English language. It doesn't count for squat. It's easy to second guess Baker after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Baker was under the impression that the shots came from the roof and he was racing up the stairs to see if he could find that person before he came down. He saw someone on the second floor. His curiosity was aroused when he saw someone walking away from him. Once Truly vouched for him, Baker made the judgement call that he should continue up the stairs toward what he though was the source of the gunfire. When a cop pats down a suspect, it's usually to determine if the suspect has a weapon or contraband. With Truly vouching for Oswald, what reason would he have to check Oswald's ID. Truly had just old him he was an employee.
I'm sure Baker wishes he had detained Oswald longer after he found out he was the assassin and that he had killed Tippit. Baker had to act based on the information he had at the time and I don't fault him for letting Oswald go and returning to his trip up the stairway.
Baker did Not "act". He did the opposite.
This is not 2nd guessing. There is protocol for these situations.
When a cop "pats" someone down, they automatically check their ID. If the person is Not carrying an ID, that's a problem. Especially in a situation involving an unknown "active" shooter(s).
-
Baker did not "act." He did the opposite. This is not second guessing. There is protocol for these situations. When a cop "pats" someone down, they automatically check their ID. If the person is not carrying an ID, that's a problem. Especially in a situation involving an unknown "active" shooter(s).
Dear Royell,
Was Police Officer Cop Officer Baker just wasting time when he asked Truly if Oswald worked there?
-- Tom
-
Your ignorance is truly mind boggling. Do you really think it is necessary to prove motive to convict a person of murder or prove why he took each and every action he did? You seem to have a mindset that we have to prove every last detail in order to prove an accused person is guilty of murder. If that were true, I could walk down a busy street in any city in the country and shoot and kill a person at random and I couldn't be convicted unless the prosecution could prove why I did it. Of course we don't need to know everything. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we need to ignore what we do know. We know Oswald was the assassin, at least those of us with common sense who are aware of the evidence against him.
You, on the other hand are perfectly to believe the nonsense that someone else killed JFK even though you have zero evidence of such and zero evidence of why they did it. You'll simply believe something because you like that story better than the one supported by real evidence.
Excellent points
-
Dear Royell,
Was Police Officer Cop Officer Baker just wasting time when he asked Truly if Oswald worked there?
-- Tom
Once again, your weak JFK Assassination Foundation is showing. Baker did Not "ask" Truly if "Oswald worked there". Do the research.
-
Once again, your weak JFK Assassination Foundation is showing. Baker did Not "ask" Truly if "Oswald worked there". Do the research.
From Baker's signed report:
The manager said, "I know that man, he works here."
What difference does it make whether Baker asked Truly or Truly volunteered the information. Baker got the information and decided to continue up the stairs to where he believed the shots were fired from. Baker had no way of knowing the shooter was an employee.
-
Baker did not "ask" Truly if "Oswald worked there."
Dear Royell,
Regardless, given the fact that
1) Baker believed the shots had come from six floors higher (i.e., the roof), and
2) Oswald was on the second floor when he encountered him, and
3) Oswald was calm, and
4) Truly vouched for Oswald's employment there,
It was logical for Police Officer Cop Officer Baker to not waste time patting Oswald down to see if he was concealing a rifle in his pocket, but to let him enjoy is Coke-Cola and for Truly and himself to continue their potentially dangerous journey upwards.
-- Tom
-
From Baker's signed report:
The manager said, "I know that man, he works here."
What difference does it make whether Baker asked Truly or Truly volunteered the information. Baker got the information and decided to continue up the stairs to where he believed the shots were fired from. Baker had no way of knowing the shooter was an employee.
Your bias has blinded you. This is sad to witness.
The discussion was about Baker NOT PATTING Oswald down. Graves said that Baker asked Oswald if he worked at the TSBD. I replied this never happened. Officer Baker did NOT even do that. The Point Being? Baker's display of Total Incompetence amid searching for an "active" shooter inside the TSBD. And, Baker's incompetence can therefore also be on display in his WC Testimony. His testimony gets very blurry when he sees 2 people near the elevator, and then again with Oswald in the lunchroom and the coke bottle stuff. Please shake yourself and wake up!
-
Your bias has blinded you. This is sad to witness.
The discussion was about Baker NOT PATTING Oswald down. Graves said that Baker asked Oswald if he worked at the TSBD. I replied this never happened. Officer Baker did NOT even do that. The Point Being? Baker's display of Total Incompetence amid searching for an "active" shooter inside the TSBD. And, Baker's incompetence can therefore also be on display in his WC Testimony. His testimony gets very blurry when he sees 2 people near the elevator, and then again with Oswald in the lunchroom and the coke bottle stuff. Please shake yourself and wake up!
Your comment about my bias blinding me set off a irony alert.
You seem to be the only one fixated on Baker having not patted Oswald down, as if this was some sort of requirement. Cops do not pat down every person of interest they come in contact with. You keep insisting without any support that this was SOP.
For the record, Baker never said Oswald had a Coke when he saw him. Someone else wrote up a statement for Baker to sign, based upon notes taken during the interview. Baker read the report and initially refused to sign because he had never said Oswald had a Coke. He was asked to cross out that reference and initial the correction which he did before signing the corrected document.
-
Your comment about my bias blinding me set off a irony alert.
You seem to be the only one fixated on Baker having not patted Oswald down, as if this was some sort of requirement. Cops do not pat down every person of interest they come in contact with. You keep insisting without any support that this was SOP.
For the record, Baker never said Oswald had a Coke when he saw him. Someone else wrote up a statement for Baker to sign, based upon notes taken during the interview. Baker read the report and initially refused to sign because he had never said Oswald had a Coke. He was asked to cross out that reference and initial the correction which he did before signing the corrected document.
Please STOP with the baloney. Officer Baker entered the TSBD in search of an Active Shooter(s). Baker actually Pursued Oswald after seeing him moving away from him through the door window. Baker did Not "pat" Oswald down, or even ask him for ID. If a cop comes into contact with someone they deem to be a, "person of interest", you bet they "pat" them down. Especially when this "contact" happens while in pursuit of an Active Shooter(s).
-
Please STOP with the baloney. Officer Baker entered the TSBD in search of an Active Shooter(s). Baker actually Pursued Oswald after seeing him moving away from him through the door window. Baker did Not "pat" Oswald down, or even ask him for ID. If a cop comes into contact with someone they deem to be a, "person of interest", you bet they "pat" them down. Especially when this "contact" happens while in pursuit of an Active Shooter(s).
You keep making this claim that Baker should have patted down Oswald as a matter of SOP without ever providing any support that claim. That makes it very easy to dismiss as another red herring presented by a conspiracy hobbyist.
-
Please STOP with the baloney. Officer Baker entered the TSBD in search of an Active Shooter(s). Baker actually Pursued Oswald after seeing him moving away from him through the door window. Baker did Not "pat" Oswald down, or even ask him for ID. If a cop comes into contact with someone they deem to be a, "person of interest", you bet they "pat" them down. Especially when this "contact" happens while in pursuit of an Active Shooter(s).
Bump
-
Bump
And still no support for your unsubstantiated claim. You just made it up like you do with everything else you believe.
-
Dear Royell,
Regardless, given the fact that
1) Baker believed the shots had come from six floors higher (i.e., the roof), and
2) Oswald was on the second floor when he encountered him, and
3) Oswald was calm, and
4) Truly vouched for Oswald's employment there,
It was logical for Police Officer Cop Officer Baker to not waste time patting Oswald down to see if he was concealing a rifle in his pocket, but to let him enjoy is Coke-Cola and for Truly and himself to continue their potentially dangerous journey upwards.
-- Tom
Oswald did not hav a coke at that time, the coke was later.
Assassinations go better with coke.
-
Oswald did not have a coke at that time, the coke was later.
Assassinations go better with coke.
He may have bought one ahead of time to use as a "prop."
-
He may have bought one ahead of time to use as a "prop."
I hav explained on this forum that Oswald did hav time to buy a coke a some seconds before Baker.
But my explanation of Oswald's movements etc had him buying the coke seconds after Baker, az u say az a prop.
-
I hav explained on this forum that Oswald did hav time to buy a coke a some seconds before Baker.
But my explanation of Oswald's movements etc had him buying the coke seconds after Baker, az u say az a prop.
I'm talking about earlier that day, or maybe even a day or two before.
-
I'm talking about earlier that day, or maybe even a day or two before.
If he bort the coke earlyer in the day then he must hav grabbed it after he dumped the Carcano & then carried it downstairs.
In which case he would hav had the coke in hiz hand (or in hiz pocket) when Baker saw him.
In hiz pocket duznt work. Koz if the coke was meant to be a semi-alibi then he would hav had it in hiz hand & he would hav been waving the coke all around for anyone to see that he was not the shooter koz the shooter would not be interested in a bottle of coke.
No, earlyer in the day duznt work.
-
If he bort the coke earlyer in the day then he must hav grabbed it after he dumped the Carcano & then carried it downstairs.
In which case he would hav had the coke in hiz hand (or in hiz pocket) when Baker saw him.
In hiz pocket duznt work. Koz if the coke was meant to be a semi-alibi then he would hav had it in hiz hand & he would hav been waving the coke all around for anyone to see that he was not the shooter koz the shooter would not be interested in a bottle of coke.
No, earlyer in the day duznt work.
Have you tried Google Translate yet?
-
Have you tried Google Translate yet?
If u dont pronounce in Early Modern English then i shan't spell in Early Modern English.
-
I don't know what all the fuss about a Coke Oswald didn't have when confronted by Baker, who made a point of refusing to sign the prepared statement because it contained that erroneous reference. Oswald was seen with a Coke when he went through Mrs. Reid's office as he was heading for the front door. My guess is the person assigned to write up the prepared statements was looking at the notes from the interviews and conflated Reid's statement with Baker's. Whatever the reason, Baker was adamant Oswald did not have a Coke during their encounter. The other reason to dismiss the idea Oswald had a Coke is that he had entered the lunchroom just seconds before Baker spotted him. Baker looked through the window of the outer door and spotted Oswald through the still open inner door. The inner door had an automatic closer so if Oswald had been in the lunchroom for some time, that door would have been closed and Baker couldn't have seen him. One more bit of speculation. I don't believe Oswald intended to go to the lunchroom and only made that detour from the stairway because he heard Truly and Baker racing up the stairway from the first floor.
-
Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec. He stops. What to do next?
Should he continue down to the first floor?
Should he go to the first floor via the front stairs?
Should he lay low in the lunch room?
His jacket is in the Domino Room.
Uh Oh -- He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission.
Best to visit the coke machine & hope that whoever it is goes clean past.
They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide. He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool.
He would have been better off diving into the lunchroom in a hurry, & laying low, he knows there is no-one in there, but he knows that if seen rushing (by Truly & Co) it will be a sure sign that he is guilty of something.
He nearly makes it, another couple of slow steps & he will be out of sight.
But damn, Baker spots a bit of him throo the glass of the door & says to come back.
Truly says that Oswald works here, & Baker & Truly gallop off.
They get to the 5th floor & take the east elevator to the 7th floor.
Oswald gets a coke to look less guilty & more cool if confronted again. And assassinations go better with coke.
The back stairs are now dangerous. He heads for the front stairs, either forgetting about his jacket or deciding that his jacket is a dead duck.
But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk. Mrs Hine is also in the office but she doesn't notice Oswald, or forgets.
Reid in 3 re-enactments took exactly 120 sec to get to her desk, which is about right (ie to meet Oswald).
She says something as they pass & he mumbles something back. Its not a good look. He has no business in the office, unless wanting change for the coke machine. Its not even a short cut to the stairs. Damn. Anyhow no big deal.
He goes down the front stairs & mixes with the growing throng in the lobby near the front door without raising any suspicion.
Someone asks him about a phone.
Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 16 paces to the jacket.
Getting caught walking in shouldn’t result in getting bitten by a cop.
So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston. Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston.
No, the jacket is a dead duck. He decides to get out of there asap, he crosses Houston & then crosses Elm.
Tippit is waiting.
-
Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec. He stops. What to do next?
Should he continue down to the first floor?
Should he go to the first floor via the front stairs?
Should he lay low in the lunch room?
His jacket is in the Domino Room.
Uh Oh -- He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission.
Best to visit the coke machine & hope that whoever it is goes clean past.
They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide. He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool.
He would have been better off diving into the lunchroom in a hurry, & laying low, he knows there is no-one in there, but he knows that if seen rushing (by Truly & Co) it will be a sure sign that he is guilty of something.
He nearly makes it, another couple of slow steps & he will be out of sight.
But damn, Baker spots a bit of him throo the glass of the door & says to come back.
Truly says that Oswald works here, & Baker & Truly gallop off.
They get to the 5th floor & take the east elevator to the 7th floor.
Oswald gets a coke to look less guilty & more cool if confronted again. And assassinations go better with coke.
The back stairs are now dangerous. He heads for the front stairs, either forgetting about his jacket or deciding that his jacket is a dead duck.
But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk. Mrs Hine is also in the office but she doesn't notice Oswald, or forgets.
Reid in 3 re-enactments took exactly 120 sec to get to her desk, which is about right (ie to meet Oswald).
She says something as they pass & he mumbles something back. Its not a good look. He has no business in the office, unless wanting change for the coke machine. Its not even a short cut to the stairs. Damn. Anyhow no big deal.
He goes down the front stairs & mixes with the growing throng in the lobby near the front door without raising any suspicion.
Someone asks him about a phone.
Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 16 paces to the jacket.
Getting caught walking in shouldn’t result in getting bitten by a cop.
So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston. Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston.
No, the jacket is a dead duck. He decides to get out of there asap, he crosses Houston & then crosses Elm.
Tippit is waiting.
Most of what you are arguing is based on time frames for which there is no reliable source. Nobody was running a stopwatch on 11/22/63 so we don't know how long it actually took anybody to move from point A to point B. You could do ten reenactments and it still isn't going to prove anything. All the approximations can do is show what is possible, not how long it actually took anybody to move the distances they did. You also have no way of knowing how the various actions sync up with one another. We simply don't have the data to do that. You've constructed a scenario you believe fits within the established parameters. Due to the variables involved, there are hundreds of ways to construct a scenario that would fit within the parameters equally well. You are also making assumptions about Oswald's mindset at various times. It's OK to speculate as long as we don't treat our speculations as established facts.
Here's what we do know. Oswald reached the lunchroom before Truly and Baker reached the second floor landing. It is impossible to say precisely how long after the third shot it took any of the three men to reach the second floor landing. We can only approximate that. For reasons stated in my previous post, it is likely Oswald entered the lunchroom just seconds before Truly and Baker reached the second floor landing. That is my speculation but it is speculation based on what we know is true. Oswald entered the lunchroom before Truly and Baker reached the landing and did so seconds before Baker spotted him because if it had been longer, the inner door would have closed behind him and Baker could not have spotted him.
-
Most of what you are arguing is based on time frames for which there is no reliable source. Nobody was running a stopwatch on 11/22/63 so we don't know how long it actually took anybody to move from point A to point B. You could do ten reenactments and it still isn't going to prove anything. All the approximations can do is show what is possible, not how long it actually took anybody to move the distances they did. You also have no way of knowing how the various actions sync up with one another. We simply don't have the data to do that. You've constructed a scenario you believe fits within the established parameters. Due to the variables involved, there are hundreds of ways to construct a scenario that would fit within the parameters equally well. You are also making assumptions about Oswald's mindset at various times. It's OK to speculate as long as we don't treat our speculations as established facts.
Here's what we do know. Oswald reached the lunchroom before Truly and Baker reached the second floor landing. It is impossible to say precisely how long after the third shot it took any of the three men to reach the second floor landing. We can only approximate that. For reasons stated in my previous post, it is likely Oswald entered the lunchroom just seconds before Truly and Baker reached the second floor landing. That is my speculation but it is speculation based on what we know is true. Oswald entered the lunchroom before Truly and Baker reached the landing and did so seconds before Baker spotted him because if it had been longer, the inner door would have closed behind him and Baker could not have spotted him.
Anything which duznt accord with my timelines iz wrong.
Some witness etc statements etc partly accord.
One hazta weigh the facts/statements. One haztahav a good BS meter. I made zero errors.
I feel sure that i will never hav to change one word of my timeline.
My timeline iz the only one that works, & will work for ever.
And its not az fixed az u might think.
For example, if u convince me that Baker & Co took an extra 15 seconds to get to the lunchroom then my timeline can accommodate that by adding 15 seconds to Oswald's trajektory.
Hmmm.... i notice that i hav not explained what happened to the (empty?)(partly full) bottle of coke. When/where did Oswald dump it? Could Oswald hav gotten 5 cents for the bottle. Woz there a bottle centre near Tippitt? I will be back.
-
Anything which duznt accord with my timelines iz wrong.
Some witness etc statements etc partly accord.
One hazta weigh the facts/statements. One haztahav a good BS meter. I made zero errors...
...that you know of.
Yes, one has to weigh facts and statements. The problem which you don't seem to recognize is that statements are not always entirely correct. In fact, more often than not they are at least partly wrong. Someone else could weigh the same factors and reach an entirely different conclusion and both could be plausible. What you are calling facts are simply your conclusions based on evidence. That doesn't mean they are facts. You might want to apply that BS meter to your own conclusions. On second thought, let me do that for you, step by step. What follows are some of your assertions.
"Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec. He stops."
What is your evidence Oswald stopped? I look at the same evidence and it seems to me Oswald never stopped but when he heard Truly and Baker coming up the stairs and immediately ducked into the lunchroom. Both your scenario and mine are plausible and neither of us can prove we are right.
"He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission."
What is your evidence he heard them coming down the stairs or that they were even on the stairs at the same time he was? Sounds like an assumption to me.
"They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide. He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool."
How could you possibly know what Oswald thinking at the time? Let me answer that for you. You can't. You are making assumptions about things that are not in evidence. They might sound good to you, but they are anything but established facts. I have no reason to believe Oswald ever hesitated once he reached the second floor. My reading of the evidence is he immediately ducked into the lunchroom upon hearing Truly and Baker coming up the stairs and at no time came backout the same way he went in. My reading of the evidence is that as soon as Baker and Truly left, he bought a Coke and then headed for the front stairs through Mrs. Reid's office. Again, I can't prove my scenario is the correct one any more than you can.
"But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk"
We both agree he exited through Reid's office. You are the only one pretending to know what he was thinking at the time which is something you couldn't possibly know.
"Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 16 paces to the jacket."
What evidence do you have that Oswald was the least bit concerned about getting his jacket from the Domino Room? Another big assumption on your part with no supporting evidence. You simply assumed it.
"So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston. Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston."
This one is a doozy. What evidence do you have that Oswald went down Houston at all after leaving via the front door? What evidence do you have that he saw Officer Barnett? What evidence do you have that Barnett looked vicious? What evidence do you have that Oswald did a U-turn? Finally, what evidence do you have that Frazier saw Oswald walking south on Houston? I just reviewed his WC testimony. Houston is mentioned 10 times. The first time he was speaking of the city of Houston. All the others were in reference to how he and Oswald arrived at the TSBD that morning. No mention of Oswald or Houston post assassination. Now if you know of another source which indicates Frazier saw Oswald on Houston following the assassination, please provide that. Otherwise we can just assume you made all of this up.
-
...that you know of.
Yes, one has to weigh facts and statements. The problem which you don't seem to recognize is that statements are not always entirely correct. In fact, more often than not they are at least partly wrong. Someone else could weigh the same factors and reach an entirely different conclusion and both could be plausible. What you are calling facts are simply your conclusions based on evidence. That doesn't mean they are facts. You might want to apply that BS meter to your own conclusions. On second thought, let me do that for you, step by step. What follows are some of your assertions.
"Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec. He stops."
What is your evidence Oswald stopped? I look at the same evidence and it seems to me Oswald never stopped but when he heard Truly and Baker coming up the stairs and immediately ducked into the lunchroom. Both your scenario and mine are plausible and neither of us can prove we are right.
"He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission."
What is your evidence he heard them coming down the stairs or that they were even on the stairs at the same time he was? Sounds like an assumption to me.
"They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide. He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool."
How could you possibly know what Oswald thinking at the time? Let me answer that for you. You can't. You are making assumptions about things that are not in evidence. They might sound good to you, but they are anything but established facts. I have no reason to believe Oswald ever hesitated once he reached the second floor. My reading of the evidence is he immediately ducked into the lunchroom upon hearing Truly and Baker coming up the stairs and at no time came backout the same way he went in. My reading of the evidence is that as soon as Baker and Truly left, he bought a Coke and then headed for the front stairs through Mrs. Reid's office. Again, I can't prove my scenario is the correct one any more than you can.
"But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk"
We both agree he exited through Reid's office. You are the only one pretending to know what he was thinking at the time which is something you couldn't possibly know.
"Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 16 paces to the jacket."
What evidence do you have that Oswald was the least bit concerned about getting his jacket from the Domino Room? Another big assumption on your part with no supporting evidence. You simply assumed it.
"So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston. Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston."
This one is a doozy. What evidence do you have that Oswald went down Houston at all after leaving via the front door? What evidence do you have that he saw Officer Barnett? What evidence do you have that Barnett looked vicious? What evidence do you have that Oswald did a U-turn? Finally, what evidence do you have that Frazier saw Oswald walking south on Houston? I just reviewed his WC testimony. Houston is mentioned 10 times. The first time he was speaking of the city of Houston. All the others were in reference to how he and Oswald arrived at the TSBD that morning. No mention of Oswald or Houston post assassination. Now if you know of another source which indicates Frazier saw Oswald on Houston following the assassination, please provide that. Otherwise we can just assume you made all of this up.
Frazier made a verbal or written statement that he saw Oswald walking south in Houston, then crossing Houston, then crossing Elm.
But i havnt time to find it. I am writing a book re billiards, in 5 volumes. And i need to finish that so that i can write a book re elekticity on a wire, which haz my priority over jfk stuff & billiards stuff.
Living history with Buell Wesley Frazier....... at 34:50 of 1:00:16.
Frazier saw Oswald walking along the side of the TSBD along Houston walking from the dock........
-
Frazier made a verbal or written statement that he saw Oswald walking south in Houston, then crossing Houston, then crossing Elm.
But i havnt time to find it. I am writing a book re billiards, in 5 volumes. And i need to finish that so that i can write a book re elekticity on a wire, which haz my priority over jfk stuff & billiards stuff.
The old "the dog ate my homework excuse".
-
33:50.
Stephen Fagin….. In the chaos that followed the shooting did u see Oswald at all?
I did. This was a long i don’t know exactly how many minutes later but the lady i was standing next to…. Some of the people Bill Shelly and Billy Lovelady they went down toward the triple underpass because before they went down there a lady come by a woman came by and she was crying she said somebody has shot the president. And so we looked bewildered. And i turned to Sarah and she said, “Somebody shot the president”. I said, “I thought that’s what she said”. She said, “She did say that”. So we stood there for a few minutes and and i walked down to the first step where Billy was standing down there at the bottom of the steps. So i looked around and it was just total chaos there. And then from there i started to go down to see if i could find Bill Shelly and Billy Lovelady. And it was so much chaos down there. I said, “Well, i better go back to where? Go back to the steps”. And i did. I walked back to to the bottom of the steps. And then i walked out to the corner of the building right there where Houston comes up beside the building and i was talking to someone.
It was a lady and i looked to my left and come walking along the side of Texas schoolwork building was Lee Oswald.
Stephen Fagin….. Walking along this side of the building? (pointing).
Yes. Houston St. Yes. Houston Street. So he he’d come around from off the dock there. And so he walks up and i’m talking to this lady. He didn’t say anything. And he crosses Houston. I watch him cross Houston as i was talking to the lady. He gets over to the other side of Houston and then he crosses Elm…. and somebody said something to me and i turned and he was about halfway across the street and when i turned back he was gone in the crowd. I don’t know what happened to him but i didn’t worry too much about that because there was several places around there that you could go and eat a sandwich. And i remember asking him that morning when he was riding in with me. I says, “Where’s your lunch?”. He said, “Oh, i’m going to buy it off the truck today”. I said, “Okay”. Well, i didn’t think about what he talking about buying off the truck. He said, “Uh, buy his lunch”. He said, “I’ll just buy my lunch today”. And i don’t like to use the word assume, but i thought he was talking about the catering truck. But…..
Stephen Fagin….. There’s no doubt in your mind that this was Lee Harvey Oswald?”.
It was.
Stephen Fagin….. Could you see the expression on his face? Is there anything you can tell us about the way he looked?
There was nothing different about Lee. The expression on his face was…. he looked perfectly normal. And that’s the last time that i remember seeing him.
Stephen Fagin….. You then went down to the basement and had your own lunch that day……………
-
Frazier was at the corner of Houston and Elm when he saw Oswald. He never said he saw Oswald coming from the loading dock. That is your invention.
Try again.
-
Frazier was at the corner of Houston and Elm when he saw Oswald. He never said he saw Oswald coming from the loading dock. That is your invention.
Try again.
Frazier saw Oswald coming from the loading dock, meaning walking south from the direction of the dock.
My timeline requires that Oswald had walked past Frazier at some time/point, then walked north along the TSBD (towards the dock, to get hiz jacket from the domino room) but then did a U-turn & walked back south along the TSBD, which iz where/when Fazier saw Oswald walking "from the dock".
So, Oswald must hav passed Frazier near the steps or near the corner of the TSBD less than 30 sec before Oswald passed Frazier near the corner for the last time.
We can be sure that Oswald had exited the TSBD via the main door/steps, koz, had he exited via the dock then he would hav got hiz jacket. But the jacket remained in the domino room for weeks.
Frazier had spent over 60 sec near the corner, so Oswald had passed within inches or feet of Frazier. So, how did Frazier not see Oswald the first time?
Anyhow, my perfect timeline requires that Oswald did not come from the dock, but had come from that direction, after doing a U-turn.
So, where did Oswald dump the empty coke bottle?
The vending machine would hav taken 5 cents or 10 cents.
And the bottle refund/deposit would hav been 2 cents to 5 cents.
Probly not enuff to explain why Oswald might hav shot Tippit.
-
Frazier saw Oswald coming from the loading dock, meaning walking south from the direction of the dock.
My timeline requires that Oswald had walked past Frazier at some time/point, then walked north along the TSBD (towards the dock, to get hiz jacket from the domino room) but then did a U-turn & walked back south along the TSBD, which iz where/when Fazier saw Oswald walking "from the dock".
So, Oswald must hav passed Frazier near the steps or near the corner of the TSBD less than 30 sec before Oswald passed Frazier near the corner for the last time.
We can be sure that Oswald had exited the TSBD via the main door/steps, koz, had he exited via the dock then he would hav got hiz jacket. But the jacket remained in the domino room for weeks.
Frazier had spent over 60 sec near the corner, so Oswald had passed within inches or feet of Frazier. So, how did Frazier not see Oswald the first time?
Anyhow, my perfect timeline requires that Oswald did not come from the dock, but had come from that direction, after doing a U-turn.
So, where did Oswald dump the empty coke bottle?
The vending machine would hav taken 5 cents or 10 cents.
And the bottle refund/deposit would hav been 2 cents to 5 cents.
Probly not enuff to explain why Oswald might hav shot Tippit.
Still no proof for your nutty speculations.
DISMISSED!!!