JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on March 26, 2020, 12:39:16 AM
-
When you watch this video from "Dave The Insurance Guy" of Oswalds journey from his rooming house to the scene of the Tippit murder, it seems difficult to image he could have walked that distance in only 10 minutes (1:04pm, leaves bus stop outside rooming house and arrives on 10th street at 1:14pm before being stopped and shooting Tippit).
Surely he would have to break into a quick jog or even a run?
The main part of the video is in the first 5 minutes where Dave drives the distance involved:
-
When you watch this video from "Dave The Insurance Guy" of Oswalds journey from his rooming house to the scene of the Tippit murder, it seems difficult to image he could have walked that distance in only 10 minutes (1:04pm, leaves bus stop outside rooming house and arrives on 10th street at 1:14pm before being stopped and shooting Tippit).
Surely he would have to break into a quick jog or even a run?
The main part of the video is in the first 5 minutes where Dave drives the distance involved:
Oswald couldn't have walked the distance in 10 minutes, but what is more important is the answer to the question why he would go to 10th/Patton in the first place. There is nothing there. So, not only why would he walk there, when he could have gone in far more plausible directions, but also why would he even run to get there?
Just how many people do you know run to a go-nowhere destination for no apparant reason?
-
Oswald couldn't have walked the distance in 10 minutes, but what is more important is the answer to the question why he would go to 10th/Patton in the first place. There is nothing there. So, not only why would he walk there, when he could have gone in far more plausible directions, but also why would he even run to get there?
Just how many people do you know run to a go-nowhere destination for no apparant reason?
I think he was going to Freeway 35 to catch a bus to Redbird airport.
-
I think he was going to Freeway 35 to catch a bus to Redbird airport.
I don't think there were any busstops on the Freeway, but even if there were, it still doesn't explain how he ended up at 10th street.
It would have been far easier to simply carry on, down Beckley, to get to Jefferson where there were busstops. There was no need for a diversion to 10th street.
Besides, he could have catched a bus at multiple locations prior to getting to 10th street.... It doesn't make sense.
-
So are we assuming that Oswald really did this?
He went to home, to grab a jacket at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon on a hot sunny Texas day to wear over his long sleeved flannel, and his handy pistol, so he could make it as quickly as possible to 10th and Patton.... to kill a cop.
Why would Oswald go to 10th & Patton in the first place? Because he knew Tippit would be there? I don't even think Tippit knew he would be there, because he was clearly looking for someone if he was pulling over cars and driving like a crazy man.
Wouldn't it be more plausible that Tippit was just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and ran into the wrong person? Otherwise why would 10th & Patton be such an important meeting place, for Oswald or anyone else? If Tippit was supposed to meet someone there, why was he making stops to use the phone and pulling over cars searching for people?
It seems people are taking witness stories as gospel. "So and so saw Oswald at 1:04 p.m. at blah blah blah." Why are people still putting so much faith into witness descriptions and allegations when we know witnesses were being persuaded and threatened to recant & fabricate stories?
It's all hearsay evidence, and hearsay isn't even allowed in court cases. For good reason. Plus we know the police were dirty and covering things up. Everything should be considered tainted. Can't trust any of it. It's like people calling Oswald guilty based on the rifle found at the TBD, when there was clearly more than 1 being used to frame him. It just doesn't make any sense.
Asking if he ran or walked to a specific area without knowing if he was even there at all is silly.
-
When you watch this video from "Dave The Insurance Guy" of Oswalds journey from his rooming house to the scene of the Tippit murder, it seems difficult to image he could have walked that distance in only 10 minutes (1:04pm, leaves bus stop outside rooming house and arrives on 10th street at 1:14pm before being stopped and shooting Tippit).
Surely he would have to break into a quick jog or even a run?
The main part of the video is in the first 5 minutes where Dave drives the distance involved:
Hugh Aynesworth was told by Earlene Roberts that he was the first reporter on the scene at 1026 North Beckley. And that the police had just left after searching the place. Here is what she said to Hugh: “He came in running like the dickens,” she said, and didn’t respond when she asked him his hurry. “He just ran in his room, got a short tan coat, and ran back out.”
(Page 50 and 51 of “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth.)
-
I think he was going to Freeway 35 to catch a bus to Redbird airport.
Bill Brown believes Oswald was walking west when stopped. Was that the route discussed?
-
Hugh Aynesworth was told by Earlene Roberts that he was the first reporter on the scene at 1026 North Beckley. And that the police had just left after searching the place. Here is what she said to Hugh: “He came in running like the dickens,” she said, and didn’t respond when she asked him his hurry. “He just ran in his room, got a short tan coat, and ran back out.”
(Page 50 and 51 of “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth.)
What did she testify under oath before the WC Charles?
-
What did she testify under oath before the WC Charles?
You can look it up if you really want to know.
-
You can look it up if you really want to know.
Why bother with the WC, we could have just asked Hugh Aynesworth to solve the crimes.
-
You can look it up if you really want to know.
Don’t need to....I already know...Do you? Maybe he was in a hurry because he wanted to catch the bus at the stop she saw him waiting after leaving the house. Or maybe he was waiting for a car to pick him up there.
For those who want to know what she said before the WC.
Joseph Ball: Did he run?
Earlene Roberts: He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast - he was all but running.
-
Why bother with the WC, we could have just asked Hugh Aynesworth to solve the crimes.
Hugh Aynesworth is a journalist. Just because Roberts’ was inconsistent doesn’t mean that she didn’t tell the truth to Aynesworth.
-
Don’t need to....I already know...Do you? Maybe he was in a hurry because he wanted to catch the bus at the stop she saw him waiting after leaving the house. Or maybe he was waiting for a car to pick him up there.
For those who want to know what she said before the WC.
Joseph Ball: Did he run?
Earlene Roberts: He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast - he was all but running.
A fine line between running or “all but running.” The point is that he was moving faster than normal. And that addresses the question that the original post asked.
-
Hugh Aynesworth is a journalist. Just because Roberts’ was inconsistent doesn’t mean that she didn’t tell the truth to Aynesworth.
Aynesworth's comment is worthless (pun intended). For the reasons quoted above. Maybe he misheard, she testified under oath before the commission that he did not run. Wonder why rush and then wait outside?
-
A fine line between running or “all but running.” The point is that he was moving faster than normal. And that addresses the question that the original post asked.
Then why not use the official testimony? Seems he was in a rush to get his jacket and pistol to me. Then was waiting for something for an undetermined period.
Can we agree?
-
Then why not use the official testimony? Seems he was in a rush to get his jacket and pistol to me. Then was waiting for something for an undetermined period.
Aynesworth has said that she told him, on 11/22/63 that LHO ran off the porch to the left (opposite way from the bus stop). I will have to find where Hugh wrote that.
-
Aynesworth has said that she told him, on 11/22/63 that LHO ran off the porch to the left (opposite way from the bus stop). I will have to find where Hugh wrote that.
According to Hosty, Aynesworth was involved in a conspiracy and lied.
James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald (1996)
About a week after the assassination, Aynesworth, along with Bill Alexander, an assistant district attorney in Dallas, decided to find out if Lee Oswald had been an informant of the Dallas FBI, and of mine in particular. To this end, they concocted a totally false story about how Lee Oswald was a regularly paid informant of the Dallas FBI. At the time, I had no idea what information the Houston Post was relying on; it wasn't until February 1976, in Esquire magazine, that Aynesworth finally admitted he and Alexander had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on this issue. They said Oswald was paid $200 a month and even made up an imaginary informant number for Oswald, S172 - which was not in any way how the FBI classified their informants. Aynesworth then fed this story to Lonnie Hudkins of the Post, who ran it on January 1, 1964. Hudkins cited confidential but reliable sources for his story's allegations. The FBI issued a flat denial of the Post story. I was once again prohibited by Bureau procedure from commenting. It was clear that they were pointing a finger at me, since I was known to be the agent in charge of the Oswald file.
-
What was the purpose of Oswald seemly desperate to leave TSBD and get to his boarding house ASAP ?
One of the reasons to suspect the Mrs Reid meeting Oswald just after Baker/Truly is that Oswald was NOT in a hurry which does not fit the WC theory he was anxious to escape
So imo, the bus trip never really happened and the bus transfer ticket that had neither McWatters fingerprints nor Oswalds, was planted to make create the illusion Oswald was in a hurry
-
According to Hosty, Aynesworth was involved in a conspiracy and lied.
James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald (1996)
About a week after the assassination, Aynesworth, along with Bill Alexander, an assistant district attorney in Dallas, decided to find out if Lee Oswald had been an informant of the Dallas FBI, and of mine in particular. To this end, they concocted a totally false story about how Lee Oswald was a regularly paid informant of the Dallas FBI. At the time, I had no idea what information the Houston Post was relying on; it wasn't until February 1976, in Esquire magazine, that Aynesworth finally admitted he and Alexander had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on this issue. They said Oswald was paid $200 a month and even made up an imaginary informant number for Oswald, S172 - which was not in any way how the FBI classified their informants. Aynesworth then fed this story to Lonnie Hudkins of the Post, who ran it on January 1, 1964. Hudkins cited confidential but reliable sources for his story's allegations. The FBI issued a flat denial of the Post story. I was once again prohibited by Bureau procedure from commenting. It was clear that they were pointing a finger at me, since I was known to be the agent in charge of the Oswald file.
Here is Hugh Aynesworth's account (pages 107 - 109 of "Witness to History):
"I guess you know my son was an agent for the federal government," she said, "and they just threw him away. I can prove that." That's where I stopped Marguerite and said I'd like to come over and see her proof. During this period, there were rumors everywhere that Oswald once worked for the FBI or the CIA as a paid informant. I was skeptical but willing to be convinced.
One reporter who felt certain Oswald had worked for the government was Alonzo "Lonnie" Hudkins of the Houston Post. Lonnie called me constantly, hoping I's uncovered something to move the story along. In time, I grew tired of Lonnie's queries, especially since I doubted his sources were that good. One day as I was busily juggling deadline stories for Newsweek, where I was then a stringer, and the Times of London as well as a weekend piece for the News, Lonnie called once more and asked me, "You hear anything about this FBI link with Oswald? Tired of him bugging me, I said to him, "You got his payroll number, don't you?"
"Yeah, yeah," Lonnie said.
I reached over on my desk for a telegram and read part of a Telex number to him.
"Yeah, yeah," he said, "that's it. That's the same one I've got." I knew that if Lonnie accepted the number as legitimate, he had nothing. He said he'd check his sources and get back to me.
Weeks passed, and I forgot about the call until January 1, 1964, when Hudkins published a front page article in the Post, alleging that Oswald may have been a federal operative. Naturally the story caused quite a stir. Members of the newly created Warren Commission summoned several top Texas law enforcement officials and advisers to Washington to discuss the development, including Waggoner Carr, the state Attorney General, Dallas DA Henry Wade, and his assistant Bill Alexander; J. Edgar Hoover of course told the commission that the story was not true. The Texas folks denied any knowledge of where Hudkins got his story, and the story pretty much died - for a while.
Lonnie never disclosed his source for the bogus number, and I didn't admit to it for at least several years.
FBI Agent Joe Hosty was among those upset over the Hudkins story. In Assignmemt Oswald, he castigated me not only for the Jack Revill story that Jim Ewell and I published but also for being, along with Bill Alexander, the supposed source of Hudkins' fantasy.
When Hosty later called me, it was in part to apologize for that mistake. "Just wanted you to know that I visited with Hudkins later," he said, "and understand that it was his contention, not yours and Alexander's, about the alleged financial connection between the bureau and Oswald. I always admit my errors."
If you want to really get to the truth about what happened," he said, "dig into Oswald's days in Mexico. They tried to keep most of that from me, but I found out the connections and why." According to Hosty, Cuban sources had told the bureau that on Oswald's trip to Mexico City just weeks before the assassination, he had boasted of his intention to kill President Kennedy. The former FBI man said he believed that one or more people in Mexico put Oswald up to following through. "This man was easily led," said Hosty, "and somebody obviously...led him."
Federal investigative files that remain classified might someday substantiate or disprove Hosty's contentions.
-
Hugh Aynesworth is a journalist. Just because Roberts’ was inconsistent doesn’t mean that she didn’t tell the truth to Aynesworth.
No, it means, at best, that she was an unreliable witness
-
No, it means, at best, that she was an unreliable witness
As were many others.
-
As were many others.
Indeed, which makes the WC findings, which were largely based on the information from those witnesses, unreliable as well
-
Indeed, which makes the WC findings, which were largely based on the information from those witnesses, unreliable as well
When eyewitness accounts conflict with each other, the accounts that agree with the physical evidence should have greater weight. And accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts.
-
When eyewitness accounts conflict with each other, the accounts that agree with the physical evidence should have greater weight. And accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts.
True, but in this instance a blanket statement with very little significance.
What physical evidence supports or agrees with Earlene Roberts' testimony?
-
Oswald couldn't have walked the distance in 10 minutes, but what is more important is the answer to the question why he would go to 10th/Patton in the first place. There is nothing there. So, not only why would he walk there, when he could have gone in far more plausible directions, but also why would he even run to get there?
Just how many people do you know run to a go-nowhere destination for no apparant reason?
Huh? We don't know Oswald's intended destination because he encountered Tippit. His destination wasn't 10th/Patton. Oswald was in flight after assassinating the president. He was evading arrest. Whatever plan he had was disrupted within a few minutes after leaving his boardinghouse. Only Oswald would know where he was heading. The Boston bomber ended up hiding in a boat in someone's backyard. I don't think that was part of his plan.
-
True, but in this instance a blanket statement with very little significance.
What physical evidence supports or agrees with Earlene Roberts' testimony?
The physical evidence appears to indicate that LHO traveled from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in slightly less time than a casual walk would take. This agrees with Roberts’ statements to Aynesworth and later testimony that he was either running or very close to running when she saw him. It doesn’t agree with her later testimony that he was waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, I have doubts about that.
-
Huh? We don't know Oswald's intended destination because he encountered Tippit. His destination wasn't 10th/Patton. Oswald was in flight after assassinating the president. He was evading arrest. Whatever plan he had was disrupted within a few minutes after leaving his boardinghouse. Only Oswald would know where he was heading. The Boston bomber ended up hiding in a boat in someone's backyard. I don't think that was part of his plan.
We don't know Oswald's intended destination because he encountered Tippit. His destination wasn't 10th/Patton.
Do you ever think before your write something as stupid as this? If you don't know what Oswald's intended destination was, you also do not know that it wasn't 10th/Patton!
Oswald was in flight after assassinating the president. He was evading arrest.
Was he? By running (because walking wouldn't have gotten him there on time to kill Tippit) to a go-nowhere residential location as 10th/Patton where he would stand out like a sore thumb, when he had ample opportunities to get out of town fast on public transport. That makes sense to you?
Only Oswald would know where he was heading.
True, so why do you claim to know that his destination wasn't 10th/Patton?
-
The physical evidence appears to indicate that LHO traveled from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in slightly less time than a casual walk would take. This agrees with Roberts’ statements to Aynesworth and later testimony that he was either running or very close to running when she saw him. It doesn’t agree with her later testimony that he was waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, I have doubts about that.
The physical evidence appears to indicate that LHO traveled from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in slightly less time than a casual walk would take.
And what physical evidence would that be?
This agrees with Roberts’ statements to Aynesworth and later testimony that he was either running or very close to running when she saw him
She only saw him at the roominghouse and outside of it, waiting at a bus stop, so no, it does not agree with Robert's statements. All Roberts could say is that she thought Oswald was in a hurry when he entered the roominghouse... That's all!
It doesn’t agree with her later testimony that he was waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, I have doubts about that.
Of course you do, because, just like the WC, you try to shape the evidence to fit your preconceived narrative, rather than looking at all the evidence honestly.
Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop, she did not see him running anywhere!
-
The physical evidence appears to indicate that LHO traveled from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in slightly less time than a casual walk would take.
And what physical evidence would that be?
This agrees with Roberts’ statements to Aynesworth and later testimony that he was either running or very close to running when she saw him
She only saw him at the roominghouse and outside of it, waiting at a bus stop, so no, it does not agree with Robert's statements. All Roberts could say is that she thought Oswald was in a hurry when he entered the roominghouse... That's all!
It doesn’t agree with her later testimony that he was waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, I have doubts about that.
Of course you do, because, just like the WC, you try to shape the evidence to fit your preconceived narrative, rather than looking at all the evidence honestly.
Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop, she did not see him running anywhere!
And what physical evidence would that be?
The distance between the two points. (Taking into account the reported times of day that LHO was at the two places.)
Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop, she did not see him running anywhere!
And pray tell, just how would you “know” what she saw?
This is what Aynesworth says that she told him on 11/22/63 (edit: from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed):
She told me that day that Oswald came running in while she was watching television and that she tried to talk to him about the President being killed. He didn’t want to talk, so he went in, changed his jacket and ran out. She then saw him run off the porch to the left and that was the last time that she saw him.
Now if YOU would look at ALL the evidence honestly, you would have to consider that Aynesworth’s report agrees with the physical evidence better than Roberts’ later testimony.
-
Huh? We don't know Oswald's intended destination because he encountered Tippit. His destination wasn't 10th/Patton. Oswald was in flight after assassinating the president. He was evading arrest. Whatever plan he had was disrupted within a few minutes after leaving his boardinghouse. Only Oswald would know where he was heading.
If you're a good enough mind reader to know that he was "in flight" and "evading arrest", then you should also know where he was going.
-
And what physical evidence would that be?
The distance between the two points. (Taking into account the reported times of day that LHO was at the two places.)
Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop, she did not see him running anywhere!
And pray tell, just how would you “know” what she saw?
This is what Aynesworth says that she told him on 11/22/63 (edit: from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed):
She told me that day that Oswald came running in while she was watching television and that she tried to talk to him about the President being killed. He didn’t want to talk, so he went in, changed his jacket and ran out. She then saw him run off the porch to the left and that was the last time that she saw him.
Now if YOU would look at ALL the evidence honestly, you would have to consider that Aynesworth’s report agrees with the physical evidence better than Roberts’ later testimony.
The title to this thread states that Lee Oswald was at 10th and Patton Who can prove that Lee was in fact at that location at the time that Tippit was shot?
-
This is what Aynesworth says that she told him on 11/22/63
He told Larry Sneed this about 35 years after the fact, right? Didn't you say that "accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts"?
Martin's right. You are cherry-picking the accounts that support your assumption that Oswald was the one who shot Tippit.
-
And what physical evidence would that be?
The distance between the two points. (Taking into account the reported times of day that LHO was at the two places.)
For a start, that's not physical evidence at all. It is speculation at best, because it assumes that Oswald did in fact walk that distance in a certain time and thus that he was at 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, at around 1.14 / 1.15 when there isn't even any solid evidence to support that time as the correct one. It also assumes that he must have taken a certain route, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence for that either.
So, there is nothing that supports Roberts' statement except for your own imagination and wishful thinking.
Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop, she did not see him running anywhere!
And pray tell, just how would you “know” what she saw?
I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;
Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
and in her affidavit of December 5th 1963 she said;
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house."
This is what Aynesworth says that she told him on 11/22/63 (edit: from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed):
She told me that day that Oswald came running in while she was watching television and that she tried to talk to him about the President being killed. He didn’t want to talk, so he went in, changed his jacket and ran out. She then saw him run off the porch to the left and that was the last time that she saw him.
And she testified under oath;
Mr. BALL. You recall he went out zipping it-was he running or walking?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was walking fast-he was making tracks pretty fast.
There is a difference between walking fast and running
Now if YOU would look at ALL the evidence honestly, you would have to consider that Aynesworth’s report agrees with the physical evidence better than Roberts’ later testimony.
Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.
-
He told Larry Sneed this about 35 years after the fact, right? Didn't you say that "accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts"?
Martin's right. You are cherry-picking the accounts that support your assumption that Oswald was the one who shot Tippit.
The point is that Earlene Roberts reportedly told Aynesworth this immediately after the event. If you want to discount Aynesworth's account in Larry Sneed's book because the interview took place later, then that is your prerogative. And that wouldn't be cherry-picking any more than my view.
-
For a start, that's not physical evidence at all. It is speculation at best, because it assumes that Oswald did in fact walk that distance in a certain time and thus that he was at 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, at around 1.14 / 1.15 when there isn't even any solid evidence to support that time as the correct one. It also assumes that he must have taken a certain route, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence for that either.
So, there is nothing that supports Roberts' statement except for your own imagination and wishful thinking.
I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;
Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
and in her affidavit of December 5th 1963 she said;
"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house."
And she testified under oath;
Mr. BALL. You recall he went out zipping it-was he running or walking?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was walking fast-he was making tracks pretty fast.
There is a difference between walking fast and running
Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.
I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;
No, it means, at best, that she was an unreliable witness
It appears that you "know" what she saw because of her unreliable testimony. Alrighty then.... ::)
Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.
You can ignore the evidence if you wish. But that doesn't make it go away. Unless you are Walt...
-
When eyewitness accounts conflict with each other, the accounts that agree with the physical evidence should have greater weight. And accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts.
Ah, memorie$
-
Ah, memorie$
And fame....
-
And fame....
... which beget$ shame
-
@The OP
Smith, Wesson... and Lee
-
It appears that you "know" what she saw because of her unreliable testimony. Alrighty then.... ::)
What's he's pointing out is that you are preferring Aynesworth's 35-year-old recollection of what Roberts allegedly told him to what Roberts herself directly testified to 4 months after the fact. Apparently because it better fits your desired result.
-
And fame....
Which of course Aynesworth is completely immune to...
-
Guys...You are dissing someones hero here.
Case in point--- https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2325.0.html
The knowledge possessed by the world's greatest 'journalist' was so vast I can't help but wonder why he wasn't ever called to testify?
-
We don't know Oswald's intended destination because he encountered Tippit. His destination wasn't 10th/Patton.
Do you ever think before your write something as stupid as this? If you don't know what Oswald's intended destination was, you also do not know that it wasn't 10th/Patton!
Oswald was in flight after assassinating the president. He was evading arrest.
Was he? By running (because walking wouldn't have gotten him there on time to kill Tippit) to a go-nowhere residential location as 10th/Patton where he would stand out like a sore thumb, when he had ample opportunities to get out of town fast on public transport. That makes sense to you?
Only Oswald would know where he was heading.
True, so why do you claim to know that his destination wasn't 10th/Patton?
That's idiot logic even for you. Do you think the Boston bombers destination was a boat in someone's backyard because that happened to be where he ended up? Not even the most fringe kook that ever posted on this forum has suggested Oswald's destination was 10th/Patton. Comedy gold. Regardless, your claim contains the false premise that Oswald could not have gotten there in time by walking. That is false. Did you ever see Gary Mack's reenactment that involved actually doing it rather than making stuff up to suit a desired outcome?
The entire walk was timed without any stops or slowdowns, and the
total time was the same as what several other conspiracy researchers
have found over the years. The shortest route gave Oswald plenty of
time, whereas the longest route was too long. The other one or two
routes would have resulted in intermediate times.
If you doubt me, walk it yourself or ask someone else to do it! :)
Gary Mack
-
Guys...You are dissing someones hero here.
Case in point--- https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2325.0.html
The knowledge possessed by the world's greatest 'journalist' was so vast I can't help but wonder why he wasn't ever called to testify?
I'll second that, because the Editor, Osborne Elliott, who dispatched Aynesworth to interfere with Garrison in NOLA and was satisfied with Aynesworth's work,
just happened to be the brother-in-law pf Allen Dulles's cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas.
And Eleanor's brother just happened to be accused by Priscilla, in her HSCA testimony in 1978, of concealing the suicide of Priscilla's father in 1969, and this served as a major excuse Priscilla gave to the HSCA for keeping poor Marina's mouth shut until 1978 !
Guys...You are dissing someones hero here.
Case in point--- https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2325.0.html
The knowledge possessed by the world's greatest 'journalist' was so vast I can't help but wonder why he wasn't ever called to testify?
I'll second that, because the Editor, Osborne Elliott, who dispatched Aynesworth to interfere with Garrison in NOLA and was satisfied with Aynesworth's work,
just happened to be the brother-in-law pf Allen Dulles's cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas.
And Eleanor's brother just happened to be accused by Priscilla, in her HSCA testimony in 1978, of concealing the suicide of Priscilla's father in 1969, and this served as a major excuse Priscilla gave to the HSCA for keeping poor Marina's mouth shut until 1978 !
It’s a lame attempt to discredit Hugh Aynesworth, just because he says some things that Jerry disagrees with.
Charles, you're approach is black, or white. Facts indicate it is
characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression.
"Lowe's work has gradually grown more nuanced"
Why not marvel at the details instead of "nothing to see here, Jerry is mistaken, move along, readers...."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19103-did-the-cia-sheep-dip-and-orchestrate-the-tale-of-the-patsy-lee-harvey-oswald/
Tom Scully Posted May 17, 2012
Clover Todd Dulles Wed to Jens H. Jebsen In Chaped of Fifth..
https://www.nytimes.com/1951/04/22/archives/clover-todd-dulles-wed-to-jens-h-jebsen-in-chaped-of-fifth-avenue.html
New York Times - Apr 22, 1951
In a candlelit garden setting of white dogwood and smilax in the chapel of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church yesterday noon, Miss Clover Todd Dulles,..
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldPriscillaJohnsonEleanorThomasElliottAynesworth.jpg)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9636-allen-w-dulles/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-252435
......
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06elliott.html?fta=y
Eleanor Thomas Elliott, Barnard Figure, Dies at 80
By THE NEW YORK TIMESDEC. 6, 2006
....The cause was injuries from a car accident, said her brother-in-law, Osborn Elliott, the former editor of Newsweek and a former dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.....
......Cousin Eleanor had a brother, cousin James Augustus Thomas, Jr.:....
https://archive.is/esTuB#selection-389.0-399.32
Secrets of Newsweek's Osborn Elliott & Hugh Aynesworth, & of Priscilla Johnson
« on: January 31, 2013, 02:24:10 PM »
The news media--a service and a force - Page 26
http://books.google.com/books?id=GSobAQAAIAAJ
Howard Kingsbury Smith, Osborn Elliott, A. Merriman Smith - 1970
.....Let me cite a few other instances of the reporter's involvement in the events he is covering. Take last
summer in Chicago, for example. There is no question in my mind that certain police officers
deliberately assaulted members of the press who were covering events surrounding the convention— and
certainly there was no such question in the minds of eight Newsweek men who were battered by the police
while wearing clear identification as working reporters and photographers. (This was something,
incidentally, that could not be said for the constabulary's own methods of identifying itself; many of
the police officers removed their badges in the parade to make sure they could not be identified.) So
what should the press' reaction have been? In my view, its duty was to report what happened as
dispassionately as possible and later be willing to testify against whichever offending officers could
be identified. This is what our own men did. Or take the coverage of a more recent event—the trial of
Clay Shaw in New Orleans on charges that he conspired in the assassination of the late President
Kennedy. As it happened, Newsweek's chief reporter on the trial had spent literally thousands of man-
hours investigating the assassination itself and was considered a leading authority on the events that
followed. He had witnessed the assassination from close to the Texas School Book Depository and joined
the chase for Lee Harvey Oswald. He interviewed several of the witnesses at the Tippitt murder scene
and was in the Texas Theatre watching when Oswald was apprehended. He was just a few feet from Jack
Ruby when he shot Oswald, and he later interviewed Oswald's widow several times. It was he who
uncovered Oswald's Russian diary in mid-1964. He covered the entire Ruby trial and was the only
reporter inside at Ruby's funeral. In short, quite an expert— and someone that District Attorney Jim
Garrison was anxious to enlist on his side. But this reporter soon became convinced that Garrison had
no case whatsoever, and he made it his business to publicize this fact. The result was one of the first
critical stories published about Garrison— which was followed by a series of intimidating telephone
calls threatening the reporter's life. In Garrison's mind, this reporter and Newsweek had in effect
become co-defendants, and more than 1,100 prospective jurors were asked if they had read Newsweek's
critical story. We left this man on the story because we believed he was the best qualified to cover
it. And to this day, I am satisfied that he did so fairly and thoroughly. But I would not suggest for a
minute that subjectivity had not been involved— once again, in my view, in the interest of the truth.
Some of you may recall that our final story on Clay's acquittal was given only nine lines in the
magazine. It ran under the headline "Fact and Opinion," and in its entirety it read as follows:
"Acquitted: By a jury in New Orleans, exactly two years to the day after his arrest on charges of
conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, retired Louisiana businessman Clay L. Shaw, 55. Convicted: By a
case that collapsed at every seam, District Attorney Jim Garrison, 47, of incompetence and
irresponsibility as a public official." You can't get much more subjective than that or, in my opinion,
much closer to the truth. There are much larger issues, of course, that involve subjectivity in
journalism— indeed the very largest issues of the day— and for a publication such as my own, which has
no editorial page, they can pose a problem. The news magazines ....
......
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
........
Description of 1969 death of Priscilla's father: (Allen Dulles's cousin was last to see him alive...)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/PriscillaStuartJohnsonDeath033169_2of2.jpg)
http://www.ampltd.co.uk/digital_guides/china_through_western_eyes_manuscript/publishers%20note.aspx
....James Augustus Thomas was born in Lawsonville, Rockingham County, North Carolina, on 6 March 1862. He was the son of Henry Evans Thomas and Cornelia Carolina (Jones) Thomas. He attended the Eastman National Business College, Poughkeepsie, New York, and graduated in 1881. He married Anna, daughter of William Branson of Durham, North Carolina, on 27 April 1918. Unfortunately she died in November 1918. J A Thomas remarried on 21 November 1922 to Dorothy Quincy Hancock, daughter of Sheridan Pitt Read. They had two children: James Augustus Thomas jr and Eleanor Lansing Thomas....
Aynesworth was assigned to "cover" the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967 by Osborne Elliott. Elliott's brother was married to Eleanor Lansing Thomas, Allen and Foster Dulles's cousin, who happened to be the maid of honor in Allen's daughter Clover's wedding.
This Dulles cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas Osborne, sister-in-law of Ayneswprth's boss, happened to have a brother, James A. Thomas, Jr., who Priscilla testified to HSCA, instigated, managed, or participated in a "concealed suicide," of Priscilla's father, Stuart Holmes Johnson, in 1969. Priscilla testified to HSCA that this event upset her to the degree she was using it as the primary excuse for the delay in delivering her book, (from 1969 to 1977) "Marina & Lee," to her extremely patient Harper's editor, Marion S. Wyeth. Wyeth happened to be in the wedding party of a close friend of DeMohrenschildt's CIA shadow, Tom Devine.
Wyeth happened to live with his parents just two doors down, on a dead end street, from DeMohrenschildt's wife's father, Philip Sharples. Wyeth's father, an architect, designed both the home of Sharples and of Tom Devine's "best friend in Rochester," Joseph F Dryer, Jr. (before Dryer purchased the house). Devine's best man at his 1973 Jupiter Island wedding was William B. Macomber, Jr., also of Rochester, who, along with his wife, Phyliss Bernau, were two of Foster Dulles's closest Dept. of State, aids. Macomber was also best man in the 1946 wedding of Bush's sister, Nancy.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2544-edwin-walker/page/20/?tab=comments#comment-271096
Tom Scully Posted April 7, 2013.....
.......And an explanation of the following photo of a small section of West Palm Beach, FL. DeMohrenschildst's former
wife, Didi Sharples and her next husband bought the Ocean Front estate of Ailsa Mellon Bruce, labeled with a "B" in
this photo. Up above, the lot just below the "W" in Woodbridge Rd., was the residence from 1940 to 1983 of the architect father
of Priscilla Johnson's second Harper editor, the very patient and understanding Marion S. Wyeth, Jr. Two doors down
from Wyeth, Sr. at the end of very end of Woodbridge Rd. on the left, was the longtime residence of DIdi Sharples' parents,
the Philip Sharples. " Mrs. Philip Sharples, 185 Woodbridge Rd. Georgian brick house. Beautifully landscaped to lake, charming
rock and water garden beside entrance court "
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aMK-fBJxEvQ/UWGNrxjGTBI/AAAAAAAAA3s/MdJgslHfREo/s720/PriscillaWyethSharples.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DevineMacomberBestMan.jpg)
Phyllis Dorothy Bernau Macomber (1924-2014) - Find A Grave ...
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/170276313/phyllis-dorothy-macomber
Born in 19 Jul 1924 and died in 3 Sep 2014 Nantucket, Massachusetts Phyllis Dorothy Bernau Macomber.
Library - FOIA | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/phyllis?page=10
464 items - and his wife, Phyllis, live. at 2235 Carlyle Court, White Bear Lake, with their ... Jordan from Agency, and then passed into intelligence Phyllis Bernau, ...
https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/MEV-10418559
(https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/933f3b3a7995ae85c7259ab0a1fa7049/mev-10418559.webp)
Stock Photo - Eleanor Lansing Thomas, social secretary to Mr John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State in 1954 pictured going through press cuttings.
http://jfkforum.com/2017/10/01/are-we-there-yet/
OCTOBER 1, 2017 BY ADMIN
Are we there yet? Part I
Marina Oswald Porter: To Forget Is Not To Forgive – The Washington …
......
Devine went on to attend M.I.T. and, just a few months later was residing in the Sigma Chi fraternity house with Garry Coit and fifteen other fraternity mates.
Peter Dryer, another of the not forgotten ten on Devine’s list in the yearbook, was the brother of Joseph F. Dryer, Jr., who met DeMohrenschildt in separate NYC meeting, but on the very same day as Devine, on 25 April, 1963 !
Peter Dryer partnered with brother Joseph in Cuba and then in Guatemala and was also a member of Wyeth’s 1948 Princeton class.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MellenDryer.jpg)
In January, 1964, Garry Coit happened to become the CIA contact of Priscilla Johnson….
Marion Sims “Buz” Wyeth had become by 1949, close enough to Devine’s former classmate to invite Hawley Ward to be an usher in his wedding party.:
......
Priscilla is asked by HSCA counsel in Feb., 1978, about her Harper editor’s (Buz Wyeth) reaction to the 12 year delay of her book…. (Marion “Buzz” Wyeth worked for Harper & Row since 1956) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95330#relPageId=43 Next Page:
...."and my editor since has been M.S. Wyeth https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95330#relPageId=44&tab=page ....
Aynesworth, to my knowledge, reported none of the above relevant and interesting coincidences, despite being on the scene to "catch wind," of at least some of them. I came along, 40+ years later, equipped only with curiousity, an internet connection, and a keyboard.
You can't make this stuff up, at least I cannot. I wouldn't know where to even begin.
Charles, you're approach is black, or white. Facts indicate it is Why not marvel at the details instead of "nothing to see here, Jerry is mistaken, move along, readers...."
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldPriscillaJohnsonEleanorThomasElliottAynesworth.jpg)
......Cousin Eleanor had a brother, cousin James Augustus Thomas, Jr.:....
......
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
........
Description of 1969 death of Priscilla's father: (Allen Dulles's cousin was last to see him alive...)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/PriscillaStuartJohnsonDeath033169_2of2.jpg)
Aynesworth was assigned to "cover" the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967 by Osborne Elliott. Elliott's brother was married to Eleanor Lansing Thomas, Allen and Foster Dulles's cousin, who happened to be the maid of honor in Allen's daughter Clover's wedding.
This Dulles cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas Osborne, sister-in-law of Ayneswprth's boss, happened to have a brother, James A. Thomas, Jr., who Priscilla testified to HSCA, instigated, managed, or participated in a "concealed suicide," of Priscilla's father, Stuart Holmes Johnson, in 1969. Priscilla testified to HSCA that this event upset her to the degree she was using it as the primary excuse for the delay in delivering her book, (from 1969 to 1977) "Marina & Lee," to her extremely patient Harper's editor, Marion S. Wyeth. Wyeth happened to be in the wedding party of a close friend of DeMohrenschildt's CIA shadow, Tom Devine.
Wyeth happened to live with his parents just two doors down, on a dead end street, from DeMohrenschildt's wife's father, Philip Sharples. Wyeth's father, an architect, designed both the home of Sharples and of Tom Devine's "best friend in Rochester," Joseph F Dryer, Jr. (before Dryer purchased the house). Devine's best man at his 1973 Jupiter Island wedding was William B. Macomber, Jr., also of Rochester, who, along with his wife, Phyliss Bernau, were two of Foster Dulles's closest Dept. of State, aids. Macomber was also best man in the 1946 wedding of Bush's sister, Nancy.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/DevineMacomberBestMan.jpg)
Aynesworth, to my knowledge, reported none of the above relevant and interesting coincidences, despite being on the scene to "catch wind," of at least some of them. I came along, 40+ years later, equipped only with curiousity, an internet connection, and a keyboard.
You can't make this stuff up, at least I cannot. I wouldn't know where to even begin.
[/quote]
-
I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;
It appears that you "know" what she saw because of her unreliable testimony. Alrighty then.... ::)
Stop being a hypocrite. You rely on what she allegedly told Aynesworth. I'm not the one who is trying to negate her testimony by relying on a 35 year old memory!
Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.
You can ignore the evidence if you wish. But that doesn't make it go away. Unless you are Walt...
I am not ignoring evidence. I am ignoring stuff that you make up and call evidence
-
What's he's pointing out is that you are preferring Aynesworth's 35-year-old recollection of what Roberts allegedly told him to what Roberts herself directly testified to 4 months after the fact. Apparently because it better fits your desired result.
Apparently because it better fits your desired result.
Apparently because it better fits your desired result the evidence. As I have already pointed out.
-
Stop being a hypocrite. You rely on what she allegedly told Aynesworth. I'm not the one who is trying to negate her testimony by relying on a 35 year old memory!
I am not ignoring evidence. I am ignoring stuff that you make up and call evidence
I said that I have doubts...
You said that you knew what she saw. That is impossible. See the difference?
-
Not even the most fringe kook that ever posted on this forum has suggested Oswald's destination was 10th/Patton.
Martin didn't suggest Oswald's destination was 10th/Patton, Strawman "Smith".
Did you ever see Gary Mack's reenactment that involved actually doing it rather than making stuff up to suit a desired outcome?
Yes. It involved making stuff up to suit a desired outcome. To wit:
- That Tippit was shot 15 minutes after Roberts said Oswald left the boarding house
- That Oswald immediately started walking south on Beckley, even though Roberts said that she saw him standing at the bus stop north of the boarding house
- That the witness who reported seeing the man walking west on 10th was wrong
- That Oswald was "walking briskly"
-
That's idiot logic even for you. Do you think the Boston bombers destination was a boat in someone's backyard because that happened to be where he ended up? Not even the most fringe kook that ever posted on this forum has suggested Oswald's destination was 10th/Patton. Comedy gold. Regardless, your claim contains the false premise that Oswald could not have gotten there in time by walking. That is false. Did you ever see Gary Mack's reenactment that involved actually doing it rather than making stuff up to suit a desired outcome?
The entire walk was timed without any stops or slowdowns, and the
total time was the same as what several other conspiracy researchers
have found over the years. The shortest route gave Oswald plenty of
time, whereas the longest route was too long. The other one or two
routes would have resulted in intermediate times.
If you doubt me, walk it yourself or ask someone else to do it! :)
Gary Mack
Bill Brown claims Oswald was walking west on 10th. Is that the shortest route?
-
That's idiot logic even for you.
Why does Smith have to be such a ---
(https://miro.medium.com/max/366/1*ldTNpEVtaJe0nQOuLxF_2Q.jpeg) ?
The entire walk was timed without any stops or slowdowns
Like hell. From the video--- "Oswald arrived at just before 1PM". That is according to the official story. That must be accurate or it doesn't work. "He left moments later"-- So how long was that? What was the testimony again?.....
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because [Ball cuts her off there---he had heard too many anomalies in the story already]
Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-
Hell! Every second counted!
One thing to consider ...according to this cab driver who took Oswald from downtown to Oak Cliff---Dropped him off at 500 N. Beckley. So, if Oswald was in such a hurry to get in and grab his gun and double time it to 10th St...why all the extra steps? The Report lets that slide.
Gary Mack's walker stopped at 3:17 Did a restart at 5:05 Did another restart at 7:03. The whole demo was just silly and self serving.
& They did not dispel one myth...That Oswald killed J D Tippit.
-
That's idiot logic even for you. Do you think the Boston bombers destination was a boat in someone's backyard because that happened to be where he ended up? Not even the most fringe kook that ever posted on this forum has suggested Oswald's destination was 10th/Patton. Comedy gold. Regardless, your claim contains the false premise that Oswald could not have gotten there in time by walking. That is false. Did you ever see Gary Mack's reenactment that involved actually doing it rather than making stuff up to suit a desired outcome?
The entire walk was timed without any stops or slowdowns, and the
total time was the same as what several other conspiracy researchers
have found over the years. The shortest route gave Oswald plenty of
time, whereas the longest route was too long. The other one or two
routes would have resulted in intermediate times.
If you doubt me, walk it yourself or ask someone else to do it! :)
Gary Mack
That's idiot logic even for you. Do you think the Boston bombers destination was a boat in someone's backyard because that happened to be where he ended up?
No, but you, rather stupidly, think it has something to do with the Kennedy murder and Oswald, when there are only differences. After leaving the TSBD, Oswald had a world of choices on where to go. If he was indeed fleeing, he could have jumped on any bus in any direction to get out of town before anybody even knew he was missing or existed. And, again, if he was indeed on the run, his visit to the roominghouse would have told him that there was nobody actively searching for him (yet), so why would he run to a go-nowhere place like 10th/Patton, even if that was not his end destination?
Not even the most fringe kook that ever posted on this forum has suggested Oswald's destination was 10th/Patton.
And neither did I. But so what? It means nothing at all, except of course for the fact that nobody, other than Oswald himself (if it was him at 10th/Patton), would have known, yet here you are telling us that 10th/Patton wasn't his final destination. You are so full of BS......
Regardless, your claim contains the false premise that Oswald could not have gotten there in time by walking. That is false.
No it isn't and you can not prove it is.
Did you ever see Gary Mack's reenactment that involved actually doing it rather than making stuff up to suit a desired outcome?
Reenactment, my ass! But yes I saw the (edited) video and even they could not get a combined time of less than 11 minutes.
The entire walk was timed without any stops or slowdowns,
No it wasn't. It was broken down in two parts
and the total time was the same as what several other conspiracy researchers have found over the years.
The fastest combined time they could come up with was 11 minutes and that wasn't enough for him to get there to murder Tippit at 1.14.
The shortest route gave Oswald plenty of time,
And thus you prefer the shortest route, as that brings you as close as you can get to approx 1.14/1.15 because you mistakenly believe that Tippit was killed at that time, when in fact he was already in the hospital by then, being declared DOA as witnessed by DPD officer Davenport!
If you doubt me, walk it yourself or ask someone else to do it! :)
I don't have to rely on what Gary Mack or you says... I have walked all the possible routes myself, so I know first hand that if Oswald was indeed still at the bus stop in front of the roominghouse at 1.03 pm, there simply is no way he could have reached 10th/Patton on time for Tippit's murder.
-
Also...Gary Mack and others ignored Mrs Robert's statement that Oswald was last seen waiting at the street corner at the Zangs intersection north of the house. It was not brought up in her Commission testimony. Neither was the Tippit shooting time ranging from 1:06-1:10 from different witnesses.
I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right and on the same side of the street as our house. I glanced out the window that once. I don't know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb, nor did l see the direction he went when he left there.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Tippit%20J%20D%20Murder/Item%2012.pdf
No, the walking guy needed all the head start he could get. He had a "cop" to go kill.
-
Bill Brown claims Oswald was walking west on 10th. Is that the shortest route?
No... that's the long way around. If memory serves, that route would have taken Oswald 17 minutes to get there.
Way too late for his appointment with Tippit of course!
-
Apparently because it better fits your desired result.
Apparently because it better fits your desired result the evidence. As I have already pointed out.
When are you going to understand that you simply can not make up stuff and call it evidence! What's wrong with you?
-
According to Hosty, Aynesworth was involved in a conspiracy and lied.
James Hosty, Assignment: Oswald (1996)
About a week after the assassination, Aynesworth, along with Bill Alexander, an assistant district attorney in Dallas, decided to find out if Lee Oswald had been an informant of the Dallas FBI, and of mine in particular. To this end, they concocted a totally false story about how Lee Oswald was a regularly paid informant of the Dallas FBI. At the time, I had no idea what information the Houston Post was relying on; it wasn't until February 1976, in Esquire magazine, that Aynesworth finally admitted he and Alexander had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on this issue. They said Oswald was paid $200 a month and even made up an imaginary informant number for Oswald, S172 - which was not in any way how the FBI classified their informants. Aynesworth then fed this story to Lonnie Hudkins of the Post, who ran it on January 1, 1964. Hudkins cited confidential but reliable sources for his story's allegations. The FBI issued a flat denial of the Post story. I was once again prohibited by Bureau procedure from commenting. It was clear that they were pointing a finger at me, since I was known to be the agent in charge of the Oswald file.
So who do we believe Charles? Did you miss this?
-
So who do we believe Charles? Did you miss this?
I addressed it with Aynesworth’s explanation. He says Hosty admitted he made a mistake and apologized.
-
Aynesworth has a habit of relaying statements years later after the people who allegedly made them are gone.
-
I addressed it with Aynesworth’s explanation. He says Hosty admitted he made a mistake and apologized.
I gather no corroboration, just Aynesworth's explanation? What about the reference to the Revill story and Jim Ewell? I gather that was the one about the conversation in the car park on the way into interrogate Oswald.
-
I gather no corroboration, just Aynesworth's explanation? What about the reference to the Revill story and Jim Ewell? I gather that was the one about the conversation in the car park on the way into interrogate Oswald.
Perhaps the referenced story in Esquire magazine in 1976 would shed more light. I haven’t seen it.
-
Perhaps the referenced story in Esquire magazine in 1976 would shed more light. I haven’t seen it.
You might want to read Hosty's WC testimony.
-
You might want to read Hosty's WC testimony.
Or read Revill's letter of 11/22/63 to Captain Gannaway..... Revill said that Hosty told him that the FBI knew that Lee Oswald ( who was a communist) was capable of murdering the President, but they didn't believe that he would actually do it. And prior to telling Revill that ...Hosty had said that Lee Oswald was the man who had shot the President.
Obviously Hosty was a top notch FBI agent with clairvoyance ..... He should have been promoted to a high position in the FBI.......
-
Huh? We don't know Oswald's intended destination because he encountered Tippit. His destination wasn't 10th/Patton. Oswald was in flight after assassinating the president. He was evading arrest. Whatever plan he had was disrupted within a few minutes after leaving his boardinghouse. Only Oswald would know where he was heading. The Boston bomber ended up hiding in a boat in someone's backyard. I don't think that was part of his plan.
Defecating straw that was eaten from the barn floor.
Hugh Aynesworth was told by Earlene Roberts that he was the first reporter on the scene at 1026 North Beckley. And that the police had just left after searching the place. Here is what she said to Hugh: “He came in running like the dickens,” she said, and didn’t respond when she asked him his hurry. “He just ran in his room, got a short tan coat, and ran back out.”
(Page 50 and 51 of “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth.)
Wouldn't that [uncorroborated] 'statement' be best described as--- Hugh Aynesworth SAID he was told by Earlene Roberts .......etc
Still ignoring there----- Mrs Roberts' affidavit made on Dec 5 and testimony on April 8, 1964... Just 5 months after President Kennedy was killed. with no mention at all of Aynesworth [maybe she forgot] :D
Aynesworth was not called to testify even though he was at every notable location that day and also [supposedly] at the Ruby shooting..the Commission attorneys must have known better.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
-
Defecating straw that was eaten from the barn floor.Wouldn't that [uncorroborated] 'statement' be best described as--- Hugh Aynesworth SAID he was told by Earlene Roberts .......etc
Still ignoring there----- Mrs Roberts' affidavit made on Dec 5 and testimony on April 8, 1964... Just 5 months after President Kennedy was killed. with no mention at all of Aynesworth [maybe she forgot] :D
Aynesworth was not called to testify even though he was at every notable location that day and also [supposedly] at the Ruby shooting..the Commission attorneys must have known better.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
Wouldn't that [uncorroborated] 'statement' be best described as--- Hugh Aynesworth SAID he was told by Earlene Roberts .......etc
Hugh Aynesworth is a respected journalist. He used quotes for what he wrote about what he was told on 11/22/63. This indicates he made notes of what he was told and the words are verbatim. You can verify this with Hugh. I believe he is still around.
-
Wouldn't that [uncorroborated] 'statement' be best described as--- Hugh Aynesworth SAID he was told by Earlene Roberts .......etc
Hugh Aynesworth is a respected journalist. He used quotes for what he wrote about what he was told on 11/22/63. This indicates he made notes of what he was told and the words are verbatim. You can verify this with Hugh. I believe he is still around.
Then why didn't he come forward once he knew from the WC report that Roberts had told him something different than what she testified?
He could have published a story, right? So why didn't he?
No matter how you twist and turn it, you rely on a 35 year old memory. Good luck with that!
-
Then why didn't he come forward once he knew from the WC report that Roberts had told him something different than what she testified?
He could have published a story, right? So why didn't he?
No matter how you twist and turn it, you rely on a 35 year old memory. Good luck with that!
Ask Hugh!
-
Ask Hugh!
I'm asking you.
Stop hiding behind Aynesworth!
-
I'm asking you.
Stop hiding behind Aynesworth!
I do not speak for Hugh. He is the only person that can answer your questions.
-
I do not speak for Hugh. He is the only person that can answer your questions.
I don't have to speak with Aynesworth. I asked you....
If you feel he is right in what he says, you should be able to tell us why you think he is right.... So why don't you?
You are the one who keeps quoting and defending him, so go on defend him, but you won't will you now?
Easier to just hide behind whatever it is he said....
-
I don't have to speak with Aynesworth. I asked you....
If you feel he is right in what he says, you should be able to tell us why you think he is right.... So why don't you?
You are the one who keeps quoting and defending him, so go on defend him, but you won't will you now?
Easier to just hide behind whatever it is he said....
The questions that you asked can only be answered by Hugh. I couldn’t possibly know why he didn’t do things differently than he did. What don’t you understand about that?
-
The questions that you asked can only be answered by Hugh. I couldn’t possibly know why he didn’t do things differently than he did. What don’t you understand about that?
Okay, then let me ask you this.... Knowing that Aynesworth sat on that information for 35 years, do you feel that enhances his credibility?
-
Okay, then let me ask you this.... Knowing that Aynesworth sat on that information for 35 years, do you feel that enhances his credibility?
How does my opinion about Aynesworth’s credibility help you with your “only goal”? Which you specifically stated:
My only goal is trying to make sense of the entire case and challenge fools who spread all sorts of BS on this forum, like calling their own opinions evidence!.
If you can't stand the heat....
All you are trying to accomplish is to find a way “hit a nerve.” Therefore since you refuse to ignore me, then I will ignore you.
-
How does my opinion about Aynesworth’s credibility help you with your “only goal”? Which you specifically stated:
All you are trying to accomplish is to find a way “hit a nerve.” Therefore since you refuse to ignore me, then I will ignore you.
That's the ulitimate escape for those who can or will not answer critical questions....
Your opinion about Ayneworth's credibility relates directly to the frequent use you make of quotes from his book. If you think he is credible you should be able to explain why you think that and if you don't think he is credible enough you should be able to explain why you keep on using quotes from him.
When I quote testimony from Earlene Roberts I clearly indicate that I have doubt about her credibility. When you quote Aynesworth you do no such thing. The mere fact that you can not or are not willing to explain why you consider him to be credible, tells me that you are hiding behind quotes from a person you do not consider credible enough to defend him.
-
What was the purpose of Oswald seemly desperate to leave TSBD and get to his boarding house ASAP ?
One of the reasons to suspect the Mrs Reid meeting Oswald just after Baker/Truly is that Oswald was NOT in a hurry which does not fit the WC theory he was anxious to escape
So imo, the bus trip never really happened and the bus transfer ticket that had neither McWatters fingerprints nor Oswalds, was planted to make create the illusion Oswald was in a hurry
Zeon, was McWatters lying when he said he picked up a man near Elm & Field (not a bus stop, while the bus was stopped in traffic) who then got back off the bus a few minutes later after asking for a transfer?
-
The title to this thread states that Lee Oswald was at 10th and Patton Who can prove that Lee was in fact at that location at the time that Tippit was shot?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.0.html
-
Like hell. From the video--- "Oswald arrived at just before 1PM". That is according to the official story. That must be accurate or it doesn't work. "He left moments later"-- So how long was that? What was the testimony again?.....Hell! Every second counted!
One thing to consider ...according to this cab driver who took Oswald from downtown to Oak Cliff---Dropped him off at 500 N. Beckley. So, if Oswald was in such a hurry to get in and grab his gun and double time it to 10th St...why all the extra steps? The Report lets that slide.
Gary Mack's walker stopped at 3:17 Did a restart at 5:05 Did another restart at 7:03. The whole demo was just silly and self serving.
& They did not dispel one myth...That Oswald killed J D Tippit.
One thing to consider ...according to this cab driver who took Oswald from downtown to Oak Cliff---Dropped him off at 500 N. Beckley.
No.
Whaley stated that Oswald gave the destination of 500 N. Beckley but that when they approached the 700 block (two blocks short of the original destination), Oswald decided to just get out there.
-
No.
Whaley stated that Oswald gave the destination of 500 N. Beckley but that when they approached the 700 block (two blocks short of the original destination), Oswald decided to just get out there.
Eventually he did. Not in his original statement.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/med_res_d/)
-
Whaley stated that Oswald gave the destination of 500 N. Beckley but that when they approached the 700 block (two blocks short of the original destination), Oswald decided to just get out there.
Time of the shooting--- I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm--- Several people were at the scene---T F Bowley
Even though Helen Markham [the Warren Commission's star witness] said 1:06...we'll go with 1:10 and we'll go with 1:00 departure from the Beckley room. Never mind what Whaley said...Oswald must have ran to his room...ran in and grabbed a gun and ran all the way to the 10th St location so he could get there in time to shoot a cop. You would think he would be out of breath to run any more ::)
-
Eventually he did. Not in his original statement.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/med_res_d/)
I'd bet a large sum that this typed up "affidavit was not signed by Willam Whaley.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/med_res_d/)
The handwriting looks to be that of Patsy Collins.....
-
Mr. BELIN. Did you sign an affidavit for the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. I will hand you a document which I am calling Whaley Deposition Exhibit A, and ask you to say if your signature appears on there?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is my signature.
Mr. BELIN. Now I notice in the statement there it says that you traveled Wood Street to Houston Street, turned left and went over the viaduct to Zangs Boulevard. You see that statement there?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. "Traveled Zangs to Beckley and turned left and traveled on Beckley until I reached the 500 block of North Beckley. When I got in the 500 block of North Beckley he said this will do and I stopped."
Now is that what you told them on that day?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is what I told them on that day.
Mr. BELIN. Well, was that the fact that you drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir, I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block. I drove until I reached Beckley and Neely. If you would be in my place when they took me down there, when they had to force their way through the reporters to get me in the office, they wrote that up, and I signed it, because I told them that the man said he wanted to go to the 500 block of North Beckley.
Can you say "Bullied'?
-
I'd bet a large sum that this typed up "affidavit was not signed by Willam Whaley.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/med_res_d/)
The handwriting looks to be that of Patsy Collins.....
I was looking at it and had the exact same idea. Eerily similar.
-
When eyewitness accounts conflict with each other, the accounts that agree with the physical evidence should have greater weight. And accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts.
The Oswald did its want to butter their bread on both sides. Allegedly Oswald did it--- guilt by accusation ...so anything or anyone that contradicts that conclusion must be in error. The Whaley affidavit was made fairly immediately after the event but by the time he went to testimony..Whaley had been razzed to no end. The Feds had him re-drive the route [until he "got it right"] :-\
From Oswald's Jacket....
Here's where you knuckle heads don't get it. Oswald wasn't convicted of anything. He never went to trial. He never even got to talk to a lawyer before being lynched.
Hitler never went to trial, was he also innocent? Hahaha!
Mental.