JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on January 01, 2019, 07:29:56 PM
-
Well?
-
TROLL MUCH? LOL
:D :D
is that your idea of a thread starter?
aim higher
-
Well?
James Files.
He was in Chicago at the time but he was one hell of a shot. ;D
-
Ruth Paine
from the grassy knoll
kids in tow
;D
-
Ladybird Johnson from the TSBD roof. She had her double ride in the parade.
Start a silly thread...get a silly response. Have a beer and watch some football :-\
-
Jack Dougherty was closest person without an alibi, who was unseen by others.
-
Jack Dougherty was closest person without an alibi, who was unseen by others.
Dougherty eh? Was that before or after lunch?
-
Are people who suggest a name other than Oswald able to agree that it was Oswald's rifle that fired (some of) the shots? I think half of the members here will not accept that Oswald's rifle fired a shot that day.
If Dougherty is a suspect did he use Oswald's rifle? How did that come about? Is there any physical evidence or observations of suspicious behavior to support his involvement?
-
TROLL MUCH? LOL
:D :D
is that your idea of a thread starter?
aim higher
What, you have no shooter to name? You're here telling everybody what happened... so I guess Dirty Harvey took care of all the aiming after all, huh
You're a fake, Sluggo
-
James Files.
He was in Chicago at the time but he was one hell of a shot. ;D
He must have borrowed Trojan's laser.
-
Ruth Paine
from the grassy knoll
kids in tow
;D
Bigfoot, from the TSBD roof. Wearing blue suede shoes. Was then whisked away by Elvis in a pink Cadillac
-
why do you guys always talk about me? personally?
Do you guys have a crush? :D
I'm a fake?
can't you debate the topics?
Who the shooter was really for me is irrelevant
what difference does it make?
a mafioso,a cuban,a cop,a local shooter, Wallace,Harrelson or files
the real question is why?
why was he killed?
----------------------------------
chappie you make with the funny
perhaps you have a pulse afterall
-
Ladybird Johnson from the TSBD roof. She had her double ride in the parade.
Start a silly thread...get a silly response. Have a beer and watch some football :-\
C'mon.... anybody but Oswald
Flip a coin... show some interest in who shot Kennedy FFS
-
why do you guys always talk about me? personally?
Do you guys have a crush? :D
I'm a fake?
can't you debate the topics?
Who the shooter was really for me is irrelevant
what difference does it make?
a mafioso,a cuban,a cop,a local shooter, Wallace,Harrelson or files
the real question is why?
why was he killed?
----------------------------------
chappie you make with the funny
perhaps you have a pulse afterall
Keep dodging
The real question in my thread is why no one can pinpoint a shooter to replace the prime suspect
-
Keep dodging
The real question in my thread is why no one can pinpoint a shooter to replace the prime suspect
Many of the conspiracy people become quite shy when asked to give an alternative explanation as to what happened. We're discussing a historic event and it's fascinating how conspiracy advocates don't want to put a scenario on the table to discuss. It's like someone saying Hauptman didn't killed the Lindbergh baby but then refusing to explain who did and how the evidence fits into it.
This is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald didn't shoot JFK Forum". Although apparently some people think otherwise.
-
Well how bout I tell you who didn't do it
fo sho
LHO
was NOT on the knoll
So he didn't do it
-
Well how bout I tell you who didn't do it
fo sho
LHO
was NOT on the knoll
So he didn't do it
Name the witnesses who saw a rifle being fired on the grassy knoll
-
ME
Zapruder film
read it and weep
welcome
-
ME
Zapruder film
read it and weep
welcome
I said witnesses
-
Name the witnesses who saw a rifle being fired on the grassy knoll
When you start playing this game, why don't you first name the witnesses who actually saw a rifle being fired from the window on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
-
When you start playing this game, why don't you first name the witnesses who actually saw a rifle being fired from the window on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Howard Brennan? Harold Weisberg called him "the least credible man in the world." Or Amos Euins? And there were, as I recall, three ear-witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD who heard the shots being fired, the working of the bolt and the shells dropping on the floor above them. Of course all this is disputed.
-
Well?
1. JD Tippit
2. The dead "Secret Service agent"
-
Howard Brennan? Harold Weisberg called him "the least credible man in the world." Or Amos Euins? And there were, as I recall, three ear-witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD who heard the shots being fired, the working of the bolt and the shells dropping on the floor above them. Of course all this is disputed.
Neither Brennan or Euins saw a rifle being fired from the 6th floor window. They just saw a man up there. And if we are going to go with ear-witnesses than we can just as easily go with Sam Holland who saw a puff of smoke coming from the grassy knoll.
-
I said witnesses
Both JFK and JC were shot in their backs. Either by the same bullet or separate ones.
How does a shooter from the GK - and only there - shoot them in the back? Did he shoot them after the limo passed by?
-
There is also a video of him standing at the location where he was on 11/22/63 in which he showed the concrete pillar he ducked behind, but I haven't found that one yet.
I found this video created by Dave the Insurance Guy in which he presents 3 eye witnesses: Amos Euins at 7:30, Robert Jackson at 10:28 and Howard Brennan at 12:54. Mr Euins reenacts his movements on November 22nd, 1963, including his ducking behind a pillar.
-
Euins was recorded by HSCA staff regarding his having Camera with him and his taking photos inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Strange, but as the years passed by, that Camera has disappeared from the story Euin's is telling.
-
Euins was recorded by HSCA staff regarding his having Camera with him and his taking photos inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Strange, but as the years passed by, that Camera has disappeared from the story Euin's is telling.
Euins story in the video is very different from the story he told on the afternoon of the coup d e'tat.
No doubt he's found fame by telling people what they want to hear. One startling difference is that on 11 /22/ 63 he did not see a rifle...He said he saw a a " pipe like thing"
-
Euins story in the video is very different from the story he told on the afternoon of the coup d e'tat.
No doubt he's found fame by telling people what they want to hear. One startling difference is that on 11 /22/ 63 he did not see a rifle...He said he saw a a " pipe like thing"
When Euins told the HSCA Investigators he had a camera and took photos on 11/22/63 he was no longer a kid. His Now deleting the camera portion of his story reflects on his credibility. I believe he was there inside Dealey Plaza. What he actually witnessed is subject to question.
-
Euins story in the video is very different from the story he told on the afternoon of the coup d e'tat.
No doubt he's found fame by telling people what they want to hear. One startling difference is that on 11 /22/ 63 he did not see a rifle...He said he saw a a " pipe like thing"
Another aspect of Euins' story that changed is that he initially stated he heard four shots. I think he and Jackson are credible witnesses, Brennan not so much. He claimed he saw the sniper move in a way that was physically impossible and especially noticed his unhurried demeanor, which contradicts the Commission's assumption that Oswald rushed downstairs immediately after the shots.
Most witnesses identified the TSBD and/or the grassy knoll as the location of the sniper and source of at least part of the shots. I think it is both for this reason: fake Secret Service agents were observed on both locations immediately following the assassination. These impostors were either deployed to cover the escape of the assassins or were the actual shooters; one of them had a gun under his jacket.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald a.k.a Alek, Alek J. Hidell, Alek James Hidell, A. J. Hidell, A. Hidell, O. H. Lee, Lee Osborne, Ozzie rabbit, Osvaldovich, Patsy, Texas...
-
Well?
The most credible evidence points to Oswald (e.g., Who seriously believes he was bringing curtain rods to work? Completely wrapped up? That's absurd). Other explanations simply fall apart when you drill down into them.
So two things: the credible evidence pointing towards Oswald and the lack of credible evidence pointing to someone else.
Did he have help? Was he manipulated or used by others? Maybe, perhaps: but he's the one who pulled the trigger three times.
-
The most credible evidence points to Oswald (e.g., Who seriously believes he was bringing curtain rods to work? Completely wrapped up? That's absurd). Other explanations simply fall apart when you drill down into them.
So two things: the credible evidence pointing towards Oswald and the lack of credible evidence pointing to someone else.
Did he have help? Was he manipulated or used by others? Maybe, perhaps: but he's the one who pulled the trigger three times.
Actually nine times. TSBD 3, Patton & 10th 5, Walker 1
-
Yeah he took a shot at walker
then he waited and brooded
I know what I'll do.I'll get a job in a random high building and wait...
It's only a matter of time until someone famous comes by and BLAM
hey hey I'm famous yeah
What an incredible plan
In the history of infamous assassinations there has never been a more
ridiculous murder plan than this
but according to the "official" version this is what happened
Whats that Ruth you have found a job opening in a random high building?
this could be it,my opportunity
Sure I'll go for an interview
I'll just work like there's nothing up and wait...
I might have to work here for the rest of my life waiting
but It'll be all worth it in the...what? He's coming on FRIDAY?
That's in 2 days time
Oh happy days under 5 weeks I had to wait
My work boots aren't even worn in yet
wow I must be the luckiest assassin in history
especially as I can't drive anywhere
My target is coming to me
I couldn't have PLANNED this better!
The Dallas DA says he obviously planned this months in advance
NO - He didn't, but obviously someone has...
HE was either an "opportunistic killer" or he was setup
what does the evidence suggest to you?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is where the evidence has been "crisscrossed" and contradicted itself
the walker evidence vs the opportunistic killer - crisscross
Similar to the WC evidence that LHO was seen at a rifle range near RP's house
on sat the 16th.
He did not go to Irving that weekend so had no access to his rifle
AND he did still not know JFK was driving past the TSBD so why practice?
The JB evidence where he claims he heard a description on radio
of the JD killer. Which did not get broadcast at all.JD was confirmed DOA at @1.50 pm which also contradicts his evidence.another crisscross
This case is a donkey
-
Actually nine times. TSBD 3, Patton & 10th 5, Walker 1
Texas Theatre 1
-
Texas Theatre 1
Thumb1:
-
Thumb1:
I'm not as dumb as JohnnyI looks
He'll be driving by soon, demanding proof that Oswald tried to shoot anybody that day, let alone in the TT
-
I would have thought the TT incident would have 1/2 a dozen witnesses
including the arresting officer
This whole point that "the gun couldn't fire" is irrelevant
even If the gun was not loaded and you tried.
That's attempted murder
I guess I am a CT but I believe in intellect over ideology
facts are facts
LHO was not a lamb in the woods
He did try to kill an innocent man doing his job
not cool
-
I would have thought the TT incident would have 1/2 a dozen witnesses
including the arresting officer
This whole point that "the gun couldn't fire" is irrelevant
even If the gun was not loaded and you tried.
That's attempted murder
I guess I am a CT but I believe in intellect over ideology
facts are facts
LHO was not a lamb in the woods
He did try to kill an innocent man doing his job
not cool
He did try to kill an innocent man doing his job
Correction: 3 innocent men trying to do their jobs...
-
I would have thought the TT incident would have 1/2 a dozen witnesses
including the arresting officer
This whole point that "the gun couldn't fire" is irrelevant
even If the gun was not loaded and you tried.
That's attempted murder
I guess I am a CT but I believe in intellect over ideology
facts are facts
LHO was not a lamb in the woods
He did try to kill an innocent man doing his job
not cool
Oswald was a very political person. What was he doing a mile or so away from the scene - near the place in which he worked - where the President of the United States was - perhaps, nobody knew with certainty at the time - shot?
He showed no interest at any time in what happened to JFK. He didn't talk to anyone about it, he didn't inquire with anyway about it, he didn't try to learn anything about it. He left the building within three minutes, he takes a bus, then a cab, goes to his room, grabs some clothing (and apparently a revolver with extra bullets), and leaves. To see a movie? Really?
At no time did he show any curiosity about what happened.
Nobody around the TSBD knew what happened. It was chaos. People said the president was shot but they weren't certain. Was he dead? Did they catch the shooters? Where were the shooters? It was a madhouse.
It is impossible for him to think, "I'm going to be blamed for this." For what? How would he know what happened IF he was indeed having lunch?
He is, for me, clearly fleeing the TSBD. Why?
-
Although I believe LHO shot and killed JF Kennedy and indeed JD Tipping, today I watched a documentary on Sky, broadcast in the UK, called JFK: The Lost assassination Tapes.
Now we've all seen umpteen documentaries claiming showing unseen material. But one item in this documentary opened up a slight question. At about the half way mark, JFK had been shot etc and they were showing how the odd person had been arrested, a man was arrested and he had claimed he was in the TSBD to make a telephone call. He wore a dark suit, seemed to be about 5'10 or so, quite heavy set guy, and he wore black horn rimmed glasses.
He had a remarkable resemblance to the infamous Mac Wallace. Has anybody else seen this footage or was this man ever identified. The footage of the man arrested lasted about 10 seconds or so and was never mentioned again.
Trying to find footage on youtube etc.
-
Oswald was a very political person. What was he doing a mile or so away from the scene - near the place in which he worked - where the President of the United States was - perhaps, nobody knew with certainty at the time - shot?
He showed no interest at any time in what happened to JFK. He didn't talk to anyone about it, he didn't inquire with anyway about it, he didn't try to learn anything about it. He left the building within three minutes, he takes a bus, then a cab, goes to his room, grabs some clothing (and apparently a revolver with extra bullets), and leaves. To see a movie? Really?
At no time did he show any curiosity about what happened.
Nobody around the TSBD knew what happened. It was chaos. People said the president was shot but they weren't certain. Was he dead? Did they catch the shooters? Where were the shooters? It was a madhouse.
It is impossible for him to think, "I'm going to be blamed for this." For what? How would he know what happened IF he was indeed having lunch?
He is, for me, clearly fleeing the TSBD. Why?
Oswald's actions after the assassination incriminate him beyond reasonable doubt. He knew he had to get out of there. If he had stayed put the finger would've eventually been pointed at him. He knew he couldn't get the MC out of there and it would be traced to him.
In running and killing JD Tippit he removed any doubt over his guilt. But in actual fact evading arrest wasn't that high a priority for him. The arrest and notoriety was part of his plan. His demeanor on arrest, all his "I'm a patsy" nonsense, his whole persona was of a man not bothered by the arrest. He was loving it.
He's not exactly unusual to be fair, history is littered with lone nuts who have committed all kinds of heinous murders. This one get the exposure because of the victim.
-
I'm not as dumb as JohnnyI looks
He'll be driving by soon, demanding proof that Oswald tried to shoot anybody that day, let alone in the TT
Yep! I'm ignoring all his demands from now on.
-
Although I believe LHO shot and killed JF Kennedy and indeed JD Tipping, today I watched a documentary on Sky, broadcast in the UK, called JFK: The Lost assassination Tapes.
Now we've all seen umpteen documentaries claiming showing unseen material. But one item in this documentary opened up a slight question. At about the half way mark, JFK had been shot etc and they were showing how the odd person had been arrested, a man was arrested and he had claimed he was in the TSBD to make a telephone call. He wore a dark suit, seemed to be about 5'10 or so, quite heavy set guy, and he wore black horn rimmed glasses.
He had a remarkable resemblance to the infamous Mac Wallace. Has anybody else seen this footage or was this man ever identified. The footage of the man arrested lasted about 10 seconds or so and was never mentioned again.
Trying to find footage on youtube etc.
Larry Florer (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/florer.htm)
-
Although I believe LHO shot and killed JF Kennedy and indeed JD Tipping, today I watched a documentary on Sky, broadcast in the UK, called JFK: The Lost assassination Tapes.
Now we've all seen umpteen documentaries claiming showing unseen material. But one item in this documentary opened up a slight question. At about the half way mark, JFK had been shot etc and they were showing how the odd person had been arrested, a man was arrested and he had claimed he was in the TSBD to make a telephone call. He wore a dark suit, seemed to be about 5'10 or so, quite heavy set guy, and he wore black horn rimmed glasses.
He had a remarkable resemblance to the infamous Mac Wallace. Has anybody else seen this footage or was this man ever identified. The footage of the man arrested lasted about 10 seconds or so and was never mentioned again.
Trying to find footage on youtube etc.
I think this is the footage you're looking for
It begins at the 48:27 mark.
I believe this is the guy mentioned here at the 1:08 PM on the police tapes mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm)
Got any clothing description yet?
Dispatcher
All we have is a white male, thirty, slender build, five feet ten, a hundred and sixty-five pounds, armed with a 30 caliber rifle.
15 (Capt. C.E. Talbert)
15.
261
I have a white male that fits that description in size. He's drunk down at the end of the north end of Laws Street. You want to have someone check him?
Dispatcher
15.
15
15.
Dispatcher
Can you get to him?
388 (CID)
388.
Dispatcher
261, are you near that person?
261
I've got him on my motor.
Dispatcher
Are you at the north end of Laws, at the dead end?
261
10-4.
-
DPD had their gun's holstered or fumbling? He reached for a gun and pulled it out? He would have been shot I guess they were playing it extra cool recognizing the historical importance of not killing the alledged assassin
-
Igor Vaganov and/or Gilberto Policarpo Lopez and/or Lee Harvey Oswald
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy :)
-
Actually nine times. TSBD 3, Patton & 10th 5, Walker 1
What is your evidence that there were 5 shots taken at 10th & Patton?
What is your evidence that Oswald shot at Walker?
What is your evidence that Oswald fired three shots from the TSBD?
-
I'm not as dumb as JohnnyI looks
He'll be driving by soon, demanding proof that Oswald tried to shoot anybody that day, let alone in the TT
Well, do you have any?
-
Well, do you have any?
Tippit
Thumb1:
-
Tippit
Thumb1:
That's "proof"?
:D
-
That's "proof"?
:D
Where did I say 'proof'
-
Dougherty eh? Was that before or after lunch?
Dougherty activities...
1) Closest person to shooting without alibi or other witness.
2) Returned to work early rather than watch parade, usually took whole break but didn't this day. (Even Oswald was smart enough to be found in a lunch room and say he was at lunch.)
3) Said he didn't watch parade due to steps being overcrowded, whereas a number of TSBD employees were watching from inside the building.
4) Testimony is totally garbled, almost as if he is answering questions he think he is going to be asked, rather then the actual questions, It is as if some has prepped him to answer and he gives the wrong answers to the questions.
5) Said he was a back of 5th floor, but see no one and no one sees him
a) Not seen by BRW whilst traversing from 6th to 5th floors.
b) Not seen by other two staff members who traversed stairs and entered 5th floor.
c) If Oswald is shooter he has to go past rear of 5th floor down to 2nd floor, Dougherty doesn't see him.
6) Testified to a conversation with Eddie Piper, which Piper has no memory of.
7) Reports only one noise, despite being very close to the scene, delay in access the lift of around 2 minutes? Took lift, rather then going to front of the 5th and looking for himself.
8) In testimony starts with him telling Piper that the President may have been shot, and then has to be "led" to reverse that.
9) Has early access to the building alone
Of course I cannot prove JED did it (honestly I think LHO is more likely but not provable beyond reasonable doubt, thanks to Garner and the 3 ladies on 4th with her ) however with no Alibi and confirmed closest person to crime scene, confused testimony, acting out of character, odd actions, publicly suggesting the President had been shoot when it was not reasonable for him to have know that (corrected by Ball) then he has to be a possibility
-
Dougherty activities...
1) Closest person to shooting without alibi or other witness.
2) Returned to work early rather than watch parade, usually took whole break but didn't this day. (Even Oswald was smart enough to be found in a lunch room and say he was at lunch.)
3) Said he didn't watch parade due to steps being overcrowded, whereas a number of TSBD employees were watching from inside the building.
4) Testimony is totally garbled, almost as if he is answering questions he think he is going to be asked, rather then the actual questions, It is as if some has prepped him to answer and he gives the wrong answers to the questions.
5) Said he was a back of 5th floor, but see no one and no one sees him
a) Not seen by BRW whilst traversing from 6th to 5th floors.
b) Not seen by other two staff members who traversed stairs and entered 5th floor.
c) If Oswald is shooter he has to go past rear of 5th floor down to 2nd floor, Dougherty doesn't see him.
6) Testified to a conversation with Eddie Piper, which Piper has no memory of.
7) Reports only one noise, despite being very close to the scene, delay in access the lift of around 2 minutes? Took lift, rather then going to front of the 5th and looking for himself.
8) In testimony starts with him telling Piper that the President may have been shot, and then has to be "led" to reverse that.
9) Has early access to the building alone
Of course I cannot prove JED did it (honestly I think LHO is more likely but not provable beyond reasonable doubt, thanks to Garner and the 3 ladies on 4th with her ) however with no Alibi and confirmed closest person to crime scene, confused testimony, acting out of character, odd actions, publicly suggesting the President had been shoot when it was not reasonable for him to have know that (corrected by Ball) then he has to be a possibility
Jack Dougherty: Person Of Interest
https://jfkwitnesses.omeka.net/exhibits/show/tsbd/dough
[EXCERPTS]
The reason Jack Dougherty is a person of interest was due to the fact that he was an employee at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. On this date, the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was shot and killed, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald from a sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas. Oswald fired three shots, two of which entered the president?s body causing his death and subsequently stunning the nation.
Who is he?
Jack Dougherty was born on August 12, 1923, in Dallas, Texas. He spent his entire life in the Dallas area, attending Sunset High School. After graduation Jack spent two years in the military. Jack?s home was in the Dallas area as well, located at 1827 S. Marsalis St, Dallas, Texas.
Jack and the Texas School Book Depository
At the time of assassination Jack was approximately 40 years old and since 1952 had spent a considerable amount of time working in the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository. Jack?s position at the Depository was that of order filler. Beyond simply working at the Depository, Jack was one of only six employees at work when the fatal three shots were fired. Jack recalls that Bill Lovelady, William Shelby, Dany Arce, Bonnie Williams, Charles Givens, and Lee Harvey Oswald were all in the building the day of the shooting. Other employees were given the task of relaying the floors on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository while Jack was mobile retrieving stock from the fifth and sixth floors.
Jacks Dougherty's Police Testimony
Jack Dougherty's Police Testimony
Is Jack Dougherty a liar?
On November 22, 1963 Jack Dougherty signed a document for the Dallas Police Department, notarized by Patsy Collins, stating the following: Jack was an employee of the Texas School Book Depository, working on the sixth floor. He claimed to have gone back to work after lunch at 12:45 but then contradicted himself, stating he had already gone back to work and had gone to the fifth floor to get stock by the time he heard the shot which in reality happened at 12:32. He then stated he went down to the first floor and asked Eddie Piper, another employee, if he heard anything. Eddie responded that he heard three shots. Jack then claimed to have returned to work on the sixth floor, seeing everyone but Oswald. He claimed to have seen Oswald on the sixth floor shortly before noon but not after the shots were fired.
Jack Dougherty's FBI Testimony
Jack Dougherty's first FBI testimony
Jack Dougherty's Second FBI Testimony
Jack Dougherty's second FBI testimony
What did Jack Dougherty initially tell the FBI?
On the same day, November 22, 1963, Jack also was interviewed by FBI Special Agents Alfred Ellington and James Anderson. Surprisingly Jack?s statements did not match the statements made earlier in the day. Jack stated that he was an employee of the Texas School Book Depository and that he came to work at 7:00 a.m. the morning of the assassination. He recalled seeing Oswald at 8:00 a.m. that morning as he came into work at that time. He then recalled seeing Oswald at about 11:00 a.m. but did not recall seeing him after that. It was clear at this point that Jack either did not know the exact time he last saw Oswald or that he was lying under pressure. Jack then supposidly returns to work on the fifth floor at 12:45 or 1:00. Jack continued to state that he was working on the fifth floor when he heard ?a loud explosion which sounded like a rifle shot coming from the next floor above me.? This event contradicted the notarized statement that he signed earlier that day. There was no mention of going to the first floor nor of speaking to Eddie Piper. More importantly in this testimony Jack claimed to have known the source of the shot. In his prior statement, the source was unknown.
The second interview was carried out by agent Johnson with the intention of clarifying and confirming Jacks story. The findings were the same as the initial FBI testimony, however, Jack now states it was approximately 12:45 when he returned to work.
Suspicious Memo on Jack Dougherty
Suspicious Memo on Jack Dougherty
Why was Jack considered so suspicious?
After the Warren Commission and the FBI analyzed Mr. Dougherty?s statements, they were very suspicious, so suspicious, in fact, that Melvin A. Eisenberg requested further questioning and a Warren Commission testimony. The memo pictured was sent to Lee Rankin explaining why Jack was considered suspicious. The arguments were as follows:
He was the only one of the six employees working on the sixth floor-laying project without alibi.
He had a very thin story.
It didn?t make sense that Jack should have returned to work before the rest of his team.
It is questionable that Mr. Dougherty would need to go to the fifth floor to get stock in connection with the floor-laying project.
Employees Jarman, Norman, and Williams did not see Mr. Dougherty anywhere on the fifth floor during the shooting.
It did not seem credible that Mr. Dougherty would have gone to the first floor, found out there were three shots fired, and returned to work as if nothing happened.
No report shows any evidence of Jack or anyone else being on the sixth floor.
Since Dougherty heard shots on the fifth floor, and since the shots were fired at approximately 12:32, Dougherty must have returned to the sixth floor, allegedly to go back to work, around 12:30.
The alleged retardation may have been confused with emotional problems, and if so only furthers suspicion.
Given these highly unusual and suspicious findings, both Rankin and Eisenberg insisted Mr. Dougherty testify to the Warren Commission. Furthermore, given these circumstances and discrepancies, Jack Dougherty was considered a key person of interest.
Jack Dougherty's Warren Commission Testimony
Jack Dougherty's Warren Commission Testimony
What did Jack Dougherty tell the Warren Commission?
Later, on April 8, 1964, Mr. Joseph A. Ball met with Jack Dougherty for an official testimony. The testimony Jack gave was full of discrepancies and hints at a lack of education or sound thought process. For example, he claimed to have left the country, stating he traveled to Seymour, Indiana, a state within the United States.When asked about his relation to Oswald, he claimed to not know him along with the rest of the employees. This was not out of the ordinary, given most employees described him as distant. Jack continued to claim he showed up to work at 7:00 a.m. every morning in agreement with his prior statements. However, immediately after this statement he contradicted himself, claiming he showed up to work a quarter to 7:00 a.m. and began work at 8:00 a.m.
When questioned about seeing Oswald the morning of the shooting, Jack claimed to have seen him alone walking in, out of the corner of his eye. According to Mr. Dougherty, Oswald was not carrying anything in his hands that morning, which is surprising given the fact he used a three-foot rifle to take the shots. Jack then claimed to have seen Oswald a second time that same day at 11:00 a.m. on the sixth floor. This statement properly correlated to his original testimonies. However, the chain of events got confusing once more as the time of the shooting approached.
Jack?s memory again failed him when he claimed to have heard a shot after retrieving stock, forgetting lunch all together. This first statement completely contradicted all prior statements about where he was during the assassination. Jack was then asked about lunch and remembered that he went to lunch at 12:00 that day on the first floor. He then claimed he finished lunch and returned to work at 12:30, contradicting his earlier statement in this testimony and his original testimonies on the November 22.
Jack?s recollection of events got very interesting as 12:30 p.m. approached. Jack claimed to have gone back to work at 12:30 but then contradicted himself yet again, stating he went back to work on the sixth floor at 12:40. He then stated he had heard only one shot that sounded like a backfire before returning to work. The forgetful nature of the testimony continued as he is asked what floor he went to after lunch. Jack completely changed his story on the spot at this point. He claimed to have now heard the shots before eating his lunch in the first place. This placed a huge hole in the story as Jack now seemingly had no idea what he was doing during this time, or he is deceiving under pressure. Jack now claimed to have been on the fifth floor when he heard the shots, conforming with his earlier testimonies. Now that Jack seemed to remember his older testimonies; he began to remember speaking with Eddie Piper on the first floor. He claimed to have asked Eddie if the President was shot. This strikes Mr. Ball as he realized Jack would have no way of knowing that the President was shot given his earlier statements about never seeing the President. Jack was quick to realize this as well and changed his testimony to reflect the fact Eddie was the one to first tell him the President was shot.
Fifth Floor Diagram to Texas School Book Depository
Fifth Floor Diagram to Texas School Book Depository
Sixth Floor of Texas School Book Depository
Sixth Floor of Texas School Book Depository
Texas School Book Depository
Jack Dougherty's Fathers Statements
What really happened?
The mere fact Jack Dougherty?s testimonies and statements were so inconsistent led many to believe Jack played a crucial role in the assassination of President Kennedy. Jack?s statements seemed to be generally consistent across all testimonies until his lunch break. Around the time of his lunch break he claimed to have been eating lunch, on the fifth and sixth floor, and ten feet away from the elevator. It is impossible for all of these statements to be true, yet Jack signed his name to them each time. Mr. Dougherty seemingly had no ability to remember what happened accurately, or, from the conspiracy view point, he did not wish to reveal what happened accurately. Jack had no reliable alibi and operated alone, further intensifying suspicion. J. Lee Rankin and Melvin A. Eisenberg shared skepticism and suspicion of Jack for these vary reasons. Although Mr. Truly had mentioned Jack?s confusion, referring to a state of mental retardation, it is surprising that the supervisor of the Texas School Book Depository would both hire and give a mentally retarded person so many responsibilities and even a set of keys to the building. Jack opened the doors, checked the boiler, and managed the alarm system. The fact that Jack did perform such tasks and seemed to be so timely upon arrival points to his mental capacity far out-pacing that of a mentally disabled person. Furthermore, the fact he had a key to the building enabled him to be the perfect accomplice to Oswald, as he could access the building at any time undetected.
It is even possible that Jack Dougherty was the original shooter in the first place. Jack?s suspicious answers and unlimited access to the building seemed to enable him to have carried out the assassination, specifically, his recollection of where he was during the shooting which, according to the Warren Commission, happened at 12:32. Given this information was accurate, and individual statements were accurate, Jack could have possibly been on the sixth floor during the time of the shooting. Even more interesting is the statements made by employees Jarman, Norman, and Williams. The employees claim to have run from the southwest window to the southeast window on the fifth floor at the time of the assassination without seeing Jack Dougherty anywhere on that floor. These three statements contradict every statement made by Mr. Dougherty regarding his location at the time of the assassination. Recall that Jack claimed to be on the fifth floor during the shooting, ten feet away from the elevator. Jack also served in the military for two years and seventeen days, receiving firearms training. These factors combine make a strong case for Jack Dougherty being the shooter.
On the opposite side of the argument Jack could have actually been mentally challenged and confused or in shock, leading him to think his answers were truthful. When questioned, Mr. Truly explained that Jack was mentally retarded. If this were true, many of the discrepancies in memory would have been both predicable and probable. The fact Jack continued to live with his parents also reinforces the fact he might not be as mentally fit as those who assume he was the shooter believe.
Bibliography
Fujii, Lee Ann. "Shades of Truth and Lies: Interpreting Testimonies of War and Violence." Journal of Peace Research47, no. 2 (2010): 231-41. doi:10.1177/0022343309353097.
Oswald in TSBD Doorway - Dougherty the TSBD Sniper? Accessed April 23, 2018. http://www.jfkessentials.com/forum/index.php?topic=137.0.
Pein, David Von, JOHN F. KENNEDY, and DVP. "JACK DOUGHERTY." DVP's JFK ARCHIVES. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-dougherty.html.
"Testimony Of Jack Edwin Dougherty." TESTIMONY OF JACK EDWIN DOUGHERTY. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm.
Yusuf, Hasan. "JFK." Roy Truly: A Truly Interesting Character. January 01, 1970. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roy-truly-truly-interesting-character_14.html.
-
(https://media.golfdigest.com/photos/59f601cb25e08905f96da950/master/w_925/HTTP2FrLWhkbC5idXp6ZmVkLmNvbS9zdGF0aWMvZW5oYW5jZWQvd2ViZHIwNi8yMDEzLzcvMjkvMTMvYW5pZ2lmX2VuaGFuY2VkLWJ1enotMTIxNzgtMTM3NTExODA4Ny03LmdpZgloglog.gif)
for Bill.....have a laugh
-
Your shooters still have not introduced themselves?
Who were the nameless guys that Lee Bowers saw prowling around the north side [parking lot side] of the knoll fence?
Of course the Warren Commission counsel was not interested in 'flashes of light' or 'puffs of smoke' so they cut Bowers off from such description when he testified. See the candid claim @ 4:35 -----
-
Robert Kennedy hounded Carlos and other mob members in the senate hearings dragging several into their hearings and make comments like “I thought only little girls giggled Mr. Hoffa”
Joe Kennedy asks for the help of the mob to get his son Jack elected president of the United States and he wins by a slim margin. Was the mobs help enough to swing the vote to JFK, who knows, the only thing that matters is that the mob thought so.
Bobby Kennedy has Carlos Marcello basically kidnapped and flown out of the county to ultimately be kicked out of a bus in the jungle in their florshiem shoes to fend for themselves where they could have been killed and did suffer some injuries.
-
Bobby Kennedy has Carlos Marcello basically kidnapped and flown out of the county to ultimately be kicked out of a bus in the jungle in their florshiem shoes to fend for themselves where they could have been killed and did suffer some injuries.
Yeah, to Guatemala....The way I heard it----Marcello was picked up and was back in the USA before the plane that took him down there had practically made it's return.
-
Thread title: Name Your Shooter
I’m not saying I think it’s him, but three years ago, when he was murdered, he popped on my radar:
Frenchy Brouilette:
(https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a95b5aff-c8a2-48ae-8436-008ec880290f/downloads/BDEE49AB-16B4-4D90-A1E0-BE0DD7EB6227.jpeg?ver=1567049022614)
-
Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy some propaganda about the Rosenbergs "got to" while he was still young and impressionable, who may have been trained or programmed in the USSR, and whom, as Ion Pacepa says, Mr. K may have been unable to call off the job at the so-called last minute. Either that, or he just got totally PO-ed about the evil, evil,evil "Deep State" in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., maybe got tired of being jerked around by both the CIA and the KGB, and kinda decided to take matters into his own hands
(By the way, there are no bad shots in the Marine Corps.)
-- MWT ;)
-
Warren Commission witness, Nelson Delgado says Oswald could not shoot for spombleprofglidnoctobunse.
-
Warren Commission witness, Nelson Delgado says Oswald could not shoot for spombleprofglidnoctobunse.
Michael,
There are no "bad shots" in the Marine Corps.
If, as Delgado contends, Oswald was such a bad shot, how in the world did he manage to "qualify"?
If anything, Delgado must be talking about when Oswald first started shooting, and at the longer ranges, at that. If I'm not mistaken, the shortest qualifying distance is 200 yards. LOL
What was the distance from the "sniper's window" to where the limo was at Z-313?
Hmm?
-- MWT ;)
PS Is this a Mark "Commie" Lane production?
Let me see ....
Yep, shore is!
-
Thread title: Name Your Shooter
I’m not saying I think it’s him, but three years ago, when he was murdered, he popped on my radar:
Frenchy Brouilette:
(https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a95b5aff-c8a2-48ae-8436-008ec880290f/downloads/BDEE49AB-16B4-4D90-A1E0-BE0DD7EB6227.jpeg?ver=1567049022614)
Where's the bald/white spot (as per Euins)?
No moustache mentioned by Brennan/Euins
Pretenders to Oswald throne as prime suspect need a bald/white spot
-
Michael,
There are no "bad shots" in the Marine Corps.
If, as Delgado contends, Oswald was such a bad shot, how in the world did he manage to "qualify"?
If anything, Delgado must be talking about when Oswald first started shooting, and at the longer ranges, at that. If I'm not mistake, the shortest qualifying range is 200 yards. LOL
What was the distance from the "sniper's window" to where the limo was at Z-313?
Hmm?
-- MWT ;)
PS Is this a Mark "Commie" Lane production?
Let me see ....
Yep, shore is!
Others say Oswald became dissatisfied with military life and didn't try his best by that point
-
Pretenders to Oswald throne as prime suspect need bald/white spot
Why? Oswald didn't have one. Nor was he wearing light colored clothes.
-
Why? Oswald didn't have one. Nor was he wearing light colored clothes.
Euins described what he saw in his own way, not yours, and strong direct sunlight lightens the surfaces it strikes
-
Euins described what he saw in his own way, not yours,
Or yours.
and strong direct sunlight lightens the surfaces it strikes
More “it-could-have-been”-ism.
So witness statements about your candidate don’t have to be accurate, but they do for other people’s candidates. Nice way to rig the outcome.
-
Or yours.
More “it-could-have-been”-ism.
So witness statements about your candidate don’t have to be accurate, but they do for other people’s candidates. Nice way to rig the outcome.
Euins description of Oswald's front hairline is made perfectly clear. Images of said hairline confirm what he saw of the head.
Tell us in what way I described what Euins said that differed from other than what he testified to.
-
Euins description of Oswald's front hairline is made perfectly clear.
Bull. You’re interpreting it to match your preconception.
-
Michael,
There are no "bad shots" in the Marine Corps.
—————-
PS Is this a Mark "Commie" Lane production?
Delgado didn’t have Mark Lane in front of him 23 years later, after he survived an assassination attempt, fled to England and testified that he believed that it was the FBI who tried to kill him...
-
Delgado didn’t have Mark Lane in front of him 23 years later, after he survived an assassination attempt, fled to England and testified that he believed that it was the FBI who tried to kill him...
Michael,
Wowie zowie.
Repeat after me: "There are no 'bad shots' in the Marine Corps."
Maybe some mobbed-up drug dealer confused Nelson with another guy?
How's that letter to Newman and Scott coming along, btw?
-- MWT. :D
-
Michael,
There are no "bad shots" in the Marine Corps.
If, as Delgado contends, Oswald was such a bad shot, how in the world did he manage to "qualify"?
If anything, Delgado must be talking about when Oswald first started shooting, and at the longer ranges, at that. If I'm not mistaken, the shortest qualifying distance is 200 yards. LOL
What was the distance from the "sniper's window" to where the limo was at Z-313?
Hmm?
-- MWT ;)
PS Is this a Mark "Commie" Lane production?
Let me see ....
Yep, shore is!
"There are no "bad shots" in the Marine Corps."
This letter sent to the WC at the direction of the Marine Corp Commandant says a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot.
It includes Oswald's Marksman qualification scores.
He qualified with a 191 score. 190 is the lowest score you could get and still qualify.
Ozzie was considered a rather poor shot by the Marine Corp.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/anderson.jpg)
](https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/anderson2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/anderson3.jpg)
-
Bull. You’re interpreting it to match your preconception.
Nah, I'm seeing the head Euins described.
-
"There are no "bad shots" in the Marine Corps."
This letter sent to the WC at the direction of the Marine Corp Commandant says a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot.
It includes Oswald's Marksman qualification scores.
He qualified with a 191 score. 190 is the lowest score you could get and still qualify.
Ozzie was considered a rather poor shot by the Marine Corp.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/anderson.jpg)
](https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/anderson2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/anderson3.jpg)
Oswald had no time to warm up:
First shot missed
Second shot 'mass-centre-mass'
Third shot bullseye
Got his feel back rather quickly
That's 'this-is-my-rifle, this-is-my-gun' training for you.
;)
-
Oswald had no time to warm up:
First shot missed
Second shot 'mass-centre-mass'
Third shot bullseye
Got his feel back rather quickly
That's 'this-is-my-rifle, this-is-my-gun' training for you.
;)
When the Army tested the Carcano, using 3 expert marksman, they concluded a person would need considerable experience with
weapons and considerable experience in paticular with the Carcano to make the shots proposed by the WC.
Aside from the scope being misaligned and needing shims added before it could be adjusted and the iron sights being sighted
@ 200yds which caused the rifle to fire high at lesser distances, they found two dificulties with firing the Carcano.
First, the difficulty of operating the bolt caused the shooter to take the sights off the target when cycling it between
shots.
Second, the two stage trigger of the Carcano created a hair trigger during it's second stage of firing.
They concluded the shooter would need live firing practice to overcome these difficulties.
Can you show where Oswald aquired the considerable experience with the Carcano and paticulary the live firing experience
he needed to do what is claimed he did?
~snip~
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to
shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I
think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the
target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
~snip~
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do
you mean accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required
to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger
would best be achieved with some firing.
~snip~
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the
recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil
of the weapon.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to
have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you
feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into
the weapon.
~snip~
-
A.G. FOLSOM, JR.
Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Marine Corps
Head, Records Branch, Personnel Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps
"...The Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should
permit them to become qualified at least as marksman. To become qualified as sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the
opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently
a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a
fairly good "shot". I trust the foregoing will serve the purpose of your inquiry..."
The Warren Commission brought in two career military men, Major Anderson and Sgt. James A. Zahm from the Marine Corp to testify
that LHO is a better than average shot and could have easily made the 11/22/63 shots that killed JFK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 1956, using a M-1, firing at targets at 200, 300, and 500 yds, he scored 212. 210 is the lowest score to qualify a sharpshooter.
WC expert, Major Anderson, gave the following reasons for LHO qualifying as a sharpshooter.
"Yes; the day the 212 was fired appears to be according to the record book to have been an ideal day under firing conditions.
"Yes; when he fired that he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period."
"He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach."
"He had high motivation."
"He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition."
On May6, 1959, using a M-1, firing at a stationary target at 200 yds, he scored 191. This is the lowest possible score he could get and still qualify as a marksman.
WC expert, Major Anderson, gave the following reasons as possibilities of why LHO scored so low.
"It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle windy, rainy, dark."
"There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because may well
have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage."
"There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under
the care of the drill instructor."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/22/63
LHO is 4 yrs removed from any kind of firearms training or coaching.
How much farther had his shooting skills eroded?
-
Nah, I'm seeing the head Euins described.
No, you’re assuming that Euins saw Oswald and desperately trying to make what he described fit.
-
First shot missed
Second shot 'mass-centre-mass'
Third shot bullseye
There you go again, stating assumptions as facts.
-
Why he was killed...........
Robert Kennedy hounded Carlos and other mob members in the senate hearings dragging several into their hearings and make comments like “I thought only little girls giggled Mr. Hoffa”
Joe Kennedy asks for the help of the mob to get his son Jack elected president of the United States and he wins by a slim margin. Was the mobs help enough to swing the vote to JFK, who knows, the only thing that matters is that the mob thought so.
Bobby Kennedy has Carlos Marcello basically kidnapped and flown out of the county to ultimately be kicked out of a bus in the middle of the jungle in their florshiem shoes to fend for themselves where they could have been killed and did suffer some injuries.
I am not sure if the mob took offence with the way Frank Sinatra was treated by JFK after Frank spent a small fortune building a helicopter pad for when the President was going to come and visit and then all of a sudden JFK turns his back on Frank with no explanation. Frank was so pissed he couldn’t see straight, I think it was said that he was so angry he took a sludge hammer to the concrete helipad.
-
No, Marcello was down in Central America for weeks or months.
-
So “name your shooter” is like asking the name of the mechanic working on your car, what difference does it make, he is just following orders from up above. He is not responsible for the planning, or even know why he is doing it, he is just doing what he is paid to do.
I have stated “why” in post 77 of this thread and one of the “who”. I am not sure if this is the thread to say more, I hate it when people drift off topic, kind of like what I have done but I had to put in my two cents worth.
-
No, you’re assuming that Euins saw Oswald and desperately trying to make what he described fit.
Nah, the head Euins saw happened to match Oswald's re the 2.5" area back of the hairline.
That only proves the shooter would have to be sporting a similar 'do.
-
Nah, the head Euins saw happened to match Oswald's re the 2.5" area back of the hairline.
Who measured Oswald's hairline? You?
Euins didn't even come up with the 2.5". That was Specter.
That only proves the shooter would have to be sporting a similar 'do.
Except he said "bald spot".
Also there's this:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Isn't that exactly what you used to try to discredit Frazier's observation about the bag? Double standard?
-
Who measured Oswald's hairline? You?
>>> Who measured the bag? You?
Euins didn't even come up with the 2.5". That was Specter.
>>> Euins agreed with the estimation. And physically pointed out the area on his own head*
Except he said "bald spot".
>>> Semantics
Also there's this:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Isn't that exactly what you used to try to discredit Frazier's observation about the bag? Double standard?
>>> Show us where I;m discrediting Frazier. Hiding the full size of the bag would work in Buell's case since he kept repeating he wasn't paying any attention to it.
Amos described the spot on the head in the window no matter if you like it or not
Mr. EUINS. I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
*Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
He got enough of a good look at the head to describe your anal-retentive description of 'bald spot' accurately
-
>>> Who measured the bag? You?
Fail. Frazier said the bag was "around 2 feet, give and take a few inches". Euins never said anything about a hairline or 2.5". But how do you even know that 2.5" fits Oswald's hairline?
>>> Euins agreed with the estimation. And physically pointed out the area on his own head*
So you've seen video of Euins' deposition?
Except he said "bald spot".
>>> Semantics
So now who's the one deciding what witnesses really meant? Giant hypocrite.
Amos described the spot on the head in the window no matter if you like it or not
Yes, he described a spot on the head. You're the one twisting what he said to mean Oswald's receding hairline.
He got enough of a good look at the head to describe your anal-retentive description of 'bald spot' accurately
More hypocrisy. Frazier got a way closer look at the bag than Euins got of the person's head. And you don't know that it describes Oswald's head accurately -- you're just assuming that it must.
-
Fail. Frazier said the bag was "around 2 feet, give and take a few inches".
>>> Frazier had a vested interest in what size he reported. Randle says the package almost touched the ground. A 35" package carried straight down by the side as described by Randle leaves said 35" package 4" from the ground in my tests. I'm 3" taller than Oswald so that confirms Randle's 'almost touching the ground' statement. That leaves quite a gap to cover for a 18" to 26" package to appear to be 'almost touching the ground'.
Euins never said anything about a hairline or 2.5".
>> Yeah, he did. He agreed with it.
But how do you even know that 2.5" fits Oswald's hairline?
>>> Why ask me? Euins agreed with the estimate
So you've seen video of Euins' deposition?
>> Did you read Euins' testimony?
So now who's the one deciding what witnesses really meant? Giant hypocrite.
>>> Stop twisting... I'm talking about YOUR semantics, Sparky...
Yes, he described a spot on the head. You're the one twisting what he said to mean Oswald's receding hairline.
>>> Euins indicated the front of the head... unless the shooter was trying one of those trick shots. But nobody saw a mirror.
More hypocrisy. Frazier got a way closer look at the bag than Euins got of the person's head.
>>> Frazier wasn't paying attention. Euins was.
And you don't know that it describes Oswald's head accurately -- you're just assuming that it must.
>>> Coulda. Euins agreed with the location & the estimation. Now go find a shooter with a hairline to match..
-
Malcolm Wallace, since one of his fingerprints was left behind at the SE window, with 35 points matched by 30 year veteran
expert fingerprint examiner, Nathan Darby.
Malcolm was having a difficult time seeing the target, however, since he was not wearing any glasses, as per Amos Euins, so Malcom had to fire 3 shots in 4.8 seconds, as heard and described by Harold Norman on the 5th floor, right beneath the SN window.
Unfortunately, some other experts have declared 35 points match can be nullified by irregular dissimilar points between, and also, because no other shooter using MC rifle under same condition as SN boxes in window etc, has been able shoot 3 rounds in 4.8 seconds and get a head shot
there must be some OTHER shooter with some OTHER type rifle, or there were TWO shooters, one of them having a rifle that looked to Arnold Rowland to be a 30.06 hunting rifle with a large scope that Rowland could see from over 100 yds distance.
or Oswald is an incredible shooter but was suffering from and IQ of only 108 and or had some mental disorder that explains all the other idiotic choices, like not wearing gloves and having to wipe his rifle down with a rag instead, and forgetting about that palm print he left on the barrel, and forgetting to get rid that fake Alek Hidell ID card and dropping that with his wallet at the Tippet shooting scene.
-
James Files said he made the frontal head shot that blew out the back of JFK's head, but who made the frontal neck shot on JFK ? Files said he fired one shot and that shot was the shot that hit JFK's right temple and it blew the right rear back of JFK's head off leaving a hole about the size of a baseball . The trunk lid and the back of the car had blood and brain matter all over it . Motorcycle Policeman Bobby Hargis had blood and brain matter all over him , so much that he thought he might have been hit . We have no clue who shot through the windshield and made an entrance wound in JFK's throat but made no exit , just like the shot in the back that made no exit !
-
Fail. Frazier said the bag was "around 2 feet, give and take a few inches".
>>> Frazier had a vested interest in what size he reported. Randle says the package almost touched the ground. A 35" package carried straight down by the side as described by Randle leaves said 35" package 4" from the ground in my tests.
Let me guess. Your "tests" were contrived to make a 35" inch package almost touch the ground, right? I can make a two-foot bag almost touch the ground too if I hold it the right way. Are you forgetting that Linnie Mae did her own test?
Oh yeah, how does one fit a 40-inch rifle in your 35-inch bag and fold the top over?
Euins never said anything about a hairline or 2.5".
>> Yeah, he did. He agreed with it.
It was a leading question. And Specter had a vested interest in what size he reported.
But how do you even know that 2.5" fits Oswald's hairline?
>>> Why ask me? Euins agreed with the estimate
No, I'm asking you if Specter's 2.5" estimate of what Euins was demonstrating on his own head actually matches Oswald's hairline. If the size of Oswald's hairline gap is not 2.5" then all bets are off.
>> Did you read Euins' testimony?
Yep. "Right along in here" doesn't mean much in written text.
>>> Stop twisting... I'm talking about YOUR semantics, Sparky...
No, you're being transparently hypocritical and applying a different standard to yourself.
>>> Euins indicated the front of the head...
..and that means receding hairline, why, exactly? Just because you want it to be?
unless the shooter was trying one of those trick shots. But nobody saw a mirror.
Another useless attempt at being "clever". Nobody saw a receding hairline either. Or Oswald.
>>> Frazier wasn't paying attention. Euins was.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
>>> Coulda. Euins agreed with the location & the estimation. Now go find a shooter with a hairline to match..
Go find a shooter with a bald spot. "Coulda meant Oswald" is hardly conclusive proof of anything.
-
There you go again, stating assumptions as facts.
Nah... just musing
-
Nah... just musing
Certainly not "amusing".
-
Let me guess. Your "tests" were contrived to make a 35" inch package almost touch the ground, right?
>>> Watch your mouth. And you guess way too much. And do the math yourself. I held the 35" object straight down at my side and right near the top, with my arm at full length.
I can make a two-foot bag almost touch the ground too if I hold it the right way.
>>> Show us that little trick. Show us where I used a 2ft bag. And just how many inches is ‘close’ to you… or are you JAQ again. The ‘right way’ has the bag almost touching the ground.
Are you forgetting that Linnie Mae did her own test?
>>> Is she Oswald’s height and did her 2ft bag almost touch the ground?
Oh yeah, how does one fit a 40-inch rifle in your 35-inch bag and fold the top over
>>> What bag? My 35” narrow object represents the length of a broken-down Carcano.
It was a leading question. And Specter had a vested interest in what size he reported.
>> Specter had a vested interest on how a bag seen to almost touch the ground could now be the size of somebody’s lunch bag.
No, I'm asking you if Specter's 2.5" estimate of what Euins was demonstrating on his own head actually matches Oswald's hairline. If the size of Oswald's hairline gap is not 2.5" then all bets are off.
>>> No. It’s an estimation. Plus thinning hair in strong sunlight will reveal more skin making the spot appear larger.
Yep. "Right along in here" doesn't mean much in written text.
>>> In isolation, no. In this case it locates the spot.
No, you're being transparently hypocritical and applying a different standard to yourself.
>>> Point out any hypocrisy on my part.
..and that means receding hairline, why, exactly? Just because you want it to be?
>>> Take a look at Oswald’s hairline over the years and tell us his hairline wasn’t in retreat. And plenty of mention of ‘receding hair’ re Oswald on google groups over the years.
Another useless attempt at being "clever". Nobody saw a receding hairline either. Or Oswald.
>>> And yet you called my Satan/Oswald bit 'creative' the other day. Anyway, stop splitting hairs: you brainiacs keep playing this ‘bald spot’-dictionary-meaning thing and I’m going to mock you.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
>>> He’s never said that he could ID anyone, only that he saw a white spot on a head
Go find a shooter with a bald spot. "Coulda meant Oswald" is hardly conclusive proof of anything.
>>> That’s your job. We have a guy with the spot Euins described. Better not show up with an sn shooter completely bald or with an Afro is what I’m sayin’.
-
Certainly not "amusing".
Especially not for Kennedy
-
Well?
I'm not going to let you know so easily, you should have to work for it, I will lead the way with the process of elimination. We know it was not Oswald. ...ok your turn
-
>>> Watch your mouth. And you guess way too much. And do the math yourself. I held the 35" object straight down at my side and right near the top, with my arm at full length.
You can hide a multitude of lengths behind “near the top” and “almost touched the ground”
The ‘right way’ has the bag almost touching the ground.
How do you know you did it the “right way”? The same way you know how big Oswald’s “bald spot” was?
>>> What bag? My 35” narrow object represents the length of a broken-down
Too bad you have no evidence whatsoever that the Carcano was ever broken down. Or in a bag.
>>> Point out any hypocrisy on my part.
You discredit Frazier’s estimation because “he wasn’t paying attention”. Euins said he wasn’t paying attention but you not only accept his agreement with Specter’s 2.5 inch bald spot, but you twist that to refer to Oswald’s unknown sized receding hairline.
>>> And yet you called my Satan/Oswald bit 'creative' the other day. Anyway, you brainiacs keep playing this ‘bald spot’ dictionary meaning thing and I’m going to mock you.
Of course you will. That’s all you’ve got.
>>> That’s your job. We have a guy with the spot Euins described.
No, you have a guy who you twisted Euins’ description to include.
-
You can hide a multitude of lengths behind “near the top” and “almost touched the ground
You can hide a multitude of claims by not committing to anything at all. Continue JAQing off, Sherlock rather than actually demonstrating how to hold a 2ft long bag in such a way so as to almost touch the ground when carried by a 5'9" individual
How do you know you did it the “right way”? The same way you know how big Oswald’s “bald spot” was?
>>> Randle described the way the bag was being handled. The narrow object I handled is heavy enough to force me to find the most efficient way to grasp it, while at the same not compromising my wrist. That turned out to be near the top and straight down to my side with arm extended fully.
Too bad for you that you have no proof that it was a Carcano or was ever in that bag.
>>> How is that 'bad' for me, exactly. This is fun. And what's so bad about having some fun while waiting for you lot to confirm your shooter, along with those who knew in advance that an attempt was about to be made on Kennedy that day?
You discredit Frazier’s estimation because “he wasn’t paying attention”. Euins said he wasn’t paying attention but you not only accept his agreement with Specter’s 2.5 inch bald spot, but you twist that to refer to Oswald’s unknown sized receding hairline.
>>> Buell wasn't paying attention. Euins was. I accept that Euins saw a part of a head that was large enough for him to keep referring to it multiple times.
Of course you will. That’s all you’ve got.
>>> You can't handle being mocked, OBieOne...
No, you have a guy who you twisted Euins’ description to include.
>>> Where did I twist a description that identified the location of a white spot on a head?
-
You can hide a multitude of claims by not committing to anything at all. Continue JAQing off, Sherlock rather than actually demonstrating how to hold a 2ft long bag in such a way so as to almost touch the ground when carried by a 5'9" individual
How do you know you did it the “right way”? The same way you know how big Oswald’s “bald spot” was?
>>> Randle described the way the bag was being handled. The narrow object I handled is heavy enough to force me to find the most efficient way to grasp it, while at the same not compromising my wrist. That turned out to be near the top and straight down to my side with arm extended fully.
Too bad for you that you have no proof that it was a Carcano or was ever in that bag.
>>> How is that 'bad' for me, exactly. This is fun. And what's so bad about having some fun while waiting for you lot to confirm your shooter, along with those who knew in advance that an attempt was about to be made on Kennedy that day?
You discredit Frazier’s estimation because “he wasn’t paying attention”. Euins said he wasn’t paying attention but you not only accept his agreement with Specter’s 2.5 inch bald spot, but you twist that to refer to Oswald’s unknown sized receding hairline.
>>> Buell wasn't paying attention. Euins was. I accept that Euins saw a part of a head that was large enough for him to keep referring to it multiple times.
Of course you will. That’s all you’ve got.
>>> You can't handle being mocked, OBieOne...
No, you have a guy who you twisted Euins’ description to include.
>>> Where did I twist a description that identified the location of a white spot on a head?
>>> How is that 'bad' for me, exactly. This is fun. And what's so bad about having some fun while waiting for you lot to confirm your shooter, along with those who knew in advance that an attempt was about to be made on Kennedy that day?
You are not doing well. Why would someone have to know in advance, Oswald did not do it and did not know in advance, I would say he was surprised. You should be easy on yourself and come to grips with the fact that the wounds Connolly and
Kennedy received were not from bullets that originated from SFW
-
You are not doing well. Why would someone have to know in advance, Oswald did not do it and did not know in advance, I would say he was surprised. You should be easy on yourself and come to grips with the fact that the wounds Connolly and
Kennedy received were not from bullets that originated from SFW
Conspirators would know have to know in advance, KleinTroll.
Trajectory cone includes TSBD SE corner
You have to come to grips with the common conspiracy-monger virus known as batspombleprofglidnoctobunscrazyitis
-
Conspirators would know have to know in advance, KleinTroll.
Trajectory cone includes TSBD SE corner
You have to come to grips with the common conspiracy-monger virus known as batspombleprofglidnoctobunscrazyitis
Just because mommy made daddy build you a mini version of Dealey Plaza (that you still play with to this day) does not mean you know something about the assassination, actually listen to your nonsense and maybe you can take that first step in the right direction and use your head for once
-
You can hide a multitude of claims by not committing to anything at all.
Committing to something without any good reason is no virtue.
Continue JAQing off, Sherlock rather than actually demonstrating how to hold a 2ft long bag in such a way so as to almost touch the ground when carried by a 5'9" individual
You mean the way you demonstrated anything at all?
The narrow object I handled is heavy enough to force me to find the most efficient way to grasp it, while at the same not compromising my wrist. That turned out to be near the top and straight down to my side with arm extended fully.
Cool. What does that have to do with Randle? She said nothing about straight down to his side with arm extended fully.
>>> How is that 'bad' for me, exactly.
Because your “disassembled Carcano” is pure speculation.
This is fun. And what's so bad about having some fun while waiting for you lot to confirm your shooter,
We’re still waiting for you to confirm yours. Too soon?
along with those who knew in advance that an attempt was about to be made on Kennedy that day?
I never claimed anybody (other than the assassin) did.
>>> Buell wasn't paying attention. Euins was.
Euins said he didn’t.
I accept that Euins saw a part of a head that was large enough for him to keep referring to it multiple times.
But you just made up that it had anything to do with Oswald.
>>> You can't handle being mocked, OBieOne...
Your “mockery” is as obtuse as it is irrelevant.
>>> Where did I twist a description that identified the location of a white spot on a head?
You twisted a 2.5 inch bald spot into a receding hairline of unknown size.
-
Committing to something without any good reason is no virtue.
'Virtue' has never been a word I would associate with you.
Quote
Continue JAQing off, Sherlock rather than actually demonstrating how to hold a 2ft long bag in such a way so as to almost touch the ground when carried by a 5'9" individual
You mean the way you demonstrated anything at all?
>>> The math is my demonstrator. It works perfectly, leaving a 35" long package fitting snugly into the available vertical height (as carried by a 5'9" individual) and 'almost touching the ground'
Quote
The narrow object I handled is heavy enough to force me to find the most efficient way to grasp it, while at the same not compromising my wrist. That turned out to be near the top and straight down to my side with arm extended fully.
Cool. What does that have to do with Randle? She said nothing about straight down to his side with arm extended fully.
>>> She didn't have to. My re-creation, going by the available parameters, shows how it went down*
Quote
How is that 'bad' for me, exactly.
Because your “disassembled Carcano” is pure speculation.
>>> Disassembled rifle or not, disassembled Carcano or not, the math confirms the 35" vertical space to be had.
Quote
This is fun. And what's so bad about having some fun while waiting for you lot to confirm your shooter
We’re still waiting for you to confirm yours. Too soon?
>>> Probably not ;)
Quote
along with those who knew in advance that an attempt was about to be made on Kennedy that day?
I never claimed anybody (other than the assassin) did.
>>> I said ‘you lot’.
Quote
Buell wasn't paying attention. Euins was.
Euins said he didn’t.
>>> Euins said he saw the spot
Quote
I accept that Euins saw a part of a head that was large enough for him to keep referring to it multiple times.
But you just made up that it had anything to do with Oswald
>>> It had something to do with the head in the window.
Quote
You can't handle being mocked, OBieOne...
Your “mockery” is as obtuse as it is irrelevant.
>>> Of course it is
Quote
Where did I twist a description that identified the location of a white spot on a head?
You twisted a 2.5 inch bald spot into a receding hairline of unknown size.
>>> Um, I pointed out the fact that Oswald’s hairline was receding
@Lurkers:
*pun intended
-
>>> The math is my demonstrator. It works perfectly, leaving a 35" long package fitting snugly into the available vertical height (as carried by a 5'9" individual) and 'almost touching the ground'
LOL. "Almost" is not a mathematical construct. Nor is "math" a demonstration.
>>> She didn't have to. My re-creation, going by the available parameters, shows how it went down*
So then this demonstrates exactly nothing other than your overactive ego.
>>> Disassembled rifle or not, disassembled Carcano or not, the math confirms the 35" vertical space to be had.
Well, no, Bill. Your contrived "math" doesn't show anything of the kind. It's just your usual navel-gazing.
I never claimed anybody (other than the assassin) did.
>>> I said ‘you lot’.
"You lot" is just yet another one of your useless generalizations to avoid having to address what actual people actually say.
>>> Euins said he saw the spot
Frazier said he saw the flimsy 2-foot bag.
>>> It had something to do with the head in the window.
Helpful as usual.
>>> Um, I pointed out the fact that Oswald’s hairline was receding
So what?
-
You can hide a multitude of claims by not committing to anything at all. Continue JAQing off, Sherlock rather than actually demonstrating how to hold a 2ft long bag in such a way so as to almost touch the ground when carried by a 5'9" individual
How do you know you did it the “right way”? The same way you know how big Oswald’s “bald spot” was?
>>> Randle described the way the bag was being handled. The narrow object I handled is heavy enough to force me to find the most efficient way to grasp it, while at the same not compromising my wrist. That turned out to be near the top and straight down to my side with arm extended fully.
Too bad for you that you have no proof that it was a Carcano or was ever in that bag.
>>> How is that 'bad' for me, exactly. This is fun. And what's so bad about having some fun while waiting for you lot to confirm your shooter, along with those who knew in advance that an attempt was about to be made on Kennedy that day?
You discredit Frazier’s estimation because “he wasn’t paying attention”. Euins said he wasn’t paying attention but you not only accept his agreement with Specter’s 2.5 inch bald spot, but you twist that to refer to Oswald’s unknown sized receding hairline.
>>> Buell wasn't paying attention. Euins was. I accept that Euins saw a part of a head that was large enough for him to keep referring to it multiple times.
Of course you will. That’s all you’ve got.
>>> You can't handle being mocked, OBieOne...
No, you have a guy who you twisted Euins’ description to include.
>>> Where did I twist a description that identified the location of a white spot on a head?
Bill, come on, do you have some real arguments? I didn't think so
-
Chapman "logic":
- Euins said he saw a guy with a bald spot
- I think bald spot could really mean receding hairline
- Oswald had a receding hairline
- Therefore Euins saw Oswald
- Probably
-
Chapman "logic":
- Euins said he saw a guy with a bald spot
- I think bald spot could really mean receding hairline
- Oswald had a receding hairline
- Therefore Euins saw Oswald
- Probably
Geez, Louise... a little jumpy today, LittleJudgeJohnny?
Once again: Euins saw a head in that window which revealed exposed skin in a way that caught his attention. Ergo: Any shooter in that window would need to sport a similar 'do as initial step in identifying whose body said head was attached to.
Now that's logic
-
He didn’t say “exposed skin”. He said “bald spot”.
-
He didn’t say “exposed skin”. He said “bald spot”.
So skin wasn't exposed if the area indicated by Euins, Merriam?
-
Bill, come on, do you have some real arguments? I didn't think so
Just show us how a 2ft package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle.
-
Just show us how a 2ft package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle.
Better still, Bill, show us how a 37", 8 lb package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle.
-
Better still, Bill, show us how a 37", 8 lb package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle.
Better still, grab a tape measure and prove me wrong.
-
Better still, grab a tape measure and prove me wrong.
Come on, Bill. You were the one who asked Peter to show how a 2ft package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle. But first you show us how he could carry an 8 lb 37" package the same way.
-
Come on, Bill. You were the one who asked Peter to show how a 2ft package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle. But first you show us how he could carry an 8 lb 37" package the same way.
Iacoletti is the one using 2ft as his go-to size
I'm at Carcano breakdown size
Edit:
In addition, in his blind zeal to shrink the bag down to microscopic level, he forgot that we need a bag that almost touched the ground.
It seems his separating each piece of evidence one-from-the-other has back-fired yet again.
-
Iacoletti is the one using 2ft as his go-to size
I'm at Carcano breakdown size
If you are at Carcano breakdown size, then it should be easy for you to show how "Oswald" carried a 37", 8lb package in the way described by Randle.
-
Just show us how a 2ft package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle.
Randle did exactly that when she did her experiment with agent McNeely.
-
Iacoletti is the one using 2ft as his go-to size
I'm at Carcano breakdown size
Of course you are. Even though there is no evidence that the Carcano was broken down or in a bag.
-
Just show us how a 2ft package can be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9" Oswald in the way described by Randle.
Show me that Oswald owned that rifle. Since it was not his rifle, it messes your story up. Curtain rods were in the bag just like he said. Pretty basic
-
Show me that Oswald owned that rifle. Since it was not his rifle, it messes your story up. Curtain rods were in the bag just like he said. Pretty basic
Go out and get a tape measure
Maybe you lot can pass the hat around
-
Iacoletti is the one using 2ft as his go-to size
I'm at Carcano breakdown size
(https://i.postimg.cc/65Lj3fr6/Randlebagestyta-zpspojygidi.jpg)
JohnM
-
Go out and get a tape measure
Maybe you lot can pass the hat around
Here is 5'9" guy holding a 24" tape coloured in as per a paper bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4mHQ7yHH/Ray-and-tape5.png) (https://postimg.cc/4mHQ7yHH)
I notice you can't afford tape measure, Chappers.
-
This the same 5'9"guy holding a 37" tape coloured in as per the bag, Notice how high, and forward of his body, the holder would have to carry the 8 lb paper
bag for it not to touch the floor, as per Randles comments. Who in their right mind would carry that heavy a bag in like that?
(https://i.postimg.cc/yJhkw4gN/Ray-andlong-tape.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/yJhkw4gN)
-
Go out and get a tape measure
Maybe you lot can pass the hat around
That is not an argument you are just showing something within the parameters but as you know it only mattered IF AND ONLY IF you were able to prove he owned the gun and prove everything else surrounding the gun ...When are you going to say Oswald was hiding in one of the boxes?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/65Lj3fr6/Randlebagestyta-zpspojygidi.jpg)
JohnM
Wow that arm of his surely does do things that are quite funky. Reminds me of one of the backyard photos you cherish. I believe it is his left arm in the backyard photo. Now take that right arm in this new photo and the left arm of the backyard photo and put them on one picture to see how neanderthal-looking LHO apparently was....by your account anyway
-
If you are at Carcano breakdown size, then it should be easy for you to show how "Oswald" carried a 37", 8lb package in the way described by Randle.
In order for the heavy package to be carried efficiently by the top, I found that my arm had to be by my side, straight downwards with package perpendicular to the ground. I held it near the top with a little bit showing as described by Randle.
Somebody mentioned a baseball bat. I played scheduled baseball throughout my teen years. During these tests, I used the grip I used when carrying a baseball bat in that position (grabbed at the front, thumb and first finger form a V and face frontwards).
-
Randle did exactly that when she did her experiment with agent McNeely.
Did they agree that the package almost touched the ground?
Was that even brought up?
@Lurkers:My tests show a 27" size 7" from the ground when carried by Oswald (10" when carried by me, I'm 6' feet tall)
-
Of course you are. Even though there is no evidence that the Carcano was broken down or in a bag.
Of couse there isn't, Judge Johnny.
Now stay on task an tell us how to get a 2' bag carried by Oswald to almost touch the ground
-
Here is 5'9" guy holding a 24" tape coloured in as per a paper bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4mHQ7yHH/Ray-and-tape5.png) (https://postimg.cc/4mHQ7yHH)
I notice you can't afford tape measure, Chappers.
Thumb1:
Notice how Chapman hasn’t come up with so much as a photo of his alleged experiment. And he’s not even 5’ 9”.
-
From CE 2008:
“The action of OSWALD walking across Westbrook Street was re-enacted by Special Agent MC NEELY, carrying the sack with three scraps of wood in it to simulate weight until Mrs. RANDLE designated the proper path and the proper length of the sack as seen by her on November 22, 1963. The replica was shortened by folding the open top down to reach the desired length. Then, in accordance with Mrs. RANDLE's observations, Special Agent MC NEELY grasped the top of this sack with his hand, much like a right handed batter would pick up a baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. RANDLE's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long.”
-
In order for the heavy package to be carried efficiently by the top, I found that my arm had to be by my side, straight downwards with package perpendicular to the ground. I held it near the top with a little bit showing as described by Randle.
Somebody mentioned a baseball bat. I played scheduled baseball throughout my teen years. During these tests, I used the grip I used when carrying a baseball bat in that position (grabbed at the front, thumb and first finger form a V and face frontwards).
Don't tell us, Chappers. Show us.
-
Don't tell us, Chappers. Show us.
Lets see your math first
-
“In accordance with Mrs Randle’s observations”.
-
“In accordance with Mrs Randle’s observations”.
Funny how you issue a free pass to a government report, any government report.
Mrs Randle's observation's include only estimations
Mrs Randle's testimony includes an observation revealing the bag 'almost touching the ground'
My tests reveal a 10" distance to the ground at my height, revealing a 7" distance at Oswald's
Go ahead and call 7" an 'almost touching the ground' height
-
Well?
Why in the world would anybody name anyone other than the one-and-only Oswald?
-- MWT ;)
-
Funny how you issue a free pass to a government report, any government report.
Funny how you think your thought experiment trumps Randle’s re-creation, when she’s the one who saw the bag. That’s some ego.
My tests reveal a 10" distance to the ground at my height, revealing a 7" distance at Oswald's
Go ahead and call 7" an 'almost touching the ground' height
Why should anyone take your claimed results seriously when you won’t even post a photo?
-
Funny how you think your thought experiment trumps Randle’s re-creation, when she’s the one who saw the bag. That’s some ego.
Why should anyone take your claimed results seriously when you won’t even post a photo?
Iacoletti,
Why should he post a photo when he knows you'll probably claim it was photoshopped, and/or require three notarized statements (in triplicate) and a couple of certified DNA tests?
-- MWT ;)
-
See what I mean about obnoxious made-up stuff?
-
See what I mean about obnoxious made-up stuff?
Iacoletti,
Don't you remember the thread titled "What Kind Of Evidence Does Iacoletti Require?" (or some-such thing) I started about a year ago?
As I recall, you didn't contribute to it, or if you did, it was non-responsive in nature.
Why was that?
-- MWT ;)
-
Funny how you think your thought experiment trumps Randle’s re-creation, when she’s the one who saw the bag. That’s some ego. Why should anyone take your claimed results seriously when you won’t even post a photo?
Point out where I'm trying to trump anybody.
My focus is on a 34.8" length
You do want the WC findings challenged, do you not?
Why would you need images from someone else* when you're perfectly capable of doing your own test?
@Especially from me, who you've called a 'bozo' and 'insane' in the past
-
Iacoletti,
Why should he post a photo when he knows you'll probably claim it was photoshopped, and/or require three notarized statements (in triplicate) and a couple of certified DNA tests?
-- MWT ;)
Now you're going have to prove that Iacoletti ever said he'd do that
:D ::)
Besides every CTer on the face of the planet have the back-door/trap-door option: 'It's all FAKED'*
*They all have diplomas from TrumpU
-
Why would you need images from someone else* when you're perfectly capable of doing your own test?
Because I don’t believe you.
-
Now you're going have to prove that Iacoletti ever said he'd do that
:D ::)
Besides every CTer on the face of the planet have the back-door/trap-door option: 'It's all FAKED'*
*They all have diplomas from TrumpU
-
Because I don’t believe you.
Iacoletti,
If you don't trust him, why would you trust any "selfies" he would post?
If you have a tape measure, why don't you cut a piece of wood or something to that length, and test it on yourself?
I mean, I mean, I mean ... you aren't a knuckle-dragger, are you? (You don't have to answer that question.)
But be forewarned-- you're gonna have to post photos and videos of yourself doing it, for the simple reason that, well, we don't trust you. And given your record here (e.g., accusing me of posting some photos of guys wearing Bermuda shorts that were actually posted by you in a vain effort to prove something), why the hell should we?
-- MWT ;)
-
Lets see your math first
Oswald 5'9" tall
Rifle was either 24/27" long, according to witnesses, or 34.8" long broken down, according to you.
Choose your weapon.
Edited to correct wording.
-
Oswald 5'9" tall
Bag was either 24/27" long, according to witnesses, or 34.8" long broken down, according to you.
Choose your weapon.
1) 5' 9.5"
2) A broken-down bag?
-
I have no reliable information regarding whether or not the Mannlicher Carano rifle alleged to have been used to fire at the President in Dealey Plaza was fired or not on the day of the assassination.
However, I am testing a hypothesis, that we have proof Oswald did not fire a gun that day. The proof has two parts. One part is indirect, but important. The indirect part of the proof is that there is no reason to think Oswald fired a gun that day. The other part of the proof is the parrafin tests showed only signs of powder residue consistent with handling boxes,. No powder found on his face, which proves he did not fire that bolt action rifle from the window.
As for the gun itself, I don't know for sure the Mannlicher Carcano was used or not used in the shooting
-
1) 5' 9.5"
Citation?
2) A broken-down bag?
Amended.
-
Citation?
Take my word for it.
-
Try this, Ray:
Fingerprint card dated “11-25-63,” 17 Warren Commission Hearings 308.
-- MWT ;)
-
But be forewarned-- you're gonna have to post photos and videos of yourself doing it, for the simple reason that, well, we don't trust you. And given your record here (e.g., accusing me of posting some photos of guys wearing Bermuda shorts that were actually posted by you in a vain effort to prove something), why the hell should we?
I didn’t accuse you of anything, you raving lunatic.
You can get any result you want from an experiment like like by just adjusting what “almost touched the ground” means to fit your biases. But Linnie Mae had McNeely hold a package to match what she actually saw that day and it measured 27 inches. Deal with it.
-
Take my word for it.
Why should I?
-
I have no reliable information regarding whether or not the Mannlicher Carano rifle alleged to have been used to fire at the President in Dealey Plaza was fired or not on the day of the assassination.
However, I am testing a hypothesis, that we have proof Oswald did not fire a gun that day. The proof has two parts. One part is indirect, but important. The indirect part of the proof is that there is no reason to think Oswald fired a gun that day. The other part of the proof is the parrafin tests showed only signs of powder residue consistent with handling boxes,. No powder found on his face, which proves he did not fire that bolt action rifle from the window.
As for the gun itself, I don't know for sure the Mannlicher Carcano was used or not used in the shooting
Paraffin tests in 1963 were as reliable as lie detector tests. Fairly useless either way unfortunately.
-
Oswald 5'9" tall
Rifle was either 24/27" long, according to witnesses, or 34.8" long broken down, according to you.
Choose your weapon.
Edited to correct wording.
::)
34.8" is not 'my' claim
It's the WC claim
I'm just testing it out..
Try to keep up
I've tested all 3
Only the 34.8" almost touched the ground
Choose your weapon.
>>> Those are my 'weapon(s)'
Dude, body bags: I'm locked & loaded.
-
I didn’t accuse you of anything, you raving lunatic.
You can get any result you want from an experiment like like by just adjusting what “almost touched the ground” means to fit your biases. But Linnie Mae had McNeely hold a package to match what she actually saw that day and it measured 27 inches. Deal with it.
Is 'raving lunatic' more severe than just the plain old insane you called me? Linnie Mae, the sister of the guy who drove the accused to work, estimated the size she saw. You can't adjust a tape measure to suit your biases. When are you going to tell us what height 'almost touching the ground' means to you?
-
34.8" is not 'my' claim
It's the WC claim
I'm just testing it out..
There’s still no evidence that rifle was ever disassembled or in a bag.
-
Is 'raving lunatic' more severe than just the plain old insane you called me? Linnie Mae, the sister of the guy who drove the accused to work, estimated the size she saw. You can't adjust a tape measure to suit your biases. When are you going to tell us what height 'almost touching the ground' means to you?
You’re (supposedly) adjusting a contrived bag to suit your biases. The difference is that Randle was the one who actually saw how Oswald was carrying his package. Your experiment is meaningless.
It doesn’t matter what “almost touching the ground” means to either one of us. What matters is what it meant to Randle. And she had McNeely match what she actually saw.
-
You’re (supposedly) adjusting a contrived bag to suit your biases. The difference is that Randle was the one who actually saw how Oswald was carrying his package. Your experiment is meaningless.
It doesn’t matter what “almost touching the ground” means to either one of us. What matters is what it meant to Randle. And she had McNeely match what she actually saw.
You talk the talk...
I'm biased toward measuring the distance available to a 34.8" WC claim
Meaurements ain't meaningless, Tex..
What you mean us, white man?
Of course it doen't matter to you, Tonto
Edit: 11:01 EST
>>> What exactly is contrived about the measurements provided? You are interested in having WC claims challenged, aren't you?
-
I'm biased toward measuring the distance available to a 34.8" WC claim
Meaurements ain't meaningless, Tex..
This is Amos Euins all over again. You think your interpretation of what they said is some unassailable truth. Why should anyone care what some six foot guy was able to get to "almost touch the ground" by his standards when Linnie Mae already did an experiment?
-
There’s still no evidence that rifle was ever disassembled or in a bag.
That's the WC claim and I'm examining if a 34.8" size is feasible..
-
This is Amos Euins all over again. You think your interpretation of what they said is some unassailable truth. Why should anyone care what some six foot guy was able to get to "almost touch the ground" by his standards when Linnie Mae already did an experiment?
My standards regarding my 6' height vis à vis Oswald's 5'9" includes subtracting the 3" differential at the moment of truth (so-to-speak). My 35" object at some six foot guy's height leaves 3-4" between said object and ground zero. Subtracting some other guy's 3" height differential leaves said object a good deal closer to be 'almost touching the ground'
-
My standards regarding my 6' height vis à vis Oswald's 5'9" includes subtracting the 3" differential at the moment of truth (so-to-speak). My 35" object at some six foot guy's height leaves 3-4" between said object and ground zero. Subtracting some other guy's 3" height differential leaves said object a good deal closer to be 'almost touching the ground'
Oswald was 5' 9.5" .
-
There’s still no evidence that rifle was ever disassembled or in a bag.
Establishing whether-or-not a 34.8"-object can be carried by a 5'9"-sized Oswald and almost touch the ground is my point here.
-
My standards regarding my 6' height vis à vis Oswald's 5'9" includes subtracting the 3" differential at the moment of truth (so-to-speak). My 35" object at some six foot guy's height leaves 3-4" between said object and ground zero. Subtracting some other guy's 3" height differential leaves said object a good deal closer to be 'almost touching the ground'
As I've said previously, Chappers, don't tell us show us. Or can't you afford a photo program? If you can't, as you suggested earlier, pass the hat round your fellow Feluccas.
-
Try this, Ray:
Fingerprint card dated “11-25-63,” 17 Warren Commission Hearings 308.
-- MWT ;)
According to his autopsy report, he was 5'9". ;)