JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Thomas Graves on June 07, 2020, 07:30:11 AM
-
Seems to me he did, especially if he bought the Coke beforehand in order to use it as a prop all the way, if necessary.
Carrying the already-opened Coke, get to the Second Floor Lunch Room and hang out there, expecting to be encountered ("No, I didn't hear any shots," or "I work here"), when they leave, walk through Mrs. Reid's office to its front door and exit through it, walk down the wooden steps to the front floor, maybe hang out in the "lobby" for a few seconds, then walk to the rear of the building and exit it through the loading dock door.
Instead of looking suspicious by immediately walking or running away from the building, walk along the side of the building towards the front (as alleged by B. W. F.), cross over to the other side of the street, ... and, well, "take it from there".
-- MWT ;)
-
Seems to me he did, especially if he bought the Coke beforehand in order to use it as a prop all the way, if necessary.
Carrying the already-opened Coke, get to the Second Floor Lunch Room and hang out there, expecting to be encountered ("No, I didn't hear any shots," or "I work here"), when they leave, walk through Mrs. Reid's office to its front door and exit through it, walk down the wooden steps to the front floor, maybe hang out in the "lobby" for a few seconds, then walk to the rear of the building and exit it through the loading dock door.
Instead of looking suspicious by immediately walking or running away from the building, walk along the side of the building towards the front (as alleged by B. W. F.), cross over to the other side of the street, ... and, well, "take it from there".
-- MWT ;)
The little twerp winged it from the get-go
@Tippit/Brewer/TT was his undoing
;)
-
The little twerp winged it from the get-go
@Tippit/Brewer/TT was his undoing
;)
How do you know he didn't plan it out as best he could?
His escape from the building, that is?
-- MWT ;)
-
~~If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?~~
If graves was a real researcher, would he have to ask more questions than he answers?
Dear rinaldi,
Are you a "real researcher," or just an "Oswald Was Innocent -- I Hate the CIA and Adore the KGB" troll?
-- MWT ;)
PS Did you or your parents used to read Paese Sera, by any chance?
How many times have you watched JFK, now?
-
graves: "If 6 was 9, what effect would it have on world time?" :'(
That's about the gist and the meat of your "JFK Studies"
Dear rinaldi,
Your envy betrays you.
Fly on, little Far-Left-Winger.
I got some Voodoo to work here, Chile.
I shall Return.
Load up your next Slight, dude.
-- MWT ;)
-
History shows us Oswald had no escape plan. In fact, Oswald’s behavior on the day of the event imo shows Oswald never expected to survive the day. Why would he care? He had little left in his life to live for. Study Oswald’s life. It’s a logical conclusion.
-
History shows us Oswald had no escape plan. In fact, Oswald’s behavior on the day of the event imo shows Oswald never expected to survive the day. Why would he care? He had little left in his life to live for. Study Oswald’s life. It’s a logical conclusion.
What specific "history" that day or any other day are you referring to?
His leaving the dough and the ring at Ruthie's?
-- MWT ;)
-
What about the time between the assassination and the encounter with Baker? This is more important, right? In order to believe the lone nut fiction, we have to believe that LHO fired his final shot, hid the rifle, and descended the stairs in time to meet Baker. We have to ignore some cogent eyewitness testimony to believe any of this. Tommy's unfounded speculation that Oswald may have bought the Coke before the assassination to enhance a pre-ordained alibi seems beyond ludicrous. The truth is, there's limited compelling evidence regarding Oswald's movements. Are we also going to call Roger Craig a liar when he reported seeing Oswald coming down the hill on Elm St and entering a Rambler? Why is this ignored? Easy answer: it doesn't fit with a scenario framing Oswald. The selective amnesia of the lone nutters destroys their credibility.
-
What about the time between the assassination and the encounter with Baker? This is more important, right? In order to believe the lone nut fiction, we have to believe that LHO fired his final shot, hid the rifle, and descended the stairs in time to meet Baker. We have to ignore some cogent eyewitness testimony to believe any of this. Tommy's unfounded speculation that Oswald may have bought the Coke before the assassination to enhance a pre-ordained alibi seems beyond ludicrous. The truth is, there's limited compelling evidence regarding Oswald's movements. Are we also going to call Roger Craig a liar when he reported seeing Oswald coming down the hill on Elm St and entering a Rambler? Why is this ignored? Easy answer: it doesn't fit with a scenario framing Oswald. The selective amnesia of the lone nutters destroys their credibility.
Dear James
How long do you figure it would have taken Oswald to do all of that?
Two minutes?
Five?
-- MWT Walk:
-
What specific "history" that day or any other day are you referring to?
His leaving the dough and the ring at Ruthie's?
-- MWT ;)
1963 was a very difficult year for Oswald. He couldn’t get and hold a job. Marina didn’t want him any longer. He bought weapons. He attempted to kill Walker. The Navy refused his request to over turn his undesirable discharge. He was living alone in a boarding house. His leaving $ and his wedding ring at Marina’s home was what investigators call “consciousness of guilt”; his behavior before and after the crime itself. Oswald had failed at virtually everything he attempted in 1963. At 24 years old, he had little left. He wanted to make an impact....some how, some way. Those who knew Oswald claim he liked JFK on a personal level. I’m not disputing that. Yet, he believed the American government was a blight on the working class and its Cuban policy archaic. Personally, I don’t believe Oswald was shooting at JFK as an individual. He shot the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
-
1963 was a very difficult year for Oswald. He couldn’t get and hold a job. Marina didn’t want him any longer. He bought weapons. He attempted to kill Walker. The Navy refused his request to over turn his undesirable discharge. He was living alone in a boarding house. His leaving $ and his wedding ring at Marina’s home was what investigators call “consciousness of guilt”; his behavior before and after the crime itself. Oswald had failed at virtually everything he attempted in 1963. At 24 years old, he had little left. He wanted to make an impact....some how, some way. Those who knew Oswald claim he liked JFK on a personal level. I’m not disputing that. Yet, he believed the American government was a blight on the working class and its Cuban policy archaic. Personally, I don’t believe Oswald was shooting at JFK as an individual. He shot the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
Works for me, especially if you were to add the bit about his getting turned onto Marxism as a young lad by a "Justice For The Rosenbergs!" pamphlet he was given by an elderly woman on a NYC sidewalk.
-- MWT ;)
-
How do you know he didn't plan it out as best he could?
His escape from the building, that is?
-- MWT ;)
I can't see why he would need an elaborate plan. I think he expected to get caught. Resigned to his fate, he'd be pretty calm. And there's always a chance: Ditch the rifle, be cool, and let those he might encounter play their hand first.
-
Tom, since 1964, historians, so called citizen investigators et all have torn apart each and every minuscule moment of the assassination EXCEPT who was Lee Harvey Oswald and what did he represent....in his own mind. History is littered with examples of Oswalds well before 1963. Yet, Oswald, as a human being, as a tormented soul is ignored by many conspiracy types who demand answers to questions 57 years after the assassination which they’ll never get. Simply read many of the threads on this forum. Shooting trajectories, SBT, the Texas theatre, Oswald in Russia, screwed up autopsy and the list goes on and on. CIA is often the most likely culprit per most CT’s. Yet, nothing about Oswald indicates CIA involvement. In fact, was Oswald part of a nefarious CIA plot, then CIA was totally negligent. Oswald was seen the night of November 20th in a wash-o-rama doing his laundry. Seriously? Would CIA allow their assassin to be out in public 36 hours or so before the shooting where he could divulge the plan to any individual at all? Wouldn’t CIA have him in a safe house under guard? The point being, we will NEVER know any more about the event than we know today. Yet, the very same arguments rage today as they did 50+ years ago. Bizarre. I’ve spoken at venues nationally about the assassination throughout the years. The question I’m most frequently asked is: was JFK killed in a conspiracy? My response is no different today than 40-50 years ago. I’m 95% certain Oswald shot JFK all by himself. That being said, there may have been a conspiracy but I can’t prove that nor can anybody else. Ever. History has spoken.
-
I AM ASSUMING LHO FIRED SHOTS FROM THE 6TH FLOOR S/E WINDOW:
Regardless of the route he took or his state of mind you have to admit that he got downstairs pretty darned fast. After the meeting with Baker and Truly, he exited the building with only 1 more person having a recollection of seeing him. Pretty clear he didn't exit through the front door and that shows some reasoning on his part. I believe he could have spent some time planning his escape and he could hardly have improved over what he did.
-
I AM ASSUMING LHO FIRED SHOTS FROM THE 6TH FLOOR S/E WINDOW:
Regardless of the route he took or his state of mind you have to admit that he got downstairs pretty darned fast. After the meeting with Baker and Truly, he exited the building with only 1 more person having a recollection of seeing him. Pretty clear he didn't exit through the front door and that shows some reasoning on his part. I believe he could have spent some time planning his escape and he could hardly have improved over what he did.
All likely and possible. My belief, and it’s only a belief is Oswald expected to die that day. He made peace with Marina that morning and the $ and ring left with Marina was his goodbye.
-
Tom, since 1964, historians, so called citizen investigators et all have torn apart each and every minuscule moment of the assassination EXCEPT who was Lee Harvey Oswald and what did he represent....in his own mind. History is littered with examples of Oswalds well before 1963. Yet, Oswald, as a human being, as a tormented soul is ignored by many conspiracy types who demand answers to questions 57 years after the assassination which they’ll never get. Simply read many of the threads on this forum. Shooting trajectories, SBT, the Texas theatre, Oswald in Russia, screwed up autopsy and the list goes on and on. CIA is often the most likely culprit per most CT’s. Yet, nothing about Oswald indicates CIA involvement. In fact, was Oswald part of a nefarious CIA plot, then CIA was totally negligent. Oswald was seen the night of November 20th in a wash-o-rama doing his laundry. Seriously? Would CIA allow their assassin to be out in public 36 hours or so before the shooting where he could divulge the plan to any individual at all? Wouldn’t CIA have him in a safe house under guard? The point being, we will NEVER know any more about the event than we know today. Yet, the very same arguments rage today as they did 50+ years ago. Bizarre. I’ve spoken at venues nationally about the assassination throughout the years. The question I’m most frequently asked is: was JFK killed in a conspiracy? My response is no different today than 40-50 years ago. I’m 95% certain Oswald shot JFK all by himself. That being said, there may have been a conspiracy but I can’t prove that nor can anybody else. Ever. History has spoken.
Paul,
You're preaching to the choir, dude.
BUT I STILL LOVE YOU!
-- MWT ;)
-
Paul,
You're preaching to the choir, dude.
BUT I STILL LOVE YOU!
-- MWT ;)
Not preaching Tom. Explaining a position in response to subject thread.
-
Not preaching Tom. Explaining a position in response to subject thread.
But, as luck would have it, in reply to my post?
-- MWT ;)
(Please don't dissemble, shirk, dodge and/or temporize like Trump and Barr, et al.)
-
But, as luck would have it, in reply to my post?
-- MWT ;)
(Please don't dissemble, shirk, dodge and/or temporize like Trump and Barr, et al.)
Yes.
-
Seems to me he did, especially if he bought the Coke beforehand in order to use it as a prop all the way, if necessary.
Carrying the already-opened Coke, get to the Second Floor Lunch Room and hang out there, expecting to be encountered ("No, I didn't hear any shots," or "I work here"), when they leave, walk through Mrs. Reid's office to its front door and exit through it, walk down the wooden steps to the front floor, maybe hang out in the "lobby" for a few seconds, then walk to the rear of the building and exit it through the loading dock door.
Instead of looking suspicious by immediately walking or running away from the building, walk along the side of the building towards the front (as alleged by B. W. F.), cross over to the other side of the street, ... and, well, "take it from there".
-- MWT ;)
LHO tried to blend in with others as best he could. But I don't believe that he had a well-planned escape figured out very much ahead of time. It might be coincidence, but then again perhaps not, that he fired three shots (he was reportedly fascinated with the number three) and then had one shot left in the rifle to potentially shoot anyone who tried to stop him while he was still on the sixth floor. He was smart enough to ditch the rifle when he did so he wouldn't become an obvious target for armed law enforcement officers (who were plentiful all around the TSBD). We have the reports of witnesses who testified that they saw LHO leaving the TSBD and on the bus, cab, rooming house, Tippit murder scene, leaving the Tippit murder scene, shoe store entrance, and the Texas Theater. Tippit most likely noticed something about LHO that drew his attention to him. I think that it could have simply been a hurried pace, or maybe even that LHO saw the cab parked on the corner of Patton and 10th and raised his hand in an attempt to hail a cab. If he did, and Tippit mistakenly thought LHO was trying to get his attention, that might also explain why Tippit pulled over to the curb. I don't see any obvious escape plan in his reported behavior after the JFK shooting. Going to his room, apparently to get the pistol, is the only act that appears to me might have been planned ahead of time. And even that act wouldn't have been necessary if he had truly well-planned an escape far enough ahead of time. So to answer your question, no I do not believe that he planned an escape very well at all.
-
Sorry Tommy, I don't accept the original premise of your question. I don't believe Oswald shot anyone on 11/22/63 and I believe the real assassins wanted us to obsess about such matters, in order to divert attention from the real killers. I have been to the building in question and I will try to answer your specious question with more questions. Let's say "Lee Hardly" just killed the most powerful man on the planet (without any apparent motive). How long did it take him just to hide the rifle? Then he had to descend several flights of steps to arrive at the lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. Maybe he could have done this but I think it very unlikely. But the evidence seems stronger that he was on the lower floors during the actual killing.
-
Sorry Tommy, I don't accept the original premise of your question. I don't believe Oswald shot anyone on 11/22/63 and I believe the real assassins wanted us to obsess about such matters, in order to divert attention from the real killers. I have been to the building in question and I will try to answer your specious question with more questions. Let's say "Lee Hardly" just killed the most powerful man on the planet (without any apparent motive). How long did it take him just to hide the rifle? Then he had to descend several flights of steps to arrive at the lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. Maybe he could have done this but I think it very unlikely. But the evidence seems stronger that he was on the lower floors during the actual killing.
Dear James,
Well, in that case I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, huh?
If you're up for it, that is.
-- MWT Walk:
-
Sorry Tommy, I don't accept the original premise of your question. I don't believe Oswald shot anyone on 11/22/63 and I believe the real assassins wanted us to obsess about such matters, in order to divert attention from the real killers. I have been to the building in question and I will try to answer your specious question with more questions. Let's say "Lee Hardly" just killed the most powerful man on the planet (without any apparent motive). How long did it take him just to hide the rifle? Then he had to descend several flights of steps to arrive at the lunchroom in time to encounter Baker. Maybe he could have done this but I think it very unlikely. But the evidence seems stronger that he was on the lower floors during the actual killing.
Jim, 3 shells (hulls) we’re found in the sniper area. 3 witnesses on the floor below heard the shells hit the floor. The weapon ballistically tied to the shooting was traced back to Oswald. Backyard photos prove that. If not Oswald, who was in the snipers nest pulling the trigger?
-
For starters, there are multiple photos of the crime scene where the spent shells are in different positions. This proves nothing except tampering with evidence, which we see all over this case. Provide the evidence that puts Oswald in that window, firing any shots. Who was up there? Did the person in this window actually hit anyone with the "humanitarian weapon"? There is evidence of shooters from behind, but likely in other locations, since the trajectories don't line up with the TSBD. The backyard photos are extremely suspicious and not something I would use to buttress any arguments. Nearly every piece of evidence in the case has dubious origins and in many cases the chain of possession is shattered. If Oswald was the killer, all the evidence would fit together perfectly. Nothing of the sort is evident in this case. From the badgering of witnesses by Specter and Belin, to the murdering of witnesses who saw things contrary to the official story, there's an endless amount of contradictory evidence. I think it's a tremendous injustice that Oswald was framed for this. Instead of focusing on the real culprits, so many were led down the primrose path. This was clearly a political assassination orchestrated by LBJ, Hoover, and others since they both had much to gain by JFK's death and they are responsible for the cover-up.
I don't know any serious researchers who believe there were only three shots fired. It ignores the testimony of too many witnesses and common sense. Even the pathetic HSCA concluded at least four shots were fired, and there's evidence of several more. First let's look at the Silly bullet theory. We know from the autopsy witnesses that the entire theory is totally impossible since the back shot did not exit. How is this shot a threat to Connally? So that's one shot. Then there are multiple wounds from the rear on Connally. Was this one bullet or two? The other is the entrance wound in JFK's throat. This is another bullet that apparently didn't exit. But there's much more evidence to consider. What about the dent in the chrome of the limousine? The Tague wounding. The hole in the windshield (which is not seen until after the head shots). Other reports suggest at least a couple of missed shots (one in the grass, another in the street). Then there's the head shots. Seems from the medical evidence that there were at least two head shots and one was from the front at the right temple according to multiple witnesses. The Zapruder and Nix films show the president's head moving violently back and to the left. There's a massive hole in the right rear of the head that was covered up. Multiple eyewitnesses reported shots from the knoll. Photographic evidence shows a huge crowd of witnesses running up the knoll afterward. I'd love to see the "explanations" for this overwhelming evidence of multiple shooters. It's the totality of the evidence that's compelling to me.
-
Well, I’m not going to be dragged threw 50+ years of old conspiracy thinking. Thanks for response.
-
For starters, there are multiple photos of the crime scene where the spent shells are in different positions. This proves nothing except tampering with evidence, which we see all over this case. Provide the evidence that puts Oswald in that window, firing any shots. Who was up there? Did the person in this window actually hit anyone with the "humanitarian weapon"? There is evidence of shooters from behind, but likely in other locations, since the trajectories don't line up with the TSBD. The backyard photos are extremely suspicious and not something I would use to buttress any arguments. Nearly every piece of evidence in the case has dubious origins and in many cases the chain of possession is shattered. If Oswald was the killer, all the evidence would fit together perfectly. Nothing of the sort is evident in this case. From the badgering of witnesses by Specter and Belin, to the murdering of witnesses who saw things contrary to the official story, there's an endless amount of contradictory evidence. I think it's a tremendous injustice that Oswald was framed for this. Instead of focusing on the real culprits, so many were led down the primrose path. This was clearly a political assassination orchestrated by LBJ, Hoover, and others since they both had much to gain by JFK's death and they are responsible for the cover-up.
I don't know any serious researchers who believe there were only three shots fired. It ignores the testimony of too many witnesses and common sense. Even the pathetic HSCA concluded at least four shots were fired, and there's evidence of several more. First let's look at the Silly bullet theory. We know from the autopsy witnesses that the entire theory is totally impossible since the back shot did not exit. How is this shot a threat to Connally? So that's one shot. Then there are multiple wounds from the rear on Connally. Was this one bullet or two? The other is the entrance wound in JFK's throat. This is another bullet that apparently didn't exit. But there's much more evidence to consider. What about the dent in the chrome of the limousine? The Tague wounding. The hole in the windshield (which is not seen until after the head shots). Other reports suggest at least a couple of missed shots (one in the grass, another in the street). Then there's the head shots. Seems from the medical evidence that there were at least two head shots and one was from the front at the right temple according to multiple witnesses. The Zapruder and Nix films show the president's head moving violently back and to the left. There's a massive hole in the right rear of the head that was covered up. Multiple eyewitnesses reported shots from the knoll. Photographic evidence shows a huge crowd of witnesses running up the knoll afterward. I'd love to see the "explanations" for this overwhelming evidence of multiple shooters. It's the totality of the evidence that's compelling to me.
Dear James,
How do you figure one of the three shells ended up over in the far corner by itself?
Because Fritz or somebody intuited that the ejection of the sharply-angled-down first shot's casing (i.e., while the sniper was still standing and not yet kneeling) would tend to put it over there, or because Fritz or somebody decided to chuck one over there for good luck, or because somebody accidentally kicked it over there?
Hmm?
-- MWT ;)
-
I don't know, and only the people involved know the real story. But apparently it's innocent that there are multiple stories of how the shells are found. Any investigator would be curious about that, right? Of all the things I wrote, THAT'S what you focus on? All righty then...
-
Of course, when accurate facts are presented, some bravely run away...
-
I don't know, and only the people involved know the real story. But apparently it's innocent that there are multiple stories of how the shells are found. Any investigator would be curious about that, right? Of all the things I wrote, THAT'S what you focus on? All righty then...
Investigators can look at one piece of isolated evidence and reach different conclusions. However, the totality of ALL the evidence, when taken together with common sense thrown in can only reach one conclusion.
-
Exactly right about the totality of the evidence. When presented with facts you don't like, you just ignore them and double down on a totally discredited account of the assassination. How many lone nutters have ever admitted they were duped by false evidence? None that I know of. When I was an adolescent studying the Warren Commission summary, I bought the "lone nut" story until I started researching more. It boils down to a matter of research, intellectual honesty and integrity. Again, no credible researcher can look at the evidence and believe there were only three shots. Happy to debate anyone concerning the case, but no matter how solid the evidence, there's very little chance of changing anyone's opinion. So why bother to try? Because the work of journalists on the assassination has been extremely poor. CIA control of the media is well known, even today, which is why I admire the independent researchers who have uncovered the evidence needed to totally destroy the Warren Commission's embarrassing whitewash.
-
Exactly right about the totality of the evidence. When presented with facts you don't like, you just ignore them and double down on a totally discredited account of the assassination. How many lone nutters have ever admitted they were duped by false evidence? None that I know of. When I was an adolescent studying the Warren Commission summary, I bought the "lone nut" story until I started researching more. It boils down to a matter of research, intellectual honesty and integrity. Again, no credible researcher can look at the evidence and believe there were only three shots. Happy to debate anyone concerning the case, but no matter how solid the evidence, there's very little chance of changing anyone's opinion. So why bother to try? Because the work of journalists on the assassination has been extremely poor. CIA control of the media is well known, even today, which is why I admire the independent researchers who have uncovered the evidence needed to totally destroy the Warren Commission's embarrassing whitewash.
Dear James,
Independent "researchers"?
Like "Angleton specialists" Tom Mangold and Jefferson Morley, both of whom get things so wrong because they rely so heavily on bogus, duped-by-KGB sources like Leonard McCoy (see the five-page section called "The McCoy intervention" in the PDF by Tennent H. Bagley, below), HSCA perjurer John L. Hart, and probable-mole, garrulous, Russia-born George "Teddy Bear" Kisevalter (see my thread on him in the Off Topic section) ?
LOL
No wonder you're so confused.
-- MWT ;)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362
-
Jim,
Tom's 76 years old. He's bored. You're not going to get any semblance of an honest debate from him. I remember several years ago he posted some interesting stuff over on another forum. But they got tired of his shtick there and booted him out. So he loves to tease here, then switches tactics and says the Russians did it. That's the most you're going to get out him. Just an FYI...
-
Tommy, the confusion is all yours. Not sure why you isolated two researchers I know little about. Frankly, another astoundingly irrelevant response...
-
Tommy, the confusion is all yours. Not sure why you isolated two researchers I know little about. Frankly, another astoundingly irrelevant response...
As you tend to rely heavily on witness testimony, I’ll suggest to you an experiment. Take EVERY witness, pro or con OUT of the event. Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?
-
As you tend to rely heavily on witness testimony, I’ll suggest to you an experiment. Take EVERY witness, pro or con OUT of the event. Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?
Dirty Harvey
-
Eliminating eyewitness testimony and relying on the false medical evidence is not an effective way to find the truth. The medical evidence in this case is totally fraudulent and it has taken researchers decades to get the real story. We don't know who the real killers were with any certainty. However, it wasn't Oswald, unless he manifested a second body to the right front of the president. See Douglas Horne's important research on the medical evidence for some very disturbing research. How do you reconcile the false autopsy photos with the testimony of the vast majority of the witnesses who clearly stated there was a large hole in the back of the head? Not one bit of the medical evidence makes any sense. Look at how the HSCA struggled with the medical evidence. There were several pieces of metal found in the president's body at the autopsy that were reported by a reputable witness with no reason to prevaricate (Dennis David).
If "Lee Hardly" was the assassin, everything would be extremely clear and no cover-up would not be necessary. We would see exit wounds on the front of the body, right? Where are these exit wounds? Instead, the entire case is riddled with jaw dropping inconsistencies, witness intimidation, and several murders of vital witnesses. Just one example: why would LBJ call Parkland Hospital to coerce Dr. Crenshaw into wrestling a death bed confession from the dying Oswald? Also the medical evidence includes the SBT, which is impossible for several reasons, yet lone nutters continue to stubbornly embrace this moronic theory. Arlen Specter deserves a lot of scorn, not only for the monstrous lie of the SBT, but also for threatening and deliberately changing witness testimony that contradicted the false government account of the shooting.
Another thing...some folks seem to believe that since the real assassins weren't caught, they don't exist. In truth, the assassination was a huge success, since a patsy was framed and the real assassins escaped. The obvious political reasons for the assassination were silenced and the world hasn't been the same since.
-
Eliminating eyewitness testimony and relying on the false medical evidence is not an effective way to find the truth. The medical evidence in this case is totally fraudulent and it has taken researchers decades to get the real story. We don't know who the real killers were with any certainty. However, it wasn't Oswald, unless he manifested a second body to the right front of the president. See Douglas Horne's important research on the medical evidence for some very disturbing research. How do you reconcile the false autopsy photos with the testimony of the vast majority of the witnesses who clearly stated there was a large hole in the back of the head? Not one bit of the medical evidence makes any sense. Look at how the HSCA struggled with the medical evidence. There were several pieces of metal found in the president's body at the autopsy that were reported by a reputable witness with no reason to prevaricate (Dennis David).
If "Lee Hardly" was the assassin, everything would be extremely clear and no cover-up would not be necessary. We would see exit wounds on the front of the body, right? Where are these exit wounds? Instead, the entire case is riddled with jaw dropping inconsistencies, witness intimidation, and several murders of vital witnesses. Just one example: why would LBJ call Parkland Hospital to coerce Dr. Crenshaw into wrestling a death bed confession from the dying Oswald? Also the medical evidence includes the SBT, which is impossible for several reasons, yet lone nutters continue to stubbornly embrace this moronic theory. Arlen Specter deserves a lot of scorn, not only for the monstrous lie of the SBT, but also for threatening and deliberately changing witness testimony that contradicted the false government account of the shooting.
Another thing...some folks seem to believe that since the real assassins weren't caught, they don't exist. In truth, the assassination was a huge success, since a patsy was framed and the real assassins escaped. The obvious political reasons for the assassination were silenced and the world hasn't been the same since.
False medical evidence? This is your response after 56 years? Everything, I mean EVERYTHING you suggest is utter speculation. Then to top it off you bring up Doug Horne. Remarkable. Jeremy Gunn, Horne’s boss at the ARRB when asked if he read Horne’s “report” stated “I don’t read anything written by Doug Horne”. What I find astounding is you present the exact same nonsense prospered for 56+ years. It appears if something is unexplainable to you it’s automatically nefarious and part of some vast conspiracy which remains unproven. This is the very reason I’ve stopped communicating with many conspiracy types. To be fair, there may very well have been a conspiracy at play, yet you cannot prove it nor can anybody else. History has spoken. Oswald was the Dude.
-
Wrong as always. Since when is consistent eyewitness testimony "speculation?" Did you actually read Horne's research? If you didn't, it makes you look pretty bad. Why do you feel the need to bring Jeremy Gunn into the conversation in a rather troubling effort to discredit Horne? That kind of tactic doesn't work on me. If you have some examples of Horne's mistakes, I would like to see them. If you haven't read his research, you owe him a public apology.
Also, don't lump me in with anyone else, since I synthesize research from many sources before offering my opinions on a public forum. I've been studying the case since junior high school and I've carefully read books on both sides of the issue. As always, you challenge none of the pertinent issues, but just do an extremely lazy drive by at Oswald at the end. Challenging what I write without specifics is also worthless. Saying "history has spoken" is exactly what I am here to fight. You have produced nothing to make me believe LHO shot anyone on 11/22/63. When challenged, you produce no evidence whatsoever, only insults and obfuscation. How about some substance for once?
-
Here's Chapman with another brilliant, thoughtful and detailed account of how the shooting came down. Nice work!
-
Jim, 3 shells (hulls) we’re found in the sniper area. 3 witnesses on the floor below heard the shells hit the floor. The weapon ballistically tied to the shooting was traced back to Oswald. Backyard photos prove that.
The backyard photos don’t prove anything of the kind.
-
As you tend to rely heavily on witness testimony, I’ll suggest to you an experiment. Take EVERY witness, pro or con OUT of the event. Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?
Ballistic and medical tests cannot tell you who pulled the trigger.
-
Wrong as always. Since when is consistent eyewitness testimony "speculation?" Did you actually read Horne's research? If you didn't, it makes you look pretty bad. Why do you feel the need to bring Jeremy Gunn into the conversation in a rather troubling effort to discredit Horne? That kind of tactic doesn't work on me. If you have some examples of Horne's mistakes, I would like to see them. If you haven't read his research, you owe him a public apology.
Also, don't lump me in with anyone else, since I synthesize research from many sources before offering my opinions on a public forum. I've been studying the case since junior high school and I've carefully read books on both sides of the issue. As always, you challenge none of the pertinent issues, but just do an extremely lazy drive by at Oswald at the end. Challenging what I write without specifics is also worthless. Saying "history has spoken" is exactly what I am here to fight. You have produced nothing to make me believe LHO shot anyone on 11/22/63. When challenged, you produce no evidence whatsoever, only insults and obfuscation. How about some substance for once?
You are absolutely lumped in with everybody else. You deserve to be. You offer NO specifics. None. Your arguments are no different than the standard arguments over 56 years, same arguments, different day. Ohhhh, you’ve read books on both sides! Wow. Ever been to NARA? If so, what did you find? Ever speak or interview any of those actually involved in the event....in any capacity? I’d guess not as you likely were BUSY reading books. So as a “conspiracy authority” can you provide the readers of this site with even ONE hard, credible, corroborated, undisputed piece of evidence proving YOUR conspiracy undiscovered for some 56 years? If so, I’ll alert the media.
-
Ballistic and medical tests cannot tell you who pulled the trigger.
The totality of the evidence can...and does. The proof being, you nor anybody else can, in 56 years provide ANY alternative whatsoever to what history has determined. Think about that.
-
You lied in response to my post by saying I offer no specifics. That's exactly what I have offered on multiple occasions. You still owe Horne an apology. Is that specific enough? You tried to discredit him and you never, ever answer anything posed to you. Rather cowardly, isn't it?
-
The totality of the evidence can...and does.
You just got done saying “Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?”
The proof being, you nor anybody else can, in 56 years provide ANY alternative whatsoever to what history has determined. Think about that.
There have been lots of alternatives presented. None of them any more or less convincing than your “history”.
-
You lied in response to my post by saying I offer no specifics. That's exactly what I have offered on multiple occasions. You still owe Horne an apology. Is that specific enough? You tried to discredit him and you never, ever answer anything posed to you. Rather cowardly, isn't it?
Yawn. You offer NOTHING. Speculation, innuendo, opinion. Nothing.
Here is what you proffer: Inability to answer ANY question. Examples of what you choose to ignore:
1. Have you been to NARA?
2. Outside of reading books (laughable), have YOU done any actual research?
3. Provide ONE piece of hard, credible, corroborated piece of evidence supporting a conspiracy. Just one.
Regarding Horne, he and I went back and forth on Amazon when he published his absurd diatribe. Guess that’s one more piece of research you ignored. Like Horn, I’m a former Naval Officer. Character counts. He’s an embarrassment to the conspiracy debate and that’s saying something. He owes an apology to anybody who purchased his sci-fi.
-
You just got done saying “Now, rely ONLY on ballistic and medical evidence. Who’s the shooter?”
There have been lots of alternatives presented. None of them any more or less convincing than your “history”.
You and I would likely disagree on the time of day as in the past. No point to this.
-
Wrong as always. Since when is consistent eyewitness testimony "speculation?" Did you actually read Horne's research? If you didn't, it makes you look pretty bad. Why do you feel the need to bring Jeremy Gunn into the conversation in a rather troubling effort to discredit Horne? That kind of tactic doesn't work on me. If you have some examples of Horne's mistakes, I would like to see them. If you haven't read his research, you owe him a public apology.
Also, don't lump me in with anyone else, since I synthesize research from many sources before offering my opinions on a public forum. I've been studying the case since junior high school and I've carefully read books on both sides of the issue. As always, you challenge none of the pertinent issues, but just do an extremely lazy drive by at Oswald at the end. Challenging what I write without specifics is also worthless. Saying "history has spoken" is exactly what I am here to fight. You have produced nothing to make me believe LHO shot anyone on 11/22/63. When challenged, you produce no evidence whatsoever, only insults and obfuscation. How about some substance for once?
You have exactly no evidence to prove that AnybodyButOswald even so much as made an attempt to shoot Kennedy that day. You've proven nothing to show someone other than Oswald shot Tippit. And if you know someone other than the shooter in the Cuckoo's Nest knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, feel free to call a press conference.
-
Put yourself in LHO's shoes. He knows as soon as he takes the shot everyone working in the TSBD that day becomes an instant suspect. If he wanted to escape he would never have taken the shot from his place of work. That he makes it down to the second floor and is found seconds after the shooting sipping a coke is almost as good as an alibi but instead of hanging around with colleagues and answering any questions he leaves the scene, making himself a prime suspect. He also knows, prior to the shooting, that he will have to leave his weapon at the scene. He works at the TSBD but doesn't prepare a place to quickly stash the rifle and shells. Instead, knowing he is going to be questioned by police, he carries a false ID in his wallet connecting him to the rifle he knows is going to be found.
Escape plan? His plan should have been to get out of the building and get to Mexico, not go home, get a gun, kill a police officer then go to the cinema.
The guy was obviously a moron.
-
Paul, as you said, witness testimony is not always accurate. Memory gets fuzzy and people were not standing around that day waiting for it to happen so they could burn it into memory and give perfect testimony.
So you're now talking about the ballistics. Take a look at the photo below.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)
These are FBI agents reenacting the shooting. They have stickers on the JFK stand in. They have the upper shoulder shot sticker quite accurately based on the autopsy and its photos. So far so good. But take a look at the one on the neck. There's no evidence that a rear shot was ever found on the rear of the neck, which means that sticker is showing where the *front* neck wound took place.
So we're now talking ballistics. Yes, you may say that you're not an expert in this but it doesn't take an expert to see with your own eyes how a bullet coming downward from the building would enter where the shoulder sticker is and exit ABOVE where the neck sticker is on the front of the throat, then go on to hit Connolly further DOWNWARD in the armpit.
Then 6 months later, after the lawyers massaged these wounds into a single shot that miraculously did all of this, we have the magic bullet. Is it any wonder that even the most jaded person researcher would find this a little off?
Do you not find this the least bit intriguing? Suspicious? Or are you simply too biased to see that?
-
Mr. May regards Horne's research as "sci-fi"? That's interesting because Horne based his writing on eyewitness testimony and demonstrable facts that were corroborated by multiple reputable officials including dedicated Navy personnel. Does it show good character for one Navy guy to trash another just because their research totally contradicts the lone nut scenario? These were Navy personnel who faithfully served their country. Horne is far from an embarrassment but trashing him without one word of substance on the matter makes you look pretty ignorant. Then you have the nerve to write about character. Not that your questions deserve a response from me, but I've done plenty of research. If you think the archives are an accurate source of information in this case, that would be another highly misleading opinion. It was a cover-up from start to finish and much of the material in the archives is 100 percent bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. Given the mountain of evidence independent researchers have uncovered, your opinions are archaic and just plain wrong. But folks like May are not interested in the truth. They only want their own deluded opinions validated. No point in engaging further, because of your stubbornness, but when you post bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, I feel compelled to challenge it for history's sake.
-
Billy Chapman comes alive with another post of incredible genius and zero substance. He says I have no evidence, as if professional assassins would leave behind evidence. Any chance they would use frangible ammunition and try to plant evidence implicating a patsy? If you had a motive to kill a president, wouldn't you want a diversion to draw attention from the real shooters? We see evidence of this all over. Who would be a better patsy to set up than LHO with his extremely contradictory past actions?
Some clear evidence of multiple shooters is staring you right in the face. In order to believe Chapman, you have to believe that ALL of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were lying. You also have to ignore scores of witnesses running up the knoll immediately after the shooting. You would have to believe that Holland, Simmons, Clint Hill, Bowers, Hoffman, the Newmans, Zapruder, and the entire Willis family, and many others are lying. You would have to believe that a shot from the rear would rocket the president's head back and to the left and violating the laws of physics. You would have to believe Tom Robinson lied about his observations at the autopsy when he saw Humes sawing on the president's head BEFORE THE AUTOPSY FORMALLY BEGAN. But big picture, you would have to be in total denial concerning the number of powerful people who wanted JFK dead. Instead, Chapman buys the moronic story concocted by American traitor Arlen Bleeping Specter who not only foisted the imbecilic SBT on the public and threatened witnesses who reported anything contrary to his dumb ass theory.
Then there's the dictabelt. What I find fascinating is that those who try to discredit the tapes can't explain why, if the assassination is synchronized with the Zapruder film head shot, every movement on the film corresponds to a an impulse on the dictabelt. Guess that's just a coincidence, right? But the tapes reflect at least four impulses and some believe there could be as many as seven shots. Some shots could have occurred at the same instant or silencers could have been employed. This makes so much more sense given the TOTALITY of the evidence than the absolutely ludicrous three shot scenario. Again, if "Lee Hardly" is the assassin, why aren't there exit wounds on the front of JFK's body? Can't wait to see the reaction...
-
“It was a cover-up from start to finish and much of the material in the archives is 100 percent bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns”.
Yawn. yawn. This is OPINION unsupported by fact! I made my argument with Horne’s garbage directly to Horne. You appear to offer YOUR opinion freely yet, refuse to answer ANY question asked. Any at all. So, let’s try it one last time. Ready?
1. Have YOU ever been to NARA? What did you study?
2. Other than reading books, what actual original research have you done?
3. Who peer reviewed Horne’s work?
Simple questions even for a neophyte such as yourself. Impress the readers. Answer the questions.
-
May is tired, always yawning when presented with the truth. I don't care about your irrelevant questions. You are basing your conclusions on tainted evidence with no legitimate chain of possession in many cases. Calling me a neophyte is yet another false claim. I would debate you any time and you would be destroyed in seconds...
-
Billy Chapman comes alive with another post of incredible genius and zero substance. He says I have no evidence, as if professional assassins would leave behind evidence. Any chance they would use frangible ammunition and try to plant evidence implicating a patsy? If you had a motive to kill a president, wouldn't you want a diversion to draw attention from the real shooters? We see evidence of this all over. Who would be a better patsy to set up than LHO with his extremely contradictory past actions?
Some clear evidence of multiple shooters is staring you right in the face. In order to believe Chapman, you have to believe that ALL of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were lying. You also have to ignore scores of witnesses running up the knoll immediately after the shooting. You would have to believe that Holland, Simmons, Clint Hill, Bowers, Hoffman, the Newmans, Zapruder, and the entire Willis family, and many others are lying. You would have to believe that a shot from the rear would rocket the president's head back and to the left and violating the laws of physics. You would have to believe Tom Robinson lied about his observations at the autopsy when he saw Humes sawing on the president's head BEFORE THE AUTOPSY FORMALLY BEGAN. But big picture, you would have to be in total denial concerning the number of powerful people who wanted JFK dead. Instead, Chapman buys the moronic story concocted by American traitor Arlen Bleeping Specter who not only foisted the imbecilic SBT on the public and threatened witnesses who reported anything contrary to his dumb ass theory.
Then there's the dictabelt. What I find fascinating is that those who try to discredit the tapes can't explain why, if the assassination is synchronized with the Zapruder film head shot, every movement on the film corresponds to a an impulse on the dictabelt. Guess that's just a coincidence, right? But the tapes reflect at least four impulses and some believe there could be as many as seven shots. Some shots could have occurred at the same instant or silencers could have been employed. This makes so much more sense given the TOTALITY of the evidence than the absolutely ludicrous three shot scenario. Again, if "Lee Hardly" is the assassin, why aren't there exit wounds on the front of JFK's body? Can't wait to see the reaction...
Wow. Have you swallowed the kool-ade. Get all this crap from all those books you read? Firstly, please, tell us all who these “professional” assassins might be. Must be more than one as you used a plural. Then, tell us all where they were within Dealey Plaza.
Frangible bullets? Laughable. No evidence to support this. You then claim ”some shots could have occurred at the same instant OR silencers could have been employed”. To you, this is EVIDENCE. Couda, woulda, shuda. Typical 56 year old conspiracy crap. Btw, the word “silencers”, much like your postings is an invention of Hollywood. It’s called a “suppressor” to those who understand. Regarding exit wounds, one in the neck, one in the head. You are hopefully aware John Tunheim, U.S.District Judge who chaired the ARRB said the following: It seems most unlikely the Warren Commission got it right when it concluded that a single bullet traveled through JFK’s upper back, lung and throat, nicked his tie, traveled on into Texas Gov. John Connelly’s back, out his chest, into and then back out of his wrist and finally into his thigh – “completely unscathed,” Tunheim noted. The nick in the tie is relevant as to the direction of CE-399 as the fibers pointed outward indicating the bullet traversed JFK’s neck back to front. Doug Horne is a nut. You joined his club.
-
May is tired, always yawning when presented with the truth. I don't care about your irrelevant questions. You are basing your conclusions on tainted evidence with no legitimate chain of possession in many cases. Calling me a neophyte is yet another false claim. I would debate you any time and you would be destroyed in seconds...
Ah, your ego is damaged. How sad. The questions asked of your are relevant to the readers of this blog. I surely understand why you refuse to answer. You can’t. You have little time. You’re reading books seeking confirmation bias. Sad again. You cannot debate using a false premise. Each thing you post.....”multiple assassins” is one example. You claim it’s YOUR truth. Prove it to the readers. I challenge you. Show us some original research on your part. You’re actually worse than a neophyte. You appear to be ignorant to the basic known facts of this case. You’re entertaining. You determine in your own mind what happened reading all these books you claim to read, throw out all of the data that doesn’t fit your conclusion and then hail your findings as the only possible solution. You’re a hoot.
-
Mr. May regards Horne's research as "sci-fi"? That's interesting because Horne based his writing on eyewitness testimony and demonstrable facts that were corroborated by multiple reputable officials including dedicated Navy personnel. Does it show good character for one Navy guy to trash another just because their research totally contradicts the lone nut scenario? These were Navy personnel who faithfully served their country. Horne is far from an embarrassment but trashing him without one word of substance on the matter makes you look pretty ignorant. Then you have the nerve to write about character. Not that your questions deserve a response from me, but I've done plenty of research. If you think the archives are an accurate source of information in this case, that would be another highly misleading opinion. It was a cover-up from start to finish and much of the material in the archives is 100 percent bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. Given the mountain of evidence independent researchers have uncovered, your opinions are archaic and just plain wrong. But folks like May are not interested in the truth. They only want their own deluded opinions validated. No point in engaging further, because of your stubbornness, but when you post bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, I feel compelled to challenge it for history's sake.
This is the crux of the information I found and brought to the attention of author Janney and his friend, Doug Horne.
Douglas Horne's reaction is in the 2nd page of the 13 comments linked under this book review.:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RWKKPDXQXFKPD/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928
https://books.google.com/books?id=-Cv8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT365&lpg... (https://books.google.com/books?id=-Cv8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT365&lpg=PT365&dq=dieugenio+protege,+whose+name&source=bl&ots=xsR8GsUYRz&sig=ACfU3U0cYfBNFnmds2oNL0xtdrM6czKMgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjut-6kh_XpAhURX80KHS9aDjkQ6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=dieugenio%20protege%2C%20whose%20name&f=false)
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy,...
By Peter Janney
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyDiEugenioProtegeCrop.jpg)
...New York mathematical society. List of members, constitution, by-laws
[...] American Mathematical Society - 1964 -
American Mathematical Society. MISARE ... AI Math., Computation Lab., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. ... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. l500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. l022,
Combined membership list of the American Mathematical Society and ...
[...] American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics - 1965 -
...... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. 1500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va.
[...] Harvard Alumni Directory (Office), Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard University - 1965 - Snippet view
.... MltcheU, WUliam Lockwood, 1500 Arlington Blvd. , Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va. 22209.....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyHorneReacts.jpg)
-
A response to Michael Walton's 'reenactment photo'
We know the throat wound was below the Adams Apple. If you look at the white spot on the agents collar, put the Adams Apple above it and the chin above that. This would put JFK's chin on the same level as his ears! Any profile photo shows you this is not the case. You have assumed the white spot represents the throat wound but it clearly doesn't. Other things wrong with this 'reenactment' - When JFK is shot his right arm is resting over the side of the limo raising his right shoulder above his left and also raising the actual entry wound itself. This is not shown in the reenactment photo. Also, both agents look to be the same height and there is copious photographic evidence that JFK is significantly higher than JBC in the jump seat.
Out of curiosity - if the throat wound really was above the back wound and its a through-and-through wound, where exactly did this shot come from? If we follow it back it means there was someone underneath the follow-up car firing at JFK. If we follow it forward it goes off into space!
-
Paul May - care to reply to my recent post on this? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
-
Here's Chapman with another brilliant, thoughtful and detailed account of how the shooting came down. Nice work!
;)
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE NOBODY WHO SHOT THE SOMEBODY HAD HELP
-----------------------------------------------------------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.0.html#new
1) Alek Hidell (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Dirty Harvey (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of making Lee Harvey Oswald a somebody
Dirty Harry
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
Dirty Harvey
Smith, Wesson... and Lee
'Sudden Impact' 'Smith, Wesson... and me'
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pQk9vQD/card-fun.png)
Alek Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) selective nutjob
(https://i.postimg.cc/4N7n2m6Q/gun-fun.png)
Smith, Wesson... and Lee
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6N6gvvX/small-beckley.png)
O.H. Lee safe-house (no curtain rods needed)
-
My ego is damaged? Hardly. Geez, the false claims coming from May are too numerous to contemplate. I can't believe you continue to trot out the moronic SBT. Remember the autopsy? The one that actually occurred? How many witnesses tell us the back wound didn't exit? Even if it did, CE 399, which is housed in the holy archives, has an extremely dubious chain of possession and appears to have been fired through nothing. Otherwise there would be substantial damage since it allegedly tore through two men causing multiple wounds. Again, this truly has to be the most magical of all bullets in the history of ballistics. You have to be a special kind of gullible to buy this bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
-
Paul May - care to reply to my recent post on this? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Michael, I’m not a big fan of re-enactments for obvious reasons. They’re unnecessary. We have the ZAP film tell us what we need to know. If nothing else the tie nick tells us a bullet exited JFK’s neck.
-
My ego is damaged? Hardly. Geez, the false claims coming from May are too numerous to contemplate. I can't believe you continue to trot out the moronic SBT. Remember the autopsy? The one that actually occurred? How many witnesses tell us the back wound didn't exit? Even if it did, CE 399, which is housed in the holy archives, has an extremely dubious chain of possession and appears to have been fired through nothing. Otherwise there would be substantial damage since it allegedly tore through two men causing multiple wounds. Again, this truly has to be the most magical of all bullets in the history of ballistics. You have to be a special kind of gullible to buy this bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
This is a hoot. Do you believe using words such as “moronic” helps your cause? You sound like an idiot. In your latest diatribe you now show how little understanding you have of FMJ ammunition. CE-399 behaved exactly as it was designed to behave. You people often use the word “pristine” in describing the bullet. In ballistics, the ONLY bullet ever considered “pristine” is one that has never been fired. Have YOU ever fired a MC rifle? It’s a yes or no question. You then state “otherwise there would be substantial damage since it allegedly tore (your word) through two men causing multiple wounds”. Are you familiar at all with the term “yaw angle”? Take your time and google it. Guess what neophyte? CE-399 DID sustain substantial damage. The bullet was bowed some 35 percent in the middle and was tooth-pasting lead from the bottom. Hardly pristine....except to an individual needing to make that claim due to him/her reading it in a book, which seems to be the only research you do. From your demonstrated ability in avoiding any questions
you’re asked, one can can safely assume you don’t know the meaning of the word research so, you’d come into this site espousing 50+ years of crap. Want to impress the readers? Tell us something NEW in the way of actual evidence, without the usual bias. But, before that, actually learn the rudimentary FACTS of the case. You haven’t a clue.
-
Here's May still trying to gaslight history. Not going to work on my watch, pal. I cite the back wound not exiting as proof of the impossibility of the SBT and he trots out a bunch of irrelevant ballistic evidence that makes zero sense. Your arguments are the most archaic, disproven, unscientific nonsense imaginable. Yaw angle is somehow supposed to supersede the obvious implications of a non-transit through the president's body? You also said at one point that there really are exit wounds on the front of the body. Strange, but I have seen no evidence to support this dubious claim. The doctors at Parkland certainly didn't report any such thing. How do you explain all the medical witnesses who report a huge hole in the back of the head? I'm sure you will dodge that too. Again, so pointless to be here....
-
Put yourself in LHO's shoes. He knows as soon as he takes the shot everyone working in the TSBD that day becomes an instant suspect. If he wanted to escape he would never have taken the shot from his place of work. That he makes it down to the second floor and is found seconds after the shooting sipping a coke is almost as good as an alibi but instead of hanging around with colleagues and answering any questions he leaves the scene, making himself a prime suspect. He also knows, prior to the shooting, that he will have to leave his weapon at the scene. He works at the TSBD but doesn't prepare a place to quickly stash the rifle and shells. Instead, knowing he is going to be questioned by police, he carries a false ID in his wallet connecting him to the rifle he knows is going to be found.
Escape plan? His plan should have been to get out of the building and get to Mexico, not go home, get a gun, kill a police officer then go to the cinema.
The guy was obviously a moron.
LOL
Marion Baker said in so many words that the only reason he ran into the TSBD was because he'd seen a flock of pigeons depart from its roof when a gun shot (the first one, evidently) rang out.
(One can only wonder if any pigeons left the roof of the DalTex Building or "Old Red", etc.)
Point being: Until Howard Brennan and Amos Euins, et al., told the police what they'd witnessed, not many people suspected that the shots had come from Oswald's place of work.
-- MWT ;)
PS I see your point, though. The dummy should have hung around and shot the spombleprofglidnoctobuns with Buell for 15 minutes or so before saying, "Fuck it, I'm going home to change my clothes and get my revolver before going to The Texas Theater."
-
Here's May still trying to gaslight history. Not going to work on my watch, pal. I cite the back wound not exiting as proof of the impossibility of the SBT and he trots out a bunch of irrelevant ballistic evidence that makes zero sense. Your arguments are the most archaic, disproven, unscientific nonsense imaginable. Yaw angle is somehow supposed to supersede the obvious implications of a non-transit through the president's body? You also said at one point that there really are exit wounds on the front of the body. Strange, but I have seen no evidence to support this dubious claim. The doctors at Parkland certainly didn't report any such thing. How do you explain all the medical witnesses who report a huge hole in the back of the head? I'm sure you will dodge that too. Again, so pointless to be here....
This conversation will end here. Here’s what’s known for SURE: I’ve given you rational responses to questions concerning ballistics which a first year researcher should know. Here’s what you have shown readers of this thread:
1. You do no research. You read conspiracy books.
2.The basics of the case and the capabilities of ammunition is beyond your understanding.
3. You lie continuously about the actual evidence.
4. The neck wound ballistically was an exit wound. That’s been proven by the tie nick. Hence, a wound in the front of the body. The metal fragments found in Connally’s body are tied ballistically to Oswald’s MC. You call this “irrelevant” ballistic evidence”.
5. The doctors at Parkland were ER doctors, ONLY concerned with saving a life not determining cause of death.
6. The authenticated autopsy photos along with any ballistic evidence trump ANY witness testimony. Always.
7. History is debated, never argued. You cannot debate because you don’t know the case AT ALL. Not surprising. This is what happens when you read conspiracy crap and do no actual research.
8. Your inability to answer even my most basic questions tells all the readers of this thread what they need to know about you. Want to talk 50 year old plus crap, Brunsman’s your guy.
Duncan MacPherson, a highly respected wound ballistic expert and author of the book “Bullet Penetration” had no interest in the JFK assassination but did make this comment about conspiracy types which describes you perfectly:
“I’m always amused by people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know nothing about specifically regarding firearms”.
Now, go sell your crap to some first year researcher like yourself. You won’t find him/her on this site.
-
Oswald’s MC -- LOL
Are you even past the first year?
Your typically intelligent comment. Sad. Mom and dad must be so proud.
-
Ah, your ego is damaged. How sad. The questions asked of you are relevant to the readers of this blog. I surely understand why you refuse to answer. You can’t. You have little time. You’re reading books seeking confirmation bias. Sad again. You cannot debate using a false premise. Each thing you post.....”multiple assassins” is one example. You claim it’s YOUR truth. Prove it to the readers. I challenge you. Show us some original research on your part. You’re actually worse than a neophyte. You appear to be ignorant to the basic known facts of this case. You’re entertaining. You determine in your own mind what happened reading all these books you claim to read, throw out all of the data that doesn’t fit your conclusion and then hail your findings as the only possible solution. You’re a hoot.
Paul,
It appears that James Brunsman has seen (many, many times?) Oliver Stone's KGB-disinformation-based (and expanded upon by Stone, himself!) movie (sic), JFK.
That's why he's such an expert!
-- MWT ;)
-
Paul,
It appears that James Brunsman has seen (many, many times?) Oliver Stone's KGB-disinformation-based (and expanded upon by Stone, himself!) movie (sic),JFK.
That's why he's such an expert!
-- MWT ;)
Bingo Tom.
-
Tommy (have in the) Graves with another warped response. The truth is, I rarely if ever think about "JFK" by Oliver Stone. However, he came so much closer to the truth than the "Warren Omission."
-
Oswald’s MC -- LOL
Gasp ... did Mark "Paid By The KGB" Lane, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio or Vladimir Putin tell you the Manlicher-Carcano carbine didn't belong to self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald?
-- MWT ;)
-
Tommy (have in the) Graves with another warped response. The truth is, I rarely if ever think about "JFK" by Oliver Stone. However, he came so much closer to the truth than the "Warren Omission."
"He" being Oliver "I Admire Vladimir Putin and My Son Works for RT" Stone, Jim "Barking Mad Carnival Barker" Garrison, or the KGB officer who wrote the "expose" the Communist newspaper Please Sera published in February of 1967?
-- MWT ;)
Edit:
https://staging.quillette.com/2018/09/27/the-soviets-and-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists/
-
That's a triple no, never met any of the guys.
Obie,
If you've read the propaganda written or posted by DiEugenio over the years, you've already "met" KGB Mafia-boy Vladimir Putin and every Anti-American / pro-Russia JFK Assassination "researcher" there is.
-
Really xxxx of May to keep saying I do no research, but I can't find a single thing he writes that is provable. Tell us one lie I have uttered about the evidence. It's possible some information I believe is wrong, but calling it a lie is also a lie. He still completely ignores the critical back wound. He cites the tie as evidence of an exit wound. Bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns! Your comments about the Dallas doctors are a dodge. The doctors and nurses there had seen numerous gunshot wounds and it doesn't take an expert to tell an entrance from an exit in most cases. Then he says autospy photos were "authenticated." Where the hell did you get that? Authenticated by whom???? In truth, the HSCA was all over the map just trying to determine where an entrance wound was located.
I don't know the case at all according to someone who pretends to be a firearms and ballistics expert. Please tell us your credentials and stop lying about me. First year researcher? That's another really stupid and false accusation and it makes you look petty since I keep destroying your impossible theories. But May is deeply entrenched in the ditch of an impossible scenario where the alleged assassin has no motive, questionable shooting skill, and a rifle so embarrassing, it garnered the moniker, "the humanitarian rifle." We're supposed to believe he carried out the crime of the century by himself even though the evidence shows shots from multiple directions. I have looked carefully at the evidence on both sides of these issues and I've been to Dealey Plaza and also interviewed a groundbreaking researcher. My writing on the subject has also been published in newspapers. But go ahead and continue to malign me. Your credibility is diminished with every post.
-
Really xxxx of May to keep saying I do no research, but I can't find a single thing he writes that is provable. Tell us one lie I have uttered about the evidence. It's possible some information I believe is wrong, but calling it a lie is also a lie. He still completely ignores the critical back wound. He cites the tie as evidence of an exit wound. Bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns! Your comments about the Dallas doctors are a dodge. The doctors and nurses there had seen numerous gunshot wounds and it doesn't take an expert to tell an entrance from an exit in most cases. Then he says autospy photos were "authenticated." Where the hell did you get that? Authenticated by whom???? In truth, the HSCA was all over the map just trying to determine where an entrance wound was located.
I don't know the case at all according to someone who pretends to be a firearms and ballistics expert. Please tell us your credentials and stop lying about me. First year researcher? That's another really stupid and false accusation and it makes you look petty since I keep destroying your impossible theories. But May is deeply entrenched in the ditch of an impossible scenario where the alleged assassin has no motive, questionable shooting skill, and a rifle so embarrassing, it garnered the moniker, "the humanitarian rifle." We're supposed to believe he carried out the crime of the century by himself even though the evidence shows shots from multiple directions. I have looked carefully at the evidence on both sides of these issues and I've been to Dealey Plaza and also interviewed a groundbreaking researcher. My writing on the subject has also been published in newspapers. But go ahead and continue to malign me. Your credibility is diminished with every post.
Dear James,
How ironic it is that you mention the words "spombleprofglidnoctobunsty" and "bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns".
What it boils down to is that you don't necessarily "lie". You're probably just way too ignorant and / or "brainwashed" by the likes of Lane, Jumbo Duh and Stone (Oliver, Roger) to even realize that you're spreading incorrect information, not unlike the way a farmer spreads "green" manure on a field.
-- MWT ;)
-
Tommy hasn't responded to any substance, so he has no credibility with me. He desperately wants me to be unduly influenced by researchers he doesn't agree with, even though he has no clue who I respect in the field of assassination research. But compared to Specter, Belin, Hoover, Dulles and the other criminal disinformation agents, independent researchers have done much more to provide us with the truth. Specter lied and lied and intimidated witnesses and was responsible for the biggest lie in the history of criminality: the Silly Bullet Theory. Tommy, like a blind sheep, follows this utter nonsense...
-
If you say so.
Your point being?
O. B.,
You said you'd never "met" them.
Remember?
-- MWT ;)
-
Tommy hasn't responded to any substance, so he has no credibility with me. He desperately wants me to be unduly influenced by researchers he doesn't agree with, even though he has no clue who I respect in the field of assassination research. But compared to Specter, Belin, Hoover, Dulles and the other criminal disinformation agents, independent researchers have done much more to provide us with the truth. Specter lied and lied and intimidated witnesses and was responsible for the biggest lie in the history of criminality: the Silly Bullet Theory. Tommy, like a blind sheep, follows this utter nonsense...
J. Edgar Hoover, the Golitsyn-distrusting, CIA-hating jerk who was duped by triple-agent Aleksey Kulak (FEDORA) for 10 years, as well as by other KGB plants like Polyakov and Orehkov, and who was taken in by false-defector Yuri Nosenko, like, forever ... and who failed to monitor self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald closely enough?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/03/fbi-says-its-spy-in-kgb-was-a-fake/2f5602ba-7108-473e-9d91-dbdb92746da2/
https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames/mode/2up
-- MWT ;)
-
Tommy rightly has animosity toward Hoover, Putin and Trump, but believes in a lone assassin? Interesting!
-
Sure.
So why is of importance what they might have 'told' me?
O.B.,
Because your "listening" to them and "buying" what they say would explain why you're so wrong. D'oh
-- MWT ;)
-
You rule out I looked at the evidence?
What's your definition of "evidence" here?
What are your five pieces of evidence that "prove" Oswald's innocence?
And what are your five pieces of evidence that "prove" JFK was murdered by the evil, evil, evil Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex?
How did you decide what to believe in, and what not to believe it?
-- MWT ;)
-
Baby steps now, Graves!
By "evidence" I mean (primarily) anything you'll find in the Warren Commission volumes.
Are you with me so far?
Give it up, dude.
You read all 26 volumes, right?
-
Tommy rightly has animosity toward Hoover, Putin and Trump, but believes in a lone assassin? Interesting!
Dear James,
Yeah, a lone assassin who, against Khrushchev's wishes, went rogue after the KGB had trained / programmed him and had gone to the trouble of planting a Kremlin-protecting WW III virus in his CIA file.
Please explain your puzzlement.
-- MWT ;)
-
I've read selected parts.
So far no supporting evidence for "Oswald's MC".
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano?
Take it up with David Von Pein and Bugliosi, et al.
No need for me to reinvent the wheel.
What else?
-- MWT ;)
-
Von P: I did, he ran for the hills.
Bugliosi: Dead.
Frankly, I didn't expect you to have a clue about the evidence.
Obie Wan,
DVP ran for the hills, eh?
How so?
How do you think "The Bug" would try to rebut your stellar analysis?
-- MWT ;)
-
Are you OK?
"The Bug" is dead.
Otto,
Were you born in East Germany by any chance?
Could explain your pro-KGB, anti-CIA outlook and your apparent inability to understand the nuances of the English language.
When and where did you debate David Von Pein on the "MC"?
-- MWT ;)
-
Pro-KGB outlook?
Jim summed you up nicely in just one word:
Warped.
Otto,
OMG, am I confusing you with one of your gurus?
Could it be that you're just virulently anti-CIA, especially as regards the assassination of JFK by a self-described Marxist?
-- MWT ;)
PS Warped, eh? Hmm... Is that anything like ... brainwashed by Ruskie propaganda?
PPS If the "MC" wasn't Oswald's, how many people do you figure were involved in making it appear that it was, i.e., in the Backyard Photos, in the documents, in the planting of it in the TSBD, etc?
Just a couple?
-
Tommy sees some things clearly, but when it comes to the assassination, he exhibits selective amnesia and ignores incredibly powerful evidence of multiple shooters. But that's just an opinion based on decades of sporadic study of the case. Tommy gets that Hoover had many nefarious connections, not the least of which was the prime suspect, his dear friend and neighbor Lyndon Baines Johnson. These two criminals used to walk their dogs together. Both were facing extinction in 1964 if JFK was elected to a second term. Is it possible LBJ orchestrated the assassination to eliminate the two major criminal cases pending against him?
-
Michael, I’m not a big fan of re-enactments for obvious reasons. They’re unnecessary. We have the ZAP film tell us what we need to know. If nothing else the tie nick tells us a bullet exited JFK’s neck.
Paul, the Zapruder film is obviously a great piece of evidence showing what happened in real time. It does not show, however, where the bullets hit Kennedy and Connolly. Based on their reactions to the shots hitting, we can establish a sequence of when the shots hit.
Accident reconstruction has been at the forefront of any criminal investigation. This is why the FBI reenacted the shooting sequence. There's no doubt that they used the autopsy notes and photos to establish where the bullets hit Kennedy. If you look at the sticker on the above photo, they have it placed almost exactly where the back autopsy photo shows the hole - slightly to the right and in the upper back. They probably used any photos they had on hand of the jacket with the hole on it as well.
Further, no wound on the back of the neck was discovered. Therefore, the other white sticker shows the frontal throat wound moved to the back of the neck.
I believe this reenactment took place in May of 64. The WC lawyers hadn't gotten a hold of it to massage the truth yet. Gerald Ford hadn't yet written in the final report the "...back [of the neck]." I'm sure they were still trying to figure out how a bullet hits Kennedy in the back and slightly to the right, then exits UPWARD in the front of the neck, then continues on to hit Connolly in the armpit [also a lower trajectory].
Question - surely if one of your loved ones was killed in a car wreck, you'd want the authorities to get to the bottom of this if things were not clear cut, right? Surely you'd want them to perform an accident reenactment to try and determine what actually happened if, for example, the accident was not captured on film, right?
But anyway back to Dallas. The main thing we do know is this - and many years after the fact. The powers that be had one mandate for the FBI and WC - only one person is supposed to have pulled off 3 shots to kill Kennedy and wound Connolly. Leave absolutely no doubt of this mandate. This mandate trickled down to everything - the WC's conclusions and so on.
So I ask you again. Do you not find this the least bit intriguing...interesting...suspicious?
-
The bullet hit at the junction where the neck meets the back.
So strictly speaking, it was a neck/back in-shoot.
-
This issue has already been dealt with but you didn't have the decency to respond. Let me remind you;
"We know the throat wound was below the Adams Apple. If you look at the white spot on the agents collar, put the Adams Apple above it and the chin above that. This would put JFK's chin on the same level as his ears! Any profile photo shows you this is not the case. You have assumed the white spot represents the throat wound but it clearly doesn't. Other things wrong with this 'reenactment' - When JFK is shot his right arm is resting over the side of the limo raising his right shoulder above his left and also raising the actual entry wound itself. This is not shown in the reenactment photo. Also, both agents look to be the same height and there is copious photographic evidence that JFK is significantly higher than JBC in the jump seat.
Out of curiosity - if the throat wound really was above the back wound and its a through-and-through wound, where exactly did this shot come from? If we follow it back it means there was someone underneath the follow-up car firing at JFK. If we follow it forward it goes off into space!"
The Magic Bullet Theory is the most nonsensical, easily disprovable piece of rubbish in all JFK assassination research and should be abandoned.
-
The bullet hit at the junction where the neck meets the back.
So strictly speaking, it was a neck/back in-shoot.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, Bill.
-
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, Bill.
'Junction' as described here
https://www.spine-health.com/video/spinal-motion-segment-c7-t1-cervicothoracic-junction-animation
Besides, that was the Queen Mary; no jump seat.. leaving the Connally character too high. Visually misleading.
-
Tommy sees some things clearly, but when it comes to the assassination, he exhibits selective amnesia and ignores incredibly powerful evidence of multiple shooters. But that's just an opinion based on decades of sporadic study of the case. Tommy gets that Hoover had many nefarious connections, not the least of which was the prime suspect, his dear friend and neighbor Lyndon Baines Johnson. These two criminals used to walk their dogs together. Both were facing extinction in 1964 if JFK was elected to a second term. Is it possible LBJ orchestrated the assassination to eliminate the two major criminal cases pending against him?
Dear James,
Incredibly strong bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns "analysis" of the evidence, rather.
Like for example mistaking, in a profile x-ray, the fracture patterns in JFK's skull as "evidence" of two shots to his head, a solo shot from the front, or a frangible bullet from God knows where, when they, along with his tie's fibers pointing outwards at the bullet hole's edges, actually offer the strongest evidence that JFK's head was struck once and once only, and from behind, at that.
Misinterpreting the iconic image of JFK's head going, relatively slowly, "BACK AND TO THE LEFT!" as being a result of a strike from "the front" instead of being the combined effects of 1) JFK's catastrophic neuromuscular reaction while sitting and wearing a rigid back brace, and 2) a Newton's Third Law "jet effect" resulting from a good portion of his brains' being blown out a palm-sized hole in the upper right part of his skull.
And, of course, the fact that many witnesses mistakenly believed the last two shots were significantly closer together than the first and the second shots for the simple reason that for about 11 seconds, Dealey Plaza was a virtual echo chamber, resounding with the echos caused by three sets of supersonic bullet "cracks" and muzzle blast "booms," not only confusing almost everybody as to what was going on and where it might be coming from, but messing up their recollections of the tragic event, as well.
Etc, ad nauseam...
-- MWT ;)
-
Oh Tommy, that was one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen regarding this issue. Misinterpreting the Z-film????? Really? The president's head goes relatively slowly back and to the left??? That is absolutely true...if the film is run in slow motion. Goodness, that assertion annihilates your already damaged credibility. I will never forget seeing the Z-film for the first time on "Good Night America." What we all saw was anything but a slow back and to the left motion. It was violent, startling and clearly a shot from the right front. Please spare me that extremely tired bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns of the jet effect and neuromuscular reaction. That makes as much sense as the SBT.
Then you make matters worse by somehow arriving at the false opinion that the last two shots were not closer together than the previous shots. The dictabelt and eyewitness testimony say you are mistaken about this also. But then, I don't see any evidence of just three shots. That's just Specter and Hoover force feeding a false narrative to frame "Lee Hardly."
I've been to Dealey Plaza and it helps because a lot of lone nutter myths are quickly eviscerated. Sure, there were likely echos and reverberations. But when you're near the underpass, I think it would be very clear where the shots originated. Several witnesses reported shots from two locations, and I have no trouble believing that. But using echos to discredit the ear witnesses? Not going to work on me.
One more thing: the x-rays and autopsy photos are forgeries and it would take another huge thread to explain all the crimes committed at the autopsy and afterward. It was a stinking cover-up from the start, and I'm astounded that lone nutters find all this innocent.
-
Oh Tommy, that was one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen regarding this issue. Misinterpreting the Z-film????? Really? The president's head goes relatively slowly back and to the left??? That is absolutely true...if the film is run in slow motion. Goodness, that assertion annihilates your already damaged credibility. I will never forget seeing the Z-film for the first time on "Good Night America." What we all saw was anything but a slow back and to the left motion. It was violent, startling and clearly a shot from the right front. Please spare me that extremely tired bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns of the jet effect and neuromuscular reaction. That makes as much sense as the SBT.
Then you make matters worse by somehow arriving at the false opinion that the last two shots were not closer together than the previous shots. The dictabelt and eyewitness testimony say you are mistaken about this also. But then, I don't see any evidence of just three shots. That's just Specter and Hoover force feeding a false narrative to frame "Lee Hardly."
I've been to Dealey Plaza and it helps because a lot of lone nutter myths are quickly eviscerated. Sure, there were likely echos and reverberations. But when you're near the underpass, I think it would be very clear where the shots originated. Several witnesses reported shots from two locations, and I have no trouble believing that. But using echos to discredit the ear witnesses? Not going to work on me.
One more thing: the x-rays and autopsy photos are forgeries and it would take another huge thread to explain all the crimes committed at the autopsy and afterward. It was a stinking cover-up from the start, and I'm astounded that lone nutters find all this innocent.
LOL!
Oh, my dear James ...
Compared to if his head had been struck in the front by a 6.5 mm (or bigger) bullet travelling about 1900 fps (and no jet effect was involved, of course)?
Yes, relatively slowly.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
-
Nope, compared to nothing. Just common sense is needed. But you don't believe your own lyin' eyes and the mountain of evidence that the fatal shot came from in front. That's your prerogative. But if I see that opinion, I will challenge it because I believe it's a travesty of justice that the crime of the last century was hung on "Lee Hardly." Quite possible Oswald shot nobody on 11/22/63 just as he said. Not saying that's a certainty; only a real possibility.
-
Nope, compared to nothing. Just common sense is needed. But you don't believe your own lyin' eyes and the mountain of evidence that the fatal shot came from in front. That's your prerogative. But if I see that opinion, I will challenge it because I believe it's a travesty of justice that the crime of the last century was hung on "Lee Hardly." Quite possible Oswald shot nobody on 11/22/63 just as he said. Not saying that's a certainty; only a real possibility.
4th request for this “mountain of evidence” for a frontal shot. You bring it up virtually each time you post. Let’s see it.
-
Nope, compared to nothing. Just common sense is needed. But you don't believe your own lyin' eyes and the mountain of evidence that the fatal shot came from in front. That's your prerogative. But if I see that opinion, I will challenge it because I believe it's a travesty of justice that the crime of the last century was hung on "Lee Hardly." Quite possible Oswald shot nobody on 11/22/63 just as he said. Not saying that's a certainty; only a real possibility.
Jear Dames I mean Dear James,
I see.
Common sense, huh? Yes, that is the problem, actually.
The problem is that so many impressionable, "common sense" people like you have witnessed WITH THEIR VERY OWN EYES President Kennedy's upper body's "being slammed" backwards (due to the the combination of his wearing a rigid back brace / corset while undergoing a catastrophic neuromuscular reaction), and his head's going BACK AND TO THE LEFT !!!! (due to a sizeable part of his brain's being very rapidly ejected through a palm-sized hole in the upper right portion of his skull).
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
4th request for this “mountain of evidence” for a frontal shot. You bring it up virtually each time you post. Let’s see it.
Paul,
It's common sense.
You can see it, yourself, in The Zapruder Film, gosh darn it.
-- MWT Walk:
PS I wonder if James and Otto graduated from (or at least attended) the James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio School of Juvenile "Put-Down" Rhetoric?
His world-famous online Master Class, perhaps?
-
Dear James,
Incredibly strong bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns "analysis" of the evidence, rather.
Like for example mistaking, in a profile x-ray, the fracture patterns in JFK's skull as "evidence" of two shots to his head, a solo shot from the front, or a frangible bullet from God knows where, when they, along with his tie's fibers pointing outwards at the bullet hole's edges, actually offer the strongest evidence that JFK's head was struck once and once only ... and from behind.
Misinterpreting the iconic image of JFK's head going, relatively slowly, "BACK AND TO THE LEFT!" as being a result of a strike from "the front" instead of being the combined effects of 1) JFK's catastrophic neuromuscular reaction while sitting and wearing a rigid back brace, and 2) a Newton's Third Law "jet effect" resulting from a good portion of his brains' being blown out a palm-sized hole in the upper right part of his skull.
And, of course, the fact that many witnesses mistakenly believed the last two shots were significantly closer together than the first and the second shots for the simple reason that for about 11 seconds, Dealey Plaza was a virtual echo chamber, resounding with the echos caused by three sets of supersonic bullet "cracks" and muzzle blast "booms," not only confusing almost everybody as to what was going on and where it might be coming from, but messing up their recollections of the tragic event, as well.
Etc, ad nauseam...
-- MWT ;)
Edited
-- MWT ;)
-
Lovely to see you and Paulie bond, sweet!
FYI, Loser Johnny ran (probably still running) when I confronted him on the WC Carcano evidence:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,660.310.html
I fully understand why you're not too keen on sharing your findings RE "Oswald's MC".
Dear Otto,
Maybe Mytton, like most people, doesn't like dealing with ill-tempered children.
Question: As Mytton was kinda asking you, how many people do you figure were involved in the assassination and cover up, altogether?
Just a few?
Oodles and gobs?
-- MWT ;)
PS I thought you said it was DVP who ran away from you regarding the "MC"?
-
He did appoint me teacher, you missed that part?
The "how many people..." is the canned LN diversion when dealing with the evidence becomes too painful, the best you've got?
RE Dumpster Dave, should be buried in some thread or it might have have been some time before the crash.
Dear Otto,
Hundreds?
Thousands?
Hard to say and it doesn't matter?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
It's simple Bill. Take 2 stickers. Put one where the shoulder shot is and then put one on the front of your throat then slide it around to the back of your neck.
Take a photo of it and post it here. Then, we'll see how misleading what's obvious is to many folks except you :-)
-
Tommy, please tell the forum the relevance of the president's back brace and tell us one reputable scientist who will put his name behind a "neuromuscular reaction."
-
Paul May is a very gullible person. He believes the most unscientific nonsense and berates anyone who has the audacity to provide evidence contrary to his impossible beliefs. But his understanding of the case is very poor, which is why little of substance comes from his posts. His ability to understand simple logic and the preponderance of the evidence is pathetic. But he's good at trying to bully those who challenge him on his nonsensical views. Guess that's what this site is all about. Again, not happening on my watch.
-
Done with the Gemberling report?
The Gemberling Report?
Is that something like Leonard V. McCoy's report about Nosenko, the "KGB defector" who said the KGB had had nothing to do with Oswald in the USSR?
.
Hmm ... The Gemberling Report?
.
Was it approved by Aleksey Kulak or George Kisevalter?
Bruce Solie?
John L. Hart?
-- MWT ;)
-
Gemberling, FBI.
Irreversible KGB obsession confirmed.
Bye.
Poor, poor Otto.
-- MWT ;)
PS Is that a promise?
-
Suspected I might have had them switched (Von P and JohnM)...........
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,57.240.html
What a shock, another dumbass Kook who can't research his way out of a wet paper bag.
JohnM
-
Seems to me he did, especially if he bought the Coke beforehand in order to use it as a prop all the way, if necessary.
Carrying the already-opened Coke, get to the Second Floor Lunch Room and hang out there, expecting to be encountered ("No, I didn't hear any shots," or "I work here"), when they leave, walk through Mrs. Reid's office to its front door and exit through it, walk down the wooden steps to the front floor, maybe hang out in the "lobby" for a few seconds, then walk to the rear of the building and exit it through the loading dock door.
Instead of looking suspicious by immediately walking or running away from the building, walk along the side of the building towards the front (as alleged by B. W. F.), cross over to the other side of the street, ... and, well, "take it from there".
-- MWT ;)
Oswald was a reasonably intelligent person. He may have had mental issues but he was not delusional. As a result, he understood that the act of assassinating the President of the United States in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement entailed his own death or arrest. There was no escaping from that act. That doesn't mean, as some CTers stupidly suggest, that Oswald would have just sat down and waited to be arrested because he had no realistic hope of getting away. He did what most criminals do. He kept moving and played out his hand for as long as he could. He had nothing to lose by doing that. Perhaps he entertained some fantasy of reaching Cuba via Mexico and seeking asylum from Castro but the fact that Oswald left most of his money with Marina that morning lends itself to the conclusion that he expected to be arrested or killed.
His exit from the TSBD mostly involved getting off the 6th floor. Fortunately for him there was no one else there. So that didn't prove very difficult. Then he becomes just another employee in the building until he can discretely exit. Which is what happened. Oswald blends in because he belongs in that building. His boss vouches for him when he is approached by the police. That is another factor that lends itself to the conclusion that there were no fantasy conspirators roaming about the TSBD planting evidence and killing JFK. They would have been noticed. Whereas Oswald had a reason for being there that made it easier for him to commit the act and then get away.
-
When the "reasonably intelligent" LHO was confronted by police seconds after the shooting and found to be calmly sipping a coke on the second floor he would have recognised, as "most criminals" would, what a godsend that was, the next best thing to a solid alibi. "Most criminals" would instantly realise the way to play it is to hang around and tell everyone he'd been seen on the second floor seconds after the shooting by his boss and the police. Instead he chooses to slip out without telling anyone knowing it would make him the prime suspect. If LHO was the sole assassin he deliberately spurned his golden opportunity of an 'alibi' and chose to incriminate himself. He also chose to incriminate himself by carrying in his wallet false ID that linked him to the murder weapon, something "most criminals" and "reasonably intelligent" would definitely not do. Think about that. He knew he'd have to leave the weapon behind so he carried false ID on him linking him to the weapon.
Lastly, if LHO was the lone sniper he would've took the shot with the limo coming towards him down Houston Street. Put yourself in his position, a clear head shot as the target moves slowly towards you or a shot through the trees as he moves away? If you are "reasonably intelligent" the answer is unavoidable.
-
Not a valid %s URL
When the "reasonably intelligent" LHO was confronted by police seconds after the shooting and found to be calmly sipping a coke on the second floor he would have recognised, as "most criminals" would, what a godsend that was, the next best thing to a solid alibi. "Most criminals" would instantly realise the way to play it is to hang around and tell everyone he'd been seen on the second floor seconds after the shooting by his boss and the police. Instead he chooses to slip out without telling anyone knowing it would make him the prime suspect. If LHO was the sole assassin he deliberately spurned his golden opportunity of an 'alibi' and chose to incriminate himself. He also chose to incriminate himself by carrying in his wallet false ID that linked him to the murder weapon, something "most criminals" and "reasonably intelligent" would definitely not do. Think about that. He knew he'd have to leave the weapon behind so he carried false ID on him linking him to the weapon.
Lastly, if LHO was the lone sniper he would've took the shot with the limo coming towards him down Houston Street. Put yourself in his position, a clear head shot as the target moves slowly towards you or a shot through the trees as he moves away? If you are "reasonably intelligent" the answer is unavoidable.
Dear Dan,
*would've taken
Regardless, why would he make himself relatively easy for the Secret Service, the police and the spectators to spot as the objects of their attention -- JFK and Jackie -- were moving towards him?
Why would he increase his risk being shot while he, himself, was in the action of shooting?
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Tom,
I take it as a compliment that the only thing you question about most of the points I make is some dodgy grammar.
The reason for taking the shot on Houston is that it's a far easier shot (you surely agree with this) and if the first one misses there's nowhere for the limo to go. All eyes are on JFK and Jackie apart from those of the Secret Service. If LHO takes aim at the last minute and is set slightly back there is nothing anyone can do before he starts getting shots off. Waiting until they turn on to Elm makes the shot a lot more difficult for a lone assassin. To imagine he is worried about being shot while shooting doesn't make any sense, he must surely have assumed he wasn't getting out of there in one piece once the shooting started. His main concern would've been a clean, easy shot. The one on Houston St.
Waiting for the car to turn onto Elm St. before shooting makes far more sense for the Multi-Assassin scenario.
Why do you think he ran when he had an 'alibi' and would be totally condemning himself?
-
Dear Tom,
I take it as a compliment that the only thing you question about most of the points I make is some dodgy grammar.
The reason for taking the shot on Houston is that it's a far easier shot (you surely agree with this) and if the first one misses there's nowhere for the limo to go. All eyes are on JFK and Jackie apart from those of the Secret Service. If LHO takes aim at the last minute and is set slightly back there is nothing anyone can do before he starts getting shots off. Waiting until they turn on to Elm makes the shot a lot more difficult for a lone assassin. To imagine he is worried about being shot while shooting doesn't make any sense, he must surely have assumed he wasn't getting out of there in one piece once the shooting started. His main concern would've been a clean, easy shot. The one on Houston St.
Waiting for the car to turn onto Elm St. before shooting makes far more sense for the Multi-Assassin scenario.
Why do you think he ran when he had an 'alibi' and would be totally condemning himself?
Dear Dan,
Take my critique of your theory as a compliment if you want to.
LOL
I think you will agree with me, though, that unless you're willing to stand in a bent-over, exposed position with a carbine in your hands for several seconds in front of that window, that it would take you a couple of seconds at least to come from out of the shadows and get set up position-wise for a shot from there, whether the limo is coming down Houston towards you or starting to go down Elm away from you, yes?
When we look at the enlarged and enhanced Robert Hughes film, we can see the assassin making his move to get into shooting position as the limo is beginning to negotiate the "hairpin" turn, i.e., when the heavily-armed Secret Service men in the Queen Mary follow-up car would have been unlikely to notice his quick movement up there in that window, thereby ensuring himself a safe (i.e., relatively unobserved) shooting position at a close target, and a couple more shots farther down Elm Street, if necessary.
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Tom,
It was the avoidance of any sort of critique I was taking as a compliment ;)
If LHO was the Lone Assassin he would have taken the shot on Houston for two reasons:
1) A shot taken as the limo is approaching the turn onto Elm is an almost guaranteed head shot for anyone familiar with a rifle.
2) It requires a different position in the snipers nest. The shot up Elm requires the shooter to force himself into a corner and have the rifle out of the window. A shot on Houston could be taken from further inside the building. The shooter has plenty of space behind him to move into. No need to be at the window and, therefore, no chance of being spotted before you take the single, easy head shot.
I'm sure you'll agree a shot onto Houston from within the building would have been a snipers choice of shot.
I'll try one last time - why do you think Oswald ran when he had an 'alibi' and knew he would be making himself a prime suspect?
-
Dear Tom,
It was the avoidance of any sort of critique I was taking as a compliment ;)
If LHO was the Lone Assassin he would have taken the shot on Houston for two reasons:
1) A shot taken as the limo is approaching the turn onto Elm is an almost guaranteed head shot for anyone familiar with a rifle.
2) It requires a different position in the snipers nest. The shot up Elm requires the shooter to force himself into a corner and have the rifle out of the window. A shot on Houston could be taken from further inside the building. The shooter has plenty of space behind him to move into. No need to be at the window and, therefore, no chance of being spotted before you take the single, easy head shot.
I'm sure you'll agree a shot onto Houston from within the building would have been a snipers choice of shot.
I'll try one last time - why do you think Oswald ran when he had an 'alibi' and knew he would be making himself a prime suspect?
Dear Dan,
1) We agree to disagree. Okay?
2) Gosh, maybe he didn't think his "alibi" was strong enough?
Maybe he thought his KGB handler would be waiting for him at the Texas Theater in about an hour-and-a-half?
Maybe he wanted to get home quickly because, you know know how it is, a boy likes to carry a revolver around with him?
Beats the heck out of me.
-- MWT ;)
-
The reason for taking the shot on Houston is that it's a far easier shot (you surely agree with this)..............
I don't know where you get your guesses from but the shot at an approaching Limo is in fact much harder.
1. As the Limo turns into Houston the Limo is in the sight for a fraction of a second and recentering after a miss is a pain in the ass.
2. As the Limo travels further down Houston and gets closer to the TSBD, the time for a shot gets progressively less.
3. When the Limo is passing directly by the TSBD, the increased angular velocity is at it's maximum so you can completely forget about the "closest" shot.
4. Which leaves us with the shot as the Limo travels down Elm being the easiest simply because of the incline and the direction of the Limo means that at this angle the Limo stays in the sights the longest and if Oswald misses reacquiring the target is much easier. It's all just simple physics.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5qvvLLw/angular-velocity-1.gif)
JohnM
-
Dear John,
Thanks for the fantastic analysis of that particular point. trying to visualise it doesn't reveal how much tracking is needed for the Houston shot but the graphics make it clear. I stand corrected on which was the most difficult shot. It'd be good to hear more from you as a lot of the posts on this thread are like the one that precedes yours.
There are still many points about Oswald's behaviour that day which seem confusing - why he ran, why he was carrying ID that tied him to the weapon etc. - and it would be refreshing to hear some sensible views on this and much more.
-
Dear John,
Thanks for the fantastic analysis of that particular point. trying to visualise it doesn't reveal how much tracking is needed for the Houston shot but the graphics make it clear. I stand corrected on which was the most difficult shot. It'd be good to hear more from you as a lot of the posts on this thread are like the one that precedes yours.
There are still many points about Oswald's behaviour that day which seem confusing - why he ran, why he was carrying ID that tied him to the weapon etc. - and it would be refreshing to hear some sensible views on this and much more.
Dear Dan,
Two other possibilities as to why Oswald "blew his perfect alibi" by ... "running away":
1) Maybe he just wanted to get the heck out of there.
2) Maybe he realized that he already had a lone wolf/ anti-social reputation with the TSBD employees and that he might stick out like a sore thumb if he did hang around and try to be "inquisitive" / "shocked" / "concerned", especially if anyone said, "Hey, Lee. Where were YOU when the shooting started? Did you see anything suspicious?"
Etc.
Regarding John Mytton's analysis: I agree, but would add that although the shot right after the "hairpin" turn and just before the limo disappeared behind the tree wouldn't be a particularly easy one, it would be worth taking from a solo assassin's point of view.
I believe Oswald did so, and that it was at about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133.
-- MWT ;)
-
Oswald was a reasonably intelligent person. He may have had mental issues but he was not delusional. As a result, he understood that the act of assassinating the President of the United States in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement entailed his own death or arrest. There was no escaping from that act. That doesn't mean, as some CTers stupidly suggest, that Oswald would have just sat down and waited to be arrested because he had no realistic hope of getting away. He did what most criminals do. He kept moving and played out his hand for as long as he could. He had nothing to lose by doing that. Perhaps he entertained some fantasy of reaching Cuba via Mexico and seeking asylum from Castro but the fact that Oswald left most of his money with Marina that morning lends itself to the conclusion that he expected to be arrested or killed.
Cool story, bro.
-
Dear John,
Thanks for the fantastic analysis of that particular point. trying to visualise it doesn't reveal how much tracking is needed for the Houston shot but the graphics make it clear. I stand corrected on which was the most difficult shot. It'd be good to hear more from you as a lot of the posts on this thread are like the one that precedes yours.
There are still many points about Oswald's behaviour that day which seem confusing - why he ran, why he was carrying ID that tied him to the weapon etc. - and it would be refreshing to hear some sensible views on this and much more.
Hi Dan, thanks for the support, there is no doubt that the shot down Elm was the best shot. As for your other questions all we can do is speculate but his actions post assassination were all a classic indication of flight from the scene of a crime.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFLqx46R/flight-zps2prfpevd.gif)
JohnM
-
Hi Dan, thanks for the support, there is no doubt that the shot down Elm was the best shot. As for your other questions all we can do is speculate but his actions post assassination were all a classic indication of flight from the scene of a crime.
What this is, is a classic indication of confirmation bias.
-
What this is, is a classic indication of confirmation bias.
Sure "Iacoletti", whatever it takes, eh?
JohnM
-
I don't know where you get your guesses from but the shot at an approaching Limo is in fact much harder.
1. As the Limo turns into Houston the Limo is in the sight for a fraction of a second and recentering after a miss is a pain in the ass.
2. As the Limo travels further down Houston and gets closer to the TSBD, the time for a shot gets progressively less.
3. When the Limo is passing directly by the TSBD, the increased angular velocity is at it's maximum so you can completely forget about the "closest" shot.
4. Which leaves us with the shot as the Limo travels down Elm being the easiest simply because of the incline and the direction of the Limo means that at this angle the Limo stays in the sights the longest and if Oswald misses reacquiring the target is much easier. It's all just simple physics.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5qvvLLw/angular-velocity-1.gif)
JohnM
Well done graphics as usual John! LHO had time to visualize the different possibilities in his mind while planning and waiting for the motorcade. And his reported dry fire practice on the screened in porch in New Orleans could have given him an idea about these things beforehand. The choice of the S.E. corner window gave him better concealment for shots down Elm Street. And the surprise element is a key for successful ambush. Shots from behind were a good choice for several reasons.
-
Well done graphics as usual John! LHO had time to visualize the different possibilities in his mind while planning and waiting for the motorcade. And his reported dry fire practice on the screened in porch in New Orleans could have given him an idea about these things beforehand. The choice of the S.E. corner window gave him better concealment for shots down Elm Street. And the surprise element is a key for successful ambush. Shots from behind were a good choice for several reasons.
Trying to part Kennedy's hair prematurely (making an attempt with the limo still on Houston) would be tantamount to saying 'Here I am. Come and get me'
-
When the "reasonably intelligent" LHO was confronted by police seconds after the shooting and found to be calmly sipping a coke on the second floor he would have recognised, as "most criminals" would, what a godsend that was, the next best thing to a solid alibi. "Most criminals" would instantly realise the way to play it is to hang around and tell everyone he'd been seen on the second floor seconds after the shooting by his boss and the police. Instead he chooses to slip out without telling anyone knowing it would make him the prime suspect. If LHO was the sole assassin he deliberately spurned his golden opportunity of an 'alibi' and chose to incriminate himself. He also chose to incriminate himself by carrying in his wallet false ID that linked him to the murder weapon, something "most criminals" and "reasonably intelligent" would definitely not do. Think about that. He knew he'd have to leave the weapon behind so he carried false ID on him linking him to the weapon.
Lastly, if LHO was the lone sniper he would've took the shot with the limo coming towards him down Houston Street. Put yourself in his position, a clear head shot as the target moves slowly towards you or a shot through the trees as he moves away? If you are "reasonably intelligent" the answer is unavoidable.
Oswald knew he was already a person of interest to the FBI even prior to the assassination. He knew his rifle would be discovered on the 6th floor and likely traced to him. For all he knew there were perhaps witnesses and other evidence that would soon link him to assassination. He wasn't going to hang around the TSBD and tell everyone he had a "golden alibi." That's maybe what an innocent person would have done but Oswald had no such luxury. Instead he had only one option. To make like Michael Jackson and beat it while he could. Using his flight to suggest innocence instead of guilt is quite a bizarre argument.
The false ID argument is again basically that the evidence is so strong that we can only conclude that Oswald is innocent! LOL. Criminals often do stupid things that get them arrested. Oswald either forgot that he ordered the rifle under an alias, didn't think it could be traced back to him because he had no idea what records Klein's retained from the transaction or just didn't care because he knew getting arrested or killed was part of the equation in deciding to assassinate the president. His goose was cooked the moment he pulled the trigger. What was he going to do? Assassinate JFK on Friday and just go back to his regular life the next week because he got rid of the fake ID? Maybe he thought a fake ID would be useful on the lamb. Regardless, citing the presence of highly incriminating evidence that links Oswald to the crime as the potential basis to exonerate him is a head scratcher.
-
Hi Richard,
thank you for your considered response. Firstly I'd like to make it clear I am not suggesting Oswald was innocent. His actions of slipping away as soon as possible, going home, picking up a revolver then heading out doesn't speak of innocence. How carrying fake ID that links him to the murder weapon suggests innocence really is a head scratcher, as is the notion that an innocent person would hang around telling everyone they had an alibi, why would an innocent person think they needed to do that? Whether he was on his own or with others he was involved to some extent.
I'm also not sure about the characterisation of him as a bumbling criminal. He was intelligent, albeit with mental health issues, but most importantly he was a military man and it was in the military he learned to use a rifle. While the assassination of JFK can obviously be classified a crime it can also be viewed as a military operation and I find it difficult to believe Oswald wouldn't have approached it that way. He would have to plan how to be in the right place at the right time with a rifle without getting caught, he would then plan his getaway - get out of the building, get on a Greyhound, head for Mexico or some prepared location. Heading to the movies is not a getaway plan.
If we assume Qswald was the lone assassin then it is easy to classify as some kind of moron - by shooting from his own place of work he incriminates himself, by slipping away he incriminates himself, he has no getaway plan and in his wallet is false ID linking him to the murder weapon. Moron or intelligent, military trained man?
I find Oswald's use of the word 'Patsy' interesting. As I understand it this word has a very specific meaning - someone being used or manipulated by others. The way he uses the word seems to have a similar meaning to 'Fall Guy' or 'Scapegoat'. He is obviously involved but feels he's being set up. Looking at it this way a lot of the above contradictions can be understood to a certain degree but it leaves us with another conundrum.
If there is a bigger operation going on that is going to be pinned on Oswald how can they have their 'Patsy' just wandering around the TSBD? He could be outside being photographed or talking with colleagues when the assassination occurs. How can the whole TSBD be controlled, making sure nobody else in on the 6th floor and that the 'Patsy' is isolated?
-
Trying to part Kennedy's hair prematurely (making an attempt with the limo still on Houston) would be tantamount to saying 'Here I am. Come and get me'
Exactly! And for a good example: where was the first law enforcement officer, who correctly identified the TSBD as the source of the shots and responded accordingly by racing his motorcycle to the entrance, when the shots occurred? On Houston Street heading towards the TSBD!
-
Maybe he thought a fake ID would be useful on the lamb
on the lamb lam
although he was rather silent, especially on the stairs
-
on the lamb lam
although he was rather silent, especially on the stairs
:) I think Richard must feel a little sheepish, after ewe corrected him.
-
Trying to part Kennedy's hair prematurely (making an attempt with the limo still on Houston) would be tantamount to saying 'Here I am. Come and get me'
Would he have known the position of all armed personnel in the motorcade? Was this published in the paper beforehand? One would assume that LBJ might also have had armed SS as well. Once the first shot rang out the shooter would logically assume the gig to be up. At that point return fire become a distinct possibility. The longer the duration from the first shot the greater the threat to the shooter.
-
History shows us Oswald had no escape plan. In fact, Oswald’s behavior on the day of the event imo shows Oswald never expected to survive the day. Why would he care? He had little left in his life to live for. Study Oswald’s life. It’s a logical conclusion.
Not sure why he needed $13. He had access to much more but left it in Irving. If he expected to die, why take such a strange sum?
-
Hi Richard,
thank you for your considered response. Firstly I'd like to make it clear I am not suggesting Oswald was innocent. His actions of slipping away as soon as possible, going home, picking up a revolver then heading out doesn't speak of innocence. How carrying fake ID that links him to the murder weapon suggests innocence really is a head scratcher, as is the notion that an innocent person would hang around telling everyone they had an alibi, why would an innocent person think they needed to do that? Whether he was on his own or with others he was involved to some extent.
I'm also not sure about the characterisation of him as a bumbling criminal. He was intelligent, albeit with mental health issues, but most importantly he was a military man and it was in the military he learned to use a rifle. While the assassination of JFK can obviously be classified a crime it can also be viewed as a military operation and I find it difficult to believe Oswald wouldn't have approached it that way. He would have to plan how to be in the right place at the right time with a rifle without getting caught, he would then plan his getaway - get out of the building, get on a Greyhound, head for Mexico or some prepared location. Heading to the movies is not a getaway plan.
If we assume Qswald was the lone assassin then it is easy to classify as some kind of moron - by shooting from his own place of work he incriminates himself, by slipping away he incriminates himself, he has no getaway plan and in his wallet is false ID linking him to the murder weapon. Moron or intelligent, military trained man?
I find Oswald's use of the word 'Patsy' interesting. As I understand it this word has a very specific meaning - someone being used or manipulated by others. The way he uses the word seems to have a similar meaning to 'Fall Guy' or 'Scapegoat'. He is obviously involved but feels he's being set up. Looking at it this way a lot of the above contradictions can be understood to a certain degree but it leaves us with another conundrum.
If there is a bigger operation going on that is going to be pinned on Oswald how can they have their 'Patsy' just wandering around the TSBD? He could be outside being photographed or talking with colleagues when the assassination occurs. How can the whole TSBD be controlled, making sure nobody else in on the 6th floor and that the 'Patsy' is isolated?
Oswald understood and accepted the fact that he would be arrested or killed. Any notion of escaping from this act was a fantasy. There was no good plan for escaping. Oswald would have taken that into consideration in making the decision as to whether or not he would commit this act. His only good option for not being arrested was not to commit the act. He decided to do so knowing the consequences. In terms of his use of the term "patsy," when you look at the full context of his statement he is suggesting that he has been arrested because he lived in the Soviet Union. It is a rush to judgment claim that he has been arrested due to his political beliefs not a claim of any specific knowledge of a conspiracy. That fits perfectly with Oswald's desire to portray himself as some type of political prisoner.
-
:) I think Richard must feel a little sheepish, after ewe corrected him.
It was just shear sheer luck that I noticed the error
-
Would he have known the position of all armed personnel in the motorcade? Was this published in the paper?
Oswald didn't have to know SFA other than the prez would be passing by his place of work on the Friday of the week he found out about it. Shooting at Kennedy while still on Houston would be plain dumb, no matter from which trigger-happy-cop-or-hung-over-SAgent-position.
-
Oswald understood and accepted the fact that he would be arrested or killed.
Then why didn't he just remain sitting patiently at the TSBD lunchroom table and have another Coke or two?
-
Oswald didn't have to know SFA other than the prez would be passing by his place of work on the Friday of the week he found out about it. Shooting at Kennedy while still on Houston would be plain dumb, no matter from which trigger-happy-cop-or-hung-over-SAgent-position.
So from your edit of my quote I take it you don’t disagree with the rest.....
"Once the first shot rang out the shooter would logically assume the gig to be up. At that point return fire become a distinct possibility. The longer the duration from the first shot the greater the threat to the shooter."
Am I correct?
-
:) I think Richard must feel a little sheepish, after ewe corrected him.
Baaaack to the subject. If Oswald was NOT the assassin....why did he return to Irving the night before?
-
So from your edit of my quote I take it you don’t disagree with the rest.....
"Once the first shot rang out the shooter would logically assume the gig to be up. At that point return fire become a distinct possibility. The longer the duration from the first shot the greater the threat to the shooter."
Am I correct?
Are you suggesting that Oswald would have had to wait for the first shot in order to realize that the gig jig would be up?
That's what it sounds like it: ["Once the first shot rang out the shooter would logically assume the gig to be up"]
-
Re-edit that post to..You don't know what the the hell you know (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
I know that you're an Oswald Arse Kisser.
That's all anyone here needs to know about you.
-
I think Oswald might well have been considering taking a pass on the whole idea that morning. Being downstairs that close to the arrival of the motorcade (if true) might be a sign that he was thinking of his kids and what he would be missing.
-
If Oswald were
Subjunctive mood.
-
Are you suggesting that Oswald would have had to wait for the first shot in order to realize that the gig jig would be up?
That's what it sounds like it: ["Once the first shot rang out the shooter would logically assume the gig to be up"]
"Trying to part Kennedy's hair prematurely (making an attempt with the limo still on Houston) would be tantamount to saying 'Here I am. Come and get me'". At that point would the jig me up? When ever the first shot rang out. Agree?
-
"Trying to part Kennedy's hair prematurely (making an attempt with the limo still on Houston) would be tantamount to saying 'Here I am. Come and get me'". At that point would the jig me up? When ever the first shot rang out. Agree?
After the second shot we can see multiple agents looking back to determine the precise direction of the assassin but still not one of the agents appears to be looking up.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/fntjGIn2rlwDheaon8xt4Oe8SosereETzs4v7GjLJxc.jpg?auto=webp&s=fd29fed5220b2e00ff73ac936d71cab1446fc1b7)
JohnM
-
After the second shot we can see multiple agents looking back to determine the precise direction of the assassin but still not one of the agents appears to be looking up.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/fntjGIn2rlwDheaon8xt4Oe8SosereETzs4v7GjLJxc.jpg?auto=webp&s=fd29fed5220b2e00ff73ac936d71cab1446fc1b7)
JohnM
I agree and not one of them claimed that they looked up. If they did look up at the correct window, the boxes in the window would tend to conceal most of the shooter. But several bystanders did say that they looked up and saw the rifle and some saw the shooter.
-
After the second shot we can see multiple agents looking back to determine the precise direction of the assassin but still not one of the agents appears to be looking up.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/fntjGIn2rlwDheaon8xt4Oe8SosereETzs4v7GjLJxc.jpg?auto=webp&s=fd29fed5220b2e00ff73ac936d71cab1446fc1b7)
JohnM
All very well in hindsight. The discussion was what a potential assassin might logically believe before the first shot was fired.
-
All very well in hindsight. The discussion was what a potential assassin might logically believe before the first shot was fired.
I don't know where you are trying to go with this but an assassin would logically believe that however many shots were fired, he would want to get the job done and Oswald got the job done.
JohnM
-
"Trying to part Kennedy's hair prematurely (making an attempt with the limo still on Houston) would be tantamount to saying 'Here I am. Come and get me'". At that point would the jig me up? When ever the first shot rang out. Agree?
In what sense? During the firing sequence? Or ultimately? Seems Oswald didn't decide the jig was up until the TT, by way of voicing 'that's it, it's all over now'
The JIU term means that whatever you were trying to get away with has been found out and you can no longer get away with it. Oswald's first shot did not prevent him from 'getting away with it'. Nor did his second or third shot.
-
Bill,
Try "The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true." or "butt" or "booty" or "bum" next time.
Duncan may not notice those.
-- MWT ;)
"Jerry Freeman is an Oswald Bum-Kisser" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
Well then, now we know which synonyms for The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true. are acceptable, don't we!
-- MWT Walk:
-
I suggest you refer to D.M. Green's 1979 submission 4034 on all of this. The rest is hubris from speculators, IMHO. Oswald killed the president. He killed Tippit. He almost killed Gen. Walker. He almost killed himself (domage!) in Russia. He was a total loser, and I wish he had never been born. KENNEDY KILLER !!!!!
-
I agree and not one of them claimed that they looked up. If they did look up at the correct window, the boxes in the window would tend to conceal most of the shooter. But several bystanders did say that they looked up and saw the rifle and some saw the shooter.
Would the tree have obscured the SS guys' view of the window from where they were in Altgens-6?
-- MWT ;)
-
I know that you're an Oswald The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true. Kisser.
That's all anyone here needs to know about you.
Why not leave your posts like they were?....Showing your true feelings= (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/dThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.ault2/trainwreck.gif)
Bill,
Try "The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true." or "butt" or "booty" or "bum" next time.
-- MWT ;)
The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Tommy--------kiss this ...(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/dThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.ault2/3D_Mooning.gif)
Posts containing intended crude rThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.erences, images unsuitable for viewing by minors, disguised or otherwise, will be deleted.
Non thread creating disruptors will be suspended from posting for a to be determined period of time.
Posts considered to be Messy untidy posts will be deleted.
Posts containing intended crude rThe pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.erences, images unsuitable for viewing by minors, disguised or otherwise, will be deleted.
OK...You guys win the pissing contest here. I deleted that terrible post saying that Chapman doesn't know Jack.
Graves had to jump in....but I suppose they both ran out of anything meaningful a long time ago..
-
Why not leave your posts like they were?....Showing your true feelings
'Showing your true feelings
Showing your Duncan's true feelings
There, fixed it for you
In other words, 'The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true' was not inserted by yours truly.
Now let's see if you can figure that one out. Ask Duncan if you can't.
-
Oswald knew he was already a person of interest to the FBI even prior to the assassination. He knew his rifle would be discovered on the 6th floor and likely traced to him. For all he knew there were perhaps witnesses and other evidence that would soon link him to assassination. He wasn't going to hang around the TSBD and tell everyone he had a "golden alibi." That's maybe what an innocent person would have done but Oswald had no such luxury. Instead he had only one option. To make like Michael Jackson and beat it while he could. Using his flight to suggest innocence instead of guilt is quite a bizarre argument.
The false ID argument is again basically that the evidence is so strong that we can only conclude that Oswald is innocent! LOL. Criminals often do stupid things that get them arrested. Oswald either forgot that he ordered the rifle under an alias, didn't think it could be traced back to him because he had no idea what records Klein's retained from the transaction or just didn't care because he knew getting arrested or killed was part of the equation in deciding to assassinate the president. His goose was cooked the moment he pulled the trigger. What was he going to do? Assassinate JFK on Friday and just go back to his regular life the next week because he got rid of the fake ID? Maybe he thought a fake ID would be useful on the lamb. Regardless, citing the presence of highly incriminating evidence that links Oswald to the crime as the potential basis to exonerate him is a head scratcher.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
-
In what sense? During the firing sequence? Or ultimately? Seems Oswald didn't decide the jig was up until the TT, by way of voicing 'that's it, it's all over now'
Like he actually said that.
-
'Showing your true feelings
Showing your Duncan's true feelings
There, fixed it for you
In other words, 'The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true' was not inserted by yours truly.
Now let's see if you can figure that one out. Ask Duncan if you can't.
I crossed out feelings [in my original post] because I doubt that you have any.
"Fixed it..." You must be flagon your dragon.
Remove all of Chapman's silly posts here and he would be -4 on his posting count.
-
Remove all of Chapman's silly posts here and he would be -4 on his posting count.
What else can a guy who doesn't even know the most basic information about the case flap his gums about?
-
I crossed out feelings [in my original post] because I doubt that you have any.
"Fixed it..." You must be flagon your dragon.
Remove all of Chapman's silly posts here and he would be -4 on his posting count.
I see you still don't know why Duncan inserted that odd phrase.
-
I crossed out feelings [in my original post] because I doubt that you have any.
"Fixed it..." You must be flagon your dragon.
Remove all of Chapman's silly posts here and he would be -4 on his posting count.
Dear Jerry,
Try posting the word "a-r-s-e" (without the hyphens) here and see what happens.
That's why I ended up calling you "an Oswald Butt-Licker" / "an Oswald Booty-Licker" / "an Oswald Bum-Licker," instead.
-- MWT ;)
PS I found out on another thread that the name Sandy L-A-R-S-E-N is not permitted here either.
-
What else can a guy who doesn't even know the most basic information about the case flap his gums about?
Says OAK#1
-
Says OAK#1
Bill,
Please tell us about OAK#1.
Did Iacoletti kneel at the grave of (his apparent hero) Lee Harvey Oswald, or something?
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Jerry,
Try posting the word "a-r-s-e" (without the hyphens) here and see what happens.
That's why I ended up calling you "an Oswald Butt-Licker" / "an Oswald Booty-Licker" / "an Oswald Bum-Licker," instead.
-- MWT ;)
PS I found out on another thread that the name Sandy L-A-R-S-E-N is not permitted here either.
I didn't call, imply anything or chastise TG in any way whatsoever in this entire thread at all but no....out of the blue he comes down with some crap at me.
So Tommy go lick your own behind [the appropriate word] and tell us how it tasted.
-
I didn't call, imply anything or chastise TG in any way whatsoever in this entire thread at all but no....out of the blue he comes down with some crap at me.
So Tommy go lick your own behind [the appropriate word] and tell us how it tasted.
Dear Jerry,
I was just expressing my support for your nemesis, Bill Chapman.
How long you been lickin' Oswald's bum anyway?
Ever since you read Rush To Judgement and saw JFK?
-- MWT ;)
-
In what sense? During the firing sequence? Or ultimately? Seems Oswald didn't decide the jig was up until the TT, by way of voicing 'that's it, it's all over now'
The JIU term means that whatever you were trying to get away with has been found out and you can no longer get away with it. Oswald's first shot did not prevent him from 'getting away with it'. Nor did his second or third shot.
So was your point that an early shot on Houston would be tantamount to "here I am come and get me" but a later shot on Elm would not.
What I am "trying to get at" is the logic behind your suggestion. Please elaborate.
-
So was your point that an early shot on Houston would be tantamount to "here I am come and get me" but a later shot on Elm would not.
What I am "trying to get at" is the logic behind your suggestion. Please elaborate.
If there had been a shot from that window while the limo was approaching the TSBD on Houston, what's the likelihood that the sniper would have been spotted up there immediately before, during, or after the shot?
More likely than Brennan's and Euins' spotting Oswald in the act of committing Murder Most Foul down on Elm Street from that window?
I would think so.
-- MWT ;)
-
If there had been a shot from that window while the limo was approaching the TSBD on Houston, what's the likelyhood that the sniper would have been spotted up there immediately before, during, or after the shot?
More likely than Brennan's and Euins' spotting Oswald in the act of committing Murder Most Foul down on Elm Street from that perch?
I would think so.
-- MWT ;)
I understand that the later shot on Elm had an advantage. It allowed for increased possibility of more than one shot (if needed) before return fire might be expected. If this was part of the assassin's planning, one unknown would be the precise positions of static police and mobile police and SS etc who could return fire once the first shot was conducted. I suspect the assassin would be expecting some attention within seconds of the first shot.
Perhaps we can all agree on something. I am too optimistic?
-
So was your point that an early shot on Houston would be tantamount to "here I am come and get me" but a later shot on Elm would not.
What I am "trying to get at" is the logic behind your suggestion. Please elaborate.
It seems you have no natural self-preservation instinct: Avoiding the high possibility of return fire from a Houston attempt sounds logical enough.
And point out where I said "trying to get at"
-
It seems you have no natural self-preservation instinct: Avoiding the high possibility of return fire from a Houston attempt sounds logical enough.
Ok.....does anyone know why the Danny Kaye rhyming stuff it being inserted in posts? Have we been hacked again?
-
Ok.....does anyone know why the Danny Kaye rhyming stuff it being inserted in posts? Have we been hacked again?
Idk. It happens in each post now. I guess the site is going to a new server.
-
Returning to the question in the original post. Consider that of the 5 various order fillers, checkers/floor layers on the second floor and above that we know of at the time of the shooting, only Oswald was confronted by police above the first floor. All others were on higher floors when the lunchroom encounter occurred.
-
.... I suspect the assassin would be expecting some attention within seconds of the first shot.
I agree, and I think that one intended purpose of the boxes stacked in the window could have been for cover/concealment in case that happened. And that might be considered evidence that your suspicions are correct!
-
Idk. It happens in each post now. I guess the site is going to a new server.
LOL
Are you saying this is a HAL-9000 deal?
2001: A Space Odyssey HAL memory removed
HAL sings 'Daisy'
HAL and Y2K
-
I agree, and I think that one intended purpose of the boxes stacked in the window could have been for cover/concealment in case that happened. And that might be considered evidence that your suspicions are correct!
I too believe the boxes were likely used for concealment purposes. Do you believe the assassin thought he could escape the building after firing?
-
I too believe the boxes were likely used for concealment purposes. Do you believe the assassin thought he could escape the building after firing?
Yes, I believe that he did believe that he had a chance of escaping. But I also believe that he knew that he would eventually be found out.
-
Thumb1: I believe he liked red licorice but probably not the black,
although he may have enjoyed a red and black twine.
-
Yes, I believe that he did believe that he had a chance of escaping. But I also believe that he knew that he would eventually be found out.
So, if you believe that, why do you think he chose to keep about $13 in his possession? The equivalent of nearly 2 days pay. Why not just leave it all to Marina and the kids?
-
So, if you believe that, why do you think he chose to keep about $13 in his possession? The equivalent of nearly 2 days pay. Why not just leave it all to Marina and the kids?
If Oswald chickened out of the assassination, he still had some money to last the week, why is that a problem?
JohnM
-
If Oswald chickened out of the assassination, he still had some money to last the week, why is that a problem?
JohnM
If he chickened out he could have just got a ride back to Irving with Buell. Take the rifle back to the garage and get some money then.
-
So, if you believe that, why do you think he chose to keep about $13 in his possession? The equivalent of nearly 2 days pay. Why not just leave it all to Marina and the kids?
I said eventually, which is ambiguous with regard to how much time might elapse before he is captured or killed. In the meanwhile LHO, if he managed to escape the immediate area, would need cash to get around, eat, etc.. The encounter with JD Tippit helped to hasten the apprehension. And he had already paid for the bus fare and cab ride. So he must have actually kept a little more than thirteen bucks.
-
If he chickened out he could have just got a ride back to Irving with Buell. Take the rifle back to the garage and get some money then.
According to Frazier, Oswald said he wasn't going back on Friday which makes sense because he said he had curtain rods which needed to go somewhere, Marina had given him the cold shoulder and I don't think Ruth was very happy that Oswald just turned up unannounced on Thursday.
Mr. BALL - Was there some reason why you didn't?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did. Because like I told you, he was going home to get the curtain rods and I asked him at the time, the same time, it would be about that, would he be going home with me Friday afternoon like he had been doing, he said no.
JohnM
-
According to Frazier, Oswald said he wasn't going back on Friday which makes sense because he said he had curtain rods which needed to go somewhere, Marina had given him the cold shoulder and I don't think Ruth was very happy that Oswald just turned up unannounced on Thursday.
Mr. BALL - Was there some reason why you didn't?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did. Because like I told you, he was going home to get the curtain rods and I asked him at the time, the same time, it would be about that, would he be going home with me Friday afternoon like he had been doing, he said no.
JohnM
I don’t think it would be impossible for him to have said to Buell, "hey buddy, I forgot the curtains.....need to go back to Irving to get them".
For a potential assassin, you think he would be scared of Ruth? Perhaps if she had been guarding JFK instead of the SS things might have been different.
-
I said eventually, which is ambiguous with regard to how much time might elapse before he is captured or killed. In the meanwhile LHO, if he managed to escape the immediate area, would need cash to get around, eat, etc.. The encounter with JD Tippit helped to hasten the apprehension. And he had already paid for the bus fare and cab ride. So he must have actually kept a little more than thirteen bucks.
So the money would facilitate a "low budget" escape of sorts. For a short period but eventually he would be caught. A bit like william Macey's character in Fargo.
-
For a potential assassin, you think he would be scared of Ruth?
A potential assassin that chickened out isn't much of a threat.
And besides, Oswald desperately relied on Ruth to house his wife and daughters so why would he jeopardise this convenient arrangement?
JohnM
-
So the money would facilitate a "low budget" escape of sorts. For a short period but eventually he would be caught. A bit like william Macey's character in Fargo.
I saw Fargo, but long ago. And really don’t remember much about it. I doubt that LHO had much of a planned out escape. But it would be prudent to have a little cash in his wallet.
-
A potential assassin that chickened out isn't much of a threat.
And besides, Oswald desperately relied on Ruth to house his wife and daughters so why would he jeopardise this convenient arrangement?
JohnM
Yet, according to the narrative, he stored a rifle in Ruth's garage without telling or asking her..... Doesn't make any sense!
-
Yet, according to the narrative, he stored a rifle in Ruth's garage without telling or asking her..... Doesn't make any sense!
I don't think that the religious Quaker Ruth would approve of having a rifle stored in her garage, so why would he tell her? ....Telling her makes no sense at all.
JohnM
-
I don't think that the religious Quaker Ruth would approve of having a rifle stored in her garage, so why would he tell her? ....Telling her makes no sense at all.
JohnM
For once I agree...
But by storing a rifle in Ruth's garage anyway, and without telling or asking her, he did in fact potentially jeopardise the convenient arrangement of his wife and daughters living with Ruth. That's why the narrative doesn't make any sense.
-
For once I agree...
But by storing a rifle in Ruth's garage anyway, and without telling or asking her, he did in fact potentially jeopardise the convenient arrangement of his wife and daughters living with Ruth. That's why the narrative doesn't make any sense.
Sure, if Ruth went through his stuff she may have found the rifle but I reckon that Oswald counted on the religious Ruth not going through his belongings and history shows that in fact she didn't.
Over the years I've had people stay with me and I respected their privacy, is that unusual?
JohnM
-
Sure, if Ruth went through his stuff she may have found the rifle but I reckon that Oswald counted on the religious Ruth not going through his belongings and history shows that in fact she didn't.
Over the years I've had people stay with me and I respected their privacy, is that unusual?
JohnM
The losely wrapped blanket was on the garage floor for two months and had been moved several times by Michael Paine... it's a miracle that the rifle didn't fall out by itself. With kids playing around the house a rifle could have been exposed at any moment.
-
The losely wrapped blanket was on the garage floor for two months and had been moved several times by Michael Paine... it's a miracle that the rifle didn't fall out by itself. With kids playing around the house a rifle could have been exposed at any moment.
Who said the blanket was wrapped loosely?
Michael who also respected Oswald's privacy, moved the package and thought it was camping equipment.
And as for the children, a rifle without bullets is just a big stick, personally I'd be more worried about what appears to be a big fixed electric drill or bandsaw.
(https://i2.wp.com/jfkboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/garage.jpg?resize=534%2C406&ssl=1)
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/capture_36.PNG)
JohnM
-
A potential assassin that chickened out isn't much of a threat.
And besides, Oswald desperately relied on Ruth to house his wife and daughters so why would he jeopardise this convenient arrangement?
JohnM
Did he tell Ruth he wouldn’t be coming back that Friday? I can’t recall. We have established he already came without notice once....I thought there were plans for the family to find new residence but it had been postponed somewhat. He was a pretty good saver. He managed to pay Robert back initially ($200?) and then State Department loan of more than $400 in just 2 months in early '63. Also saving that money to get to Russia from his marine pay.
-
Who said the blanket was wrapped loosely?
Michael who also respected Oswald's privacy, moved the package and thought it was camping equipment.
And as for the children, a rifle without bullets is just a big stick, personally I'd be more worried about what appears to be a big fixed electric drill or bandsaw.
(https://i2.wp.com/jfkboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/garage.jpg?resize=534%2C406&ssl=1)
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/capture_36.PNG)
JohnM
You can twist and turn as much as you like, but not placing a rifle in Ruth's garage would have eliminated even the slightest possibility of jeopardising the convenient arrangement of his wife and daughters living with Ruth.
-
So, if you believe that, why do you think he chose to keep about $13 in his possession? The equivalent of nearly 2 days pay. Why not just leave it all to Marina and the kids?
After taxes?
-- MWT ;)
-
You can twist and turn as much as you like, but not placing a rifle in Ruth's garage would have eliminated even the slightest possibility of jeopardising the convenient arrangement of his wife and daughters living with Ruth.
More worthless assumptions, if Ruth did in fact go through Oswald's belongings and did indeed find Oswald's rifle why would that jeopardise Marina and her children, Ruth knew that Oswald was a piece of crap and would simply ask him to remove his rifle, but to speculate that it would have a negative impact on Marina is more self serving rubbish.
JohnM
-
More worthless assumptions, if Ruth did in fact go through Oswald's belongings and did indeed find Oswald's rifle why would that jeopardise Marina and her children, Ruth knew that Oswald was a piece of crap and would simply ask him to remove his rifle, but to speculate that it would have a negative impact on Marina is more self serving rubbish.
JohnM
Yes indeed, this entire post is nothing more than worthless assumptions. Good of you to warn us in advance...
-
Yes indeed, this entire post is nothing more than worthless assumptions. Good of you to warn us in advance...
Sorry "Martin" but you've already lost, the narrative is forever in the history books and Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd. Case closed.
JohnM
-
Sorry "Martin" but you've already lost, the narrative is forever in the history books and Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd. Case closed.
JohnM
Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd
Then why don't you show us the evidence for that claim?
-
Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd
Then why don't you show us the evidence for that claim?
Why don't you know the evidence, I thought you considered yourself some sort of Expert?
JohnM
-
Why don't you know the evidence, I thought you considered yourself some sort of Expert?
JohnM
Evasive as per usual.... So, no evidence you can offer... Got it.
Btw I know the evidence, which is why I knew you were full of crap when you made your entirely unsupported and never proven idiotic claim.
-
Evasive as per usual.... So, no evidence you can offer... Got it.
Btw I know the evidence, which is why I knew you were full of crap when you made your entirely unsupported and never proven idiotic claim.
Since you obviously don't know the evidence, here's something to think about.
1. Oswald fills out a coupon for a rifle and mails it to Kleins
2. Oswald's rifle C2766 was sent from Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
3. Oswald was photographed with C2766.
4. Marina and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt testified to Oswald possessing a rifle.
5. Michael Paine moved an approx 37 inch blanket package which he guesses contained some sort of pipe and/or a folding shovel, on the floor of the garage.
6. Marina testified that she saw a rifle in the blanket.
7. The night before the assassination Oswald makes an unexpected visit to Irving
8. Oswald leaves most of his money and his wedding ring with Marina
9. On the 22nd Oswald is seen in the morning with a long package.
10. Oswald tells different stories as to the contents of the package.
11. Oswald tells a different story than Frazier and Randle about where the package was in Frazier's car.
12. Marina directs the police to what is now an empty blanket and appears concerned that its empty.
13. Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work.
14. Oswald's rifle was found with Oswald's prints.
15. Oswald's rifle was found with multiple fibers which matched the multiple fibers in Oswald's arrest shirt.
16. Oswald flees work within a few minutes
17. Oswald takes buses and cabs in his rush to get out of town.
18. Oswald gets out way past his rooming house.
19. Oswald kills a cop.
20. Oswald resists arrest and attempts to kill more officers with a revolver.
21. The revolver that Oswald was arrested with exclusively matches shells that Oswald discarded at the Tippit crime scene.
22. Oswald jacket is retrieved from a parking lot he was confirmed as entering.
JohnM
-
Since you obviously don't know the evidence, here's something to think about.
1. Oswald fills out a coupon for a rifle and mails it to Kleins
2. Oswald's rifle C2766 was sent from Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
3. Oswald was photographed with C2766.
4. Marina and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt testified to Oswald possessing a rifle.
5. Michael Paine moved an approx 37 inch blanket package which he guesses contained some sort of pipe and/or a folding shovel, on the floor of the garage.
6. Marina testified that she saw a rifle in the blanket.
7. The night before the assassination Oswald makes an unexpected visit to Irving
8. Oswald leaves most of his money and his wedding ring with Marina
9. On the 22nd Oswald is seen in the morning with a long package.
10. Oswald tells different stories as to the contents of the package.
11. Oswald tells a different story than Frazier and Randle about where the package was in Frazier's car.
12. Marina directs the police to what is now an empty blanket and appears concerned that its empty.
13. Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work.
14. Oswald's rifle was found with Oswald's prints.
15. Oswald's rifle was found with multiple fibers which matched the multiple fibers in Oswald's arrest shirt.
16. Oswald flees work within a few minutes
17. Oswald takes buses and cabs in his rush to get out of town.
18. Oswald gets out way past his rooming house.
19. Oswald kills a cop.
20. Oswald resists arrest and attempts to kill more officers with a revolver.
21. The revolver that Oswald was arrested with exclusively matches shells that Oswald discarded at the Tippit crime scene.
22. Oswald jacket is retrieved from a parking lot he was confirmed as entering.
JohnM
Yeah, yeah... I know all that. It's a bunch of assumptions and a few bits of highly questionable physical evidence twisted into a made up narrative that does not withstand any kind of scrutiny.
But putting all this circumstantial BS and highly speculative and partly unproven "evidence" aside, where is the actual evidence for your idiotic claim;
Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd.
-
Yeah, yeah... I know all that. It's a bunch of assumptions and a few bits of highly questionable physical evidence twisted into a made up narrative that does not withstand any kind of scrutiny.
But putting all this circumstantial BS and highly speculative and partly unproven "evidence" aside, where is the actual evidence for your idiotic claim;
Yeah, yeah... I know all that.
And there's a lot more where that came from.
It's a bunch of assumptions and a few bits of highly questionable physical evidence twisted into a made up narrative that does not withstand any kind of scrutiny.
If the CT's had any kind of alternate narrative then I'd love to see it? And don't try the old chestnut that the evil evil gubermint is hiding the evidence from you because that won't stick.
But putting all this circumstantial BS and highly speculative and partly unproven "evidence" aside, where is the actual evidence for your idiotic claim;
Pay attention, I gave you the evidence, I described the events leading to the rifle filled blanket being empty on the afternoon of the assassination and gave you the evidence of what happened next and besides video surveillance in the Paine garage what sort of evidence is possibly to be accepted? Btw that was a rhetorical question because so far no CT has any answers and I don't expect a complete novice to suddenly grow a brain ie you!
JohnM
-
And there's a lot more where that came from.
If the CT's had any kind of alternate narrative then I'd love to see it? And don't try the old chestnut that the evil evil gubermint is hiding the evidence from you because that won't stick.
Pay attention, I gave you the evidence, I described the events leading to the rifle filled blanket being empty on the afternoon of the assassination and gave you the evidence of what happened next and besides video surveillance in the Paine garage what sort of evidence is possibly to be accepted? Btw that was a rhetorical question because so far no CT has any answers and I don't expect a complete novice to suddenly grow a brain ie you!
JohnM
Pay attention, I gave you the evidence,
No, you didn't. You gave me a bunch of questionable prosecutorial circumstantial crap that in no way even begins to prove that "Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd.".
All it actually did prove is that you simply can not provide any actual evidence for your idiotic claim. So, here's some news for you; You chosing to believe that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/22/63 isn't evidence.
-
Pay attention, I gave you the evidence,
No, you didn't. You gave me a bunch of questionable circumstantial crap that in no way even begins to prove that "Oswald's rifle was in Ruth's garage till the 22nd.".
All it actually did prove is that you simply can not provide any actual evidence for your idiotic claim. So, here's some news for you; You chosing to believe that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/22/63 isn't evidence.
No worries, let's agree to disagree.
Btw I just wasted a whole day doing this and I really don't know how you can do this day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, but good luck with your fantasies. Anyway lucky for me that the accepted events as I described will live on in the History Books for eternity, cop u later, much later.
JohnM
-
No worries, let's agree to disagree.
Btw I just wasted a whole day doing this and I really don't know how you can do this day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, but good luck with your fantasies. Anyway lucky for me that the accepted events as I described will live on in the History Books for eternity, cop u later, much later.
JohnM
No worries, let's agree to disagree.
Translation: "I've got nothing. I can not present you with any evidence for my claim as there simply is none, but I will never admit that, so I'll just run..."
Btw I just wasted a whole day doing this
Oh poor boy. You could have stopped and any moment, but your ego didn't let you, right?
Never mind, you've been wasting similar days for years now. Tomorrow you'll be doing it somewhere else, boring people on another forum or on YouTube.
I really don't know how you can do this day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year,
Don't be silly, of course you know. You've been doing it for years. You were here years before I joined the forum and you will still be here long after I have left.
Anyway lucky for me that the accepted events as I described will live on in the History Books for eternity,
Why is that lucky for you? And who accepted those events? You do know there has never been a majority of people in the country that believe the crap you defend?
Personally, I couldn't care less what's in the history books. For the future, what's on the internet is far more important and there the narrative you so desperately want to believe is being destroyed time after time....
-
In answer to the OP question. Who knows how much was planned. He got out, planned or otherwise.
-
Yeah, yeah... I know all that. It's a bunch of assumptions and a few bits of highly questionable physical evidence twisted into a made up narrative that does not withstand any kind of scrutiny.
But putting all this circumstantial BS and highly speculative and partly unproven "evidence" aside, where is the actual evidence for your idiotic claim;
What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle? It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact. And has often done so in many other cases. But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions." What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason. A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove. If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.
-
Ok.....does anyone know why the Danny Kaye rhyming stuff it being inserted in posts? Have we been hacked again?
Dear Colin,
Why get all paranoid?
It's just Duncan's clever way of hiding words, phrases and names he finds offensive.
Like the name of the guy at Jumbo Duh's defacto forum whose first name rhymes with "candy," and who co-developed the idea with me that Gloria Calvery is the big, tall gal in Zapruder who can later be seen talking with a practically bald-headed man on the lower TSBD steps in Darnell ...
... and like the three-letter synonym for "donkey" that starts with an "A" and which, in America English, also refers to the part of your body that's in direct contact with a chair when you're sitting on it ...
Or like the four-letter British word for that same part of your body, and which also begins with an "A", but rhymes with "farce" instead of "gas" or "class" ...
... and, of course, like the seven-letter word that refers to the hole in that part of your body through which fecal matter is expelled from your large intestine, colon and anus, etc, etc, etc
Or at least one hopes it is.
-- MWT ;)
-
What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle? It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact. And has often done so in many other cases. But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions." What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason. A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove. If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.
What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle?
The only direct evidence there is, that somebody using the name Hidell ordered a rifle from Kleins, is a handwritten order form and money order that may or may not have been filled out by Oswald. You have no evidence at all that Oswald actually bought the money order and all the other Kleins docucuments as well as Waldmann's testimony are derived from that one order form, of which we don't even have the original. Basically, all you really have to tie Oswald to the purchase of the MC rifle is the questional opinion of a handwriting expert. That's it!
In other words; if the order form and money order received by Kleins are not written by Oswald, all the other Kleins documents and Waldmann's testimony are fruits of a poisonous tree and prove nothing.
Just in case, you don't understand what I am saying, this is how it works; a person using the name Hidell (who may or may not be Oswald) uses a handwritten order form and a money order to order a rifle from Kleins. Upon receipt of the order form, Kleins makes a microfilm copy of the documents and destroys the originals. They then proceed to prepare the invoice and shipping documents. None of that involves Oswald in any way, shape or form, and all of it is only a consequence of the receipt of the order form. The WC then turns to Waldmann who basically tells them nothing more than that he believes that the internal documents justify the conclusion that the rifle must have been send to whoever ordered it. He doesn't provide any proof of the actual shipment or the reception of it because he hasn't got any.
That's why I say there is no evidence that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins. If you disagree, just post that evidence (not assumptions!) and I'll admit I'm wrong.
It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact.
No, it's not comprehensive and most of what you call evidence is nothing more than a highly questionable prosecutorial circumstantial narrative
But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions."
Circumstantial evidence is by definition nothing more than assumptions to connect the dots between pieces of direct physical evidence to create a narrative. Circumstantial evidence is the weakest type of evidence there is and has the highest risk of error as many circumstances can have multiple explanations.
What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason.
Nope... that's not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that when you make a claim like "Oswald's rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage" that you have at least some physical evidence to back up that claim ..... The whole saga of Oswald's trip to Irving is one assumption on top of another and when you closely examine the entire "rifle in the blanket" narrative, you end up with a multitude of assumptions for which there isn't a shred of evidence.
A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove.
There is no catch 22.... When you claim that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins, you should be able to provide evidence for that. It simply won't do to say that he was photographed with a rifle, so he must have received it from Kleins, when the rifle he is holding in the photograph could just as easily have belonged to somebody else. We have been down this path before. Can you seriously exclude, on solid grounds, the possibility that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph belonged to somebody else? Now, don't start asking your usual stupid questions, like who I think it belonged to etc.... Just give me a factual reason why that rifle in the photograph must be owned by Oswald and Oswald alone.... Go on then, I'm waiting
It is also complete BS to claim that just because Oswald ordered a rifle in March (if that's what he did) and was photographed with a rifle (if that was the same one), the rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one to begin with) from late September to 11/22/63 must be the same rifle that he allegedly ordered from Kleins.
The holes in the official narrative that you have to explain away by speculation and assumptions, rather than actual evidence, are as massive as meteor craters.
If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.
Some sort of document confirming the actual receipt of the package, would go a long way. Not only to prove he received the rifle but also that he thus must have ordered it. Think about it for a second; Kleins is sending a rifle which has already been paid for to a P.O. Box in Dallas. If they do not obtain some sort of document confirming the receipt of the package, how are they ever going to prove that the client has received what he ordered? In other words, it's in Kleins interest and just good common business sense to ensure that the recipient signs for the merchandise. So, where is the receipt?
Anybody can fill in an order form (and even forge a handwriting if need be) and send it to Kleins, but nobody other than Oswald himself could have collected the package containing the rifle. So, show me proof that Oswald received the rifle and I'll instantly accept that he must have ordered it. Is that good enough for you?
Now, why do I doubt it isn't?.... Hmmmmm
-
What evidence do you believe is lacking from John's list that would prove to your satisfaction that Oswald ordered and received his rifle?
The only direct evidence there is that somebody using the name Hidell ordered a rifle from Kleins is the handwritten order form that may or may not have been filled out by Oswald. All the other Kleins docucuments and Waldmann's testimony are derived from that one order form, of which we don't even have the original. Basically, all you really have to tie Oswald to the purchase of the MC rifle is the opinion of a handwriting expert. That's it!
In other words; if the order form and money order received by Kleins are not written by Oswald, all the other Kleins documents as well as Waldmann's testimony are fruits of a poisonous tree.
Just in case, you don't understand what I am saying, this is how it works; Hidell (who may or may not be Oswald) uses a handwritten order form and a money order to order a rifle from Kleins. Upon receipt of the order form, Kleins makes a microfilm copy of the document and destroys the original. They then proceed to prepare the invoice and shipping documents. None of that involves Oswald in any way, shape or form, and all of it is only a consequence of the receipt of the order form. The WC then turns to Waldmann who basically tells then nothing more than that he believes that the internal documents justify the conclusion that the rifle must have been send to whoever ordered it. He doesn't provide any proof of the actual shipment or the reception of it because he hasn't got any.
That's why I say there is no evidence that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins. If you disagree, just post that evidence (not assumptions!) and I'll admit I'm wrong.
It is comprehensive and exactly the type of evidence that law enforcement would use to prove that fact.
No, it's not comprehensive and most of what you call evidence is nothing more than a highly questionable prosecutorial circumstantial narrative
But you suggest it is a "bunch of assumptions."
Circumstantial evidence is by definition nothing more than assumptions to connect the dots between pieces of direct physical evidence.
What you appear to be suggesting is that no amount of evidence could ever prove that fact by applying an impossible standard of proof and then concluding the evidence is lacking for that reason.
Nope... that's not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that when you make a claim like "Oswald's rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage" that you have at least some physical evidence to connect the dots..... The whole saga of Oswald's trip to Irving is one assumption on top of another!
A Catch 22 - it is impossible to prove a fact if facts are impossible to prove.
There is no catch 22.... When you claim that Oswald received a rifle from Kleins, you should be able to provide evidence for that. It simply won't do to say that he was photographed with a rifle, so he must have received it from Kleins, when the rifle he is holding in the photograph could just as easily have belonged to somebody else. We have been down this path before. Can you seriously exclude, on solid grounds, the possibility that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph belonged to somebody else? Now, don't start asking your usual stupid questions, like who I think it belonged to etc.... Just give me a factual reason why that rifle in the photograph must be owned by Oswald.... Go on then, I'm waiting
It is also complete BS to claim that just because Oswald ordered a rifle in March (if that's what he did) and was photographed with a rifle (if that was the same one), the rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one to begin with) from late September to 11/22/63 must be the same rifle that he allegedly ordered from Kleins.
The holes in the official narrative that you have to explain away by speculation and assumptions, rather than actual evidence, are as massive as meteor craters.
If not, then explain to us what you would consider as "actual evidence" sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and received the rifle.
Dear Marty,
If Hidell wasn't Oswald, then who was he?
A guy whose real name was Hidell?
An evil, evil, evil CIA / FBI / DPD agent or officer?
A humanitarian KGB ... saint?
(You tend to believe it was the former, right?)
-- MWT ;)
PS Is handwriting analysis done by specialists at the FBI to be ignored when it tells you something you don't want to hear?
PPS Can you prove that "Hidell's" money order / paperwork was handled suspiciously differently than that of other customers by the same mail order gun company(s) / post office(s) / bank(s) / etc?
PPPS How many conspirators do you figure were involved in the assassination and "the cover up"?
Hundreds? Thousands?
-
CTers & JAQers have exactly zero evidence to prove that AnybodyButOswald even so much as made an attempt to shoot Kennedy that day. CTers & JAQers have proven nothing to show that someone other than Oswald shot Tippit. And if any of you CTers or JAQers can prove someone other than [name your shooter] knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, feel free to call a press conference.
-
Dear Marty,
If Hidell wasn't Oswald, then who was he?
A guy whose real name was Hidell?
An evil, evil, evil CIA / FBI / DPD agent or officer?
A humanitarian KGB ... saint?
(You tend to believe it was the former, right?)
-- MWT ;)
PS Is handwriting analysis done by specialists at the FBI to be ignored when it tells you something you don't want to hear?
PPS Can you prove that "Hidell's" money order / paperwork was handled suspiciously differently than that of other customers by the same mail order gun company(s) / post office(s) / bank(s) / etc?
PPPS How many conspirators do you figure were involved in the assassination and "the cover up"?
Hundreds? Thousands?
PS Is handwriting analysis done by specialists at the FBI to be ignored when it tells you something you don't want to hear?
You clearly have no knowledge about handwriting analysis otherwise you wouldn't ask such a silly question
But let me help you;
1. There isn't a handwriting expert anywhere in the world who can say with 100% certainty that something was written by a particular person to the exclusion of everybody else.
2. Handwriting experts look for items of resemblance between a questioned document and other documents that are certified to having been written by a person.
In civil and criminal cases the invidual is asked to provide several originals of the same handwritten text, written in the presence of an offical like a notary public. In this case, with Oswald being dead, the FBI handwriting experts only had old documents to compare with that they were told had been written by Oswald.
3. One of the ways in which a handwriting expert makes a determination is by comparing the pressure that was applied by the pen when the document was written as well as the flow of the pen leaving an ink trail on the paper. This can of course not be done when the questioned document is a microfilm photo copy.
Any handwriting expert that claims he, despite these problems, can say with 100% certainty that a particular person has written a particular text is a liar and a fraud!
PPS Can you prove that "Hidell's" money order / paperwork was handled suspiciously differently than that of other customers by the same mail order gun company(s) / post office(s) / bank(s) / etc?
No, and I don't need or have to... In fact, in making my point, I assume that the transaction was indeed conducted in exactly the same way as all the other transactions.
PPPS How many conspirators do you figure were involved in the assassination and "the cover up"?
Who said anything about conspirators? The claim is that Oswald (pretending to be Hidell) ordered and received a rifle from Kleins.... That needs to be proven. It's really very simply. I'm surprised that you don't understand that.
-
CTers & JAQers have exactly zero evidence to prove that AnybodyButOswald even so much as made an attempt to shoot Kennedy that day. CTers & JAQers have proven nothing to show that someone other than Oswald shot Tippit. And if any of you CTers or JAQers can prove someone other than [name your shooter] knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, feel free to call a press conference.
Not the old "Oswald is guilty by default, if you can't prove somebody else did it" crap again?
-
More worthless assumptions, if Ruth did in fact go through Oswald's belongings and did indeed find Oswald's rifle
Speaking of worthless assumptions...
-
Here we go with another litany of "Mytton" disinformation.
1. Oswald fills out a coupon for a rifle and mails it to Kleins
There's no evidence as to who mailed this to Kleins. As for "filled out", that's based on unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order coupon.
2. Oswald's rifle C2766 was sent from Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
There is no evidence of such a package going through the mail system and being delivered or picked up by Oswald or anybody else.
3. Oswald was photographed with C2766.
Oswald was photographed with a rifle that may or may not be C2766.
4. Marina and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt testified to Oswald possessing a rifle.
What do you think that is evidence of?
5. Michael Paine moved an approx 37 inch blanket package which he guesses contained some sort of pipe and/or a folding shovel, on the floor of the garage.
What do you think that is evidence of?
6. Marina testified that she saw a rifle in the blanket.
Marina peeked in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket 6 weeks earlier and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a gun.
7. The night before the assassination Oswald makes an unexpected visit to Irving
What do you think that is evidence of?
8. Oswald leaves most of his money and his wedding ring with Marina
What do you think that is evidence of?
9. On the 22nd Oswald is seen in the morning with a long package.
What do you think that is evidence of?
10. Oswald tells different stories as to the contents of the package.
Unproven. It's all hearsay.
11. Oswald tells a different story than Frazier and Randle about where the package was in Frazier's car.
Unproven. It's all hearsay.
12. Marina directs the police to what is now an empty blanket and appears concerned that its empty.
What do you think that is evidence of?
13. Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work.
LOL
14. Oswald's rifle was found with Oswald's prints.
Wrong. Prints were found by the trigger guard that were insufficient for purposes of identification. And a heretofore unknown single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
15. Oswald's rifle was found with multiple fibers which matched the multiple fibers in Oswald's arrest shirt.
...that couldn't be matched to any specific garment.
16. Oswald flees work within a few minutes
"flees". LOL
17. Oswald takes buses and cabs in his rush to get out of town.
You don't know he was in a rush to get out of town. "Buses and cabs", plural? Really?
18. Oswald gets out way past his rooming house.
What do you think that is evidence of?
19. Oswald kills a cop.
LOL
20. Oswald resists arrest and attempts to kill more officers with a revolver.
LOL
21. The revolver that Oswald was arrested with exclusively matches shells that Oswald discarded at the Tippit crime scene.
The shells allegedly retrieved by civilians from an unsecured crime scene (2 missing the initials that J.M. Poe originally stated he scratched on them, and 2 that the Davises could not identify as the same shells) matched a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 1.5-2 hours after Oswald's arrest.
22. Oswald jacket is retrieved from a parking lot he was confirmed as entering.
"Oswald jacket". LOL.
-
Anybody can fill in an order form (and even forge a handwriting if need be) and send it to Kleins, but nobody other than Oswald himself could have collected the package containing the rifle.
Well, if you believe Holmes (and I realize that's a big IF), anybody could have walked up to the window, given them a box number, and collected a package.
-
CTers & JAQers have exactly zero evidence to prove that AnybodyButOswald even so much as made an attempt to shoot Kennedy that day.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)
-
Oswald was photographed with a rifle that may or may not be C2766.
Can I change that to...Someone that appeared to be Oswald was photographed with a rifle that appeared to be C2766 by someone?
-
Can I change that to...Someone that appeared to be Oswald was photographed with a rifle that appeared to be C2766 by someone?
Dear Gerald,
How many people do you figure were involved in the assassination and "The Coverup"?
Hundreds?
Thousands?
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Gerald,
Thomas...When/and if you are addressing me ...please refer to my forum name...it is not Gerald---Thanks
Member's must address fellow Forum members by their Forum username at all times.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
-
Stale bait.
O B Wan,
It just a few evil, evil, evil bastards to pull it off and "cover it up"?
Is that your position?
Or maybe you don't have a position on that because you know the implications of what you believe are ludicrous?
-- MWT ;)
-
Not the old "Oswald is guilty by default, if you can't prove somebody else did it" crap again?
'Oswald is guilty by default if you can't prove somebody else did it'
> I said that? Where?
Oswald is guilty prime suspect until [name your shooter] shows up
-
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)
Logical fallacies prove exactly nothing
They're 'ivory-tower' fare
-
All kinds of problems here. First of all, Oswald could not have gotten from the sixth floor sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker. As historian David Wrone has often pointed out, the WC found it necessary to severely rig the reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements in order to appear to get him to the lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker. Wrone discusses this point in detail in this lecture:
Second, there were people on the stairs who would have seen Oswald if he had come down the stairs. We know he could not have used the elevator. He would have had to come down the stairs.
Third, a huge problem with the WC's account is that if Oswald was only one foot past the foyer door when Baker spotted him, as Baker belatedly claimed, then Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or two" before being spotted by Baker:
Since the vestibule [foyer] door is only a few feet from the lunchroom door, the man [Oswald] must have entered the vestibule door only a second or two before Baker arrived at the top of the stairwell. Yet he must have entered the vestibule door before Truly reached the top of the stairwell [leading to the second-floor landing], since Truly did not see him. (WCR 151)
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then Truly could not have missed seeing him. Nor did the Commission explain how Baker could have been the least bit unsure about whether or not Oswald had gone through the foyer door if Baker spotted Oswald right next to the door and if the door was in any kind of motion at the time. I discuss this issue in detail in "The Baker-Oswald Encounter: Proof that Oswald Did Not Shoot JFK?" and in "Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/bakerlho.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/wherewasoswald.htm
About three months before the assassination, U.S. intelligence officer Richard Case Nagell warned Oswald that he was being set up as the patsy for Kennedy's murder, but Oswald dismissed his warning. This could explain why Oswald did nothing to prevent himself from being framed. Or, as some have suggested, he could have been led to believe that Kennedy was not the target but that Connally or LBJ was and that his role would be harmless or non-existent, or that the shooting would merely involve firing misses near the motorcade to alert Kennedy that his security arrangements were very lax.
Oswald was clearly supposed to meet someone at the Texas Theater. I suspect that it was only after he was arrested that he realized he had been set up. He might have realized this earlier, but if he did, I find it curious that still went to his meeting at the theater. In any case, once he was in police custody, he fully understood that he had been set up, which is why he uttered the famous and revealing statement "I'm just a patsy" after he was in police custody, and why he told his brother Robert not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him.
Finally, a voice stress analysis/psychological stress evaluator polygraph was performed on Oswald's statement that he didn't shoot anyone, and the results indicated he was telling the truth. David Scheim discusses this in his book Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy. Here is George O'Toole's original article on the PSE test on Oswald's statement:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/O%27Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdf
-
All kinds of problems here. First of all, Oswald could not have gotten from the sixth floor sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker. As historian David Wrone has often pointed out, the WC found it necessary to severely rig the reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements in order to appear to get him to the lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker. Wrone discusses this point in detail in this lecture:
Second, there were people on the stairs who would have seen Oswald if he had come down the stairs. We know he could not have used the elevator. He would have had to come down the stairs.
Third, a huge problem with WC's account is that if Oswald was only a foot past the foyer door when Baker spotted him, as Baker belatedly claimed, then Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or two" before being spotted by Baker:
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then Truly could not have missed seeing him. Nor did the Commission explain how Baker could have been the least bit unsure about whether or not Oswald had gone through the foyer door if Baker spotted Oswald right next to the door and if the door was in any kind of motion at the time. I discuss this issue in detail in "The Baker-Oswald Encounter: Proof that Oswald Did Not Shoot JFK?":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/bakerlho.htm
About three months before the assassination, U.S. intelligence officer Richard Case Nagell warned Oswald that he was being set up as the patsy for Kennedy's murder, but Oswald dismissed his warning. This could explain why Oswald did nothing to prevent himself from being framed. Or, as some have suggested, he could have been led to believe that Kennedy was not the target but that Connally or LBJ was and that his role would be harmless or non-existent, or that the shooting would merely involve firing misses near the motorcade to alert Kennedy that his security arrangements were very lax.
Oswald was clearly supposed to meet someone at the Texas Theater. I suspect that it was only after he was arrested that he realized he had been set up. He might have realized this earlier, but if he did, I find it curious that still went to his meeting at the theater. In any case, once he was in police custody, he fully understood that he had been set up, which is why he uttered the famous and revealing statement "I'm just a patsy" after he was in police custody, and why he told his brother Robert not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him.
Finally, a voice stress analysis/psychological stress evaluator polygraph was performed on Oswald's statement that he didn't shoot anyone, and the results indicated he was telling the truth. David Scheim discusses this in his book Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy. Here is George O'Toole's original article on the PSE test on Oswald's statement:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/O%27Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdf
For more information about the voice stress analysis, “Malcontent - Lee Harvey Oswald’s confession by Conduct” by Sean R. DeGrilla (section 2) is a good read.
-
For more information about the voice stress analysis, “Malcontent - Lee Harvey Oswald’s confession by Conduct” by Sean R. DeGrilla (section 2) is a good read.
DeGrilla's book Malcontent is one of the worst, downright silliest works ever written on the assassination. To read his book, you would almost think he beamed into our decade from the late 1960s. Any post-ARRB book that defends the Warren Commission's version of events must ignore a mountain of compelling evidence of conspiracy and cover-up, and DeGrilla's book is the poster child for such unbelievable bias and omission.
-
DeGrilla's book Malcontent is one of the worst, downright silliest works ever written on the assassination. To read his book, you would almost think he beamed into our decade from the late 1960s. Any post-ARRB book that defends the Warren Commission's version of events must ignore a mountain of compelling evidence of conspiracy and cover-up, and DeGrilla's book is the poster child for such unbelievable bias and omission.
It is obvious to me that you are the biased one.
-
DeGrilla's book is the poster child for such unbelievable bias and omission.
What examples of this did he show in his book?
-
If Oswald was being set up how could he be allowed to wander around the TSBD during the shooting? How could those doing the setting up control the TSBD, making sure they get in/out unnoticed and have a floor to themselves?
-
It is obvious to me that you are the biased one.
Says the guy who has proven himself to be as biased as they come.
-
If Oswald was being set up how could he be allowed to wander around the TSBD during the shooting? How could those doing the setting up control the TSBD, making sure they get in/out unnoticed and have a floor to themselves?
Those are excellent questions. Some CTers suggest there was a grand plan to frame Oswald but he was apparently allowed to roam about at the moment of the assassination and potentially have an alibi. It's ridiculous. And how did they get him to take an unusual trip to the Paine residence on Thursday where he kept his rifle and carry a long package to work the next morning? How lucky could they get!? How did they know he would even go to work on Friday if he was heading to Paine residence on Thursday? For all they would have known, he decided to take the day off.
-
If Oswald was being set up how could he be allowed to wander around the TSBD during the shooting? How could those doing the setting up control the TSBD, making sure they get in/out unnoticed and have a floor to themselves?
The last place they wanted Oswald was on the sixth floor. Whatever theory you want to offer must address the evidence that Oswald simply could not have gotten from the sniper's nest to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker.
The sixth floor was mainly a storage area and people were up there sparingly and intermittently, and the plotters knew it would be lunchtime and that many people would be downstairs watching the motorcade. Plus, the elevator was locked/not working so no one could use it to come up to the sixth floor. Furthermore, and this is a point that is often overlooked, the power to the TSBD got cut off just before the shooting occurred. Several witnesses alluded to this strange fact in passing, and one of them specifically mentioned the power being cut off, but, of course, the commission's interviewers failed to pursue it. The main witness to this was Geneva Hine:
Mr. BALL. Were you alone then at this time?
Miss HINE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you stay at your desk?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
This is supported by the Alyea film. The film shows a light on in the entrance to the TSBD at the 2:03 mark, but this light not on in the Altgens photo taken during the assassination.
In addition, there is credible evidence that there were at least two people on the sixth floor during the shooting. This evidence includes the fact that the HSCA's photographic evidence panel determined from photos of the sniper's nest that someone was moving boxes around within 2 minutes after the shooting: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109). Obviously, Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes around.
-
All kinds of problems here. First of all, Oswald could not have gotten from the sixth floor sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker. As historian David Wrone has often pointed out, the WC found it necessary to severely rig the reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements in order to appear to get him to the lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker. Wrone discusses this point in detail in this lecture:
Second, there were people on the stairs who would have seen Oswald if he had come down the stairs. We know he could not have used the elevator. He would have had to come down the stairs.
Third, a huge problem with the WC's account is that if Oswald was only one foot past the foyer door when Baker spotted him, as Baker belatedly claimed, then Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or two" before being spotted by Baker:
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then Truly could not have missed seeing him. Nor did the Commission explain how Baker could have been the least bit unsure about whether or not Oswald had gone through the foyer door if Baker spotted Oswald right next to the door and if the door was in any kind of motion at the time.
First of all, Oswald could not have gotten from the sixth floor sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.
Actually, as far as the time line is concerned, Oswald (if he was the killer) could indeed have gotten to the 2nd floor lunchroom, but it is a tight squeeze between Victoria Adams & Sandra Styles arriving at the bottom of the stairs and Truly & Baker going up. The mere fact that Adams/Styles and Truly/Baker missed eachother at the bottom of the stairs gives anybody coming down the stairs after Adams & Styles just enough time to reach the 2nd floor just prior to Truly coming up.
Second, there were people on the stairs who would have seen Oswald if he had come down the stairs. We know he could not have used the elevator. He would have had to come down the stairs.
The people who were on the stairs were Victoria Adams & Sandra Styles and they were always ahead of anybody coming down after them. They couldn't have seen anybody coming down, but they might have heard him on the wooden stairs
A bigger problem is Dorothy Garner and some of the other girls on the 4th floor, who had a clear line of sight to the staircase and they would have seen anybody coming down them passing the 4th floor landing. According to the Stroud letter, Garner said that she saw Truly and the police man come up after Adams went down.
Third, a huge problem with the WC's account is that if Oswald was only one foot past the foyer door when Baker spotted him, as Baker belatedly claimed, then Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or two" before being spotted by Baker:
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then Truly could not have missed seeing him.
Agreed... only one of those two options can be correct.
-
If Oswald was being set up how could he be allowed to wander around the TSBD during the shooting? How could those doing the setting up control the TSBD, making sure they get in/out unnoticed and have a floor to themselves?
???
He was wandering around during the shooting?
-
Those are excellent questions. Some CTers suggest there was a grand plan to frame Oswald but he was apparently allowed to roam about at the moment of the assassination and potentially have an alibi. It's ridiculous. And how did they get him to take an unusual trip to the Paine residence on Thursday where he kept his rifle and carry a long package to work the next morning? How lucky could they get!? How did they know he would even go to work on Friday if he was heading to Paine residence on Thursday? For all they would have known, he decided to take the day off.
The classic LN "magic trick" conundrum; "how could they have done that?"....
The answer is always the same; they did it, but you won't know how until the trick is explained to you.
The answer is never; I don't know how the trick works, so the trick didn't happen and doesn't work.
What guys like Richard always forget/ignore is that the narrative he believes in was written after the event and with Oswald no longer around to dispute any of it. There is no way of knowing if what they have told you actually did happen or if what they are telling you is the actual and complete story.
The best magic trick ever; keep 'm guessing.... The best lie always hides between the truth.
-
Those are excellent questions. Some CTers suggest there was a grand plan to frame Oswald but he was apparently allowed to roam about at the moment of the assassination and potentially have an alibi. It's ridiculous. And how did they get him to take an unusual trip to the Paine residence on Thursday where he kept his rifle and carry a long package to work the next morning? How lucky could they get!? How did they know he would even go to work on Friday if he was heading to Paine residence on Thursday? For all they would have known, he decided to take the day off.
Or Buell(er) might have decided to take the day off.
-
If Oswald was being set up how could he be allowed to wander around the TSBD during the shooting? How could those doing the setting up control the TSBD, making sure they get in/out unnoticed and have a floor to themselves?
The president was scheduled to be at the Trade Mart at 12:00...How could someone then know exactly when to set up the ambush and know exactly when the motorcade was to come through the plaza?
-
The president was scheduled to be at the Trade Mart at 12:00...How could someone then know exactly when to set up the ambush and know exactly when the motorcade was to come through the plaza?
12:30 iirc
-
???
He was wandering around during the shooting?
I'm not saying he was wandering around during the shooting. The point I'm making is this - if LHO is not the shooter but part of a larger scheme in which he is the patsy/fall guy/stooge/scapegoat his movements must be controlled somehow. He cannot be outside getting photographed while the assassination is taking place or engaged in conversation with work colleagues, otherwise the set-up fails.
-
12:30 iirc
The arrival at the Trade Mart was scheduled to be 30 minutes before the parade came through Dealey Plaza?
That is some bizarre timing don't you think?
The parade came past the book building some 40 minutes late or is that beyond your comprehension?
-
12:30 iirc
The motorcade was scheduled to enter Dealey Plaza at 12:10 p.m., followed by a 12:15 p.m. arrival at the Trade Mart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination
-
The arrival at the Trade Mart was scheduled to be 30 minutes before the parade came through Dealey Plaza?
That is some bizarre timing don't you think?
The parade came past the book building some 40 minutes late or is that beyond your comprehension?
You appear to be confused. Warren Commission report, page 49, “Just prior to the shooting, David F. Powers, riding in the Secret Service followup car, remarked to Kenneth O’Donnell that it was 12:30 p.m., the time they were due at the Trade Mart.”
They were about five minutes behind schedule. Comprende?
-
MTG:
Third, a huge problem with the WC's account is that if Oswald was only one foot past the foyer door when Baker spotted him, as Baker belatedly claimed, then Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or two" before being spotted by Baker:
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then Truly could not have missed seeing him.
.....
Me:
Unless, of course, Oswald lingered inside the foyer-vestibule for a few seconds after entering it and was maybe even peeking back out through the window in the door ("Who's that I hear stomping up the stairs?") enabling Baker to catch a glimpse of him as he quickly turned away and started walking into the lunch room proper (with his bottle-of-Coke prop), especially if Baker swung super-wide in that direction as he turned towards the stairs that led up to the third floor.
Oswald could even have been peeking through the window while Truly was very briefly on the second floor's landing a few seconds earlier.
After all, it was later determined that it would only have taken Oswald about one minute to leave the sniper's nest, stash the carbine, and get to the second-floor lunchroon, arriving there very probably several seconds before Truly emerged from the stairwell onto the second floor's landing.
-- MWT Walk:
-
The arrival at the Trade Mart was scheduled to be 30 minutes before the parade came through Dealey Plaza?
That is some bizarre timing don't you think?
The parade came past the book building some 40 minutes late or is that beyond your comprehension?
You do the math:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination
-
You do the math:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination
There was never any 'scheduled time to enter Dealey Plaza". An historical afterthought [not a predicted] timeline...and it is still off--
The original schedule was for the president to proceed in a long motorcade from Love Field through downtown Dallas, and end at the Dallas Business and Trade Mart. The motorcade was scheduled to enter Dealey Plaza at 12:10 p.m.,
The Dallas Morning News on Nov 22 stated that The presidents itinerary had him arriving at the Trade Mart at 12 noon.
An approximation to be sure.
So the question remains...how could anyone possibly know the actual progress of the motorcade? [unless they had a police radio]
Keep dancing though!
-
The motorcade was scheduled to enter Dealey Plaza at 12:10 p.m., followed by a 12:15 p.m. arrival at the Trade Mart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination
So why did Buell ask Shelley if the workers could break early for lunch so they could see the motorcade. The sixth floor crew did in fact break to go down about 5-10 minutes early (the elevator race).
-
So why did Buell ask Shelley if the workers could break early for lunch so they could see the motorcade. The sixth floor crew did in fact break to go down about 5-10 minutes early (the elevator race).
Colin, Julian Read (close aide to JBC) in his book “JFK’s Final Hours in Texas,” includes a copy of the official white house press schedule for the Texas trip. (See appendix A, beginning on page 189). It says: “12:30 p.m. President arrives Trade Mart ...”
-
Colin, Julian Read (close aide to JBC) in his book “JFK’s Final Hours in Texas,” includes a copy of the official white house press schedule for the Texas trip. (See appendix A, beginning on page 189). It says: “12:30 p.m. President arrives Trade Mart ...”
So why did Buell ask Shelley if the workers could break early for lunch so they could see the motorcade. The sixth floor crew did in fact break to go down about 5-10 minutes early (the elevator race).
You understand that importance of Frazier thinking that? Do you dispute the elevator race took place earlier than they normally broke for lunch?
When did the TSBD employees believe the motorcade was due?
-
So why did Buell ask Shelley if the workers could break early for lunch so they could see the motorcade.
When did the TSBD employees believe the motorcade was due?
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman, Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon....SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
So what kind of plan did someone need that didn't even seem to know **about the motorcade in the first place?
Why were people standing in the street as early as 9 AM?
It was claimed [based on no evidence at all] that Oswald knew the route that the parade would take from the newspaper.
Then why the stupid question?
**I know...of course someone will play dumb and say that he was just playing dumb :-\
-
So what kind of plan did someone need that didn't even seem to know **about the motorcade in the first place?
Why were people standing in the street as early as 9 AM?
It was claimed [based on no evidence at all] that Oswald knew the route that the parade would take from the newspaper.
Then why the stupid question?
**I know...of course someone will play dumb and say that he was just playing dumb :-\
I believe that the time that this supposed conversation took place was much later. Closer to 11 am. I have evidence somewhere for that but need to search for it. It makes no sense that people would be congregating more than 3 hours prior to the motorcade.
-
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
Mr. BALL - About what time?
Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.
---------
Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time did you quit for lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - It was right about 5 minutes to 12.
------------
Representative FORD - You hadn't read about it in the papers the night before or that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Representative FORD - When did you have this conversation with Lee Oswald, where he asked you--you told him that the motorcade was coming by the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - It was some time that morning, between 9:30 and 10:30.
Representative FORD - This was after you heard Mr. Shelley and Miss or Mrs. Lee talk?
Mr. JARMAN - Discuss it---yes.
Representative FORD - Did Oswald ask you, or did you initiate the conversation and tell Oswald of the route?
Mr. JARMAN - He asked me.
Representative FORD - What was his reaction?
Mr. JARMAN - After I had told him the route that the President probably would take, he just said, "Oh, I see" and went back to filling orders.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
-
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
I know the evidence and various reports Jerry. I alway suspected that the crowd did not assemble so early. As I said I have some evidence from Jarman that supports this somewhere. He stated there it was closer to 11 or even later. I am searching for it but haven’t located it yet. If I find it I will post.
In terms of when the workers thought the motorcade would pass, we have the early break of the elevator race and Frazier asking Shelley if they could break a bit before noon so that they could view the motorcade. Seems to me that most thought it would pass some time between 12.15 and 12.30.
-
This might be it.....
"2:25 – He was looking out a window about 11:00 or 11:30. States Oswald asked him why there were people standing outside. Jarman said “Don’t you know the president is coming through?” Oswald said he did not know that. Jarman told him it would be sometime soon. To which Oswald replied, “Oh, I see.”
From Jarman's HSCA interview.
https://gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/jej-hsca-interview-summary.pdf (https://gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/jej-hsca-interview-summary.pdf)
-
If Oswald had planned anything he would have taken the east elevator.
End of story.
Dear Otto,
Dat right?
-- MWT ;)
-
Parked on 6th, ready to go.
Throw in a couple of boxes, "Just getting stock".
In case somebody should ask.
That was Jack's alibi. Seems the elevator was better than the stairs......go figure.
-
So why did Buell ask Shelley if the workers could break early for lunch so they could see the motorcade. The sixth floor crew did in fact break to go down about 5-10 minutes early (the elevator race).
You understand that importance of Frazier thinking that? Do you dispute the elevator race took place earlier than they normally broke for lunch?
When did the TSBD employees believe the motorcade was due?
Buell is still around. Ask him.
I am just pointing out that the official schedule says 12:30, not 12:00.
The president was scheduled to be at the Trade Mart at 12:00...How could someone then know exactly when to set up the ambush and know exactly when the motorcade was to come through the plaza?
-
Buell is still around. Ask him.
I am just pointing out that the official schedule says 12:30, not 12:00.
He has already said he did. Surely the cogent point is what the workers thought. Agree?
-
He has already said he did. Surely the Covent point is what the workers thought. Agree?
Your question to me was WHY did Frazier ask if they could break early for lunch.
So what the heck do you mean by: “He has already said he did.”??
My opinion is that LHO was hidden from view in the sniper’s nest. He could have sat in there silently. And even if someone else was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting , they would have been unlikely to know that he was there until he began shooting. Then it would have been too late to stop him before he got his shots off.
So no, I don’t see any importance whatsoever in what time the workers thought that the motorcade was passing by.
-
Your question to me was WHY did Frazier ask if they could break early for lunch.
So what the heck do you mean by: “He has already said he did.”??
My opinion is that LHO was hidden from view in the sniper’s nest. He could have sat in there silently. And even if someone else was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting , they would have been unlikely to know that he was there until he began shooting. Then it would have been too late to stop him before he got his shots off.
So no, I don’t see any importance whatsoever in what time the workers thought that the motorcade was passing by.
Bonnie Ray Williams occupied the SN until about 12.25pm.
-
Bonnie Ray Williams occupied the SN until about 12.25pm.
The leftovers from his lunch were found a few aisles west of the sniper’s nest. What makes you think that he was in the sniper’s nest?
-
The leftovers from his lunch were found a few aisles west of the sniper’s nest. What makes you think that he was in the sniper’s nest?
Numerous officers who were on the scene prior to the arrival of Day and Studebaker describe the chicken pieces and lunch sack in the SN. Do you not know this? The lunch remnants were put into the bag and placed westward some time after the arrival of the police.
-
Numerous officers who were on the scene prior to the arrival of Day and Studebaker describe the chicken pieces and lunch sack in the SN. Do you not know this? The lunch remnants were put into the bag and placed westward some time after the arrival of the police.
And you believe that nonsense without any photos before they were moved?? No surprise here folks. Just another misguided soul...
-
The leftovers from his lunch were found a few aisles west of the sniper’s nest. What makes you think that he was in the sniper’s nest?
Luke Mooney
Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Officer Jack Faulkner
"There were some chicken bones."
Officer Roger Craig
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did you do?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. BELIN - Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. BELIN - How big a sack was that?
Mr. CRAIG - It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. CRAIG - Yeah,--uh-huh.
Officer Gerald Hill
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment, there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack. I wouldn't know what the sizes were.
Also
Officers Boone, Haygood, McCurdey......
-
And you believe that nonsense without any photos before they were moved?? No surprise here folks. Just another misguided soul...
You believe the rifle was in the window and moved to the stairwell? Without any photos? I hope you don’t mind if I get a second opinion on your soul diagnosis. Maybe JohnM might be brave enough to comment. I believe he was convinced by the weight of evidence.
-
You believe the rifle was in the window and moved to the stairwell? Without any photos? I hope you don’t mind if I get a second opinion on your soul diagnosis. Maybe JohnM might be brave enough to comment. I believe he was convinced by the weight of evidence.
You believe BRW sat in the sniper’s nest and ate his greasy fried chicken and left no fingerprints? Where does BRW say that he sat and ate his lunch? Don’t you think that he would know?
-
You believe BRW sat in the sniper’s nest and ate his greasy fried chicken and left no fingerprints? Where does BRW say that he sat and ate his lunch? Don’t you think that he would know?
Were they looking for his fingerprints? Do you know when his fingerprints were obtained for comparison?
As I said, numerous officers who arrived there first all described the chicken and bag close to the SN. They described the chicken outside the bag. After all how could they see inside it? When Studebaker processed the lunch the chicken was inside the bag. How did it get there? Jump?
Have you analysed Williams various statements? I have. He lied and was deceitful in his movements. Don’t you know?
-
Were they looking for his fingerprints? Do you know when his fingerprints were obtained for comparison?
As I said, numerous officers who arrived there first all described the chicken and bag close to the SN. They described the chicken outside the bag. After all how could they see inside it? When Studebaker processed the lunch the chicken was inside the bag. How did it get there? Jump?
Have you analysed Williams various statements? I have. He lied and was deceitful in his movements. Don’t you know?
I can believe that one lonely chicken bone could have been on top of one of the outer boxes of the west end of the sniper’s nest. But nothing supports your claim that BRW was IN the sniper’s nest until 12:25.
-
I can believe that one lonely chicken bone could have been on top of one of the outer boxes of the west end of the sniper’s nest. But nothing supports your claim that BRW was IN the sniper’s nest until 12:25.
Perhaps we can start on when you think he vacated the 6 floor and the evidence for it.
-
Perhaps we can start on when you think he vacated the 6 floor and the evidence for it.
No. It makes no difference to me. I believe that LHO sat in the nest hidden from view and silent while BRW ate his lunch further west. And if BRW had remained on the sixth floor, he most likely wouldn’t have known LHO was there until the shooting began. Then, after the shooting, LHO could have used the remaining bullet in the rifle to shoot BRW if he tried to stop his escape.
-
No. It makes no difference to me. I believe that LHO sat in the nest hidden from view and silent while BRW ate his lunch further west. And if BRW had remained on the sixth floor, he most likely wouldn’t have known LHO was there until the shooting began. Then, after the shooting, LHO could have used the remaining bullet in the rifle to shoot BRW if he tried to stop his escape.
So we have established that the accumulated evidence means nothing and your opinion is based on "belief" of an unsupported narrative. Missing fingerprints that you don’t know of is part of your rebuttal. Not much else but acceptance of a proven liar by his own statements.
Williams was eating in the SN until about 12.25pm. There is ample evidence evidence in the assembled documentation that establishes that. You simply need to adjust your Oswald alone theory to accomodate for it. Or just continue to ignore the obvious inconvenient conclusions. I think we both know the route you will choose.
-
So we have established that the accumulated evidence means nothing and your opinion is based on "belief" of an unsupported narrative. Missing fingerprints that you don’t know of is part of your rebuttal. Not much else but acceptance of a proven liar by his own statements.
Williams was eating in the SN until about 12.25pm. There is ample evidence evidence in the assembled documentation that establishes that. You simply need to adjust your Oswald alone theory to accomodate for it. Or just continue to ignore the obvious inconvenient conclusions. I think we both know the route you will choose.
The evidence supports my belief.
-
The evidence supports my belief.
Well you will have no trouble laying it out then. You can copy and past if you wish. I'm ready......let’s have a discussion.
I gather you now accept that at least a piece of chicken was close to the SN.
-
On the same note, you believe in Oswald's gun sack in the SN corner?
I think his logic flaw has been noted Otto. :)
-
Well you will have no trouble laying it out then. You can copy and past if you wish. I'm ready......let’s have a discussion.
I gather you now accept that at least a piece of chicken was close to the SN.
I said:
I can believe that one lonely chicken bone could have been on top of one of the outer boxes of the west end of the sniper’s nest. But nothing supports your claim that BRW was IN the sniper’s nest until 12:25.
I didn’t say that it definitely was.
Just that I can believe that it could have been.
Howard Brennan said that he saw a man who resembled LHO in the sniper’s nest window at 12:22.
Edited to correct time.
-
On the same note, you believe in Oswald's gun sack in the SN corner?
My point is that the disbelievers require a photo of the gun sack in the corner before even considering that it was there. Why do they now believe in chicken bones and lunch sack in the sniper’s nest without a photo that shows that?
The gun sack was apparently photographed, from across the floor a little after two o’clock iirc, laying on top of the boxes at the rear of the sniper’s nest. It took over 56-years for anyone to notice it. Maybe the same will happen with the chicken lunch. Or maybe not...
-
My point is that the disbelievers require a photo of the gun sack in the corner before even considering that it was there. Why do they now believe in chicken bones and lunch sack in the sniper’s nest without a photo that shows that?
The gun sack was apparently photographed, from across the floor a little after two o’clock iirc, laying on top of the boxes at the rear of the sniper’s nest. It took over 56-years for anyone to notice it. Maybe the same will happen with the chicken lunch. Or maybe not...
I have no doubt the sack was on the 6th floor after 2pm. Hard to photograph things before the arrival of the camera. Strange how all those officers who were present before the arrival of the camera all recalled the lunch remnants associated with the SN but none described the long sack in the corner. Unfortunately no official evidentiary photo of it exists in its supposed position. There is even an official photo of the bag (chicken inside now) in its final resting place.
-
Howard Brennan said that he saw a man who resembled LHO in the sniper’s nest window at 11:22.
Why was this Brennan person gazing at TSBD windows over an hour before the motorcade arrived?
-
Why was this Brennan person gazing at TSBD windows over an hour before the motorcade arrived?
My mistake, I meant to say 12:22. I will correct the original post. Thanks.
-
My mistake, I meant to say 12:22. I will correct the original post. Thanks.
What makes you think Brennan saw him at 12.22pm?
-
What makes you think Brennan saw him at 12.22pm?
Page 7 of "Eyewitness to History - The Kennedy Assassination: As Seen By Howard Brennan":
...As I worked my gaze upward, I was struck by the fact that one floor, the one next to the top, seemed to be completely empty. I didn't think much about it as I reasoned everyone would want to get on as low a floor as possible for the best view. Then looking at the corner of the building, I noticed one man in the window. What drew my attention to him with all of the other people in the area, I don't know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22. ...
-
Fair enough.
So, evidence, or "evidence", incidentally caught on camera from across the floor yet no actual crime scene photo as found, or when moved, tells you what?
It tells me that the gun sack was moved before it was photographed. And that someone made a mistake (moving the sack before it was photographed) that they didn't want to admit.
What does it tell you?
-
It tells me that the gun sack was moved before it was photographed. And that someone made a mistake (moving the sack before it was photographed) that they didn't want to admit.
What does it tell you?
How do you know that's the gun sack? - it looks like box flaps and paper
-
How do you know that's the gun sack? - it looks like box flaps and paper
It appears to be the gun sack. That’s what I said. I didn’t say that I knew for certain.
-
For more information about the voice stress analysis, “Malcontent - Lee Harvey Oswald’s confession by Conduct” by Sean R. DeGrilla (section 2) is a good read.
Yes, let’s take a look at DeGrilla’s section on O’Toole’s PSE analysis of Oswald’s declarations of innocence (Part II:1 in DeGrilla’s book). DeGrilla pretends that PSE experts Mike Kradz and Lloyd (“Rusty”) Hitchcock did not confirm what O’Toole said about their PSE analyses, and that they gave “less than ringing endorsements” when asked about O’Toole’s PSE research. If you actually read DeGrilla’s quotes from Kradz and Hitchcock, you see that he is rather clumsily misrepresenting what they said, even though he quotes them.
With Kradz’s statement, DeGrilla underlines the part where, clearly for rhetorical effect, Kradz describes O’Toole’s research as “a strange, different, and bizarre system of explanations and interpretations.” Perhaps DeGrilla hoped that by underlining these words, the reader would not notice that Kradz then goes on to say that O’Toole’s system of explanations and interpretations is “creditable” and “has not been denied nor refuted.” So even though Kradz said that O’Toole’s research was creditable and had not been denied or refuted, DeGrilla pretends that Kradz denigrated O’Toole’s research.
Furthermore, we should remember that when O’Toole asked Kradz to analyze the Oswald PSE charts, he did not tell him that the charts were of Oswald’s statements. He simply told Kradz that the charts were of statements made by someone who had been accused of murder, so Kradz had no idea that he was looking at charts of statements made by Oswald. I mention this because DeGrilla does not.
Also, when Kradz learned that the PSE charts were of Oswald, he suspected the O’Toole had misused his PSE equipment, so he checked all the settings that O’Toole had used.
DeGrilla’s attempt to minimize Hitchcock’s endorsement of O’Toole’s PSE research on Oswald’s declarations of innocence is perhaps even more misleading and sophomoric than his treatment of Kradz’s statement. DeGrilla quotes an FBI memo that opined that Hitchcock’s letter to O’Toole was “far from an unqualified endorsement.” Really? Hitchcock said that unless Oswald was so crazy that he was unaware of his own actions, he, Hitchcock, could state “beyond reasonable doubt” that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else. Let’s read what the memo itself quotes Hitchcock as saying:
“Assuming that he (Oswald) was not suffering from a psycho-pathological condition that made him ignorant of his own actions, I can state, beyond reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else.”
And this is not all that Hitchcock said. DeGrilla conveniently fails to inform his readers that Hitchcock also said in his letter that his own PSE analysis of the recordings of Oswald’s innocence declarations “clearly” indicated that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he made them. I quote from Hitchcock’s letter:
“My PSE analysis of these recordings indicates very clearly that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he denied killing the president.”
Humm, I wonder why DeGrilla did not see fit to quote that part of Hitchcock’s letter.
I would encourage everyone to read O’Toole’s article on his PSE analysis of Oswald’s innocence declarations. O’Toole’s article contains a lot more information than what I’ve presented so far, such as information on O’Toole’s methodology and how he used the PSE equipment. Here’s the link to the article again:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/O%27Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdf
-
Why does the chicken bones and soda bottle really matter?
-
How do you know that's the gun sack? - it looks like box flaps and paper
Goth,
"Box flaps" is kinda understandable.
But why would "paper" be up there?
New location for the wrapping department?
Did the Vandals put it there?
-- MWT ;)
-
Yes, let’s take a look at DeGrilla’s section on O’Toole’s PSE analysis of Oswald’s declarations of innocence (Part II:1 in DeGrilla’s book). DeGrilla pretends that PSE experts Mike Kradz and Lloyd (“Rusty”) Hitchcock did not confirm what O’Toole said about their PSE analyses, and that they gave “less than ringing endorsements” when asked about O’Toole’s PSE research. If you actually read DeGrilla’s quotes from Kradz and Hitchcock, you see that he is rather clumsily misrepresenting what they said, even though he quotes them.
With Kradz’s statement, DeGrilla underlines the part where, clearly for rhetorical effect, Kradz describes O’Toole’s research as “a strange, different, and bizarre system of explanations and interpretations.” Perhaps DeGrilla hoped that by underlining these words, the reader would not notice that Kradz then goes on to say that O’Toole’s system of explanations and interpretations is “creditable” and “has not been denied nor refuted.” So even though Kradz said that O’Toole’s research was creditable and had not been denied or refuted, DeGrilla pretends that Kradz denigrated O’Toole’s research.
Furthermore, we should remember that when O’Toole asked Kradz to analyze the Oswald PSE charts, he did not tell him that the charts were of Oswald’s statements. He simply told Kradz that the charts were of statements made by someone who had been accused of murder, so Kradz had no idea that he was looking at charts of statements made by Oswald. I mention this because DeGrilla does not.
Also, when Kradz learned that the PSE charts were of Oswald, he suspected the O’Toole had misused his PSE equipment, so he checked all the settings that O’Toole had used.
DeGrilla’s attempt to minimize Hitchcock’s endorsement of O’Toole’s PSE research on Oswald’s declarations of innocence is perhaps even more misleading and sophomoric than his treatment of Kradz’s statement. DeGrilla quotes an FBI memo that opined that Hitchcock’s letter to O’Toole was “far from an unqualified endorsement.” Really? Hitchcock said that unless Oswald was so crazy that he was unaware of his own actions, he, Hitchcock, could state “beyond reasonable doubt” that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else. Let’s read what the memo itself quotes Hitchcock as saying:
“Assuming that he (Oswald) was not suffering from a psycho-pathological condition that made him ignorant of his own actions, I can state, beyond reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else.”
And this is not all that Hitchcock said. DeGrilla conveniently fails to inform his readers that Hitchcock also said in his letter that his own PSE analysis of the recordings of Oswald’s innocence declarations “clearly” indicated that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he made them. I quote from Hitchcock’s letter:
“My PSE analysis of these recordings indicates very clearly that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he denied killing the president.”
Humm, I wonder why DeGrilla did not see fit to quote that part of Hitchcock’s letter.
I would encourage everyone to read O’Toole’s article on his PSE analysis of Oswald’s innocence declarations. O’Toole’s article contains a lot more information than what I’ve presented so far, such as information on O’Toole’s methodology and how he used the PSE equipment. Here’s the link to the article again:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/O%27Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdf
Thanks for the information. I would invite you to read “Investigative Proof of the Reliability and Value of the Psychological Stress Evaluator in Science Medicine and Law” by Michael P. Kradz B.S., M.S. and Dr. John C. Barton. ISBN: 0-941864-01-4, ABBE Publishers Association of Washington DC
It explains much about the importance of proper procedures, etc.. And after reading it I have decided that DeGrilla’s methodology makes more sense to me than the earlier O’toole methods. But I don’t believe that either one of them could prove to me “beyond a reasonable doubt” one way or the other.
-
Why does the chicken bones and soda bottle really matter?
It appears that Colin believes that they were found at the sniper’s nest. And that that somehow helps to prove that BRW was IN the sniper’s nest until 12:25.
-
Page 7 of "Eyewitness to History - The Kennedy Assassination: As Seen By Howard Brennan":
...As I worked my gaze upward, I was struck by the fact that one floor, the one next to the top, seemed to be completely empty. I didn't think much about it as I reasoned everyone would want to get on as low a floor as possible for the best view. Then looking at the corner of the building, I noticed one man in the window. What drew my attention to him with all of the other people in the area, I don't know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22. ...
Brennan take up position on the wall about 12.24pm
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, where were you on the early part of the afternoon of November 22, 1963, say around noon or so?
Mr. BRENNAN. I left a position behind the Book Store, which is a leased part of Katy Yards, which we have fabrication for pipe for the Republic Bank Building. At 12 o'clock I went to the cafeteria on the corner of Main and Record. I believe that is it.
Mr. BELIN. That would be at Main and Record Streets in Dallas?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And did you have your lunch there?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. What route did you take to get to Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I went west on Main.
Mr. BELIN. You went west on Main from Record Street to--
Mr. BRENNAN. Houston.
Mr. BELIN. Houston
Mr. BRENNAN. And on the east side of Houston, I walked to Elm.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Crossed the street to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate about how long it took you to get there?
Mr. BRENNAN. A possibility I would say more or less 4 minutes.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do when you got to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I stayed around a couple of minutes. There was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east--south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers, and I believe an ambulance picked him up.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, perhaps on Exhibit No. 478 you can trace your route at least along Houston Street to the time to the place where you were sitting. You recognize the intersection of Main and Houston there?
Brennan testified that he left the cafeteria about 12.18. Walked for 4 minutes to the corner of Main and Houston (12.22). He walked north on Houston and watched them pick up the man and then took up position after a couple of minutes (12.24). The ambulance called they were em route to Parkland just after 12.25, 5 minutes before the shots.
Now for the clincher......note no mention of a watch showing 12.22 when testifying under oath.
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
-
I wonder if Mr. Crow has seen this clip from Tom Alyea showing a bottle on the window sill close to the west most window at the 0:12 mark? Did the bottle travel east to mate with the chicken sack during the search?
From memory that scene is actually the 5th floor.....could be wrong.
-
It tells me that the gun sack was moved before it was photographed. And that someone made a mistake (moving the sack before it was photographed) that they didn't want to admit.
What does it tell you?
I have provided statements from numerous officers who attended the scene prior to the arrival of Fritz. They all described either chicken, a lunch sack or both when asked about the sniper's nest. It was later described by Studebaker as a sack containing chicken about 20 feet westward near a trolley. I can only conclude from the statements provided that given the timing of their arrival that at some point before Studebaker processed it that the chicken pieces(s) were placed in the sack and it was relocated to the trolley. How is that different to your migration explanation of the gun sack? Except none of those officers placed the sack in the SE corner.
-
Goth,
"Box flaps" is kinda understandable.
But why would "paper" be up there?
New location for the wrapping department?
Did the Vandals put it there?
-- MWT ;)
Was there to put the wooden weather strip in from the window sill. To protect the strip for further analysis. It left inside the bag about 2pm. They initially removed the right side strip as they thought the assassin had fired towards Houston.
-
Brennan take up position on the wall about 12.24pm
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, where were you on the early part of the afternoon of November 22, 1963, say around noon or so?
Mr. BRENNAN. I left a position behind the Book Store, which is a leased part of Katy Yards, which we have fabrication for pipe for the Republic Bank Building. At 12 o'clock I went to the cafeteria on the corner of Main and Record. I believe that is it.
Mr. BELIN. That would be at Main and Record Streets in Dallas?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And did you have your lunch there?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. What route did you take to get to Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I went west on Main.
Mr. BELIN. You went west on Main from Record Street to--
Mr. BRENNAN. Houston.
Mr. BELIN. Houston
Mr. BRENNAN. And on the east side of Houston, I walked to Elm.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Crossed the street to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate about how long it took you to get there?
Mr. BRENNAN. A possibility I would say more or less 4 minutes.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do when you got to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I stayed around a couple of minutes. There was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east--south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers, and I believe an ambulance picked him up.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, perhaps on Exhibit No. 478 you can trace your route at least along Houston Street to the time to the place where you were sitting. You recognize the intersection of Main and Houston there?
Brennan testified that he left the cafeteria about 12.18. Walked for 4 minutes to the corner of Main and Houston (12.22). He walked north on Houston and watched them pick up the man and then took up position after a couple of minutes (12.24). The ambulance called they were em route to Parkland just after 12.25, 5 minutes before the shots.
Now for the clincher......note no mention of a watch showing 12.22 when testifying under oath.
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Brennan testified that he left the cafeteria about 12.18. Walked for 4 minutes to the corner of Main and Houston (12.22). He walked north on Houston and watched them pick up the man and then took up position after a couple of minutes (12.24).
Actually he testified that it took about 4-minutes to get to Houston and Elm. Read it again.
-
I have provided statements from numerous officers who attended the scene prior to the arrival of Fritz. They all described either chicken, a lunch sack or both when asked about the sniper's nest. It was later described by Studebaker as a sack containing chicken about 20 feet westward near a trolley. I can only conclude from the statements provided that given the timing of their arrival that at some point before Studebaker processed it that the chicken pieces(s) were placed in the sack and it was relocated to the trolley. How is that different to your migration explanation of the gun sack? Except none of those officers placed the sack in the SE corner.
Day drew a diagram of where the gun sack was when he first saw it in the corner. Can you point to anything that pinpoints where these numerous officers supposedly saw the chicken bones and lunch sack?
-
Brennan testified that he left the cafeteria about 12.18. Walked for 4 minutes to the corner of Main and Houston (12.22). He walked north on Houston and watched them pick up the man and then took up position after a couple of minutes (12.24).
Actually he testified that it took about 4-minutes to get to Houston and Elm. Read it again.
So, 12.18 plus 4 minutes to get to Elm and Houston is 12.22. Then waited a couple of minutes to watch the man with seizure attended by ambulance for couple of minutes. That’s 12.24.
As he testified, 12.22 or 12.24. No mention of a watch under oath. Agree?
-
Day drew a diagram of where the gun sack was when he first saw it in the corner. Can you point to anything that pinpoints where these numerous officers supposedly saw the chicken bones and lunch sack?
Day never saw the sack in the SN.
-
So, 12.18 plus 4 minutes to get to Elm and Houston is 12.22. Then waited a couple of minutes to watch the man with seizure attended by ambulance for couple of minutes. That’s 12.24.
As he testified, 12.22 or 12.24. No mention of a watch under oath. Agree?
In the book he makes it clear that he passed by the man having an apparent seizure while he was on his way to the corner of Houston and Elm. Combine that with the testimony that it took him about 4-minutes to get from the restaurant to Houston and Elm. Plus the mention (in the book) of looking at his watch when he saw the man in the sniper’s nest window. And it appears that he watched the seizure event during the 4-minutes it took him to get there. It could be argued that he knew that it took him about 4-minutes to get there because he remembered the time on the clock when he left the restaurant and subtracted that from the time on his watch when he saw the man in the sniper’s nest window.
-
In the book he makes it clear that he passed by the man having an apparent seizure while he was on his way to the corner of Houston and Elm. Combine that with the testimony that it took him about 4-minutes to get from the restaurant to Houston and Elm. Plus the mention (in the book) of looking at his watch when he saw the man in the sniper’s nest window. And it appears that he watched the seizure event during the 4-minutes it took him to get there. It could be argued that he knew that it took him about 4-minutes to get there because he remembered the time on the clock when he left the restaurant and subtracted that from the time on his watch when he saw the man in the sniper’s nest window.
From "Eyewitness to History"
"What drew my attention to him with all of the other people in the area, I don't know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22. ..."
Under oath to WC
12.22 to 12.24.
I’m calling BS on the looking at watch "memory".
-
From "Eyewitness to History"
"What drew my attention to him with all of the other people in the area, I don't know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22. ..."
Under oath to WC
12.22 to 12.24.
I’m calling BS on the looking at watch "memory".
So I guess that this ends the discussion that you requested. It doesn’t go the way you expected so you throw up your hands and pout and quit. Fine with me.
-
So I guess that this ends the discussion that you requested. It doesn’t go the way you expected so you throw up your hands and pout and quit. Fine with me.
It went exactly as I expected. When I asked for evidence of the 12.22 time call by Brennan you supplied a "memory" that didn’t happen instead of analysis his testimony under oath. It went exactly they way I predicted.
Now let’s move to when you think Williams vacated the 6th floor prior to the shooting. If you are game.
-
From "Eyewitness to History"
"What drew my attention to him with all of the other people in the area, I don't know. I looked at my watch and it was about 12:22. ..."
Under oath to WC
12.22 to 12.24.
I’m calling BS on the looking at watch "memory".
Dear Colin,
Because it doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory?
He thought the man up there in the corner window by himself on an otherwise vacant floor was unusual, and might have wanted to know what time it was, anyway.
So he looked at his watch.
Big deal.
"Get over it."
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Colin,
Because it doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory?
He thought it was unusual and might have wanted to know what time it was, anyway.
He looked at his watch.
Big deal.
Get over it.
-- MWT ;)
It doesn’t agree with his own testimony under oath. He made up the watch comment for a book. Those are the facts. When you have something worthwhile to the discussion at hand please feel free to contribute.
PS how does it fit or not fit with my conspiracy theory?
I await in nervous anticipation for your answer.
-
It doesn’t agree with his own testimony under oath. He made up the watch comment for a book. Those are the facts. When you have something worthwhile to the discussion at hand please feel free to contribute.
PS how does it fit or not fit with my conspiracy theory?
I await in nervous anticipation for your answer.
Dear Colin,
Do you think Oswald did it all by him widdle self?
Anxiously awaiting your considered response,
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Colin,
Do you think Oswald did it all by him widdle self?
Anxiously awaiting your considered response,
-- MWT ;)
I don’t actually have a "conspiracy theory" as such. I simply try to analyse the assembled evidence in order to work out a plausible narrative of events and see where that leads.
-
I don’t actually have a "conspiracy theory" as such. I simply try to analyse the assembled evidence in order to work out a plausible narrative of events and see where that leads.
I see.
Anything but Oswald, all by himself?
-- MWT ;)
-
I see.
Anything but Oswald, all by himself?
-- MWT ;)
Why would I discount that possibility out of hand? I normally apply that possibility to the analysis. Then again is not the underlying assumption either.
-
It went exactly as I expected. When I asked for evidence of the 12.22 time call by Brennan you supplied a "memory" that didn’t happen instead of analysis his testimony under oath. It went exactly they way I predicted.
Now let’s move to when you think Williams vacated the 6th floor prior to the shooting. If you are game.
Game or no?
Or have you thrown your hands up, pouted and quit?
-
Game or no?
Or have you thrown your hands up, pouted and quit?
No game for me. You can find someone else to “discuss” this matter with. If you want to just decide what you think is fiction without a legitimate reason and completely ignore it, the discussion isn’t a discussion anymore. I have read numerous books and articles by witnesses, and all of them included details that didn’t come out in testimony. That is part of the reason that they write them and we purchase them. And I have already addressed why it doesn’t matter to me when BRW left the sixth floor.
-
So we have established that the accumulated evidence means nothing and your opinion is based on "belief" of an unsupported narrative. Missing fingerprints that you don’t know of is part of your rebuttal. Not much else but acceptance of a proven liar by his own statements.
Williams was eating in the SN until about 12.25pm. There is ample evidence evidence in the assembled documentation that establishes that. You simply need to adjust your Oswald alone theory to accomodate for it. Or just continue to ignore the obvious inconvenient conclusions. I think we both know the route you will choose.
Disappointingly predictable wasn’t it.
-
Disappointingly predictable wasn’t it.
What we have is the obvious contradiction of calling the sworn testimony of BRW a lie out of one side of your mouth and then the recollection of Howard Brennan a fabrication because it wasn’t in his testimony. And the just as obvious conclusion that you actually rejected both of them because they don’t fit your imagined scenario.
It’s easy to just make stuff up and believe it if you are only having a conversation with yourself. Isn’t it?
-
What we have is the obvious contradiction of calling the sworn testimony of BRW a lie out of one side of your mouth and then the recollection of Howard Brennan a fabrication because it wasn’t in his testimony. And the just as obvious conclusion that you actually rejected both of them because they don’t fit your imagined scenario.
It’s easy to just make stuff up and believe it if you are only having a conversation with yourself. Isn’t it?
What we have is your use of a single uncorroborated "memory" long after the fact to support your "belief" of Brennan. No big deal, he was likely out by a minute or so. Why did you prefer his book anecdote over his WC testimony? Williams lies started way before his testimony to the WC and are documented for all to see if you take the time to analyse them. Was your scenario imagined or spoon fed?
-
What we have is your use of a single uncorroborated "memory" long after the fact to support your "belief" of Brennan. No big deal, he was likely out by a minute or so. Why did you prefer his book anecdote over his WC testimony? Williams lies started way before his testimony to the WC and are documented for all to see if you take the time to analyse them. Was your scenario imagined or spoon fed?
Brennan was focused on answering questions during his testimony. He wasn't asked about whether or not he looked at his watch. In his book he included more detail. It is that simple. Here is his relevant testimony:
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
He has described a window of time. The details he includes in his book says he looked at his watch and it was about 12:22. The time of 12:22 is within the time frame he testified to. That is corroboration. Where else is corroboration supposed to come from in your mind for this detail? Was someone supposed to be watching Brennan closely enough to know when he looked at his watch, then make a note of it and later testify that he saw Brennan look at his watch at the correct time? You are so full of it that it is sad....
-
Brennan was focused on answering questions during his testimony. He wasn't asked about whether or not he looked at his watch. In his book he included more detail. It is that simple. Here is his relevant testimony:
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
He has described a window of time. The details he includes in his book says he looked at his watch and it was about 12:22. The time of 12:22 is within the time frame he testified to. That is corroboration. Where else is corroboration supposed to come from in your mind for this detail? Was someone supposed to be watching Brennan closely enough to know when he looked at his watch, then make a note of it and later testify that he saw Brennan look at his watch at the correct time? You are so full of it that it is sad....
A statement by Brennan can never be corroboration for a statement by Brennan! It's just the same guy saying the same thing (or nearly the same thing) twice.
-
Brennan was focused on answering questions during his testimony. He wasn't asked about whether or not he looked at his watch. In his book he included more detail. It is that simple. Here is his relevant testimony:
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
He has described a window of time. The details he includes in his book says he looked at his watch and it was about 12:22. The time of 12:22 is within the time frame he testified to. That is corroboration. Where else is corroboration supposed to come from in your mind for this detail? Was someone supposed to be watching Brennan closely enough to know when he looked at his watch, then make a note of it and later testify that he saw Brennan look at his watch at the correct time? You are so full of it that it is sad....
You might recall I mentioned the guy having the epileptic fit and the ambulance attending. I went to the trouble to find the calls to them in the police transcripts. The ambulance received the call just before 12.19 and departed about 12.25. That’s the sort of thing that can be used for corroboration. Your comments about me simply reflect on yourself. Your choice to look like a fool. I don’t believe you even know what corroboration is.
-
You might recall I mentioned the guy having the epileptic fit and the ambulance attending. I went to the trouble to find the calls to them in the police transcripts. The ambulance received the call just before 12.19 and departed about 12.25. That’s the sort of thing that can be used for corroboration. Your comments about me simply reflect on yourself. Your choice to look like a fool. I don’t believe you even know what corroboration is.
You are the one that posted Brennan’s testimony and appeared to be trying to make out like the only way that you would would accept anything from him is if it was sworn testimony. I suppose I assumed that to be the case. The problem with using the time of the ambulance for the purpose of corroboration of when Brennan got there is your apparent assumptions that the ambulance was gone before Brennan got to his spot at the intersection.
-
You are the one that posted Brennan’s testimony and appeared to be trying to make out like the only way that you would would accept anything from him is if it was sworn testimony. I suppose I assumed that to be the case. The problem with using the time of the ambulance for the purpose of corroboration of when Brennan got there is your apparent assumptions that the ambulance was gone before Brennan got to his spot at the intersection.
If there is an ambulance picking up somebody right in front of your eyes, what do you do? Do you look at it or not?
Brennan could not have missed the ambulance, yet you would have us believe he disregarded it completely and looked at some windows of a building instead.
And that makes sense to you? How?
-
Brennan take up position on the wall about 12.24pm
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, where were you on the early part of the afternoon of November 22, 1963, say around noon or so?
Mr. BRENNAN. I left a position behind the Book Store, which is a leased part of Katy Yards, which we have fabrication for pipe for the Republic Bank Building. At 12 o'clock I went to the cafeteria on the corner of Main and Record. I believe that is it.
Mr. BELIN. That would be at Main and Record Streets in Dallas?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And did you have your lunch there?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. What route did you take to get to Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I went west on Main.
Mr. BELIN. You went west on Main from Record Street to--
Mr. BRENNAN. Houston.
Mr. BELIN. Houston
Mr. BRENNAN. And on the east side of Houston, I walked to Elm.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Crossed the street to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate about how long it took you to get there?
Mr. BRENNAN. A possibility I would say more or less 4 minutes.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do when you got to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I stayed around a couple of minutes. There was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east--south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers, and I believe an ambulance picked him up.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, perhaps on Exhibit No. 478 you can trace your route at least along Houston Street to the time to the place where you were sitting. You recognize the intersection of Main and Houston there?
Brennan testified that he left the cafeteria about 12.18. Walked for 4 minutes to the corner of Houston And Elm (12.22). He walked north on Houston and watched them pick up the man and then took up position after a couple of minutes (12.24). The ambulance called they were em route to Parkland just after 12.25, 5 minutes before the shots.
Now for the clincher......note no mention of a watch showing 12.22 when testifying under oath.
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
My original post (note I corrected Main to Elm, that was error).
Brennan claimed to start ar 12.18 and took about 4 minutes to get to the southwest corner of Elm and Houston. (12.22).
Then....
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do when you got to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I stayed around a couple of minutes. There was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east--south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers, and I believe an ambulance picked him up.
Some more about the "couple of minutes" watching them picking up the man. this would take the time to 12.24.
BRENNAN. I believe I walked a little south there, just observing them picking the man up.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
You have marked a line on Exhibit No. 478 heading a little bit south on the west side of Houston street, commencing at the southwest corner of the intersection, which is where you say you walked to watch the man with the epileptic fit, is that it?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I didn't go up--he was almost center way of the block here. I didn't go up that far.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
And will you put the letter "H" there, if you would?
Mr. BRENNAN. Where I was standing watching the man?
Mr. BELIN. Where you were standing watching the man; yes.
Mr. BRENNAN. Right there.
Mr. BELIN. And then where did you go from there?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right there.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, you have taken a line which would be running along the south side of Elm Street there towards the point where you are sitting, and that is in the picture Exhibit 478. And that was the route that you took?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
The ambulance left about 12.25.
Accordingly, I believe that Brennan did not take up position on the wall until about 12.24.
-
Brennan was focused on answering questions during his testimony. He wasn't asked about whether or not he looked at his watch. In his book he included more detail. It is that simple. Here is his relevant testimony:
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
He has described a window of time. The details he includes in his book says he looked at his watch and it was about 12:22. The time of 12:22 is within the time frame he testified to. That is corroboration. Where else is corroboration supposed to come from in your mind for this detail? Was someone supposed to be watching Brennan closely enough to know when he looked at his watch, then make a note of it and later testify that he saw Brennan look at his watch at the correct time? You are so full of it that it is sad....
Charles, save yourself some time:
Brennan confirmed/corroborated/substantiated/verified/authenticated/validated the 12:22-12:24 time window.
You know these guys: If a witness doesn't use the exact same words in, say, an affidavit as opposed to a later, fuller statement or testimony; why then he must be lying.
-
My original post (note I corrected Main to Elm, that was error).
Brennan claimed to start ar 12.18 and took about 4 minutes to get to the southwest corner of Elm and Houston. (12.22).
Then....
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do when you got to the southwest corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. BRENNAN. I stayed around a couple of minutes. There was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east--south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers, and I believe an ambulance picked him up.
Some more about the "couple of minutes" watching them picking up the man. this would take the time to 12.24.
BRENNAN. I believe I walked a little south there, just observing them picking the man up.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
You have marked a line on Exhibit No. 478 heading a little bit south on the west side of Houston street, commencing at the southwest corner of the intersection, which is where you say you walked to watch the man with the epileptic fit, is that it?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I didn't go up--he was almost center way of the block here. I didn't go up that far.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
And will you put the letter "H" there, if you would?
Mr. BRENNAN. Where I was standing watching the man?
Mr. BELIN. Where you were standing watching the man; yes.
Mr. BRENNAN. Right there.
Mr. BELIN. And then where did you go from there?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right there.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, you have taken a line which would be running along the south side of Elm Street there towards the point where you are sitting, and that is in the picture Exhibit 478. And that was the route that you took?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
The ambulance left about 12.25.
Accordingly, I believe that Brennan did not take up position on the wall until about 12.24.
The seizure event took place about halfway between Main and Elm on the south side of Houston. Brennan said it took him about 4-minutes to get to the corner of Elm and Houston (not to the scene of the seizure). And nowhere does he say that he stayed at that scene until they picked up the man. Only a couple of minutes (a guess). Your assumptions have some obstacles to overcome before they become believable.
-
Charles, save yourself some time:
Brennan confirmed/corroborated/substantiated/verified/authenticated/validated the 12:22-12:24 time window.
You know these guys: If a witness doesn't use the exact same words in, say, an affidavit as opposed to a later, fuller statement or testimony; why then he must be lying.
Brennan said he was sitting on the wall directly opposite the TSBD, when video evidence shows he was sitting somewhere else.
Brennan said he couldn't identify the killer in a line up and then he suddenly could
Brennan claimed he saw Kennedy's head explode when video shows he wasn't even watching in the direction of the car a split second earlier....
But hey, you know these guys; if a witness says something they like, they don't care just how often he changes his story and lies....
-
Charles, save yourself some time:
Brennan confirmed/corroborated/substantiated/verified/authenticated/validated the 12:22-12:24 time window.
You know these guys: If a witness doesn't use the exact same words in, say, an affidavit as opposed to a later, fuller statement or testimony; why then he must be lying.
Yeah, I know. No one has ever changed anyone’s opinion around here. Except maybe on a minor point or two. Which I consider this to be. He asked for evidence of LHO being in the sniper’s nest during this time period. And has failed to show that it just couldn’t be true. By the way, I checked google maps app and found that the distance between the intersection of Main and Record Streets and the sport where Brennan sat is 476 feet and (you guessed it) is a two-minute walk. That gives Brennan (you guessed it) two minutes to stop along the way to view the seizure event and still make it to his spot in the 4-minutes that he testified to.
-
Yeah, I know. No one has ever changed anyone’s opinion around here. Except maybe on a minor point or two. Which I consider this to be. He asked for evidence of LHO being in the sniper’s nest during this time period. And has failed to show that it just couldn’t be true. By the way, I checked google maps app and found that the distance between the intersection of Main and Record Streets and the sport where Brennan sat is 476 feet and (you guessed it) is a two-minute walk. That gives Brennan (you guessed it) two minutes to stop along the way to view the seizure event and still make it to his spot in the 4-minutes that he testified to.
He asked for evidence of LHO being in the sniper’s nest during this time period.
There is no evidence at all to show that Oswald was in the sniper's nest between 12 en 12.25. Brennan never identified Oswald as the person he allegedly saw between 12.22 and 12.24. You can believe all you want that Oswald was there, but what you believe is not evidence.
The only thing we know about the 6th floor between 12 and 12.25 is that (1) Bonnie Ray Williams was there and saw nobody and (2) that Brennan said he saw somebody in the window, without being able to identify that person. Brennan's time estimate is just that... an estimate. Beyond that all you've got is speculation, assumption and belief and that ain't much!
-
MTG:
Third, a huge problem with the WC's account is that if Oswald was only one foot past the foyer door when Baker spotted him, as Baker belatedly claimed, then Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or two" before being spotted by Baker:
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then Truly could not have missed seeing him.
.....
Me:
Unless, of course, Oswald lingered inside the foyer-vestibule for a few seconds after entering it and was maybe even peeking back out through the window in the door ("Who's that I hear stomping up the stairs?") enabling Baker to catch a glimpse of him as he quickly turned away and started walking into the lunch room proper (with his bottle-of-Coke prop), especially if Baker swung super-wide in that direction as he turned towards the stairs that led up to the third floor.
Oswald could even have been peeking through the window while Truly was very briefly on the second floor's landing a few seconds earlier.
After all, it was later determined that it would only have taken Oswald about one minute to leave the sniper's nest, stash the carbine, and get to the second-floor lunchroon, arriving there very probably several seconds before Truly emerged from the stairwell onto the second floor's landing.
No such thing was ever determined. The WC had to severely rig its reenactment just to barely get Oswald there in time to be seen by Baker, and the reenactment ignored the problem of Oswald's not being seen or heard by anybody who was on or near those stairs at the time. Please read this article:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/bakerlho.htm
Additionally, we should keep in mind that the men watching the motorcade from fifth-floor windows beneath the sniper's nest said they heard no movement above them after the shots were fired, and they were separated from the nest only by thin plywood floor boarding that had cracks between the planks. One of them said he could hear a rifle bolt operating and shells hitting the floor above them during the shooting--yet, again, these men heard no movement above them after the shots were fired. This is exactly what we would expect from snipers who knew they had no need to hurriedly leave either the sniper's nest or the floor.
We should also remember that plaza witnesses described seeing two men who appeared to be fleeing from the Book Depository, but WC apologists have ignored their accounts because they don't fit the lone-gunman scenario.
-
Yeah, I know. No one has ever changed anyone’s opinion around here. Except maybe on a minor point or two. Which I consider this to be. He asked for evidence of LHO being in the sniper’s nest during this time period. And has failed to show that it just couldn’t be true.
Who asked for evidence of Oswald being in the SN during what time period?
And as for no one ever changing anyone's opinion......
"Quote from: John Mytton on 15 September 2018, 12:46:41
C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?
JohnM"
-
Who asked for evidence of Oswald being in the SN during what time period?
And as for no one ever changing anyone's opinion......
"Quote from: John Mytton on 15 September 2018, 12:46:41
C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?
JohnM"
Who asked for evidence of Oswald being in the SN during what time period?
You did. See posts 301 through 305 for the details.
-
Brennan said he was sitting on the wall directly opposite the TSBD, when video evidence shows he was sitting somewhere else.
Brennan said he couldn't identify the killer in a line up and then he suddenly could
Brennan claimed he saw Kennedy's head explode when video shows he wasn't even watching in the direction of the car a split second earlier....
But hey, you know these guys; if a witness says something they like, they don't care just how often he changes his story and lies....
The wall: Tell us where he was if not on the wall.
The lineup: Didn't, not couldn't.
Exploding head: It was his ghostwriter who claimed that Brennan said he saw the Kennedy's head explode. Brennan said no such thing in testimony.
-
Bonnie Ray Williams occupied the SN until about 12.25pm.
Here is my original claim.....you do understand that "about" might reasonably be a minute or so earlier. The point being that he was on the sixth floor much later than the official story claimed and the assembled evidence indicates that he was occupying the SN.
-
Who asked for evidence of Oswald being in the SN during what time period?
You did. See posts 301 through 305 for the details.
Don’t see anything mentioning Oswald by me in those posts.
-
Brennan was focused on answering questions during his testimony. He wasn't asked about whether or not he looked at his watch. In his book he included more detail. It is that simple. Here is his relevant testimony:
Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Fascinating analysis about Brennan's focus during the WC testimony....
And yet...
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Later he simply offers 12.22-12.24. No recollection of his watch at that point in 1964 under oath.
He offers this. He remembered a specific time leaving the cafe....go figure. He obviously lost focus later on and forgot about looking at his watch but remembered doing so for a book written years later.....of course. One published posthumously in 1987. Right on the money.
And you say I am full of it.....
-
The wall: Tell us where he was if not on the wall.
Probably... somewhere else?
-
The wall: Tell us where he was if not on the wall.
The lineup: Didn't, not couldn't.
Exploding head: It was his ghostwriter who claimed that Brennan said he saw the Kennedy's head explode. Brennan said no such thing in testimony.
The wall: Tell us where he was if not on the wall.
Oh, he was on the wall alright. Just not where he told the WC he was. He was on the wall with his back to Dealey Plaza and facing Houston street. To see the TSBD he had to move his head to the left and to see the limo on Elm he would have to turn around completely. Zapruder frame 168 shows you exactly where he was.
The lineup: Didn't, not couldn't.
Same difference. He failed to identify Oswald in the police line up. Only after seeing Oswald's picture in the paper and on the news did he change his mind.
Exploding head: It was his ghostwriter who claimed that Brennan said he saw the Kennedy's head explode. Brennan said no such thing in testimony.
Thanks for proving my point... Any excuse will do to allow you to keep believing what Brennan said. Ghostwriter my ass.... It's in Brennan's book and if it isn't true than Brennan should have had it removed.... if he was an honest man, that is...
By any legal standard, Brennan is not a credible witness, but he was the only witness they had to put Oswald in the window so they ran with it.
-
Charles, save yourself some time:
Brennan confirmed / corroborated / substantiated / verified / authenticated / validated the 12:22-12:24 time window.
You know these guys: If a witness doesn't use the exact same words in, say, an affidavit as opposed to a later, fuller statement or testimony; why then, he must be lying.
Yes!
It's clearly, clearly, clearly, clearly very, very OBVIOUS that that lyin' POS, Brennan, JUST LIKE AT LEAST FIVE-HUNDRED OTHER PEOPLES, wuz involved in the assassination and/or "the cover up"!!!!
WE LIVE IN A CIA AND FBI-CONTROLLED DEEP STATE, I TELLS YA!!!
-- MWT ???
PS And dat nice widdle Vladimir Putin is a twue humanitarian, Geraldine and O. Gwamquacka.
-
Yes!
It's clearly, clearly, clearly, clearly very, very OBVIOUS that that lyin' POS, Brennan, JUST LIKE AT LEAST FIVE-HUNDRED OTHER PEOPLES, wuz involved in the assassination and/or "the cover up"!!!!
WE LIVE IN A CIA AND FBI-CONTROLLED DEEP STATE, I TELLS YA!!!
-- MWT ???
PS And dat nice widdle Vladimir Putin is a twue humanitarian, Geraldine and O. Gwamquacka.
Wasn’t Brennan supposedly frightened by Reds also?
-
Who asked for evidence of Oswald being in the SN during what time period?
And as for no one ever changing anyone's opinion......
"Quote from: John Mytton on 15 September 2018, 12:46:41
C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?
JohnM"
And you really believe that Mytton actually changed his opinion based on that statement?
-
And you really believe that Mytton actually changed his opinion based on that statement?
I believe my analysis of Willams and Rowland led John to accept that Williams saw the assassin. Why don’t you ask him. I provided the quote.
The posts (and parts of posts) you don’t reply to and acknowledge say more about you than the those you choose to.
Here is another of John's posts at the time we were debating Williams and his actions.
"I reckon that Williams did in fact see Oswald in the sniper's nest because why would he go up to the 6th floor to sit with his mates and just plonk himself down in the middle of the floor without checking all the windows?
When Williams went down to the 5th floor he obviously went to the windows directly below the sniper's nest, so what stopped him doing the same on the floor above?
When confronted with the following wall of boxes, would Williams simply shout out to his friends and after not hearing an answer just move on or would he have a peek to see if his friends were there and perhaps just horsing around?
And from the following exchange from Williams testimony, after Ford heard Williams explain what happened on the 6th floor Ford immediately attempt to associate Williams with breaking the law, which could indicate that they thought that Williams was lying?
JohnM"
-
::)
The wall: Tell us where he was if not on the wall.
Oh, he was on the wall alright. Just not where he told the WC he was. He was on the wall with his back to Dealey Plaza and facing Houston street. To see the TSBD he had to move his head to the left and to see the limo on Elm he would have to turn around completely. Zapruder frame 168 shows you exactly where he was.
The lineup: Didn't, not couldn't.
Same difference. He failed to identify Oswald in the police line up. Only after seeing Oswald's picture in the paper and on the news did he change his mind.
Exploding head: It was his ghostwriter who claimed that Brennan said he saw the Kennedy's head explode. Brennan said no such thing in testimony.
Thanks for proving my point... Any excuse will do to allow you to keep believing what Brennan said. Ghostwriter my ass.... It's in Brennan's book and if it isn't true than Brennan should have had it removed.... if he was an honest man, that is...
By any legal standard, Brennan is not a credible witness, but he was the only witness they had to put Oswald in the window so they ran with it.
::)
-
::)
::)
I must say, by far one of the best counter-arguments you've come up with in all the time you've been on this forum. Well done Thumb1:
-
Fascinating analysis about Brennan's focus during the WC testimony....
And yet...
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Later he simply offers 12.22-12.24. No recollection of his watch at that point in 1964 under oath.
He offers this. He remembered a specific time leaving the cafe....go figure. He obviously lost focus later on and forgot about looking at his watch but remembered doing so for a book written years later.....of course. One published posthumously in 1987. Right on the money.
And you say I am full of it.....
The book was written in 1983. Howard Brennan read the book before he died in December of 1983. Here are some of Howard Brennan's own words in the introduction:
Early in 1983 my pastor, Edward Cherryholmes, convinced me that I should tell my complete story for future generation who will want to know the truth. Some things in this book will reveal new aspects never before known. I have wanted for a long time to tell publically how it really felt to be an integral part of an historic event. Thousands of times since that day I have asked myself, "Why me?" I still don't know for certain, but I have accepted the fact that I was chosen to be the witness because of certain qualities I possess, as you will learn in this book. Someone like me had to survive to say what really happened. Volumes have been written about the assassination, but this is the only eyewitness account of what actually transpired.
On the afternoon of 11/22/63 Howard Brennan went home to his wife Louise. Here is part of what he wrote about that:
Louise wanted to know everything that had happened in the minutest detail. I repeated the events of the day to her, recounting details that were larger than life.
The copy of "Witness to History" that I have was signed by Louise Brennan on 10-24-88. She writes: Dear Lanella & Dan, In loving memory of your friend & cousin (Howard Brennan) Lots of love your cousin Louise Brennan.
Louise was told by Howard Brennan, in minute detail, the events of 11/22/63. I don't believe that she would be signing her name to a book that she didn't believe told the truth.
If you think that its all bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. Its only because it doesn't fit your fantasy scenario.
-
I must say, one of your best counter-arguments you've come up with in all the time you've been on this forum. Well done Thumb1:
Easy enough to debunk CTers & JAQers (aka OAKers) around here
-
Easy enough to debunk CTers & JAQers (aka OAKers) around here
Now why did you go and spoil the moment with another display of ignorance?
-
Now why did you go and spoil the moment with another display of ignorance?
OAKer
-
The book was written in 1983. Howard Brennan read the book before he died in December of 1983. Here are some of Howard Brennan's own words in the introduction:
Early in 1983 my pastor, Edward Cherryholmes, convinced me that I should tell my complete story for future generation who will want to know the truth. Some things in this book will reveal new aspects never before known. I have wanted for a long time to tell publically how it really felt to be an integral part of an historic event. Thousands of times since that day I have asked myself, "Why me?" I still don't know for certain, but I have accepted the fact that I was chosen to be the witness because of certain qualities I possess, as you will learn in this book. Someone like me had to survive to say what really happened. Volumes have been written about the assassination, but this is the only eyewitness account of what actually transpired.
On the afternoon of 11/22/63 Howard Brennan went home to his wife Louise. Here is part of what he wrote about that:
Louise wanted to know everything that had happened in the minutest detail. I repeated the events of the day to her, recounting details that were larger than life.
The copy of "Witness to History" that I have was signed by Louise Brennan on 10-24-88. She writes: Dear Lanella & Dan, In loving memory of your friend & cousin (Howard Brennan) Lots of love your cousin Louise Brennan.
Louise was told by Howard Brennan, in minute detail, the events of 11/22/63. I don't believe that she would be signing her name to a book that she didn't believe told the truth.
If you think that its all bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. Its only because it doesn't fit your fantasy scenario.
How long did it take you to type all that?
Do you have nothing to rebut the testimony of Brennan himself other than some "loss of focus" in front of the Commission? He managed to remember looking at a clock at the time he left the cafe and yet forgets he looked at his watch and it said 12.22. When did that specific memory jump back into his consciousness before publication of the book? I don’t need it to fit my fantasy scenario because it simply doesn’t fit the assembled facts when analysed.
A simple question for you, it’s a yes/no.
Did Williams leave the 6th floor after Norman and Jarman arrived on the 5th floor? Are you game?
-
Yes!
It's clearly, clearly, clearly, clearly very, very OBVIOUS that that lyin' POS, Brennan, JUST LIKE AT LEAST FIVE-HUNDRED OTHER PEOPLES, wuz involved in the assassination and/or "the cover up"!!!!
WE LIVE IN A CIA AND FBI-CONTROLLED DEEP STATE, I TELLS YA!!!
-- MWT ???
PS And dat nice widdle Vladimir Putin is a twue humanitarian, Geraldine and O. Gwamquacka.
I didn't leave spaces between the list of alternate words for 'corroboration' You changed that.
DON'T FCK WITH MY BLUEBOX
-
OAKer
covfefe
-
covfefe
:'(
Trump uses that. He's wrong, too.
Little moth, stay away from me or get your wings burnt yet again
-
I didn't leave spaces between the list of alternate words for 'corroboration' You changed that.
DON'T FCK WITH MY BLUEBOX
:D
-
Little moth, stay away from me or get your wings burnt yet again
bla bla bla.....Struck a nerve?
You have difficulty grasping even the simplest concepts, haven't you?
Easy enough to debunk CTers & JAQers (aka OAKers) around here
It's so easy that you can't do it.... Go figure!
-
:D
Get off my lawn
;)
-
Get off my lawn
;)
A basement doesn't have a lawn
-
bla bla bla.....Struck a nerve?
> You're the one who claims I'm not worth posting to, yet here you are. Again: Moth to the flame.
It's so easy that you can't do it.... Go figure!
> Been there, done that, OAKer.
-
bla bla bla.....Struck a nerve?
> You're the one who claims I'm not worth posting to, yet here you are. Again: Moth to the flame.
For any kind of normal discussion, you are indeed a complete waste of time, but to pass some time away on lockdown day 102 you'll do fine
It's so easy that you can't do it.... Go figure!
> Been there, done that, OAKer.
Some things never change. Couldn't do it then, still can't do it now....
-
A basement doesn't have a lawn
Oswald wants you lot to get off his
And keep your knees to yourselves
-
Oswald wants you lot to get off his
And keep your knees to yourselves
When did he tell you that?
-
For any kind of normal discussion, you are indeed a complete waste of time, but to pass some time away on lockdown day 102 you'll do fine
Some things never change. Couldn't do it then, still can't do it now....
Lockdown day 102: You've been hiding in your basement rental for 102 straight days?
-
When did he tell you that?
Seems you missed his OAKer memo
-
Lockdown day 102: You've been hiding in your basement rental for 102 straight days?
When you reply, please do at least try to be somewhat original....
Btw... you can see the view from my "basement" in my avatar.
-
Seems you missed his OAKer memo
His memo? Are you under the misguided impression that Oswald is alive and able to send memos? Wow
-
His memo? Are you under the misguided impression that Oswald is alive and able to send memos? Wow
Sent from beyond the grave you lot kneel on.
Return address: HELL
-
Sent from beyond the grave you lot kneel on.
Return address: HELL
A graveyard has a postal service?
-
A graveyard has a postal service?
Beyond the grave, Bubba
Another fine example of CTer reading-comprehension difficulties
-
How long did it take you to type all that?
Do you have nothing to rebut the testimony of Brennan himself other than some "loss of focus" in front of the Commission? He managed to remember looking at a clock at the time he left the cafe and yet forgets he looked at his watch and it said 12.22. When did that specific memory jump back into his consciousness before publication of the book? I don’t need it to fit my fantasy scenario because it simply doesn’t fit the assembled facts when analysed.
A simple question for you, it’s a yes/no.
Did Williams leave the 6th floor after Norman and Jarman arrived on the 5th floor? Are you game?
I didn’t say anything about a loss of focus. I said that he was focused on answering the questions that he was asked. That is what is expected from people who are testifying before commissions and courts of law.
I have already spelled out some of the problems with your “assembled facts analysis.” Your dismissal of Brennan’s book shows just how closed minded and biased you are.
If you have a point to make, spell it out completely so we can respond properly. Otherwise, I am not interested in playing your game.
-
Beyond the grave, Bubba
Another fine example of CTer reading-comprehension difficulties
Let me get this straight; if you use the term "beyond the grave", you must believe there is life after death and that, somehow, Oswald is sending memos from that after life..... Is that what you are saying? Is that what you believe?
And since you say the return address is Hell, you must also believe Oswald is living there, right? But, hang on... if he is living there, how can he be sending memos? Wouldn't the paper burn before he had a possibility to write anything?
Fascinating... please keep on digging. This is getting interesting.... Wacky, but interesting nevertheless.
But ok... so, there is a postal service "Beyond the grave" (i.e. in Hell)?
-
Let me get this straight; if you use the term "beyond the grave", you must believe there is life after death and that, somehow, Oswald is sending memos from that after life..... Is that what you are saying? Is that what you believe?
And since you say the return address is Hell, you must also believe Oswald is living there, right? But, hang on... if he is living there, how can he be sending memos? Wouldn't the paper burn before he had a possibility to write anything?
Fascinating... please keep on digging. This is getting interesting.... Wacky, but interesting nevertheless.
But ok... so, there is a postal service "Beyond the grave" (i.e. in Hell)?
OMG
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2080.0.html#new
-
When you reply, please do at least try to be somewhat original....
Btw... you can see the view from my "basement" in my avatar.
When you reply, please do at least try to be somewhat original....
> You wouldn't be claiming authorship of the basement put down, now would you..
Btw... you can see the view from my "basement" in my avatar.
> Can you see the butt-end of CE399 in my avatar?
-
> Can you see the butt-end of CE399 in my avatar?
It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated
-
It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated
The butt-end was squished enough for CTers to avoid posting it. Ce399 was also twisted noticeably along one side and had a noticeable dent in the nose. Lets see your head damaged to that extent and you still call it unmutilated.
-
It was twisted noticeably along one side and had a noticeable dent in the nose
Lets see your head damaged to that extent and you still call it unmutilated
WCR page 557
-
WCR page 557
Slightly flattened:
Then the bullet almost lived up to its full potential: Stay as intact as possible while penetrating a body.
-
OMG
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2080.0.html#new
Not sure what the point is you're trying to make, but if you are calling me an atheist then you are right. Thumb1:
I don't like to be told that I have to believe something for which there is no conclusive evidence at all..... hence my dislike of the WCR
But that has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Oswald is sending memos from Hell. Now, how about that postal service?
When you reply, please do at least try to be somewhat original....
> You wouldn't be claiming authorship of the basement put down, now would you..
Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything. It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part
Btw... you can see the view from my "basement" in my avatar.
> Can you see the butt-end of CE399 in my avatar?
Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement".
-
The butt-end was squished enough for CTers to avoid posting it. Ce399 was also twisted noticeably along one side and had a noticeable dent in the nose. Lets see your head damaged to that extent and you still call it unmutilated.
Because Chapman doesn’t know squat about the case, he doesn’t realize that the “noticeable dent” was caused by samples being removed for testing.
-
Slightly flattened:
Then the bullet almost lived up to its full potential: Stay as intact as possible while penetrating a body.
:D Naturally if the WCR said so.
Don't look now, your fly's down.
-
Because Chapman doesn’t know squat about the case, he doesn’t realize that the “noticeable dent” was caused by samples being removed for testing.
Thumb1: He was ready to "give it to the ilk, you lot" on the word unmutilated.
-
I didn’t say anything about a loss of focus. I said that he was focused on answering the questions that he was asked. That is what is expected from people who are testifying before commissions and courts of law.
Here is a question and his answer....
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
The question relates to his travels after lunch. His response it to initially say what time it was. He remembered looking at a clock, tells them the time although this was not asked of him. Then he relates his journey.
The later after describing his final resting place on the wall Ford asks him about the time he took up position. We get the following.
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12?
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Brennan is required to inform of the time he took up position and he gives an approximation. No mention of a time based on looking at his watch. This was the prefect chance to relate that information. But you prefer to take an memory published 20 years after the event as your gospel guide to the time.
I have already spelled out some of the problems with your “assembled facts analysis.” Your dismissal of Brennan’s book shows just how closed minded and biased you are.
If you have a point to make, spell it out completely so we can respond properly. Otherwise, I am not interested in playing your game.
If you could simply point to your spelling I would appreciate the opportunity to address each of them individually. A simple dismissal seems rather glib. I did not dismiss Brennan's book, merely the 12.22 memory you quoted from it. Why do you feel the need to attribute exaggerated claims against those who disagree with you? As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.
You are clearly not willing or able to discuss the questions raised surrounding the events. Your fear of simply answering a simple yes no question puts you amongst the category of DVP and Bill Brown who were similarly reluctant to embark on a journey of discovery. However I believe they refused to engage because they knew the destination. I think you simply fear the unknown. At least I can give JohnM credit for accepting my analysis, we simply differed on who Bonnie Ray saw on the 6th floor.
-
Wasn't it two bodies and a wrist and a thigh?
FMJ ammo is designed to over-penetrate
Can you figure out why, or are you just going to run your mouth?
-
:D Naturally if the WCR said so.
Don't look now, your fly's down.
The WC said so? That's news to me.
Point out who in the WC knew anything about what FMJ ammo was designed to do.
Or that the Geneva/Copenhagen Conventions mandated that bullets must be jacketed.
Now see if you can figure out why they did that.
-
Because Chapman doesn’t know squat about the case, he doesn’t realize that the “noticeable dent” was caused by samples being removed for testing.
:'(
So the bullet was even closer to what it was designed to do.
Tell us what FMJ ammo was designed to do.
-
The WC said so? That's news to me.
Point out who in the WC knew anything about what FMJ ammo was designed to do.
Or that the Geneva/Copenhagen Conventions mandated that bullets must be jacketed.
Now see if you can figure out why they did that.
not likely on a half assed investigation.
good luck with that
-
It actually over performed.
If it was even fired the 22nd.
You have evidence it was?
:D don't expect much, perhaps some posey.
Or a cut & paste he didn't read.
-
Here is a question and his answer....
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
The question relates to his travels after lunch. His response it to initially say what time it was. He remembered looking at a clock, tells them the time although this was not asked of him. Then he relates his journey.
The later after describing his final resting place on the wall Ford asks him about the time he took up position. We get the following.
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12?
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Brennan is required to inform of the time he took up position and he gives an approximation. No mention of a time based on looking at his watch. This was the prefect chance to relate that information. But you prefer to take an memory published 20 years after the event as your gospel guide to the time.
If you could simply point to your spelling I would appreciate the opportunity to address each of them individually. A simple dismissal seems rather glib. I did not dismiss Brennan's book, merely the 12.22 memory you quoted from it. Why do you feel the need to attribute exaggerated claims against those who disagree with you? As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.
You are clearly not willing or able to discuss the questions raised surrounding the events. Your fear of simply answering a simple yes no question puts you amongst the category of DVP and Bill Brown who were similarly reluctant to embark on a journey of discovery. However I believe they refused to engage because they knew the destination. I think you simply fear the unknown. At least I can give JohnM credit for accepting my analysis, we simply differed on who Bonnie Ray saw on the 6th floor.
As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.
Fascinating analysis about Brennan's focus during the WC testimony....
And yet...
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Later he simply offers 12.22-12.24. No recollection of his watch at that point in 1964 under oath.
He offers this. He remembered a specific time leaving the cafe....go figure. He obviously lost focus later on and forgot about looking at his watch but remembered doing so for a book written years later.....of course. One published posthumously in 1987. Right on the money.
And you say I am full of it.....
It sure appears to me that you dismissed the book! You can claim anything you want back. But it ain’t gonna wash with me.
-
As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.
It sure appears to me that you dismissed the book! You can claim anything you want back. But it ain’t gonna wash with me.
I only dismissed the anecdote that was not reported at the time but appeared 20 years later. It was the only thing you posted from the book. If you want to post more I am happy to evaluate with evidence he delivered under oath and at a time closer to the event.
I cannot what appears to you, just as you are unable/incapable to assess the state of my mind and biases. Just as you thought the Brennan memory was corroboration. You are not willing to venture where the assembled evidence leads. I suspected DVP and Bill Brown knew the endpoint and failed to engage at the outset because they knew where it led. You took a step into the unknown and are now unsure where the path leads. Better to stay safe than answer simple a simple question just in case. You never know what the next one might be.
-
Doesn't take much to convince a nutter -- DOH + ROFL
Seems the detail his wife wanted at the time either 1) were not referred to a few months alter to refresh his memory during his testimony before the WC and he failed to recall looking at his watch at 12.22 or 2) was a created recollection of something that never occurred.
Am I being less than open minded and biased? After all I did take Brennan’s contemporaneous testimony, delivered under oath, and found that the ambulance call and his observations about his journey largely substantiated his estimation of taking position on the wall about 12.22-12.24.
-
Doesn't take much to convince a nutter -- DOH + ROFL
So, now you must think that Louise Brennan is in on the conspiracy and/or coverup? That figures!
-
Coverup, WTF are you talking about?
I don't believe that she would be signing her name to a book that she didn't believe told the truth.
As if Louise (or you) believing in a book has any evidentiary value -- DOH!
The WC report and accompanying volumes are also books. So you believe that they don’t have any evidentiary value?
-
The WC report and accompanying volumes are also books. So you believe that they don’t have any evidentiary value?
The WC report is an opinion (i.e. a prosecutorial circumstantial case) and as such hase no evidentiary value whatsoever. Anybody who believes an opinion can somehow be evidence needs his head examined.
Some of the material in the 26 volumes does have evidentiary value under the proviso that the actual evidence is sufficiently authenticated.
-
Fascinating analysis about Brennan's focus during the WC testimony....
And yet...
Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.
Later he simply offers 12.22-12.24. No recollection of his watch at that point in 1964 under oath.
He offers this. He remembered a specific time leaving the cafe....go figure. He obviously lost focus later on and forgot about looking at his watch but remembered doing so for a book written years later.....of course. One published posthumously in 1987. Right on the money.
The WC had one standard for witnesses who supported the lone-gunman scenario and a very different standard for those who did not. Compare their treatment of Brennan with their treatment of Arnold Rowland. WC apologists have followed the same standard. They look for any nit-picky reason to reject witnesses they don't like, but they exhibit no such attitude toward such problematic witnesses as Brennan and Markham.
-
So, now you must think that Louise Brennan is in on the conspiracy and/or coverup? That figures!
Did she mention in the book whether she read her husband's WC testimony? If she did. does she explain whether she chastised Howard for not mentioning the watch glance?
-
Ok, let's get a few facts straight about Howard Brennan:
Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial. Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.
In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.
Moreover, it was only after months of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan gave a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely.
There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window! Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that! Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision." "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.
If Brennan had not succumbed to the pressure to identify Oswald, the WC would have treated him much the same way it treated Arnold Rowland. I believe most of Brennan's account, just not his identification of Oswald and the bit about the gunman firing while standing. His statement that the gunman stayed in the window for a bit and did not rush off is consistent with the testimony of Bonnie Williams, who was a few feet below the sixth-floor window and who said he heard no movement in the window after the shots were fired.
-
not likely on a half assed investigation.
good luck with that
What's half-assed is your automatic dovetailing back to the WC instead of looking up the reason why FMJ ammo was designed to pass through-and-through (aka 'over-penetrate') a body.
-
Ok, let's get a few facts straight about Howard Brennan:
Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial. Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.
In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.
Moreover, it was only after months of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan gave a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely.
There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window! Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that! Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision." "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.
If Brennan had not succumbed to the pressure to identify Oswald, the WC would have treated him much the same way it treated Arnold Rowland. I believe most of Brennan's account, just not his identification of Oswald. His statement that the gunman stayed in the window for a bit and did not rush off is consistent with the testimony of Bonnie Williams, who was a few feet below the sixth-floor window and who said he heard no movement in the window after the shots were fired.
???
I thought you said you were going to get 'a few facts straight'..
-
???
I thought you said you were going to get 'the facts straight'..
I did. Every statement I made about his story is factual. He did not ID Oswald in the police lineup. At first he wasn't sure which window he saw. He said the shooter lingered in the window. He claimed he didn't ID Oswald at the police station because he feared for his life, yet he spoke with reports about the shooting and identified himself while speaking with them, on 11/22--odd behavior if he feared Oswald's accomplices might kill him.
We should remember that Brennan only agreed to ID Oswald as the shooter after prolonged "interviews" by federal agents. Most of his testimony is credible and agrees with that of several other witnesses. The only doubtful element in his testimony, other than his belated Oswald ID, is his statement that the gunman was standing.
-
I did. Every statement I made about his story is factual. He did not ID Oswald in the police lineup. At first he wasn't sure which window he saw. He said the shooter lingered in the window. He claimed he didn't ID Oswald at the police station because he feared for his life, yet he spoke with reports about the shooting and identified himself while speaking with them, on 11/22--odd behavior if he feared Oswald's accomplices might kill him.
We should remember that Brennan only agreed to ID Oswald as the shooter after prolonged "interviews" by federal agents. Most of his testimony is credible and agrees with that of several other witnesses. The only doubtful element in his testimony, other than his belated Oswald ID, is his statement that the gunman was standing.
Where did you get information that supposedly indicates that Howard Brennan spoke with reporters and identified himself on 11/22/63?
-
Ok, let's get a few facts straight about Howard Brennan:
Brennan's testimony would have been torn to shreds in a trial. Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not looking up until after frame 207, over two seconds after the first shot was fired (at around frames 145-160). Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.
In addition, Brennan failed to identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.
Moreover, it was only after months of "questioning" by federal agents that Brennan gave a positive identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. The HSCA found Brennan's testimony to be so full of contradiction and confusion that it ignored his story entirely.
There is another serious problem with Brennan's testimony that is often overlooked. Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window! Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that! Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision." "He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.
If Brennan had not succumbed to the pressure to identify Oswald, the WC would have treated him much the same way it treated Arnold Rowland. I believe most of Brennan's account, just not his identification of Oswald and the bit about the gunman firing while standing. His statement that the gunman stayed in the window for a bit and did not rush off is consistent with the testimony of Bonnie Williams, who was a few feet below the sixth-floor window and who said he heard no movement in the window after the shots were fired.
'Anyone who knows the case well knows the serious problem this poses for the already impossible task of getting Oswald down to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker'
>Testers proved you wrong
'Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots"
> Brennan also said Jarman and Williams appeared to be standing as well: Guess why..
(https://i.postimg.cc/kG0qfND6/jarman-williams-window-positions.jpg)
-
Not sure what the point is you're trying to make, but if you are calling me an atheist then you are right. Thumb1:
I don't like to be told that I have to believe something for which there is no conclusive evidence at all..... hence my dislike of the WCR
But that has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Oswald is sending memos from Hell. Now, how about that postal service?
Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything. It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part
Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement".
Not sure what the point is you're trying to make
> You started it. My OMG page offered up 'to each his own'
but if you are calling me an atheist then you are right.
> My OMG page includes two dogmatic belief systems
'I don't like to be told that I have to believe something for which there is no conclusive evidence at all..... hence my dislike of the WCR'
> :'(
But that has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Oswald is sending memos from Hell. Now, how about that postal service?
> ::)
'Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything'
> Translation, please
'It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part
> Do you think you're creative? Show us.
Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement"
> Translation, please
In the meantime:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGFF688c/arheist-headstone.jpg)
-
A possible scenario.
The first shot rings out startling the pigeons on the TSBD roof. This is spotted by Baker. By the second shot Baker is racing down Houston. By the third shot he is closing in on the TSBD. Seconds later he dismounts and runs to the main entrance where he hooks up with Truly. They enter the building, ahead is a set of double doors and beyond this a single door. Once they are through this door they are in a large open storage space. They race towards the Domino room where they will turn left around the stacked boxes to get to the elevators.
Point 1 - Once they are at the corner where the door leading into the Domino room is it is impossible for Adams and Styles to get past them unnoticed. Roughly 30 seconds has passed since the last shot.
On the fourth floor Adams, Styles, Garner and Dorman watch the motorcade go by. Shots ring out. The ladies watch as the Presidential limo heads for the Triple Overpass. A moment of stunned silence which is broken by Adams suddenly announcing she wants to go outside to see what is happening. Adams and Styles race out of the office door heading for the stairs in the north-west corner. Garner follows them at a more sedate pace, as she reaches the office door the younger women are already on the stairs.
Point 2 - By the time Adams reach the stairs Baker and Truly are already racing through the first floor storage space. They must cross paths but they don't. How can this be?
As far as I can see there is only one possible, logical explanation for this.
Baker and Truly abandon the elevators and race up the stairs. On the second floor Truly turns sharp left for the stairs leading up to the third floor. Baker is following close behind but spots movement through a door on the far wall. He immediately heads for this door, once through this there are double doors to his right and the door to the second floor lunchroom straight ahead. Baker enters the lunchroom to confront Oswald, Truly, realising Baker has gone AWOL, follows him into the lunchroom where he explains Oswald is a TSBD employee.
Point 3 - This is the only possible moment that Adams and Styles can get past Baker and Truly without being noticed. The men in the lunchroom, with two sets of doors between them and the stairs, are oblivious to the young women racing down the stairs who are equally oblivious to the presence of the men in the lunchroom.
Baker and Truly finish with Oswald and continue on their way up the stairs. Garner makes her way towards the stairs. The stairs are not enclosed, anyone coming up or going down must step onto a large open space. Moments after the girls disappear down the stairs Truly and Baker appear on their way up. At no point does Oswald appear on the fourth floor.
Oswald finishes his lunch in the Domino room and decides to get a Coke. He makes his way to the stairs in his usual slow ambling way, probably unaware of the shots ringing out on the sixth floor, up to the second floor and into the lunchroom. He is making his way to the Coke machine when the door bursts open behind him and he has his confrontation with Baker and Truly. Totally unfazed by this encounter he gets his coke and leaves the lunchroom, though the double doors then sharp left through the door into the second floor office space where he encounters a flustered Reid who says something to him to which he mumbles a reply. He walks through the office space, down the corridor and takes the stairs leading to the front entrance.
-
Not sure what the point is you're trying to make
> You started it. My OMG page offered up 'to each his own'
but if you are calling me an atheist then you are right.
> My OMG page includes two dogmatic belief systems
'I don't like to be told that I have to believe something for which there is no conclusive evidence at all..... hence my dislike of the WCR'
> :'(
But that has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Oswald is sending memos from Hell. Now, how about that postal service?
> ::)
'Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything'
> Translation, please
'It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part
> Do you think you're creative? Show us.
Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement"
> Translation, please
In the meantime:
'Telling you you're not imaginative enough isn't the same as claiming authorship of anything'
> Translation, please
It's a simple enough basic statement in English. I can't help it that you are not clever enough to understand.
'It is, however, a confirmation of a severe lack of creativity on your part
> Do you think you're creative? Show us.
Do you think I'm not?
Yes, but I don't see that every day I step outside on the terrace of my "basement"
> Translation, please
Really?
-
It's a simple enough basic statement in English. I can't help it that you are not clever enough to understand.
Do you think I'm not?
Really?
It's a simple enough basic statement in English. I can't help it that you are not clever enough to understand
> Tell us what my avatar has to so with you looking out a window
Do you think I'm not?
> Show us
-
It's a simple enough basic statement in English. I can't help it that you are not clever enough to understand
> Tell us what my avatar has to so with you looking out a window
Do you think I'm not?
> Show us
> Tell us what my avatar has to so with you looking out a window
I have no idea. You brought it up after I said that my avatar shows the view from my terrace....
Btw... you can see the view from my "basement" in my avatar.
> Can you see the butt-end of CE399 in my avatar?
Could it be that you don't even remember what you wrote?
-
Some videos I created a while back from material I could find....
-
:'(
So the bullet was even closer to what it was designed to do.
Tell us what FMJ ammo was designed to do.
Tries to sidestep his ignorance in true Chapman fashion.
-
Louise was told by Howard Brennan, in minute detail, the events of 11/22/63. I don't believe that she would be signing her name to a book that she didn't believe told the truth.
That is quite possibly the silliest argument I’ve ever read.
-
I did. Every statement I made about his story is factual. He did not ID Oswald in the police lineup. At first he wasn't sure which window he saw. He said the shooter lingered in the window. He claimed he didn't ID Oswald at the police station because he feared for his life, yet he spoke with reports about the shooting and identified himself while speaking with them, on 11/22--odd behavior if he feared Oswald's accomplices might kill him.
We should remember that Brennan only agreed to ID Oswald as the shooter after prolonged "interviews" by federal agents. Most of his testimony is credible and agrees with that of several other witnesses. The only doubtful element in his testimony, other than his belated Oswald ID, is his statement that the gunman was standing.
Where did you get information that supposedly indicates that Howard Brennan spoke with reporters and identified himself on 11/22/63?
Anybody else know the answer to my question?
The silence is deafening...
-
Tries to sidestep his ignorance in true Chapman fashion.
:'(
Ce399 was damaged enough to have CTers/JAQers(aka OAKers) avoid posting it.
Now tell us what FMJ ammo was designed to do.
-
Ce399 was damaged enough to have CTers/JAQers(aka OAKers) avoid posting it.
Nobody has “avoided” anything. That’s a Chapman delusion.
-
Anybody else know the answer to my question? The silence is deafening...
"The silence is deafening"? So if you don't get a reply within a certain timeframe, you assume your question is being dodged?
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92). Does anyone take seriously Brennan's belated claim that he failed to positively ID Oswald in the police lineup because he feared for his life? Does anyone here believe that?
Given the disgraceful manner in which the police rigged the lineups, it is quite significant that Brennan declined to make a positive ID. It was only after he was browbeaten for weeks by the FBI that Brennan finally agreed to ID Oswald as the man he had seen in the window. Brennan's foreman, Sandy Speaker, said Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after his FBI "interviews," and that "they made him say what they wanted him to say."
By the way, Brennan was 120 feet away from the TSBD, and the man he saw was behind a window. I seriously doubt that anyone could have seen the man well enough, clearly enough, from that distance and under those conditions, to later make a reliable identification.
"But Brennan was farsighted," some WC apologists will note. So what? Being farsighted does not mean that you have unusually good vision from a distance; it just means that you can see normally from a distance but cannot see normally from short range without glasses or contacts. I'm farsighted and I could not see someone clearly enough from 120 feet away through a window to make a reliable identification.
To get some idea of the unlikelihood of Brennan's belated ID of Oswald, go to a football field, stand on the goal line, close your eyes, and have a random stranger whom you've never seen before stand on the 40 yard line. 40 yards equals 120 feet, or nearly half a football field. And have the stranger stand behind a plate of glass. Look at him for no more than a few minutes, and then come back and tell me that you believe you could recognize him, with a reasonable degree of certainty, hours later among several other people.
And a correction to one of my earlier statements: I said that Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired. James Jarman said this, not Williams, although Williams apparently agreed since he did not mention hearing movement above him after the shots either.
-
"The silence is deafening"? So if you don't get a reply within a certain timeframe, you assume your question is being dodged?
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92). Does anyone take seriously Brennan's belated claim that he failed to positively ID Oswald in the police lineup because he feared for his life? Does anyone here believe that?
Given the disgraceful manner in which the police rigged the lineups, it is quite significant that Brennan declined to make a positive ID. It was only after he was browbeaten for weeks by the FBI that Brennan finally agreed to ID Oswald as the man he had seen in the window. Brennan's foreman, Sandy Speaker, said Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after his FBI "interviews," and that "they made him say what they wanted him to say."
By the way, Brennan was 120 feet away from the TSBD, and the man he saw was behind a window. I seriously doubt that anyone could have seen the man well enough, clearly enough, from that distance and under those conditions, to later make a reliable identification.
"But Brennan was farsighted," some WC apologists will note. So what? Being farsighted does not mean that you have unusually good vision from a distance; it just means that you can see normally from a distance but cannot see normally from short range without glasses or contacts. I'm farsighted and I could not see someone clearly enough from 120 feet away through a window to make a reliable identification.
To get some idea of the unlikelihood of Brennan's belated ID of Oswald, go to a football field, stand on the goal line, close your eyes, and have a random stranger whom you've never seen before stand on the 40 yard line. 40 yards equals 120 feet, or nearly half a football field. And have the stranger stand behind a plate of glass. Look at him for no more than a few minutes, and then come back and tell me that you believe you could recognize him, with a reasonable degree of certainty, hours later among several other people.
And a correction to one of my earlier statements: I said that Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired. James Jarman said this, not Williams, although Williams apparently agreed since he did not mention hearing movement above him after the shots either.
Thank you for the reply.
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92).
Here is what I found in "Rush to Judgment:"
"Furthermore, Brennan's anxiety about himself and his family did not prevent him from speaking to reporters on November 22, when he gave not only his impressions as an eyewitness but also his name. (688)
Footnote 688 : The Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963.
I haven't been able to find access online to that newspaper (DMN 11/23/63) without subscribing for at least 3-months to the newspaper. But I do have a copy of the 50th anniversary reprint on the way. If anyone here has access to that newspaper and wants to search for whatever Mark Lane might be referencing, please do and post here what you find.
In the meantime, here is what Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth (who was there) wrote in his 2013 book "Witness to History" about this:
"Outside of the building, the police did their utmost not only to protect the general crime scene but also to insulate potentially valuable witnesses from the press. Of the eight or so people I first tried to interview around the book depository, the most important was Howard Brennan, a steamfitter - he had his hard hat with him - who was stationed directly across the street opposite Lee Harvey Oswald perched in the sixth-floor window. Brennan watched in amazement as the shooter aimed and fired, then calmly aimed and fired again.
The first police APB (all points bulletin) came at a quarter to one and was based on Brennan's dexcription of the shooter.
Attention all squads.
Attention all squads.
The suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought bo be a .30-caliber rifle.
I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into their conversation. 'I saw him up there in that window,' I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. 'No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry.'
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. 'O course,' he answered. 'I saw him real good.'
Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him - a request they were glad to fulfill. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press lest he endanger himself or his family. Who knew what accomplices the assassin might have? In fact, for that reason he hesitated to identify Oswald positively in the later police line-up.
And here is what is written in Brennan's book:
From Page 17 of "Witness to History" by Howard Brennan:
"...Before I could reflect any longer I was confronted by a television reporter and cameraman. They wanted to interview me and find out what I knew about the shooting. I did not want to talk to him and I certainly did not want my picture broadcast. If there were more people involved than the young man I had seen then showing me on television as an eyewitness would be like hanging a target over my heart for someone to shoot at.
He kept asking 'Who are you, what do you know about the shooting of the President?' I turned my back on him without answering. He continued to try to get me to talk even though I moved away frim him. Finally I said 'I don't know anything.'
I learned later that my wife, Louise, had been watching television and saw the reporter trying to interview me. Even though my name wasn't given, she knew that I must have seen the assassination. My little grandson, who was less than two, pointed at the TV and said 'There's Granddaddy!' My daughter Vicki had watched the whole scene in a beauty shop. I felt exposed to the whole world as I tried to evade that reporter and cameraman. I don't know how long the reporter stayed with me, but it had to be for several minutes: each time he'd approach me I'd turn or move away a few steps. It is my sincere belief that Lee Harvey Oswald came out of the front door of the Depository while I was trying to avoid the TV reporter. If my attention had not been distracted I might have spotted him right there."
Later at the Sheriff's office:
"With more time to think, I recounted every detail about the young man that might help them apprehend him. His facial features, distinguishing marks, anything that would help. I was asked, 'If you saw this man again, could you identify him?' I said, 'I believe I can!' I knew that I could never forget the face I had seen in the window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Sorrels said, 'We appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Brennan. Your testimony may be very important.' I began to realize how important it was. Just then, as I was finishing with my testimony to be signed, another man came in whom I assumed to be an F.B.I Agent who informed us that President John F. Kennedy had died from a massive bullet wound to the head. The F.B.I. and Secret Service men in the office didn't respond visibly to the news, but I think, like me, they had somehow hoped against hope that it wasn't true.
.
.
.
Then came a report that one of the employees at the Texas Book Depository was missing. At that moment, I just wanted to get away from it all. Mr. Sorrels introduced me to two men who were with the F.B.I. 'We'll be going with you,' one of them said. 'For awhile we feel that we should put you in protective custody as a precautionary measure.' I wasn't sure exactly what that meant, but I had a pretty good idea. They felt that since the killer hadn't been caught and may have seen the telecast, that my life might be in danger. If there was a conspiracy, there might be others who would want to silence me. 'We'll be with you at all times for awhile, but we'' do everything in our power to stay in the background.'
.
.
.
Later his wife Louise asked:
"...'How long are they going to watch us?' she asked. I shook my head. 'I don't know. I guess as long as they think I may be in any kind of danger.' Louise shuddered visibly when I said that and I could see the very thought was upsetting her. I reassured her, 'Now don't worry, I'm not really in any danger. They're just doing it as a precaution.'
This didn't seem convincing to her. 'Howard,' she said, 'I'm afraid. We don't know who might be out there looking for you!' I couldn't reply to that. Louise wanted to know everything that had happened in the minutest detail. I repeated the events of the day to her, recounting details that were larger than life. Then she told me something I hadn't heard before. 'I heard on the television that the police have arrested someone they suspect as the killer' This news hit me like a thunderbolt. If this were so, it was a relief. But at the same time, I felt in even more danger, because if the police had found the young man who was in the sixth floor window, there might well be others who would do whatever they could to keep me from identifying him. We turned the television on again. We were becoming more and more embroiled in the drama that was developing and could only wonder what would happen next."
-
Thank you for the reply.
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92).
Here is what I found in "Rush to Judgment:"
"Furthermore, Brennan's anxiety about himself and his family did not prevent him from speaking to reporters on November 22, when he gave not only his impressions as an eyewitness but also his name. (688)
Footnote 688 : The Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963.
I haven't been able to find access online to that newspaper (DMN 11/23/63) without subscribing for at least 3-months to the newspaper. But I do have a copy of the 50th anniversary reprint on the way. If anyone here has access to that newspaper and wants to search for whatever Mark Lane might be referencing, please do and post here what you find.
In the meantime, here is what Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth (who was there) wrote in his 2013 book "Witness to History" about this:
"Outside of the building, the police did their utmost not only to protect the general crime scene but also to insulate potentially valuable witnesses from the press. Of the eight or so people I first tried to interview around the book depository, the most important was Howard Brennan, a steamfitter - he had his hard hat with him - who was stationed directly across the street opposite Lee Harvey Oswald perched in the sixth-floor window. Brennan watched in amazement as the shooter aimed and fired, then calmly aimed and fired again.
The first police APB (all points bulletin) came at a quarter to one and was based on Brennan's dexcription of the shooter.
Attention all squads.
Attention all squads.
The suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought bo be a .30-caliber rifle.
I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into their conversation. 'I saw him up there in that window,' I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. 'No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry.'
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. 'O course,' he answered. 'I saw him real good.'
Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him - a request they were glad to fulfill. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press lest he endanger himself or his family. Who knew what accomplices the assassin might have? In fact, for that reason he hesitated to identify Oswald positively in the later police line-up.
And here is what is written in Brennan's book:
From Page 17 of "Witness to History" by Howard Brennan:
"...Before I could reflect any longer I was confronted by a television reporter and cameraman. They wanted to interview me and find out what I knew about the shooting. I did not want to talk to him and I certainly did not want my picture broadcast. If there were more people involved than the young man I had seen then showing me on television as an eyewitness would be like hanging a target over my heart for someone to shoot at.
He kept asking 'Who are you, what do you know about the shooting of the President?' I turned my back on him without answering. He continued to try to get me to talk even though I moved away frim him. Finally I said 'I don't know anything.'
I learned later that my wife, Louise, had been watching television and saw the reporter trying to interview me. Even though my name wasn't given, she knew that I must have seen the assassination. My little grandson, who was less than two, pointed at the TV and said 'There's Granddaddy!' My daughter Vicki had watched the whole scene in a beauty shop. I felt exposed to the whole world as I tried to evade that reporter and cameraman. I don't know how long the reporter stayed with me, but it had to be for several minutes: each time he'd approach me I'd turn or move away a few steps. It is my sincere belief that Lee Harvey Oswald came out of the front door of the Depository while I was trying to avoid the TV reporter. If my attention had not been distracted I might have spotted him right there."
Later at the Sheriff's office:
"With more time to think, I recounted every detail about the young man that might help them apprehend him. His facial features, distinguishing marks, anything that would help. I was asked, 'If you saw this man again, could you identify him?' I said, 'I believe I can!' I knew that I could never forget the face I had seen in the window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Sorrels said, 'We appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Brennan. Your testimony may be very important.' I began to realize how important it was. Just then, as I was finishing with my testimony to be signed, another man came in whom I assumed to be an F.B.I Agent who informed us that President John F. Kennedy had died from a massive bullet wound to the head. The F.B.I. and Secret Service men in the office didn't respond visibly to the news, but I think, like me, they had somehow hoped against hope that it wasn't true.
.
.
.
Then came a report that one of the employees at the Texas Book Depository was missing. At that moment, I just wanted to get away from it all. Mr. Sorrels introduced me to two men who were with the F.B.I. 'We'll be going with you,' one of them said. 'For awhile we feel that we should put you in protective custody as a precautionary measure.' I wasn't sure exactly what that meant, but I had a pretty good idea. They felt that since the killer hadn't been caught and may have seen the telecast, that my life might be in danger. If there was a conspiracy, there might be others who would want to silence me. 'We'll be with you at all times for awhile, but we'' do everything in our power to stay in the background.'
.
.
.
Later his wife Louise asked:
"...'How long are they going to watch us?' she asked. I shook my head. 'I don't know. I guess as long as they think I may be in any kind of danger.' Louise shuddered visibly when I said that and I could see the very thought was upsetting her. I reassured her, 'Now don't worry, I'm not really in any danger. They're just doing it as a precaution.'
This didn't seem convincing to her. 'Howard,' she said, 'I'm afraid. We don't know who might be out there looking for you!' I couldn't reply to that. Louise wanted to know everything that had happened in the minutest detail. I repeated the events of the day to her, recounting details that were larger than life. Then she told me something I hadn't heard before. 'I heard on the television that the police have arrested someone they suspect as the killer' This news hit me like a thunderbolt. If this were so, it was a relief. But at the same time, I felt in even more danger, because if the police had found the young man who was in the sixth floor window, there might well be others who would do whatever they could to keep me from identifying him. We turned the television on again. We were becoming more and more embroiled in the drama that was developing and could only wonder what would happen next."
Here is the transcribed article.
Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan.
I don't seem to be able to copy and paste the actual newspaper article.
-
Here is the transcribed article.
Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan.
I don't seem to be able to copy and paste the actual newspaper article.
Thank you Jack! Is that the entire article? Or just 5- sentences from the article? Do you have a link (web page address) that you can post?
-
Nobody has “avoided” anything. That’s a Chapman delusion.
You OAKer-deluded 'researchers' continue to avoid posting the Ce399 profile as seen in my avatar. You OAKer-deluded 'researchers' continue to avoid telling us why FMJ ammo was designed (and even mandated) to remain as intact as possible, and over-penetrate, when striking a human body.
-
Thank you Jack! Is that the entire article? Or just 5- sentences from the article? Do you have a link (web page address) that you can post?
No, it is just the part about Brennan. The article was written by Kent Biffle and that is maybe how I came by it. I really just don't remember how I came by it but later I can see if I can't copy it and post it somehow. My interest in it was the fact Brennan stated he saw him fire the rifle and that there was only two shots. Reading Michael Griffith's post on him looking up at Z207 that would coincide with when the eye witnesses place the first shot.
-
"The silence is deafening"? So if you don't get a reply within a certain timeframe, you assume your question is being dodged?
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92). Does anyone take seriously Brennan's belated claim that he failed to positively ID Oswald in the police lineup because he feared for his life? Does anyone here believe that?
Given the disgraceful manner in which the police rigged the lineups, it is quite significant that Brennan declined to make a positive ID. It was only after he was browbeaten for weeks by the FBI that Brennan finally agreed to ID Oswald as the man he had seen in the window. Brennan's foreman, Sandy Speaker, said Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after his FBI "interviews," and that "they made him say what they wanted him to say."
By the way, Brennan was 120 feet away from the TSBD, and the man he saw was behind a window. I seriously doubt that anyone could have seen the man well enough, clearly enough, from that distance and under those conditions, to later make a reliable identification.
"But Brennan was farsighted," some WC apologists will note. So what? Being farsighted does not mean that you have unusually good vision from a distance; it just means that you can see normally from a distance but cannot see normally from short range without glasses or contacts. I'm farsighted and I could not see someone clearly enough from 120 feet away through a window to make a reliable identification.
To get some idea of the unlikelihood of Brennan's belated ID of Oswald, go to a football field, stand on the goal line, close your eyes, and have a random stranger whom you've never seen before stand on the 40 yard line. 40 yards equals 120 feet, or nearly half a football field. And have the stranger stand behind a plate of glass. Look at him for no more than a few minutes, and then come back and tell me that you believe you could recognize him, with a reasonable degree of certainty, hours later among several other people.
And a correction to one of my earlier statements: I said that Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired. James Jarman said this, not Williams, although Williams apparently agreed since he did not mention hearing movement above him after the shots either.
Was anyone in the lineup wearing a jacket? Did Oswald ask for a jacket?
-
No, it is just the part about Brennan. The article was written by Kent Biffle and that is maybe how I came by it. I really just don't remember how I came by it but later I can see if I can't copy it and post it somehow. My interest in it was the fact Brennan stated he saw him fire the rifle and that there was only two shots. Reading Michael Griffith's post on him looking up at Z207 that would coincide with when the eye witnesses place the first shot.
Okay, thanks again. I don’t see anything in those sentences that indicates explicitly that Brennan identified himself. But I can imagine that Mark Lane assumed that...
-
You OAKer-deluded 'researchers' continue to avoid posting the Ce399 profile as seen in my avatar.
“Avoid” posting it for what reason?
-
Here is the transcribed article.
Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan.
I don't seem to be able to copy and paste the actual newspaper article.
Note that both this and Brennan’s testimony contradict Aynesworth’s claim about Brennan seeing somebody firing twice.
-
Thank you for the reply.
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92).
Here is what I found in "Rush to Judgment:"
"Furthermore, Brennan's anxiety about himself and his family did not prevent him from speaking to reporters on November 22, when he gave not only his impressions as an eyewitness but also his name. (688)
Footnote 688 : The Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963.
I haven't been able to find access online to that newspaper (DMN 11/23/63) without subscribing for at least 3-months to the newspaper. But I do have a copy of the 50th anniversary reprint on the way. If anyone here has access to that newspaper and wants to search for whatever Mark Lane might be referencing, please do and post here what you find.
In the meantime, here is what Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth (who was there) wrote in his 2013 book "Witness to History" about this:
"Outside of the building, the police did their utmost not only to protect the general crime scene but also to insulate potentially valuable witnesses from the press. Of the eight or so people I first tried to interview around the book depository, the most important was Howard Brennan, a steamfitter - he had his hard hat with him - who was stationed directly across the street opposite Lee Harvey Oswald perched in the sixth-floor window. Brennan watched in amazement as the shooter aimed and fired, then calmly aimed and fired again.
The first police APB (all points bulletin) came at a quarter to one and was based on Brennan's dexcription of the shooter.
Attention all squads.
Attention all squads.
The suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought bo be a .30-caliber rifle.
I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into their conversation. 'I saw him up there in that window,' I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. 'No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry.'
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. 'O course,' he answered. 'I saw him real good.'
Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him - a request they were glad to fulfill. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press lest he endanger himself or his family. Who knew what accomplices the assassin might have? In fact, for that reason he hesitated to identify Oswald positively in the later police line-up.
And here is what is written in Brennan's book:
From Page 17 of "Witness to History" by Howard Brennan:
"...Before I could reflect any longer I was confronted by a television reporter and cameraman. They wanted to interview me and find out what I knew about the shooting. I did not want to talk to him and I certainly did not want my picture broadcast. If there were more people involved than the young man I had seen then showing me on television as an eyewitness would be like hanging a target over my heart for someone to shoot at.
He kept asking 'Who are you, what do you know about the shooting of the President?' I turned my back on him without answering. He continued to try to get me to talk even though I moved away frim him. Finally I said 'I don't know anything.'
I learned later that my wife, Louise, had been watching television and saw the reporter trying to interview me. Even though my name wasn't given, she knew that I must have seen the assassination. My little grandson, who was less than two, pointed at the TV and said 'There's Granddaddy!' My daughter Vicki had watched the whole scene in a beauty shop. I felt exposed to the whole world as I tried to evade that reporter and cameraman. I don't know how long the reporter stayed with me, but it had to be for several minutes: each time he'd approach me I'd turn or move away a few steps. It is my sincere belief that Lee Harvey Oswald came out of the front door of the Depository while I was trying to avoid the TV reporter. If my attention had not been distracted I might have spotted him right there."
Later at the Sheriff's office:
"With more time to think, I recounted every detail about the young man that might help them apprehend him. His facial features, distinguishing marks, anything that would help. I was asked, 'If you saw this man again, could you identify him?' I said, 'I believe I can!' I knew that I could never forget the face I had seen in the window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Sorrels said, 'We appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Brennan. Your testimony may be very important.' I began to realize how important it was. Just then, as I was finishing with my testimony to be signed, another man came in whom I assumed to be an F.B.I Agent who informed us that President John F. Kennedy had died from a massive bullet wound to the head. The F.B.I. and Secret Service men in the office didn't respond visibly to the news, but I think, like me, they had somehow hoped against hope that it wasn't true.
Then came a report that one of the employees at the Texas Book Depository was missing. At that moment, I just wanted to get away from it all. Mr. Sorrels introduced me to two men who were with the F.B.I. 'We'll be going with you,' one of them said. 'For awhile we feel that we should put you in protective custody as a precautionary measure.' I wasn't sure exactly what that meant, but I had a pretty good idea. They felt that since the killer hadn't been caught and may have seen the telecast, that my life might be in danger. If there was a conspiracy, there might be others who would want to silence me. 'We'll be with you at all times for awhile, but we'' do everything in our power to stay in the background.'
Later his wife Louise asked:
"...'How long are they going to watch us?' she asked. I shook my head. 'I don't know. I guess as long as they think I may be in any kind of danger.' Louise shuddered visibly when I said that and I could see the very thought was upsetting her. I reassured her, 'Now don't worry, I'm not really in any danger. They're just doing it as a precaution.'
This didn't seem convincing to her. 'Howard,' she said, 'I'm afraid. We don't know who might be out there looking for you!' I couldn't reply to that. Louise wanted to know everything that had happened in the minutest detail. I repeated the events of the day to her, recounting details that were larger than life. Then she told me something I hadn't heard before. 'I heard on the television that the police have arrested someone they suspect as the killer' This news hit me like a thunderbolt. If this were so, it was a relief. But at the same time, I felt in even more danger, because if the police had found the young man who was in the sixth floor window, there might well be others who would do whatever they could to keep me from identifying him. We turned the television on again. We were becoming more and more embroiled in the drama that was developing and could only wonder what would happen next."
I have a hard time taking this line of argument seriously. If Brennan truly feared for his life, as he later claimed, why did he tell the Dallas police soon after the shooting, that very afternoon, that he believed he could identify the man in the window if he saw him again? Why was Brennan willing to say this, in writing, to the Dallas police, if he feared for his life? How would any Oswald accomplices have found out that Brennan had identified Oswald in the lineup anyway? Brennan's identity would have been sealed and protected until trial discovery began, as the police and the feds surely explained to Brennan when he hesitated and eventually declined to positively ID Oswald.
And, again, how could anyone provide a firm, reliable identification of a stranger they saw only briefly from 120 feet away through a window? It is one thing to see, from that distance, hair color, shirt color, and complexion. It is quite another thing to see the person's face clearly enough to be able to recognize him hours later among several other people.
Speaking of hair color, why didn't Brennan mention the man's hair color in his DPD statement? Also, Brennan said the man was wearing "light-colored clothing." Oops, Oswald was wearing a reddish/brown shirt and dark pants, the same "brown-type shirt" that Officer Baker saw Oswald wearing 90 seconds after the shooting in the second-floor lunchroom. (By the way, Baker said the shirt that Oswald was wearing in the lunchroom was darker than the shirt he saw Oswald wearing after Oswald was arrested, and no one would call the post-arrest shirt light colored. So the man Brennan saw in the window was not wearing the same colored clothing that we know Oswald was wearing.)
Leaving aside the problems with Brennan's description of the man he saw, why did it take federal agents nearly four weeks of "interviews" to get Brennan to say that he was certain Oswald was the man he'd seen in the window. In a matter of days after the shooting, news media blanketed the country with the FBI's "conclusion" that Oswald was the one and only gunman and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever. That should have removed Brennan's alleged fear of retaliation from Oswald accomplices. Yet, it was not until December 17 that federal agents finally got Brennan to say what they wanted him to say.
There's a reason that the HSCA chose not to even mention Brennan in its final report, though it mentioned other witnesses.
-
“Avoid” posting it for what reason?
In order to mislead about how 'pristine' Ce399 was
-
In order to mislead about how 'pristine' Ce399 was
Stand guard, Chapman, stand guard. :D
-
I have a hard time taking this line of argument seriously. If Brennan truly feared for his life, as he later claimed, why did he tell the Dallas police soon after the shooting, that very afternoon, that he believed he could identify the man in the window if he saw him again? Why was Brennan willing to say this, in writing, to the Dallas police, if he feared for his life? How would any Oswald accomplices have found out that Brennan had identified Oswald in the lineup anyway? Brennan's identity would have been sealed and protected until trial discovery began, as the police and the feds surely explained to Brennan when he hesitated and eventually declined to positively ID Oswald.
And, again, how could anyone provide a firm, reliable identification of a stranger they saw only briefly from 120 feet away through a window? It is one thing to see, from that distance, hair color, shirt color, and complexion. It is quite another thing to see the person's face clearly enough to be able to recognize him hours later among several other people.
Speaking of hair color, why didn't Brennan mention the man's hair color in his DPD statement? Also, Brennan said the man was wearing "light-colored clothing." Oops, Oswald was wearing a reddish/brown shirt and dark pants, the same "brown-type shirt" that Officer Baker saw Oswald wearing 90 seconds after the shooting in the second-floor lunchroom. (By the way, Baker said the shirt that Oswald was wearing in the lunchroom was darker than the shirt he saw Oswald wearing after Oswald was arrested.)
Leaving aside the problems with Brennan's description of the man he saw, why did it take federal agents nearly four weeks of "interviews" to get Brennan to say that he was certain Oswald was the man he'd seen in the window. In a matter of days after the shooting, news media blanketed the country with the FBI's "conclusion" that Oswald was the one and only gunman and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever. That should have removed Brennan's alleged fear of retaliation from Oswald accomplices. Yet, it was not until December 17 that federal agents finally got Brennan to say what they wanted him to say.
There's a reason that the HSCA chose not to even mention Brennan in its final report, though it mentioned other witnesses.
How would any Oswald accomplices have found out that Brennan had identified Oswald in the lineup anyway? Brennan's identity would have been sealed and protected until trial discovery began, as the police and the feds surely explained to Brennan when he hesitated and eventually declined to positively ID Oswald.
Here is what is written in Howard Brennan's book "Eyewitness to History" that might give you a clue about what was going on in Brennan's mind on 11/22/63:
“About 7:15 p. m., the phone rang. The voice on the other end identified himself as Agent Lish with the F.B.I. He said, 'We'd like to have you come down to make an identification .' 'Mr. Lish' I asked, 'will this be confidential?' He assured me that it would. I wanted to protect my identity especially from the news media. 'We'll do everything possible to protect your identity,' I was told. Within a few minutes there was a knock at the front door and one of the F.B.I agents who had been watching the house usered me to the car for a ride to City Hall. As we drove through the night, I looked out the window at the city lights wondering what would happen next. I was feeling anxiety and was hopeful that my privacy could be preserved. Already my picture had been on TV several times, although without being identified. We had also heard a report that there was one unidentified witness who could link Lee Harvey Oswald to the killing of John Kennedy.
When we reached City Hall, I was let out to enter alone and go to the third floor where I would meet with Mr. Sorrels and others. When I reached the third floor, the hall was jammed with reporters and media people everywhere. They were all trying to get some sort of lead on what was happening and I had no problem in walking past them Not one reporter knew who I was and that suited me just fine. If they had known my connection with the assassination, I am sure I would have been mobbed right there but time was still on my side.
Pushing my way through this mob I found the office I'd been instructed to go to. Mr. Sorrels was there and another man who identified himself as Agent Robert C. Lish of the F.B.I. Lish was a short man of a medium weight and build who curiously wore his hat most of the time. I remembered talking to him earlier on the phone. I told Mr. Lish, 'I'm not at all satisfied with this situation!' Lish looked a bit puzzled, 'What do you mean?' he said. 'My picture has been on the television several times today without my permission and I know someone is going to recognize me and put two and two together. I want it taken off and I want it taken off right away!' Mr. Lish nodded and said something to another man who was in the room who immediately left. From that moment, my picture never appeared on that television channel again. 'I want to keep my identity a secret!' I told them. 'We'll do all we can to help you do that' Lish said. 'We want you to look at a lineup and see if you can find someone in it who resembles the man you saw on the sixth floor.' I said, 'I'll be glad to cooperate, but I don't think it's fair for me to make an identification. Anyone of a million people who saw him on television a while ago could make the same identification.' Lish smiled diplomatically.
I was led into a darkened room with lights at one end. When we arrived, a group of several men, perhaps as many as seven, were led in and made to stand in line with numbers over them. As soon as I saw him, I think he was number two, I knew without any doubt whatsoever that they had captured the man whom I saw fire the shot that killed President Kennedy. I felt a surge of emotion, a sense of outrage at this young man who had literally thrown the whole world into chaos. As I was looking at each of the men in the lineup I saw a face that I recognized. It was a Dallas Detective that I knew. He was perhaps the most well-known of all the Dallas Police and his picture had been in the papers many times. If he was there, that meant only one thing. My privacy had been broached. I felt sick and a little betrayed. I'd come to City Hall with the understanding that I would be dealing only with the FBI and/or the Secret Service, not the Dallas Police.
The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, 'Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?' He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.
I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn't agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known through the leaks in the police department and I didn't want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn't going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn't absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him.
Brennan doesn't write anything about his last name appearing in the next day's Dallas Morning News. But in my opinion there is a good possibility that Brennan's name was leaked by the Dallas Police. Or that a reporter (both Aynesworth and Biffle were there) overheard Brennan talking to the Police and overheard his last name that way. I haven't seen any evidence that Brennan gave his name to reporters on 11/22/63. Only Mark Lane's assumption.
-
In order to mislead about how 'pristine' Ce399 was
Who cares, since there’s no evidence that CE 399 was involved in the assassination?
-
Thank you Jack! Is that the entire article? Or just 5- sentences from the article? Do you have a link (web page address) that you can post?
I hope this transfers
https://chtrmail.spectrum.net/index.php/mail/viewmessage/getattachment/uniqueId/85096/account/0/filenameOriginal/dallas%20morning%20news.png/filenameModified/dallas%20morning%20news.png?folder=SU5CT1g%253D(http://)
-
I hope this transfers
https://chtrmail.spectrum.net/index.php/mail/viewmessage/getattachment/uniqueId/85096/account/0/filenameOriginal/dallas%20morning%20news.png/filenameModified/dallas%20morning%20news.png?folder=SU5CT1g%253D(http://)
It just opens a sign-in page.
-
It's also doubtful because the vestibule door was very thick and solid specifically to stop sound getting through. Also, if there was a flinch it would surely have occurred when Truly came up the stairs first, Oswald would be out of sight by the time Baker came into view.
Time for some unprovable speculation - maybe Oswald had finished his lunch and was about to exit through the vestibule door when he saw Truly making his way across to the flight of stairs leading up to the third floor. For some reason I'd have to completely make up he decided he didn't want to be seen, turned and was spotted by Baker.
To be honest I'm starting to have serious doubts about the whole lunchroom confrontation.
-
Who cares, since there’s no evidence that CE 399 was involved in the assassination?
Evidence exists that plenty of CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) have cared enough about Ce399 to the point where they show the bullet only at the profile that does not reveal the squished butt-end.
-
Evidence exists that plenty of CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) have cared enough about Ce399 to the point where they show the bullet only at the profile that does not reveal the squished butt-end.
Don't just say that "evidence exists"... Show the evidence if you can.
Can you?
-
How would any Oswald accomplices have found out that Brennan had identified Oswald in the lineup anyway? Brennan's identity would have been sealed and protected until trial discovery began, as the police and the feds surely explained to Brennan when he hesitated and eventually declined to positively ID Oswald.
Here is what is written in Howard Brennan's book "Eyewitness to History" that might give you a clue about what was going on in Brennan's mind on 11/22/63:
“About 7:15 p. m., the phone rang. The voice on the other end identified himself as Agent Lish with the F.B.I. He said, 'We'd like to have you come down to make an identification .' 'Mr. Lish' I asked, 'will this be confidential?' He assured me that it would. I wanted to protect my identity especially from the news media. 'We'll do everything possible to protect your identity,' I was told. Within a few minutes there was a knock at the front door and one of the F.B.I agents who had been watching the house usered me to the car for a ride to City Hall. As we drove through the night, I looked out the window at the city lights wondering what would happen next. I was feeling anxiety and was hopeful that my privacy could be preserved. Already my picture had been on TV several times, although without being identified. We had also heard a report that there was one unidentified witness who could link Lee Harvey Oswald to the killing of John Kennedy.
When we reached City Hall, I was let out to enter alone and go to the third floor where I would meet with Mr. Sorrels and others. When I reached the third floor, the hall was jammed with reporters and media people everywhere. They were all trying to get some sort of lead on what was happening and I had no problem in walking past them Not one reporter knew who I was and that suited me just fine. If they had known my connection with the assassination, I am sure I would have been mobbed right there but time was still on my side.
Pushing my way through this mob I found the office I'd been instructed to go to. Mr. Sorrels was there and another man who identified himself as Agent Robert C. Lish of the F.B.I. Lish was a short man of a medium weight and build who curiously wore his hat most of the time. I remembered talking to him earlier on the phone. I told Mr. Lish, 'I'm not at all satisfied with this situation!' Lish looked a bit puzzled, 'What do you mean?' he said. 'My picture has been on the television several times today without my permission and I know someone is going to recognize me and put two and two together. I want it taken off and I want it taken off right away!' Mr. Lish nodded and said something to another man who was in the room who immediately left. From that moment, my picture never appeared on that television channel again. 'I want to keep my identity a secret!' I told them. 'We'll do all we can to help you do that' Lish said. 'We want you to look at a lineup and see if you can find someone in it who resembles the man you saw on the sixth floor.' I said, 'I'll be glad to cooperate, but I don't think it's fair for me to make an identification. Anyone of a million people who saw him on television a while ago could make the same identification.' Lish smiled diplomatically.
I was led into a darkened room with lights at one end. When we arrived, a group of several men, perhaps as many as seven, were led in and made to stand in line with numbers over them. As soon as I saw him, I think he was number two, I knew without any doubt whatsoever that they had captured the man whom I saw fire the shot that killed President Kennedy. I felt a surge of emotion, a sense of outrage at this young man who had literally thrown the whole world into chaos. As I was looking at each of the men in the lineup I saw a face that I recognized. It was a Dallas Detective that I knew. He was perhaps the most well-known of all the Dallas Police and his picture had been in the papers many times. If he was there, that meant only one thing. My privacy had been broached. I felt sick and a little betrayed. I'd come to City Hall with the understanding that I would be dealing only with the FBI and/or the Secret Service, not the Dallas Police.
The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, 'Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?' He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.
I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn't agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known through the leaks in the police department and I didn't want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn't going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn't absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him.
Brennan doesn't write anything about his last name appearing in the next day's Dallas Morning News. But in my opinion there is a good possibility that Brennan's name was leaked by the Dallas Police. Or that a reporter (both Aynesworth and Biffle were there) overheard Brennan talking to the Police and overheard his last name that way. I haven't seen any evidence that Brennan gave his name to reporters on 11/22/63. Only Mark Lane's assumption.
And you think this hogwash story is believable? I suspect if Brennan said a Martian showed up at the police station and told him not to ID Oswald, you would repeat the tale as if it were credible.
Brennan's claim about fearing retribution from Oswald accomplices makes no sense given his conduct at the time. Again, he spoke with reporters and gave his name to them earlier in the day, and that afternoon he told the Dallas police, in writing, that he believed he could ID the man in the window if he saw him again. Those are not the actions of someone who feared retribution from accomplices. He made up that story later to explain why he refused to positively ID Oswald that night, even though he had seen pictures of him.
Furthermore, on the evening of 11/22, there was not "overwhelming evidence" that Oswald had killed Tippit. How could Brennan have believed this just hours after Oswald was arrested? If the feds told him this, then they surely also told him that Oswald acted alone and that there was no plot of any kind.
If one is going to assume that Brennan was blessed with exceptional distance vision and that therefore he could clearly see the person's face clearly from a distance of nearly half a football field (40 yards), then one must explain why Brennan said the man fired while standing up, which would have been impossible because the window was partially open (no higher than about waist level).
One must also explain why Brennan said the man was wearing “light-colored” clothing when we know Oswald wore a brown/reddish shirt to work, the same shirt that Officer Baker saw him wearing no more than 90 seconds after the shots were fired.
One must further explain why Brennan said the gunman remained at the window for a time after firing, that he was not the least bit rushed, and that he then eventually casually walked away, which agrees with James Jarman's testimony and which is further evidence that Oswald could not have gotten from the window to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.
Look at this montage of photos and a diagram. It gives you a good idea of the view that Brennan had of the sixth-floor window. You'll need to scroll back and forth horizontally because the image is rather large.
(http://miketgriffith.com/files/brennanviewofwindow.jpg)
-
This is the view that Brennan would have had. (Photo taken by Bill Brown, in 2004, at spot Brennan was standing at the time of the assassination.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zLC9601p/brennan-view.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/zLC9601p)
-
And you think this hogwash story is believable? I suspect if Brennan said a Martian showed up at the police station and told him not to ID Oswald, you would repeat the tale as if it were credible.
Brennan's claim about fearing retribution from Oswald accomplices makes no sense given his conduct at the time. Again, he spoke with reporters and gave his name to them earlier in the day, and that afternoon he told the Dallas police, in writing, that he believed he could ID the man in the window if he saw him again. Those are not the actions of someone who feared retribution from accomplices. He made up that story later to explain why he refused to positively ID Oswald that night, even though he had seen pictures of him.
Furthermore, on the evening of 11/22, there was not "overwhelming evidence" that Oswald had killed Tippit. How could Brennan have believed this just hours after Oswald was arrested? If the feds told him this, then they surely also told him that Oswald acted alone and that there was no plot of any kind.
If one is going to assume that Brennan was blessed with exceptional distance vision and that therefore he could clearly see the person's face clearly from a distance of nearly half a football field (40 yards), then one must explain why Brennan said the man fired while standing up, which would have been impossible because the window was partially open (no higher than about waist level).
One must also explain why Brennan said the man was wearing “light-colored” clothing when we know Oswald wore a brown/reddish shirt to work, the same shirt that Officer Baker saw him wearing no more than 90 seconds after the shots were fired.
One must further explain why Brennan said the gunman remained at the window for a time after firing, that he was not the least bit rushed, and that he then eventually casually walked away, which agrees with James Jarman's testimony and which is further evidence that Oswald could not have gotten from the window to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Officer Baker.
Look at this montage of photos and a diagram. It gives you a good idea of the view that Brennan had of the sixth-floor window. You'll need to scroll back and forth horizontally because the image is rather large.
(http://miketgriffith.com/files/brennanviewofwindow.jpg)
If one is going to assume that Brennan was blessed with exceptional distance vision and that therefore he could clearly see the person's face clearly from a distance of nearly half a football field (40 yards), then one must explain why Brennan said the man fired while standing up, which would have been impossible because the window was partially open (no higher than about waist level).
Healthy young observers may have a binocular acuity superior to 6/6; the limit of acuity in the unaided human eye is around 6/3–6/2.4 (20/10–20/8), although 6/3 was the highest score recorded in a study of some US professional athletes.[26] Some birds of prey, such as hawks, are believed to have an acuity of around 20/2;[27] in this respect, their vision is much better than human eyesight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity
There is no way of telling the distance between the TSBD window sills and the interior floors when viewing from the exterior of the building. Brennan assumed LHO was standing. And he assumed wrong. Just like I believe that Mark Lane assumed wrong about Brennan identifying himself to reporters on 11/22/63. There are other ways that his last name could have appeared in the DMN article on 11/23/63, which I have already explained.
-
To Be Or Not To Be PRISTINE
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dhTQsw0/ce300-side-view.jpg)
Typical CTer half-arsed presentation
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRh1Njsw/Photo-ce399-base.jpg)
Typical LNer real-deal presentation
-
Don't just say that "evidence exists"... Show the evidence if you can.
Can you?
It's in the side-view.
As opposed to the rear-view.
-
It's possible that bullet passed through both men but there's no chance it caused Connally's wrist injury.
-
It's in the side-view mirror
No it isn't.... That's just you repeating your pathetic claim again.
Evidence exists that plenty of CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) have cared enough about Ce399 to the point where they show the bullet only at the profile that does not reveal the squished butt-end.
Now where is the evidence "that plenty of CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) have cared enough about Ce399 to the point where they show the bullet only at the profile"?
And before you go there, the only reason I am interested in the bullet that is now in evidence as CE399 is that it is potential evidence of evidence tampering. Beyond that, there is not a shred of evidence to support the suggestion that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital or fired on 11/22/63. A preponderance of evidence justifies the conclusion that it is very likely that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is actually unrelated to the JFK murder.
-
Oswald is having his lunch on the second floor, he hears a muffled noise and decides to investigate. If its someone coming down the stairs or a distant voice why would he bother, neither are unusual enough to concern him. If its gunshots he would be stood at the vestibule window for over a minute. And why not just go out to the stairs if he's so bothered? And why not flinch from Truly but flinch from Baker. It's all unfounded speculation that arises from the fact that if Oswald is in the lunchroom Baker doesn't see him.
You've probably gone through this many times but what's the compelling evidence that has Oswald in the lunchroom when Baker and Truly pass by?
-
My interest refers to why OAKers would attempt to minimize the damage evident in the rear view of Ce399 if it was planted.
And I don't trust one gd OAKer.
So, still no actual evidence for your claim? Now why doesn't that surprise me....
And who is saying anything about CE399 being planted?
-
So, still no actual evidence for your claim? Now why doesn't that surprise me....
And who is saying anything about CE399 being planted?
Long time no see Ce399 butt-end view posted by OAKers
Google 'ce399 planted jfk'
-
Long time no see Ce399 butt-end view posted by OAKers
Google 'ce399 planted jfk'
Google 'ce399 planted jfk'
For what? Does it tell me who, in this thread/discussion, has said anything about CE399 being planted?
Now where is the evidence for your pathetic claim "that plenty of CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) have cared enough about Ce399 to the point where they show the bullet only at the profile"?
-
Google 'ce399 planted jfk'
For what? Does it tell me who, in this thread/discussion, has said anything about CE399 being planted?
Now where is the evidence for your pathetic claim "that plenty of CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) have cared enough about Ce399 to the point where they show the bullet only at the profile"?
Point out where I said 'in this thread'
OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.
The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here:
For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!
-
Point out where I said 'in this thread'
OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.
The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here:
For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!
Point out where I said 'in this thread'
OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.
So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...
The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here:
For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.
Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!
Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!
-
What does "OAKer" mean?
-
This is the view that Brennan would have had. (Photo taken by Bill Brown, in 2004, at spot Brennan was standing at the time of the assassination.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zLC9601p/brennan-view.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/zLC9601p)
What would be nice is to have a photo that is in focus, taken on a sunny November 22 at 12:30 p.m., have the plexiglass removed from the opening at the lower part of the window, and have a shooter with a rifle in the same position that the assassin would have most likely been in when firing the shot that hit JFK’s head.
I can simulate what that would look like from various positions with my 3-D model. But an actual re-enactment would be better.
-
If one is going to assume that Brennan was blessed with exceptional distance vision and that therefore he could clearly see the person's face clearly from a distance of nearly half a football field (40 yards), then one must explain why Brennan said the man fired while standing up, which would have been impossible because the window was partially open (no higher than about waist level).
Healthy young observers may have a binocular acuity superior to 6/6; the limit of acuity in the unaided human eye is around 6/3–6/2.4 (20/10–20/8), although 6/3 was the highest score recorded in a study of some US professional athletes.[26] Some birds of prey, such as hawks, are believed to have an acuity of around 20/2;[27] in this respect, their vision is much better than human eyesight.
"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.
There is no way of telling the distance between the TSBD window sills and the interior floors when viewing from the exterior of the building. Brennan assumed LHO was standing. And he assumed wrong.
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" of the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.
Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.
Just like I believe that Mark Lane assumed wrong about Brennan identifying himself to reporters on 11/22/63. There are other ways that his last name could have appeared in the DMN article on 11/23/63, which I have already explained.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
-
"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.
Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."
There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up." Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared
So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did??? Nonsense!
2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm? Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape? The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic. Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"
This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.
-
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."
There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up." Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared
So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did??? Nonsense!
2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm? Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape? The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic. Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"
This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.
LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view.
This is actually correct, in as much that anybody sitting upright on a box in that corner would be shielded by the wall and thus not visible to anybody outside the building. If that person leaned forward, he would indeed expose himself to people outside the building, but they would - at best - only see his head and shoulders. So, how could Brennan give a far more detailed description of the man, even to such an extend that it could be given out on DPD radio? It doesn't add up!
Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle "After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan.
Silly argument. Even if Biffle did not interview Brennan himself, he nevertheless got his name and published it in the paper. Even if Biffle overheard the name being mentioned, the ultimate source for the name can only have been Brennan himself, unless you want to argue that somebody else recognized him and somehow passed his name to the paper.
-
"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" of the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.
Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.
Many of the best baseball players have better than 20/20 visual acuity, especially at a long distance. This is what Brennan said he had. A baseball diamond by standard specifications must have second base at a distance of 127'- 3-3/6" from the back tip of home plate. That is over seven more feet than the distance from Brennan to the sniper's nest window sill. And the catcher must position himself a bit further back to avoid being hit by the bat when it is swung. Yet, it is routine for signals for the upcoming pitch selection from the catcher to the pitcher to be coded. This is to keep an opposing team runner on second base from stealing the signals. Some batters are able to discern the spin of the baseball as it is hurled towards the plate at 95 mph. Outfielders are able to recognize who is batting and clearly see how the ball leaves the bat after it is hit. Hank Aaron was 42 when he retired from playing baseball, he hit 755 home runs in his career. And Hank Aaron now wears glasses. Brennan needed glasses for near vision (reading, etc.) his distance vision was still good until his accident (not too long after the assassination).
I have had poor vision my entire life. But I had no trouble recognizing a granddaughter from beyond the centerfield fence when batting or catching behind the plate.
So the healthy young observer part is not exclusive for better than average acuity at a distance. Just indicative that some aspects of vision are usually affected by age.
-
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."
There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up." Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared
So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did??? Nonsense!
2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm? Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape? The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic. Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"
This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.
In the Ball/Belin Report of February 1964, pages 3 through 10 are about Brennan and his statements to the FBI and Dallas Sheriff Dept. Brennan obviously felt his identity as someone who could identify Oswald was unknown to the press.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Ball-Belin%20Report.pdf
-
In the Ball/Belin Report of February 1964, pages 3 through 10 are about Brennan and his statements to the FBI and Dallas Sheriff Dept. Brennan obviously felt his identity as someone who could identify Oswald was unknown to the press.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Ball-Belin%20Report.pdf
Remarkably, according to the report Brennan did not identify Oswald at the DPD line up because it was his understanding that Oswald had already been identified for the Tippit murder. Seems a silly reason not to identify him for the Kennedy murder.
-
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
Brennan actually said: "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side."
There is a difference in saying "it appeared to me he was standing up" and saying "he was standing up."
SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”
Like I said earlier, there is no way to tell the distance between the window sills and the floors below them when viewing the TSBD from the outside. Brennan had no way of knowing that there is only about 12" of wall between the floor and the window sill. LHO was sitting on a box and was visible to Brennan when he leaned forward to look out the window. And he disappeared from Brennan's view when he simply sat up straight. He was positioned near the left side of the window when viewed from the interior. And the wall hid him from Brennan's view when he sat up straight. It is easy to believe that Brennan thought LHO walked away from the window when he disappeared from view. And therefore that could have been another reason that he assumed he must have been standing up. Just because Brennan assumed wrong about this particular aspect, it doesn't follow that he didn't get a good look at LHO.
This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was 3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
1. Brennan said: "As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared
So you think that an estimated 3-seconds worth of pausing and observing made it impossible for LHO to make it to the second floor lunchroom by the time Baker and Truly did???
Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.
2. Have you ever considered that LHO was wearing a white t-shirt under the darker shirt, and that he might have removed the outer shirt because the sunlight streaming in the windows made him warm?
Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.
Or that he did this because he wanted to change his appearance as part of his escape?
LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?
The discarding of the jacket after the Tippit shooting would be a similar tactic.
You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.
Your reasons for disbelieving Brennan are simply lame and can be easily explained away to anyone with an unbiased view.
Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
Here is what Brennan said: Mr. BRENNAN. "I do not know if it had a scope or not"
Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
This is an example of a detail that he simply was not paying attention to. I wouldn't expect Brennan or anyone else to remember every detail.
SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
Before you can make that argument, you need to find a reporter that says he "interviewed" Brennan. The five sentences from the 11/23/63 DMN article: Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan. don't indicate that Kent Biffle actually interviewed Brennan. In fact Biffle was in the motorcade and went into the TSBD with the first wave of cops. Then was locked inside the TSBD for most of the afternoon. Given all that I would guess that either those words could have been overheard by Hugh Aynesworth (who was outside the TSBD, nearby Brennan when he was talking to the police. Or they could have been leaked by the police to the DMN that evening.
Sigh. . . . Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.
Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.
So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
He had not had time to think much, or for the fear to develop fully yet when he made that statement. I believe that Brennan's fear increased as the afternoon and evening progressed. The fact that there were FBI agents who were assigned to watch Brennan and explained that they were there to protect him. The fact that some TV commentators kept insisting that there "must have been a conspiracy" that afternoon and evening. Additionally, when you read what Brennan describes in his book, he was pissed off at the situation. His expectations for being able to go in and identify LHO while keeping his identity confidential had been totally demolished. And I can understand his reluctance to fully cooperate under those circumstances. I don't believe that he did the right thing. But I can understand why he did it.
You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
Even Belin seemed to have doubts about Brennan's excuse for taking several weeks to ID Oswald as the man he'd seen:
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any officer or investigating person anything different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later--I don't recall exactly--and I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I--
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me he said, "You said you couldn't make a positive identification."
He said, "Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn't you?"
And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family and yourself?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe.
Mr. BELIN. Well, if you wouldn't have identified him, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. Beg pardon?
Mr. BELIN. If you would not have identified that man positively, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. That had a great contributing factor--greater contributing factor than my personal reasons was that I already knew they had the man for murder, and I knew he would not be released.
Mr. BELIN. The murder of whom?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of Officer Tippit.
Belin then asked Brennan what had caused him to no longer be afraid to positively ID Oswald, and Brennan said Oswald's death "relieved" his fear "quite a bit":
Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?
Mr. BRENNAN. After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody, there was no longer that immediate danger.
But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
I don't believe that anything the FBI could have said to Brennan, after they let him down regarding his confidentiality during the lineup, could have convinced him to do the right thing. He was that upset. When LHO was murdered it was some relief, but not a complete release of his fears. Eventually, I believe that Brennan realized that he needed to do the right thing.
Sigh. . . . You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.
-
Point out where I said 'in this thread'
OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.
So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...
The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here:
For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.
Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!
Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!
'Point out where I said 'in this thread' OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.'
So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...
> Claiming CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) are rife on these forums is vague and cannot be substantiated?
'The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here: For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view':
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.
> Check out my avatar and post count. And just how much damage do you think should have occurred to Ce399?
'Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!'
Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!
> I am impervious to your verbal barbs. And tell us just how many pages posting the butt-end view of Ce399 require.
-
"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" of the rifle and that he saw no scope on the rifle.
So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.
Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry."
> Why would he necessarily be in a hurry? Are you sure that Oswald expected to escape?
>Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
-
'Point out where I said 'in this thread' OAKers are rife here, there and everywhere.'
So, in your pathetic attempt to make a point, you are making a vague claim that can not be substantiated. Got it...
> Claiming CTers/JAQers (aka OAKers) are rife on these forums is vague and cannot be substantiated?
Yes
'The 'Lack of Damage to Ce399' thread on this forum is a fine example of what I have claimed here: For instance, Gary Craig has failed to include the butt end view along with the side view':
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1648.msg82893.html#msg82893
So what? The thread's name is correct. CE399 has a lack of damage. If you wanted to point out the obvious damage to the butt, you could have done so.
> Check out my avatar and post count. And just how much damage do you think should have occurred to Ce399?
Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?
'Additionally, nowhere in that 42-page thread has any OAKer intentionally posted a proper view of the butt-end of Ce399. And in a thread about damage to Ce399, no less!!'
Again, so what.... From all the cherry picking of evidence that goes on here, by both LNs and CTs, this is a minor issue. It is also near impossible to keep on repeating all the details for every aspect of the case. If that were done, nobody would be able to wade through the pages. So, stop whining, cry baby!
> I am impervious to your verbal barbs. And tell us just how many pages posting the butt-end view of Ce399 require.
No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?
I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?
-
SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”
This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was 3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.
Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.
Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.
LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?
You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.
Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?
Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.
Sigh. . . . Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.
Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.
So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?
You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
Even Belin seemed to have doubts about Brennan's excuse for taking several weeks to ID Oswald as the man he'd seen:
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any officer or investigating person anything different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later--I don't recall exactly--and I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I--
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me he said, "You said you couldn't make a positive identification."
He said, "Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn't you?"
And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family and yourself?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe.
Mr. BELIN. Well, if you wouldn't have identified him, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. Beg pardon?
Mr. BELIN. If you would not have identified that man positively, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. That had a great contributing factor--greater contributing factor than my personal reasons was that I already knew they had the man for murder, and I knew he would not be released.
Mr. BELIN. The murder of whom?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of Officer Tippit.
Belin then asked Brennan what had caused him to no longer be afraid to positively ID Oswald, and Brennan said Oswald's death "relieved" his fear "quite a bit":
Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?
Mr. BRENNAN. After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody, there was no longer that immediate danger.
But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.
Sigh. . . . You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.
SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”
If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you any further. You have your mind made up. You are extremely biased. And beyond hope.
This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was 3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.
How much of the man did Brennan testify he saw? Waist up. There is no way he would know for sure the man was standing up. He assumed he was.
Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.
You have it timed that close eh? You are just kidding yourself.
Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.
You present one lame excuse after another for disbelieving the possible. He could have put his shirt back on while walking across the sixth floor. Or while on the stairs. He did not need to stop everything to do that. You acting like we need to add extra time to the scenario is ridiculous.
LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?
Yes, we are talking about the same guy. I believe that he only leaned forward when he wanted to see what was going on. And stayed mostly out of view otherwise. He had not conceived the plan to assassinate JFK when the backyard photos were taken. And I do not know what you are talking about directing the police to the room where they were stored. You need to explain that one. The same goes with dropping the card.
You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.
Use the evidence to rule out the scenarios that are impossible. And then tell me what you think happened.
Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?
Your biased opinion is showing. I have addressed the issues you have brought up with credible, rational explanations.
Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.
Yeah, he didn't get the serial number either... bummer...
Sigh. . . . Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.
Again, provide any evidence that Brennan even spoke to a reporter on 11/22/63. According to what is written in his book he was trying to avoid them. Hugh Aynesworth was nearby and writes an account of that time period that agrees with Brennan's. You are the one being ridiculous by insisting otherwise.
Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.
So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?
You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
Brennan reluctantly got involved because he saw the police looking in the wrong places and didn't want the assassin to get away. He believed that he could do so confidentially. And that his identity could be kept from the public for the time being, until the danger had subsided. Just because he acted differently than you might have under the same circumstances is not a legitimate reason to just toss everything he said out the window.
But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.
Sigh. . . . You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.
That claim was made in Brennan's book. I believe that Brennan would have known for sure what his reasons were. The ridiculous claim that Brennan gave his name to reporters on 11/22/63 by Mark Lane in his book is only his assumption. The footnote specifies the DMN article as his evidence. That article apparently doesn't say where the name came from or that Brennan even talked to reporters that day. I will take my chances that Brennan's account is correct. You can go on deluding yourself. But do not expect me to agree with any such weak argument.
-
SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”
If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you any further. You have your mind made up. You are extremely biased. And beyond hope.
This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was 3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.
How much of the man did Brennan testify he saw? Waist up. There is no way he would know for sure the man was standing up. He assumed he was.
Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.
You have it timed that close eh? You are just kidding yourself.
Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.
You present one lame excuse after another for disbelieving the possible. He could have put his shirt back on while walking across the sixth floor. Or while on the stairs. He did not need to stop everything to do that. You acting like we need to add extra time to the scenario is ridiculous.
LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?
Yes, we are talking about the same guy. I believe that he only leaned forward when he wanted to see what was going on. And stayed mostly out of view otherwise. He had not conceived the plan to assassinate JFK when the backyard photos were taken. And I do not know what you are talking about directing the police to the room where they were stored. You need to explain that one. The same goes with dropping the card.
You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.
Use the evidence to rule out the scenarios that are impossible. And then tell me what you think happened.
Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?
Your biased opinion is showing. I have addressed the issues you have brought up with credible, rational explanations.
Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.
Yeah, he didn't get the serial number either... bummer...
Sigh. . . . Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.
Again, provide any evidence that Brennan even spoke to a reporter on 11/22/63. According to what is written in his book he was trying to avoid them. Hugh Aynesworth was nearby and writes an account of that time period that agrees with Brennan's. You are the one being ridiculous by insisting otherwise.
Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.
So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?
You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
Brennan reluctantly got involved because he saw the police looking in the wrong places and didn't want the assassin to get away. He believed that he could do so confidentially. And that his identity could be kept from the public for the time being, until the danger had subsided. Just because he acted differently than you might have under the same circumstances is not a legitimate reason to just toss everything he said out the window.
But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.
Sigh. . . . You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.
That claim was made in Brennan's book. I believe that Brennan would have known for sure what his reasons were. The ridiculous claim that Brennan gave his name to reporters on 11/22/63 by Mark Lane in his book is only his assumption. The footnote specifies the DMN article as his evidence. That article apparently doesn't say where the name came from or that Brennan even talked to reporters that day. I will take my chances that Brennan's account is correct. You can go on deluding yourself. But do not expect me to agree with any such weak argument.
If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you any further. You have your mind made up. You are extremely biased. And beyond hope.
There it is... the classic Collins response when he fails to convince with arguments. The irony is that Collins himself is just about the most biased person on the LN side. Not only has he made up his mind, but he will fight every word, every komma rather than conceed even the smallest point.
-
Yes
Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?
No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?
I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?
Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?
> Is expecting ppl to include both views of Ce399 in a thread about Ce399 'whining' in your universe?
No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?
> Just the ones where any given poster has posted only the side view and is claiming a pristine result
I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?
> Are you claiming that merely 'being fired' would cause the damage seen at the base of the bullet?
-
Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?
> Is expecting ppl to include both views of Ce399 in a thread about Ce399 'whining' in your universe?
Of course it is. And it's hypocritical as well... I have never seen you mentioning any evidence that supports the CT view.
Besides, the damage to CE399 is minimal. Everybody knows about it and it is of little significance to the discussion about that bullet
No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?
> Just the ones where any given poster has posted only the side view and is claiming a pristine result
So, now you feel you have the right to tell other people how they should post?
I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?
> Are you claiming that merely 'being fired' would cause the damage seen at the base of the bullet?
I'm no expert on weapons and bullets but I have spoken to enough people who are, to be convinced that there is nothing unusual about the condition of that bullet after it was fired. Are you claiming that damage to the butt was caused in another way?
-
Of course it is. And it's hypocritical as well... I have never seen you mentioning any evidence that supports the CT view.
Besides, the damage to CE399 is minimal. Everybody knows about it and it is of little significance to the discussion about that bullet
> The bullet exhibits a somewhat flattened side and butt-end. One can see in my avatar the notable difference between the perfectly round black circle in which it sits, and the (damaged) oval shape of the bullet's butt-end. This establishes that Ce399 did not emerge 'pristine' as CTers would have one believe.
So, now you feel you have the right to tell other people how they should post?
> I have the right to call people out when they attempt to mislead by posting only the side view in a discussion about minimal damage to Ce399
I'm no expert on weapons and bullets but I have spoken to enough people who are, to be convinced that there is nothing unusual about the condition of that bullet after it was fired. Are you claiming that damage to the butt was caused in another way?
There's definitely nothing unusual about CTers leaving out inconvenient evidence
-
The bullet is not 'pristine', pristine means 'in its original condition' which the bullet clearly is not. The bullet is obviously deformed. Why this can't be simply accepted is bewildering. Why it is taking up space on this thread is mystifying. It goes to show how entrenched a point of view can become. I'm assuming the word pristine was used because of the spectacularly minimal damage the bullet suffered causing all the injuries that it is credited with. The word is being used to highlight the lack of damage. The bullet is also not magic, it can't levitate or grant wishes, the word 'magic' in this instance is implying something else, just like the word 'pristine' is implying that anyone who believes that bullet shattered Connally's radius bone and emerged as 'pristine' as it did needs to up their meds.
-
By the way, are those of you who are relying on Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald aware of Brennan's behavior when the HSCA attempted to interview him and asked him to affirm the accuracy of his previous statements?
When the HSCA contacted Brennan, they were hoping to interview him at his home in Texas. But, according to an HSCA outside contact report dated March 13, 1978, Brennan "stated that the only way he will talk to anyone from this Committee, is if he is subpoenaed." A month later the committee asked him to reconsider and, when he refused, they informed him that he would be subpoenaed to testify. The HSCA contact report on Brennen recounted Brennan's reply:
"[Brennan said he] would not come to Washington and that he would fight any subpoena. And, in fact, Brennan was belligerent about not testifying. He stated that he would avoid any subpoena by getting his doctor to state that it would be bad for his health to testify about the assassination. He further told me that even if he was forced to come to Washington he would simply not testify if he didn't want to." (HSCA contact report, 4/20/78, Record No. 180-10068-10381)
Between May 15 and May 19, 1978, HSCA staffers made 11 attempts to present Brennan with previous statements he had made. They left a copy of his previous statements with him on May 19, along with a form that asked him to affirm that his previous statements were correct. But when the staffers returned a few days later to collect the form, they found that Brennan had refused to sign it. The HSCA went as far as granting Brennan immunity from prosecution, but he would not budge.
Now, gee, why do you suppose Brennan behaved in this manner and refused to affirm that his previous statements were accurate, even after he was granted immunity from prosecution?
-
By the way, are those of you who are relying on Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald aware of Brennan's behavior when the HSCA attempted to interview him and asked him to affirm the accuracy of his previous statements?
When the HSCA contacted Brennan, they were hoping to interview him at his home in Texas. But, according to an HSCA outside contact report dated March 13, 1978, Brennan "stated that the only way he will talk to anyone from this Committee, is if he is subpoenaed." A month later the committee asked him to reconsider and, when he refused, they informed him that he would be subpoenaed to testify. The HSCA contact report on Brennen recounted Brennan's reply:
"[Brennan said he] would not come to Washington and that he would fight any subpoena. And, in fact, Brennan was belligerent about not testifying. He stated that he would avoid any subpoena by getting his doctor to state that it would be bad for his health to testify about the assassination. He further told me that even if he was forced to come to Washington he would simply not testify if he didn't want to." (HSCA contact report, 4/20/78, Record No. 180-10068-10381)
Between May 15 and May 19, 1978, HSCA staffers made 11 attempts to present Brennan with previous statements he had made. They left a copy of his previous statements with him on May 19, along with a form that asked him to affirm that his previous statements were correct. But when the staffers returned a few days later to collect the form, they found that Brennan had refused to sign it. The HSCA went as far as granting Brennan immunity from prosecution, but he would not budge.
Now, gee, why do you suppose Brennan behaved in this manner and refused to affirm that his previous statements were accurate, even after he was granted immunity from prosecution?
On 5/1/78 Kenneth Klein received a letter from Dr. Eugene Mason (Brennan's doctor) stating that Brennan has a serious heart disease and recurrent peptic ulcer disease and is not physically able to come to Washington. He also said that Brennan could, if he was willing to do so, listen to a reading of his previous testimony at his home and declare whether or not the transcript was correct.
http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan3.htm
-
By the way, are those of you who are relying on Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald aware of Brennan's behavior when the HSCA attempted to interview him and asked him to affirm the accuracy of his previous statements?
When the HSCA contacted Brennan, they were hoping to interview him at his home in Texas. But, according to an HSCA outside contact report dated March 13, 1978, Brennan "stated that the only way he will talk to anyone from this Committee, is if he is subpoenaed." A month later the committee asked him to reconsider and, when he refused, they informed him that he would be subpoenaed to testify. The HSCA contact report on Brennen recounted Brennan's reply:
"[Brennan said he] would not come to Washington and that he would fight any subpoena. And, in fact, Brennan was belligerent about not testifying. He stated that he would avoid any subpoena by getting his doctor to state that it would be bad for his health to testify about the assassination. He further told me that even if he was forced to come to Washington he would simply not testify if he didn't want to." (HSCA contact report, 4/20/78, Record No. 180-10068-10381)
Between May 15 and May 19, 1978, HSCA staffers made 11 attempts to present Brennan with previous statements he had made. They left a copy of his previous statements with him on May 19, along with a form that asked him to affirm that his previous statements were correct. But when the staffers returned a few days later to collect the form, they found that Brennan had refused to sign it. The HSCA went as far as granting Brennan immunity from prosecution, but he would not budge.
Now, gee, why do you suppose Brennan behaved in this manner and refused to affirm that his previous statements were accurate, even after he was granted immunity from prosecution?
It appears to be "against your religion" to believe a word that Howard Brennan says. But for anyone reading this that has a less biased view, here is Brennan's side of the story from his book "Eyewitness to History":
After my return to Texas I immediately started to work again and by this time the calls about the assassination had almost stopped. Life had finally gotten back to where it had been before November 22, 1963. Then suddenly and without warning I had a massive heart attack in August of 1970. I don't know for sure if the heart attack was the result of the many years of stress brought on due to my being a witness of the assassination, but I do know without a doubt that what I went through for almost four years had taken a lot out of me. My health before 1963 was excellent and now I was suffering from a series of stress related illnesses which had culminated with the heart attack.
For 22 days I was in Intensive Care and the doctors doubted I would survive. I had a desperate determination to live to see my grandchildren grow up. I was only 51 at the time and I kept thinking, "Howard, that's just too young to die."
.
.
.
In the years between Howard Brennan's initial debilitating heart attack in 1970 and 1978, he had a long recovery time and against his doctors' advice tried to work in a supervisory position. He continued to have more serious heart related problems and finally took his doctors' advice and retired for good by 1978.
.
.
.
In April of 1978 I got a call from Washington. I had heard that hearings were going to be held by a special Congressional Committee on Assassinations, chaired by Rep. Louis Stokes. A sub-committee on the assassination of John F. Kennedy was headed by Rep. Richardson Preyer. The call was for me to give testimony to this committee. Suddenly, all the agony I had experienced over several years returned. I believe the name of the man who first called me was Ken Klein. He said a group would be in Dallas in the next few days and wanted to interview me. I felt I had done as much for my country as I could and told him so. "I have whashed my hands of the whole thing." I said. "There is no way that I can give you an interview." The man said, "Mr. Brennan, this is most important. You have to help us." "I don't HAVE to do anything." I said. "But I'll tell you what I will do. If you do it my way, I'll cooperate. If any of your people want to see me, have them call the Police Chief "Cagy Evans in Kaufman. He will determine if I should see you. I won't see any more than one or two at a time. I live out in the country and it would be difficult for you to find. This is the only way I can see you." I knew that Chief Evans would shield me from anyone who was not authentic. He knew my condition and would not let me be exposed to too much pressure. I did not want any newsman coming out for any kind of interview. I had been contacted by hundreds of the media, wanting this or that and I couldn't see one more newsman if my life depended on it. Chief Evans would prevent that. The Congressional Investigating Committee started sending investigarors to Dallas within a day or two and they came to my house. I was just as determined that I would not speak with them concerning the assassination of J.F.K. I had told it all, at least I thought I had and didn't think I could take one more inquiry.
A staff investigator by the name of Day came, seeking help. He was polite and I immediately liked him. I didn't feel I could help him, but we had a good rapport. When he was ready to leave, he encountered something he never had to deal with in Washington, he was stuck in the mud! We tried as best we could to pull him out, but without success. Finally, we called a neighbor who had a large tractor who came and got him out.
I didn't know what the next move would be. They had come to my house at three or four day intervals for two weeks or so and then one day a Mr. Lawrence J. Delse, served me a congressional subpoena. It commanded that I appear in Washington to testify before the sub-committee within the next few days. I was stunned. It was April 28, 1978. For fifteen years this one event had controlled my life, driven me from one corner of the world to the other, played an instrumental part in my heart attack and the break down of my health, been a factor in my early retirement and now they wanted me to go back to Washington and start all over again.
"Mr. Delse," I said, "I can't accept this subpoena. I cannot go to Washington to testify." He looked at me as if I had just defiled the flag. "What do you mean?' he said. "I mean that my health will not permit me to leave here or be involved in this investigation in any manner!" I didn't mean to appear impertinent, but I finally felt I had had enough. "Mr. Brennan," he said, "This is not something you can make a decision about, you have to obey a congressional subpoena!" "I have had several heart attacks and my doctor will not permit it. If you don't believe me, you can call him. His name is Dr. Eugene Mason!" I gave him the phone number and sat back. Mr. Delse seemed not to know what to do. It was the first time apparently that anyone had refused to accept a subpoena. He said, "May I use your phone?" I replied, "of course." He put through a call to Washington talking with several people before finally reaching the Chairman, Congressman Stokes. After he hung up, he said that Mr. Stokes would be calling back after he conferred with Dr. Mason. We waited for several minutes and the phone rang. Mr. Delse answered and then said Mr. Stokes wanted to talk to me. I took the phone and Mr. Stokes told me he had talked to my doctor and was told that he should 'dump the whole thing.' "Will you cooperate?" Louis Stokes asked. "I'm sorry but I can't," I told him. "I'm not physically able to testify and I don't think your committee would want to force the issue with someone who had a medical background like mine." "Let me talk to Mr. Delse again," he said. Mr Delse took the phone and was told to give me anything I wanted. "I want something in writing," I said. "I want a note that shows I didn't ignore this subpoena." Together we sat down and formulated a note. He was not willing to excuse me from testifying, since it was a congressional matter He was authorized to give a note granting a two week extension. (22) He said I would be contacted again as to when and if I was to appear. We both knew that, even as we were talking, it would be the end of things. As Mr. Delse backed his car out of our driveway and headed toward Dallas, I stood and watched his car disappear over the horizon. His going signalled the end of it all; all the nightmares, all the intrusions, all the fears, all the tensions, all the sleepless nights, all the dreaded phone calls, all the insinuations, all the abuse by the press. For the first time in 14 years, five months and six days, I was finally free. The burden of being the only eyewitness to the assassination of President Kennedy was lifted. I didn't have anyghing else to dread.
Footnote 22: (Atere extensive phone calls by Mr. Lawrence Delse, to Mr. Ken Klein in Washington, his immediate superior and the Honorable Louis Stokes who headed the sub-committee on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mr. Delse wrote in long-hand on a legal tablet the following message. Mr. Delse had come with a subpoena for Howard Brennan to appear four days later, but conversation with Dr. Eugene Mason of Dallas convinced them not to push the subpoena. Legally, they could not allow anyone to ignore a Congressional summon, so they compromised by granting an "extension" that would simply fade away into oblivion.
"This summons from the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America for Howard L. Brennan to appear before them on May 2, 1978 is now extended for a period of two weeks. During this period members of the Select Committee on Assassinations will contact Howard L. Brennan at his home to interview him. This has been agreed up by Ken Klein and Mr. Brennan."
Dated: April 28, 1978 signed by Lawrence J. Delse, Staff Investigator
-
Of course it is. And it's hypocritical as well... I have never seen you mentioning any evidence that supports the CT view.
Besides, the damage to CE399 is minimal. Everybody knows about it and it is of little significance to the discussion about that bullet
> The bullet exhibits a somewhat flattened side and butt-end. One can see in my avatar the notable difference between the perfectly round black circle in which it sits, and the (damaged) oval shape of the bullet's butt-end. This establishes that Ce399 did not emerge 'pristine' as CTers would have one believe.
Oh please... your whining is getting annoying
This establishes that Ce399 did not emerge 'pristine'
Really? Not one bullet emerges "pristine" when it is fired!
So, now you feel you have the right to tell other people how they should post?
> I have the right to call people out when they attempt to mislead by posting only the side view in a discussion about minimal damage to Ce399
Well, I'll give you this; you are indeed somewhat of an expert when it comes to misleading people by only posting one sided information.
But who exactly are you calling out?
I'm no expert on weapons and bullets but I have spoken to enough people who are, to be convinced that there is nothing unusual about the condition of that bullet after it was fired. Are you claiming that damage to the butt was caused in another way?
There's definitely nothing unusual about CTers leaving out inconvenient evidence
Oh please... as if LNs don't do the same on a daily basis....
Btw, since you didn't answer the question, I assume that you are not claiming that the damage to the butt was caused in any other way than by firing the bullet.
Great stuff, you are whining about minimal damage to the butt of bullet for which you can't even provide a shred of evidence that it is in any way related to the Kennedy murder or Parkland Hospital.... Wow!
-
On 5/1/78 Kenneth Klein received a letter from Dr. Eugene Mason (Brennan's doctor) stating that Brennan has a serious heart disease and recurrent peptic ulcer disease and is not physically able to come to Washington. He also said that Brennan could, if he was willing to do so, listen to a reading of his previous testimony at his home and declare whether or not the transcript was correct.
This makes no sense. If Brennan was medically incapable of confirming his previous statements, even if he didn't have to read them but they were read to him, then why did he say he would only testify if he were subpoenaed? Why did he say that he would get his doctor to say that testifying would be bad for his health, but nothing about his being incapable of testifying? How was Brennan able to speak with HSCA staffers and say all this stuff but supposedly unable to confirm the accuracy of his previous statements?
-
It appears to be "against your religion" to believe a word that Howard Brennan says. But for anyone reading this that has a less biased view, here is Brennan's side of the story from his book "Eyewitness to History":
After my return to Texas I immediately started to work again and by this time the calls about the assassination had almost stopped. Life had finally gotten back to where it had been before November 22, 1963. Then suddenly and without warning I had a massive heart attack in August of 1970. I don't know for sure if the heart attack was the result of the many years of stress brought on due to my being a witness of the assassination, but I do know without a doubt that what I went through for almost four years had taken a lot out of me. My health before 1963 was excellent and now I was suffering from a series of stress related illnesses which had culminated with the heart attack.
For 22 days I was in Intensive Care and the doctors doubted I would survive. I had a desperate determination to live to see my grandchildren grow up. I was only 51 at the time and I kept thinking, "Howard, that's just too young to die."
.
.
.
In the years between Howard Brennan's initial debilitating heart attack in 1970 and 1978, he had a long recovery time and against his doctors' advice tried to work in a supervisory position. He continued to have more serious heart related problems and finally took his doctors' advice and retired for good by 1978.
.
.
.
In April of 1978 I got a call from Washington. I had heard that hearings were going to be held by a special Congressional Committee on Assassinations, chaired by Rep. Louis Stokes. A sub-committee on the assassination of John F. Kennedy was headed by Rep. Richardson Preyer. The call was for me to give testimony to this committee. Suddenly, all the agony I had experienced over several years returned. I believe the name of the man who first called me was Ken Klein. He said a group would be in Dallas in the next few days and wanted to interview me. I felt I had done as much for my country as I could and told him so. "I have whashed my hands of the whole thing." I said. "There is no way that I can give you an interview." The man said, "Mr. Brennan, this is most important. You have to help us." "I don't HAVE to do anything." I said. "But I'll tell you what I will do. If you do it my way, I'll cooperate. If any of your people want to see me, have them call the Police Chief "Cagy Evans in Kaufman. He will determine if I should see you. I won't see any more than one or two at a time. I live out in the country and it would be difficult for you to find. This is the only way I can see you." I knew that Chief Evans would shield me from anyone who was not authentic. He knew my condition and would not let me be exposed to too much pressure. I did not want any newsman coming out for any kind of interview. I had been contacted by hundreds of the media, wanting this or that and I couldn't see one more newsman if my life depended on it. Chief Evans would prevent that. The Congressional Investigating Committee started sending investigarors to Dallas within a day or two and they came to my house. I was just as determined that I would not speak with them concerning the assassination of J.F.K. I had told it all, at least I thought I had and didn't think I could take one more inquiry.
A staff investigator by the name of Day came, seeking help. He was polite and I immediately liked him. I didn't feel I could help him, but we had a good rapport. When he was ready to leave, he encountered something he never had to deal with in Washington, he was stuck in the mud! We tried as best we could to pull him out, but without success. Finally, we called a neighbor who had a large tractor who came and got him out.
I didn't know what the next move would be. They had come to my house at three or four day intervals for two weeks or so and then one day a Mr. Lawrence J. Delse, served me a congressional subpoena. It commanded that I appear in Washington to testify before the sub-committee within the next few days. I was stunned. It was April 28, 1978. For fifteen years this one event had controlled my life, driven me from one corner of the world to the other, played an instrumental part in my heart attack and the break down of my health, been a factor in my early retirement and now they wanted me to go back to Washington and start all over again.
"Mr. Delse," I said, "I can't accept this subpoena. I cannot go to Washington to testify." He looked at me as if I had just defiled the flag. "What do you mean?' he said. "I mean that my health will not permit me to leave here or be involved in this investigation in any manner!" I didn't mean to appear impertinent, but I finally felt I had had enough. "Mr. Brennan," he said, "This is not something you can make a decision about, you have to obey a congressional subpoena!" "I have had several heart attacks and my doctor will not permit it. If you don't believe me, you can call him. His name is Dr. Eugene Mason!" I gave him the phone number and sat back. Mr. Delse seemed not to know what to do. It was the first time apparently that anyone had refused to accept a subpoena. He said, "May I use your phone?" I replied, "of course." He put through a call to Washington talking with several people before finally reaching the Chairman, Congressman Stokes. After he hung up, he said that Mr. Stokes would be calling back after he conferred with Dr. Mason. We waited for several minutes and the phone rang. Mr. Delse answered and then said Mr. Stokes wanted to talk to me. I took the phone and Mr. Stokes told me he had talked to my doctor and was told that he should 'dump the whole thing.' "Will you cooperate?" Louis Stokes asked. "I'm sorry but I can't," I told him. "I'm not physically able to testify and I don't think your committee would want to force the issue with someone who had a medical background like mine." "Let me talk to Mr. Delse again," he said. Mr Delse took the phone and was told to give me anything I wanted. "I want something in writing," I said. "I want a note that shows I didn't ignore this subpoena." Together we sat down and formulated a note. He was not willing to excuse me from testifying, since it was a congressional matter He was authorized to give a note granting a two week extension. (22) He said I would be contacted again as to when and if I was to appear. We both knew that, even as we were talking, it would be the end of things. As Mr. Delse backed his car out of our driveway and headed toward Dallas, I stood and watched his car disappear over the horizon. His going signalled the end of it all; all the nightmares, all the intrusions, all the fears, all the tensions, all the sleepless nights, all the dreaded phone calls, all the insinuations, all the abuse by the press. For the first time in 14 years, five months and six days, I was finally free. The burden of being the only eyewitness to the assassination of President Kennedy was lifted. I didn't have anyghing else to dread.
Footnote 22: (Atere extensive phone calls by Mr. Lawrence Delse, to Mr. Ken Klein in Washington, his immediate superior and the Honorable Louis Stokes who headed the sub-committee on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mr. Delse wrote in long-hand on a legal tablet the following message. Mr. Delse had come with a subpoena for Howard Brennan to appear four days later, but conversation with Dr. Eugene Mason of Dallas convinced them not to push the subpoena. Legally, they could not allow anyone to ignore a Congressional summon, so they compromised by granting an "extension" that would simply fade away into oblivion.
"This summons from the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America for Howard L. Brennan to appear before them on May 2, 1978 is now extended for a period of two weeks. During this period members of the Select Committee on Assassinations will contact Howard L. Brennan at his home to interview him. This has been agreed up by Ken Klein and Mr. Brennan."
Dated: April 28, 1978 signed by Lawrence J. Delse, Staff Investigator
Amazing. Brennan did not want to recall the events of 11/22/63 for the HSCA, for fear of being exposed to too much pressure, and then goes on to recall the events of 11/22/63 for his book...
-
It appears to be "against your religion" to believe a word that Howard Brennan says.
No, but your religion appears to be to defend Brennan no matter what.
I've said several times that I actually believe much of Brennan's testimony and that Brennan was clearly coerced into identifying Oswald as the man he'd seen in the window.
But for anyone reading this that has a less biased view, here is Brennan's side of the story from his book "Eyewitness to History": [SNIP]
LOL! I guess it didn't occur to you that Brennan's account utterly debunks his doctor's claim that he was incapable of affirming or denying the accuracy of his previous statements even if they were read to him?
-
No, but your religion appears to be to defend Brennan no matter what.
I've said several times that I actually believe much of Brennan's testimony and that Brennan was clearly coerced into identifying Oswald as the man he'd seen in the window.
LOL! I guess it didn't occur to you that Brennan's account utterly debunks his doctor's claim that he was incapable of affirming or denying the accuracy of his previous statements even if they were read to him?
I guess it didn't occur to you that Brennan's account utterly debunks his doctor's claim that he was incapable of affirming or denying the accuracy of his previous statements even if they were read to him?
That isn’t what the doctor said. Read it again.
-
Oh please... your whining is getting annoying
This establishes that Ce399 did not emerge 'pristine'
Really? Not one bullet emerges "pristine" when it is fired!
Well, I'll give you this; you are indeed somewhat of an expert when it comes to misleading people by only posting one sided information.
But who exactly are you calling out?
Oh please... as if LNs don't do the same on a daily basis....
Btw, since you didn't answer the question, I assume that you are not claiming that the damage to the butt was caused in any other way than by firing the bullet.
Great stuff, you are whining about minimal damage to the butt of bullet for which you can't even provide a shred of evidence that it is in any way related to the Kennedy murder or Parkland Hospital.... Wow!
Oh please... your whining is getting annoying
You get annoyed with anyone who disagrees with you
Really? Not one bullet emerges "pristine" when it is fired!
CTers claim a 'pristine' Ce399 outcome
Well, I'll give you this; you are indeed somewhat of an expert when it comes to misleading people by only posting one sided information.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRh1Njsw/Photo-ce399-base.jpg)
Typical LN real-deal presentation
re PristineGate
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dhTQsw0/ce300-side-view.jpg)
Typical OAKer presentation re PristineGate
But who exactly are you calling out?
Gary Craig, who posted images of damaged bullets and the side view of Ce399, and at the same time failed to post the damaged view of Ce399
Oh please... as if LNs don't do the same on a daily basis
So you admit CTers are disingenuous. Baby steps, contrarian... baby steps
Btw, since you didn't answer the question, I assume that you are not claiming that the damage to the butt was caused in any other way than by firing the bullet.
You seem to be claiming that the firing pin caused the damage to the butt-end of Ce399
Great stuff, you are whining about minimal damage to the butt of bullet for which you can't even provide a shred of evidence that it is in any way related to the Kennedy murder or Parkland Hospital.... Wow!
Wow! That sounds like a bailout to me: You wouldn't happen to be inching towards the exit by demanding proof of Ce399's involvement before establishing whether-or-not FMJ ammo could have performed as advertised, now would you?
-
That isn’t what the doctor said. Read it again.
You're correct. I misread the statement:
He also said that Brennan could, if he was willing to do so, listen to a reading of his previous testimony at his home and declare whether or not the transcript was correct.
But this doesn't solve the problems. Why didn't Brennan say anything about this to the HSCA staffers? How was able to have all the back and forth with the staffers but not take--what?--30 minutes to read his previous statements, or have them read to him, and affirm or deny their accuracy?
How can any objective person not see that Brennan was ducking and dodging because he knew that this time around he would not have the WC asking him softball questions but would have to explain the many holes in his story?
-
Oh please... your whining is getting annoying
You get annoyed with anyone who disagrees with you
On what do you disagree with me?
Really? Not one bullet emerges "pristine" when it is fired!
CTers claim a 'pristine' Ce399 outcome
So you keep saying and by doing so you misrepresent the facts as there are plenty of CTs who don't make that claim... But for you, misrepresenting facts is only a problem when somebody else does it, right?
Well, I'll give you this; you are indeed somewhat of an expert when it comes to misleading people by only posting one sided information.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRh1Njsw/Photo-ce399-base.jpg)
Typical LN real-deal presentation
re PristineGate
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dhTQsw0/ce300-side-view.jpg)
Typical OAKer presentation re PristineGate
Nice pictures....
But who exactly are you calling out?
Gary Craig, who posted images of damaged bullets and the side view of Ce399, and at the same time failed to post the damaged view of Ce399
So, go and talk to him... why are you bothering me with this BS?
Oh please... as if LNs don't do the same on a daily basis
So you admit CTers are disingenuous. Baby steps, contrarian... baby steps
Nope.. you got it wrong, again, as per usual... you are complaining about CTs that are doing the same thing that LNs do on a daily basis. Nowhere in that statement did I say or even imply that CTs are disingenuous. Better fix your comprehension skills and then try to understand what I mean when I say that, in general, some CTs, just like some LNs, are indeed disingenuous.... Don't crack your head trying to figure that one out!
Btw, since you didn't answer the question, I assume that you are not claiming that the damage to the butt was caused in any other way than by firing the bullet.
You seem to be claiming that the firing pin caused the damage to the butt-end of Ce399
Well, did it or not? If not, what caused the damage? Stop fiddling about, you've had plenty of time to come up with an answer to my question.
Great stuff, you are whining about minimal damage to the butt of bullet for which you can't even provide a shred of evidence that it is in any way related to the Kennedy murder or Parkland Hospital.... Wow!
Wow! That sounds like a bailout to me: You wouldn't happen to be inching towards the exit by demanding proof of Ce399's involvement before establishing whether-or-not FMJ ammo could have performed as advertised, now would you?
There is no bail out. When you get back to reality you will find (or maybe you won't) that I was not discussing FMJ ammo and it's performance with you.
The only reason for me to discuss a bullet is when that bullet in fact pertains the case. For a very long time now, I've been asking for evidence or proof - in vain I might add - that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland Hospital and/or was fired in Deally Plaza at 12.30 on 11/22/63.
Without that proof it doesn't matter one bit "whether-or-not FMJ ammo could have performed as advertised". And as I have already told you I am no expert on weapons and bullets, you're talking to the wrong person about that subject anyway.
-
You're correct. I misread the statement:
But this doesn't solve the problems. Why didn't Brennan say anything about this to the HSCA staffers? How was able to have all the back and forth with the staffers but not take--what?--30 minutes to read his previous statements, or have them read to him, and affirm or deny their accuracy?
How can any objective person not see that Brennan was ducking and dodging because he knew that this time around he would not have the WC asking him softball questions but would have to explain the many holes in his story?
Why didn't Brennan say anything about this to the HSCA staffers? How was able to have all the back and forth with the staffers but not take--what?--30 minutes to read his previous statements, or have them read to him, and affirm or deny their accuracy?
Brennan's version of the events, which I posted earlier from his book, are self explanatory and much different than what Bill Chapman posted:
On 5/1/78 Kenneth Klein received a letter from Dr. Eugene Mason (Brennan's doctor) stating that Brennan has a serious heart disease and recurrent peptic ulcer disease and is not physically able to come to Washington. He also said that Brennan could, if he was willing to do so, listen to a reading of his previous testimony at his home and declare whether or not the transcript was correct.
http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan3.htm
The website (whokilledjfk.net) is unimpressive, clearly biased, and appears to have not been updated since 2014. There is no reference number to the "letter from Mason to Klein." So I cannot verify that it is correct. If Brennan's written account in his book is correct, he was let off the hook after he talked to Mr. Stokes:
Legally, they could not allow anyone to ignore a Congressional summon, so they compromised by granting an "extension" that would simply fade away into oblivion.
How can any objective person not see that Brennan was ducking and dodging because he knew that this time around he would not have the WC asking him softball questions but would have to explain the many holes in his story?
Typical conjecture and innuendo. And another illegitimately complex question. ::)
-
Even the coverup commission concluded....
Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer,
he declined to make a positive identification of Oswald when
he first saw him in the police lineup. The Commission, therefore,
does not base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on
Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald
as the man he saw fire the rifle.
And yet, the innuendo that Brennan was coerced into positively identifying LHO by the feds is argued. Go figure...
-
Window dressing isn't he?
Like icing on a cake.
-
He failed at the lineup.
Game over.
That was too far out even for the fake commission.
So the “game was over” on 11/22/63 and they still kept hounding him and asking for testimony until 1978? Really???
-
Game over as far as Oswald on the 6th floor.
The HSCA started out as an investigation, so there's no contradiction.
Wait, have you started your research?
Oh, I get it, “game over,” but ummm...not really...
Thanks for keeping everyone straight, ummm...not really...
-
No, you didn't get it even though I gave you the exact quote from the WCR.
The HSCA had actual investigators.
At least initially they tried to work out what had happened.
And the WCR includes appropriate language. Including the words “declined” and “certain.”
-
And yet, the innuendo that Brennan was coerced into positively identifying LHO by the feds is argued. Go figure...
Duh... they had no other witness for the TSBD shooter. They needed him to make the link to Oswald.
-
And the WCR includes appropriate language. Including the words “declined” and “certain.”
The WCR also said that the commission would not rely on Brennan's identificion of Oswald and then they did exactly that.
-
Can someone out there decode this?
Meanwhile, what does the research of yours say about clothing missing from the APB:
"No clothing description. A white male, approximately thirty, slender build, five feet ten, weighs one sixty-five."
They used the word “declined” (not couldn’t, which I often see used here).
They used “certain” (which in this context means: having complete conviction about something; confident; or: known for sure; established beyond doubt.)
-
Example of WC double-talk on page 250:
Several witnesses outside the building claim to have seen a person
in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. As has already been
indicated, some were able to offer better descriptions than others and
one, Howard L. Brennan, made a positive identification of Oswald as
being the person at the window.^57
Footnote 57. Ch. IV, pp, 143-147.
Referring to their own report containing the passage I already quoted!
The Commission, therefore,
does not base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on
Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald
as the man he saw fire the rifle.
In short, the commission did not leave their decision up to only one witness
If the commission had done so, you lot would be screaming your little lungs out
If Euins had made an ID, which turned out to be similar to Brennan's, you lot would be screaming 'fake, it's a conspiracy!'
-
People who are determined to believe Howard Brennan will ignore all the problems with his story. Let's just summarize those problems:
* By any fair, objective measurement, Brennan's behavior toward the HSCA was not what one would expect from an honest witness who had nothing to hide and who had no reason to fear being critically questioned about his previous statements.
* Brennan said he did not observe a scope on the rifle, and that he saw 70-85% of the rifle. A scope is a pretty hard thing to miss. A rifle with a scope looks very different from a rifle without one. If Brennan could see so well that he could see the man's face clearly enough to be able to ID him later, he should have had no problem seeing the scope on the rifle. If there was no scope on the rifle, then that rifle was a different rifle than the one that Oswald allegedly used.
* Brennan's belated story that he failed to ID Oswald in the lineup because he feared retribution from accomplices is belied by his willingness to talk with journalists earlier in the day.
* Brennan said the man fired while standing up. Brennan even specified the man's exact position while he was firing: the man was "resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
* Brennan said the man lingered in the window for a few seconds and did not appear to be in a hurry, and this part of his testimony agrees with that of the men who were beneath the window, one of whom specified that he did not hear any movement above him right after the shots were fired. This is a devastating blow to the theory that Oswald was in the window and that he dashed from the window down to the second floor in time to be seen by Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom.
* Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing. This is another part of Brennan's testimony that agrees with that of four other witnesses, who gave a similar description of the man's clothing and two of whom said the man's shirt was partially unbuttoned, which argues against the theory that the man was just wearing a T-shirt. But we know Oswald wore a dark shirt to work that day and was seen in that shirt less than 90 seconds on the second floor after the shooting.
* Brennan insisted that the man only fired two shots. Here, too, Brennan's testimony agrees with that of a number of other witnesses. It also agrees with the ballistics evidence found in the sniper's nest: one of the spent shells had a dent and could not have been used to fire a bullet that day. Australian detective Colin McLaren reasonably argues that the casing was simply used as a chamber plug to keep dirt and grease out of the chamber. This means that the sixth-floor gunman could have fired only two shots.
* Brennan's distance vision would have had to be remarkable, exceptional to enable him to see the man's face in any detail from 120.2 feet and looking through a halfway-closed window. It is very doubtful that he could have seen the man's face clearly enough to be able to ID him later. Brennan would have been able to see hair color, general facial shape, and complexion, but not specific facial features that would have enabled future identification of the man.
* Brennan repeatedly underestimated how far away he was from the window. He gave two distances, both of which were markedly lower than the actual distance (120.2 feet).
* Brennan said nothing about his alleged anger at reporters in his WC testimony. Not one word.
* The Zapruder film shows that Brennan was not even looking up until after frame 207, over 2 seconds after the first shot was fired (Z145-160).
* Brennan did not agree to ID Oswald as the man in the window until December 17, nearly 4 weeks after the shooting.
* Brennan's foreman said that federal agents pressured Brennan to ID Oswald and that Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after dealing with them.
I would be curious to take a poll among those who accept Brennan's Oswald ID to see how many of them also accept Arnold Rowland's far more credible and far less problematic testimony regarding activity that he saw on the sixth floor 15 minutes before the shooting.
-
In short, the commission did not leave their decision up to only one witness
If the commission had done so, you lot would be screaming your little lungs out
If Euins had made an ID, which turned out to be similar to Brennan's, you lot would be screaming 'fake, it's a conspiracy!'
In short, the commission did not leave their decision up to only one witness
Yeah, that's what they said and then they did exactly that!
There was nobody else who could even come close to "identifying" Oswald as the shooter in the window.
If Euins had made an ID, which turned out to be similar to Brennan's, you lot would be screaming 'fake, it's a conspiracy!'
But Euins didn't make an ID, which is why you and your ilk are desperately clinging to Brennan's unreliable story.
Just like they did with Markham, the WC basically called Brennan unreliable, and just like they did with Markham, they relied on his story nevertheless, because it was all they had to build their prosecutorial narrative on.
-
People who are determined to believe Howard Brennan will ignore all the problems with his story. Let's just summarize those problems:
* By any fair, objective measurement, Brennan's behavior toward the HSCA was not what one would expect from an honest witness who had nothing to hide and who had no reason to fear being critically questioned about his previous statements.
* Brennan said he did not observe a scope on the rifle, and that he saw 70-85% of the rifle. A scope is a pretty hard thing to miss. A rifle with a scope looks very different from a rifle without one. If Brennan could see so well that he could see the man's face clearly enough to be able to ID him later, he should have had no problem seeing the scope on the rifle. If there was no scope on the rifle, then that rifle was a different rifle than the one that Oswald allegedly used.
* Brennan's belated story that he failed to ID Oswald in the lineup because he feared retribution from accomplices is belied by his willingness to talk with journalists earlier in the day.
* Brennan said the man fired while standing up. Brennan even specified the man's exact position while he was firing: the man was "resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
* Brennan said the man lingered in the window for a few seconds and did not appear to be in a hurry, and this part of his testimony agrees with that of the men who were beneath the window, one of whom specified that he did not hear any movement above him right after the shots were fired. This is a devastating blow to the theory that Oswald was in the window and that he dashed from the window down to the second floor in time to be seen by Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom.
* Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing. This is another part of Brennan's testimony that agrees with that of four other witnesses, who gave a similar description of the man's clothing and two of whom said the man's shirt was partially unbuttoned, which argues against the theory that the man was just wearing a T-shirt. But we know Oswald wore a dark shirt to work that day and was seen in that shirt less than 90 seconds on the second floor after the shooting.
* Brennan insisted that the man only fired two shots. Here, too, Brennan's testimony agrees with that of a number of other witnesses. It also agrees with the ballistics evidence found in the sniper's nest: one of the spent shells had a dent and could not have been used to fire a bullet that day. Australian detective Colin McLaren reasonably argues that the casing was simply used as a chamber plug to keep dirt and grease out of the chamber. This means that the sixth-floor gunman could have fired only two shots.
* Brennan's distance vision would have had to be remarkable, exceptional to enable him to see the man's face in any detail from 120.2 feet and looking through a halfway-closed window. It is very doubtful that he could have seen the man's face clearly enough to be able to ID him later. Brennan would have been able to see hair color, general facial shape, and complexion, but not specific facial features that would have enabled future identification of the man.
* Brennan repeatedly underestimated how far away he was from the window. He gave two distances, both of which were markedly lower than the actual distance (120.2 feet).
* Brennan said nothing about his alleged anger at reporters in his WC testimony. Not one word.
* The Zapruder film shows that Brennan was not even looking up until after frame 207, over 2 seconds after the first shot was fired (Z145-160).
* Brennan did not agree to ID Oswald as the man in the window until December 17, nearly 4 weeks after the shooting.
* Brennan's foreman said that federal agents pressured Brennan to ID Oswald and that Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after dealing with them.
I would be curious to take a poll among those who accept Brennan's Oswald ID to see how many of them also accept Arnold Rowland's far more credible and far less problematic testimony regarding activity that he saw on the sixth floor 15 minutes before the shooting.
When the discussion starts going in circle and covering the same items over and over again it is time for me to just ignore it. The sad part is that you believe your own untruths and refuse to listen to reason. One cannot reason with an unreasonable person, period.
-
When the discussion starts going in circle and covering the same items over and over again it is time for me to just ignore it. The sad part is that you believe your own untruths and refuse to listen to reason. One cannot reason with an unreasonable person, period.
But you have not explained a single one of those points. You've found it necessary to misrepresent Brennan's testimony on the rifle scope and on the man's position while firing. You've offered only specious excuses for Brennan's combative conduct toward the HSCA. You've quoted a source that said that a young person with exceptional distance vision could have seen the man's face clearly, apparently unaware that Brennan was 44 and wore glasses at the time of the shooting. You have yet to address the fact that the Z film shows that Brennan didn't even look up until after Z207. You've tried to explain away Brennan's corroborated statement about the color of the man's clothing by speculating that the man took off his shirt and was just wearing his T-shirt while firing, ignoring the fact that two other witnesses said the man's shirt had buttons and was partially unbuttoned. You have yet to address the fact that Jarman said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired and that Williams' testimony supported Jarman's, and yet you claim that Oswald would have had an extra 3-4 seconds to linger at the window and put his shirt back on, when the WC had to severely rig its reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements to get him down to the second floor in time. Etc., etc., etc.
We are going around in circles, but only because you will not credibly and honestly deal with the problems with Brennan's account.
-
If Oswald was planning to escape, wouldn't he have arranged to have a car nearby to escape in?
-
If Oswald was planning to escape, wouldn't he have arranged to have a car nearby to escape in?
Clearly, Oswald did not have any idea that he would need to escape.
We don't know Oswald's entire side of the story. We have only snippets of his account through the filter of DPD and federal agents. Incredibly, not one of Oswald's interrogations was recorded, nor even stenographed. Unbelievable. The crime of the century, if not the millennium, and neither the DPD, the SS, nor the FBI managed to record or stenograph a single one of Oswald's interrogations. And then the DPD allowed Jack Ruby into the basement and enabled him to silence Oswald forever. Oswald might have lived if the DPD officers had not waited for an ambulance instead of driving him immediately to the hospital, and if they had not pressed on his chest/stomach, the very opposite of what you should do with someone who has a stomach wound.
-
Clearly, Oswald did not have any idea that he would need to escape.
Unless Oswald went to a predetermined area where he was supposed to get in a car and then found there was none. Then realized he was on his own and had been ditched. That would explain why he then got on a bus that was clearly a bad idea because it was heading back into Dealey Plaza.
-
...if they [the DPD] had not pressed on his chest/stomach, the very opposite of what you should do with someone who has a stomach wound.
I never heard this detail before. They tried to give him CPR? Which officers tried to do that?
-
But you have not explained a single one of those points. You've found it necessary to misrepresent Brennan's testimony on the rifle scope and on the man's position while firing. You've offered only specious excuses for Brennan's combative conduct toward the HSCA. You've quoted a source that said that a young person with exceptional distance vision could have seen the man's face clearly, apparently unaware that Brennan was 44 and wore glasses at the time of the shooting. You have yet to address the fact that the Z film shows that Brennan didn't even look up until after Z207. You've tried to explain away Brennan's corroborated statement about the color of the man's clothing by speculating that the man took off his shirt and was just wearing his T-shirt while firing, ignoring the fact that two other witnesses said the man's shirt had buttons and was partially unbuttoned. You have yet to address the fact that Jarman said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired and that Williams' testimony supported Jarman's, and yet you claim that Oswald would have had an extra 3-4 seconds to linger at the window and put his shirt back on, when the WC had to severely rig its reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements to get him down to the second floor in time. Etc., etc., etc.
We are going around in circles, but only because you will not credibly and honestly deal with the problems with Brennan's account.
If I remember correctly, our interaction began when I simply asked for your source of information for your claim that Brennan's alleged "willingness to talk with and give his name to journalists earlier in the day." Your answer was in Mark Lane's book. Mark Lane's claim is based on the Dallas Morning News dated 11/23/63. A quote from Kent Biffle's article (posted here by Jack Neesan) in that paper does not support Lane's apparent assumption that Brennan talked to reporters, much less gave them his name. I was genuinely interested in knowing the basis for your claim. If there had been credible evidence that it was true, I would have had a different opinion of Brennan. Yet you have apparently convinced yourself that it is true without any credible supporting evidence, only a very obvious assumption by Mark Lane. Thank you for providing the information that I asked about.
The irony regarding Brennan's behavior that occurs to me is that he apparently let his emotions control his decisions regarding identifying LHO on 11/22/63, And his reactions to the HSCA inquiry. And I believe that many conspiracy theorists have a similar issue. Instead of listening to reason, they emotionally cannot accept the idea of a nobody like LHO being able to pull off the assassination alone and will not listen to a reasonable explanation. It should therefore follow that the CTs could readily identify with Brennan's actions. But they usually say that Brennan's actions "don't make any sense," or something similar. And that is how most of the LN folks view the CT arguments: "they don't make any sense."
-
Howard Brennan got instant publicity, and did very little to avoid it
Lane made no assumption
The DMN not only mentions Brennan by name but also his occupation.
11/23/63
Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim
by Kent Biffle ( Section 4-page 1 )
"There were many faces in the windows of the building. A few, like H. L. Brennan,
a 44-year-old steamfitter, actually got a glimpse of the gunman.
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out the window.
I saw him fire a second time. "He was a slender guy, a nice-looking guy.
He didn't seem to be in no hurry", said Brennan.
and from researcher Gil Jesus:
Brennan asked David Belin during his testimony if the Commission had the television coverage of his interview with Secret Service agents at the crime scene. Brennan's instant celebrity, his name and face, had been broadcast all over Dallas BEFORE HE HAD EVEN SEEN THE LINEUP.
In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report, Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide broadcast, "CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator Walter Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren Report.
In the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren Commission testimony when, having blown his cover, he told the nation that "The President's head just exploded."
Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine.
For a man trying to keep a low cover for fear of his life, he sure didn't act that way.
as far as " a nobody like LHO being able to pull off the assassination alone"
Go ahead and prove it - so far the only one making assumptions is you.
-
But you have not explained a single one of those points. You've found it necessary to misrepresent Brennan's testimony on the rifle scope and on the man's position while firing. You've offered only specious excuses for Brennan's combative conduct toward the HSCA. You've quoted a source that said that a young person with exceptional distance vision could have seen the man's face clearly, apparently unaware that Brennan was 44 and wore glasses at the time of the shooting. You have yet to address the fact that the Z film shows that Brennan didn't even look up until after Z207. You've tried to explain away Brennan's corroborated statement about the color of the man's clothing by speculating that the man took off his shirt and was just wearing his T-shirt while firing, ignoring the fact that two other witnesses said the man's shirt had buttons and was partially unbuttoned. You have yet to address the fact that Jarman said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired and that Williams' testimony supported Jarman's, and yet you claim that Oswald would have had an extra 3-4 seconds to linger at the window and put his shirt back on, when the WC had to severely rig its reenactment of Oswald's alleged movements to get him down to the second floor in time. Etc., etc., etc.
We are going around in circles, but only because you will not credibly and honestly deal with the problems with Brennan's account.
We are going around in circles, but only because you will not credibly and honestly deal with the problems with Brennan's account.
I've been down the same path with Collins. It's a complete waste of time talking to him because he is so convinced that he is right about everything that he will never ever accept a view different from his own. He pretends that he is a fair minded individual but in reality he isn't. He will keep on repeating the same crap time after time, never accepting a word you say, avoid all the hard questions you ask and calling you unreasonable.
A good example is the newspaper article quoting Brennan by name. The mere fact that it's in the newspaper as a direct quote with Brennan's name and profession added on, should convince any reasonable individual that Brennan must have spoken to a reporter. But not according to Collins.... if you believe him, that quote and Brennan's name and profession appeared in the newspaper without any reporter ever having spoken to Brennan.... In other words, the only logical conclusion for Collins' point of view is that the newspaper reporter must have either overheard it somewhere, or, even worse, made it up himself and got it exactly right......
-
As for the television tapes and broadcasts
Television stations contacted the FBI - we have these tapes - or they will be erased
The Commission wouldn't take this important evidence - it was destroyed
Here is discussion on the medical interviews
Mr. DULLES - I suggest, Mr. Specter, if you feel it is feasible, you send to the doctor the accounts of his press conference or conferences.
And possibly, if you are willing, sir, you could send us a letter, send to the Commission a letter, pointing out the various points in these press conferences where you are inaccurately quoted, so we can have that as a matter of record. Is that feasible?
Dr. PERRY - That is, sir
THEY NEVER DID
This was a direct order from a commissioner to the legal staff...There is no letter sent to the WC as a matter of record.
The tapes had already been taken by the SS...they do not exist in the NA.
-
Howard Brennan got instant publicity, and did very little to avoid it
Lane made no assumption
The DMN not only mentions Brennan by name but also his occupation.
11/23/63
Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim
by Kent Biffle ( Section 4-page 1 )
"There were many faces in the windows of the building. A few, like H. L. Brennan,
a 44-year-old steamfitter, actually got a glimpse of the gunman.
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out the window.
I saw him fire a second time. "He was a slender guy, a nice-looking guy.
He didn't seem to be in no hurry", said Brennan.
and from researcher Gil Jesus:
Brennan asked David Belin during his testimony if the Commission had the television coverage of his interview with Secret Service agents at the crime scene. Brennan's instant celebrity, his name and face, had been broadcast all over Dallas BEFORE HE HAD EVEN SEEN THE LINEUP.
In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report, Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide broadcast, "CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator Walter Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren Report.
In the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren Commission testimony when, having blown his cover, he told the nation that "The President's head just exploded."
Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine.
For a man trying to keep a low cover for fear of his life, he sure didn't act that way.
as far as " a nobody like LHO being able to pull off the assassination alone"
Go ahead and prove it - so far the only one making assumptions is you.
Thanks for the information.
Biffle was in the motorcade and then went into the TSBD with the first wave of police. He was locked inside the TSBD most of the afternoon. Then he headed straight to his office when he left the TSBD. I find it hard to believe that he interviewed Brennan. There was his fellow reporter Hugh Aynesworth nearby Brennan while Brennan was talking to the police and feds in front of the TSBD. It appears to me that Aynesworth could have overheard some of what Brennan told the police and feds and given it to Biffle. Also, it is feasible that someone with the police leaked some information on Brennan to the DMN. A claim that Brennan talked to reporters and gave them his name on 11/22/63 based on what we have seen here can only be an assumption.
-
Thanks for the information.
Biffle was in the motorcade and then went into the TSBD with the first wave of police. He was locked inside the TSBD most of the afternoon. Then he headed straight to his office when he left the TSBD. I find it hard to believe that he interviewed Brennan. There was his fellow reporter Hugh Aynesworth nearby Brennan while Brennan was talking to the police and feds in front of the TSBD. It appears to me that Aynesworth could have overheard some of what Brennan told the police and feds and given it to Biffle. Also, it is feasible that someone with the police leaked some information on Brennan to the DMN. A claim that Brennan talked to reporters and gave them his name on 11/22/63 based on what we have seen here can only be an assumption.
There you go.... just as predicted. Any excuse will do, as long as Brennan did not speak to the press himself!
-
If I remember correctly, our interaction began when I simply asked for your source of information for your claim that Brennan's alleged "willingness to talk with and give his name to journalists earlier in the day." Your answer was in Mark Lane's book. Mark Lane's claim is based on the Dallas Morning News dated 11/23/63. A quote from Kent Biffle's article (posted here by Jack Neesan) in that paper does not support Lane's apparent assumption that Brennan talked to reporters, much less gave them his name. I was genuinely interested in knowing the basis for your claim. If there had been credible evidence that it was true, I would have had a different opinion of Brennan. Yet you have apparently convinced yourself that it is true without any credible supporting evidence, only a very obvious assumption by Mark Lane. Thank you for providing the information that I asked about.
The irony regarding Brennan's behavior that occurs to me is that he apparently let his emotions control his decisions regarding identifying LHO on 11/22/63, And his reactions to the HSCA inquiry. And I believe that many conspiracy theorists have a similar issue. Instead of listening to reason, they emotionally cannot accept the idea of a nobody like LHO being able to pull off the assassination alone and will not listen to a reasonable explanation. It should therefore follow that the CTs could readily identify with Brennan's actions. But they usually say that Brennan's actions "don't make any sense," or something similar. And that is how most of the LN folks view the CT arguments: "they don't make any sense."
And that is how most of the LN folks view the CT arguments: "they don't make any sense."
Bingo. And any LN reply is just an 'excuse' to Cters
-
I never heard this detail before. They tried to give him CPR? Which officers tried to do that?
There was a car waiting to take Oswald to his transfer destination, but instead of immediately putting him in the car and rushing him to the hospital, the DPD decided to carry him back to an office, call an ambulance, and wait for the ambulance to show up, which took 6-7 precious minutes.
As for the mind-boggling attempt at CPR, Detective Leavelle implied that an intern on duty from Parkland Hospital did it. Parkland would send an intern to the DPD on weekends as part of his/her training. Conveniently enough, Leavelle said the intern was the one who pressed up and down on Oswald's chest. If it was the intern, he must have been the most brainless intern ever born. The last thing in the world you do with a guy who's been shot in the gut is press up and down on his chest because, obviously, that's going to have the effect of pumping more blood out of any arteries that have been severed/punctured by the bullet. There is no indication that Oswald's heart had stopped or that he had stopped breathing, and, revealingly, the intern made no attempt to perform a trach on Oswald.
Ruby's bullet went from left to right, injuring the spleen, pancreas, aorta, vena cava, right kidney, and right lobe of the liver, and stopped in the right chest wall. Any intern with a lick of common sense would have suspected that a shot to the gut would cause such injuries and would have known not to press up and down on Oswald.
-
There was a car waiting to take Oswald to his transfer destination, but instead of immediately putting him in the car and rushing him to the hospital, the DPD decided to carry him back to an office, call an ambulance, and wait for the ambulance to show up, which took 6-7 precious minutes.
As for the mind-boggling attempt at CPR, Detective Leavelle implied that an intern on duty from Parkland Hospital did it. Parkland would send an intern to the DPD on weekends as part of his/her training. Conveniently enough, Leavelle said the intern was the one who pressed up and down on Oswald's chest. If it was the intern, he must have been the most brainless intern ever born. The last thing in the world you do with a guy who's been shot in the gut is press up and down on his chest because, obviously, that's going to have the effect of pumping more blood out of any arteries that have been severed/punctured by the bullet. There is no indication that Oswald's heart had stopped or that he had stopped breathing, and, revealingly, the intern made no attempt to perform a trach on Oswald.
Ruby's bullet went from left to right, injuring the spleen, pancreas, aorta, vena cava, right kidney, and right lobe of the liver, and stopped in the right chest wall. Any intern with a lick of common sense would have suspected that a shot to the gut would cause such injuries and would have known not to press up and down on Oswald.
Thanks. You learn something new everyday. Off hand, do you know which Jim leavelle interview it was in which he mentioned that? I'm guessing it was a Jim Leavelle interview by the way you worded it.
-
And that is how most of the LN folks view the CT arguments: "they don't make any sense."
Bingo. And any LN reply is just an 'excuse'
When you guys come up with stuff you can not really explain, support with evidence or is just an excuse, do you ever wonder that it could be your arguments that are deeply flawed?
And have you ever considered that a CT argument not making any sense to you, could be the result of a limited capacity on your part to honestly process information? Or do you just assume you are always 100% right about everything, by default, making anything a CT says never make any sense to you?
-
This makes no sense. If Brennan was medically incapable of confirming his previous statements, even if he didn't have to read them but they were read to him, then why did he say he would only testify if he were subpoenaed? Why did he say that he would get his doctor to say that testifying would be bad for his health, but nothing about his being incapable of testifying? How was Brennan able to speak with HSCA staffers and say all this stuff but supposedly unable to confirm the accuracy of his previous statements?
Ah, the classic OAKer 'Doesn't-Make-Sense' nothingburger
-
Ah, the OAKer 'Doesn't-Make-Sense' nothingburger
Ah the classic LNr "dismiss everything that doesn't fit my narrative" nothingburger.
Next time, try using your brain... perhaps you will figure out what he is saying.... eventually
-
Thanks. You learn something new everyday. Off hand, do you know which Jim leavelle interview it was in which he mentioned that? I'm guessing it was a Jim Leavelle interview by the way you worded it.
The only interview I know of where Leavelle mentioned the intern and the intern trying to do "some kind of respiratory work on him" is the interview included in Part 2 of the documentary The Last Word on the Jim Garrison Tapes.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkvideos.htm
-
The only interview I know of where Leavelle mentioned the intern and the intern trying to do "some kind of respiratory work on him" is the interview included in Part 2 of the documentary The Last Word on the Jim Garrison Tapes.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkvideos.htm
Nice resource. I'll have a look through these.
-
Slight problem they only had Brennan to put Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30. What do you have?
Strawman.
The commission pointed out that Brennan was certain that he could ID the shooter. They seem to be saying that's fine, but since there was no corroboration we need more than that. It seems Brennan's overall description of the shooter helped in the pursuit.
And citizens were encouraged to what today is called 'see/say' if they see something which seems suspicious to them
-
You would think with the USSR trying to distance themselves from any involvement in the assassination they would not allow the CPUSA to be paying anything to Mark Lane.
I guess they saw an opportunity to use JFKs death for propaganda against their adversary the CIA.
-
Castro took every opportunity he could to influence American opinions. From Guerrilla Prince by Georgie Anne Geyer:
It was with these radical young Americans that Castro was most successful in helping the North Vietnamese. Castro never had more than some hundreds of troops in Vietnam, although in the 1970s he had up to a thousand workers and technicians there and he himself visited Vietnam in 1973; his aid to North Vietnam was other than combat fighting. He made Havana a meeting place (the only meeting place) where groups like the American radical Weathermen could meet directly with the North Vietnamese. As early as 1963, he had established the Cuban Committee of Solidarity with South Vietnam, the first of its kind in the world. Throughout the 1960s, he organized constant meetings between the young Americans and Huynh Van Ba, the Vietcong's chief representative in Havana, who instructed the Americans how to organize more antiwar demonstrations at home, to emphasize the number of American casualties and the number of planes being shot down, and to encourage draft resistance. Van Ba was very insistent on one point that Castro understood better than anyone in the world: the Americans should be careful not to use the word "Communism," just as the revolutionary movements in Cuba and Vietnam had avoided it during the first stages of their revolutions.
-
Castro took every opportunity he could to influence American opinions. From Guerrilla Prince by Georgie Anne Geyer:
It was with these radical young Americans that Castro was most successful in helping the North Vietnamese. Castro never had more than some hundreds of troops in Vietnam, although in the 1970s he had up to a thousand workers and technicians there and he himself visited Vietnam in 1973; his aid to North Vietnam was other than combat fighting. He made Havana a meeting place (the only meeting place) where groups like the American radical Weathermen could meet directly with the North Vietnamese. As early as 1963, he had established the Cuban Committee of Solidarity with South Vietnam, the first of its kind in the world. Throughout the 1960s, he organized constant meetings between the young Americans and Huynh Van Ba, the Vietcong's chief representative in Havana, who instructed the Americans how to organize more antiwar demonstrations at home, to emphasize the number of American casualties and the number of planes being shot down, and to encourage draft resistance. Van Ba was very insistent on one point that Castro understood better than anyone in the world: the Americans should be careful not to use the word "Communism," just as the revolutionary movements in Cuba and Vietnam had avoided it during the first stages of their revolutions.
I wonder if Oswald interpreted the news coverage of JFKs stance on Vietnam as being pro-american invasion of that country and this had something to do with Oswalds sudden turn against Kennedy even though lots of people who knew Oswald said he liked Kennedy.
-
I wonder if Oswald interpreted the news coverage of JFKs stance on Vietnam as being pro-american invasion of that country and this had something to do with Oswalds sudden turn against Kennedy even though lots of people who knew Oswald said he liked Kennedy.
It’s possible, even probable. But in my opinion, the public threats going back and forth between JFK and Castro and the CIA backed raids on Cuba had the most influence on LHO.
-
It’s possible, even probable. But in my opinion, the public threats going back and forth between JFK and Castro and the CIA backed raids on Cuba had the most influence on LHO.
Is there any evidence at all that Oswald expressed any thoughts about Vietnam? I am not aware of it. As you point out, Oswald was focused on Cuba and Castro. What's also odd, for me, is that I don't think Oswald ever mentioned the CIA? He was very critical of the FBI but said very little about the CIA.
As to "lots of people" say he liked JFK: We have DeMohrenschildt saying that Oswald "admired" JFK on the civil rights/segregation issue and Michael Paine said that Oswald praised JFK for the same matter. Marina's statements are contradictory and at odds. Other than that what is there? I can't recall offhand.
So we have two people? And supposedly (for some conspiracy believers) those two men were CIA assets (DeMohrenschildt was allegedly Oswald's "handler"). Right, so they framed Oswald and also said he admired JFK on civil rights? If they're framing him they don't say he expressed any admiration of JFK. Why would they?
-
Is there any evidence at all that Oswald expressed any thoughts about Vietnam? I am not aware of it. As you point out, Oswald was focused on Cuba and Castro. What's also odd, for me, is that I don't think Oswald ever mentioned the CIA? He was very critical of the FBI but said very little about the CIA.
As to "lots of people" say he liked JFK: We have DeMohrenschildt saying that Oswald "admired" JFK on the civil rights/segregation issue and Michael Paine said that Oswald praised JFK for the same matter. Marina's statements are contradictory and at odds. Other than that what is there? I can't recall offhand.
So we have two people? And supposedly (for some conspiracy believers) those two men were CIA assets (DeMohrenschildt was allegedly Oswald's "handler"). Right, so they framed Oswald and also said he admired JFK on civil rights? If they're framing him they don't say he expressed any admiration of JFK. Why would they?
I am not aware of any evidence that LHO expressed anything about Vietnam. My reasoning is that it was a news topic and LHO appeared to follow some of the political news. And that he most likely had a similar view to Castro’s view about it. It’s even likely that LHO heard Castro’s view on his radio while listening to Cuban broadcasts.
It seems like I have read that LHO had a photo of Castro hanging in the New Orleans apartment. And that Marina added a photo of JFK that she got out of a magazine.
-
I am not aware of any evidence that LHO expressed anything about Vietnam. My reasoning is that it was a news topic and LHO appeared to follow some of the political news. And that he most likely had a similar view to Castro’s view about it. It’s even likely that LHO heard Castro’s view on his radio while listening to Cuban broadcasts.
It seems like I have read that LHO had a photo of Castro hanging in the New Orleans apartment. And that Marina added a photo of JFK that she got out of a magazine.
Marina said he used to sing songs to "Fidel" (whew) and wanted to name their first child after him (this was when they were in Minsk). After the Mexico City incident, she said he soured on Cuba and didn't talk about it.
But of course, our conspiracy friends will say all of this was an act. He was really working for US intelligence and pretending all of this. Double whew, that's some fantasy. One of my favorite writers, Saul Bellow, once said: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." Thus the thousands of conspiracy books being produced. And read.
-
Ah the classic LNr "dismiss everything that doesn't fit my narrative" nothingburger.
Next time, try using your brain... perhaps you will figure out what he is saying.... eventually
Ah, yet two more classic OAKer nothingburgers
-
Ah the classic LNr "dismiss everything that doesn't fit my narrative" nothingburger.
Next time, try using your brain... perhaps you will figure out what he is saying.... eventually
Ah, yet two more classic OAKer nothingburgers
So you don't want to use your brain? Oh wait... maybe you just can't.... Got it
-
So you don't want to use your brain? Oh wait... maybe you just can't.... Got it
Can I get some fries with all these OAKer-burgers?
-
Here's the 11/23 DMN Biffle article.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/DMN-nov23-biffle.png)
-
Here's the 11/23 DMN Biffle article.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/DMN-nov23-biffle.png)
Thanks, the Biffle abbreviated quotes and info seem to be a direct lift from Brennan's affidavit?
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
-
Here's the 11/23 DMN Biffle article.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/DMN-nov23-biffle.png)
Thanks John!
The first thing that occurred to me is that he specified that the scope was a 4-power. Was that made public by the time this article was written? Or is it indicative that the information was leaked to the DMN by the police?
-
How come we never see any of these firemen who searched the TSBD show up in the WC testimonies?
Who were they?
-
Slight problem they only had Brennan to put Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30.
So if no one sees a murder take place, the murder can never be proved, is that what you're trying to say?
JohnM
-
So if no one sees a murder take place, the murder can never be proved, is that what you're trying to say?
JohnM
Silly question... When a murder takes place, there's always a dead victim left behind.
So, proving that a murder, that nobody saw, took place is easy. Proving who did it isn't that easy....
But perhaps you can enlighten all of us.... Let's say for argument's sake that Brennan saw nothing. What other evidence is there to prove that Oswald was the shooter?
-
Silly question... When a murder takes place, there's always a dead victim left behind.
So, proving that a murder, that nobody sawy, took place is easy. Proving who did it isn't that easy....
But perhaps you can enlighten all of us.... Let's say for argument's sake that Brennan saw nothing. What other evidence is there to prove that Oswald was the shooter?
Well, there's "Mytton's" alternating gif of white dots and arrows. :D
-
Thanks, the Biffle abbreviated quotes and info seem to be a direct lift from Brennan's affidavit?
It's not at all remarkable that Brennan would tell a reporter the same thing he told the sheriff's department on the same day with similar language.
-
It's not at all remarkable that Brennan would tell a reporter the same thing he told the sheriff's department on the same day with similar language.
When did Brennan say he spoke to a reporter?
JohnM
-
Well, there's "Mytton's" alternating gif of white dots and arrows.
Thanks.
JohnM
-
What other evidence is there to prove that Oswald was the shooter?
Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. 53 pieces of Evidence against Oswald.
JohnM
-
Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. 53 pieces of Evidence against Oswald.
JohnM
Wrong... Care to try again and use some real evidence for a change?
-
Wrong... Care to try again and use some real evidence for a change?
What in your opinion is the "real" evidence?
JohnM
-
When did Brennan say he spoke to a reporter?
JohnM
How did the reporter know his name, profession and age?
-
How did the reporter know his name, profession and age?
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
-
What in your opinion is the "real" evidence?
JohnM
Real physical evidence doesn't require a convoluted narrative based for the largest part on assumptions and speculation.
So "real" evidence is something a bit more solid than "he left a ring and some money in a teacup, so he must have killed the President".
-
Real physical evidence doesn't require a convoluted narrative based for the largest part on assumptions and speculation.
So "real" evidence is something a bit more solid than "he left a ring and some money in a teacup, so he must have killed the President".
What's the "real" evidence?
JohnM
-
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
So, the reporter somehow got hold of a Notarized Affidavit by Brennan within hours after he made the statements and in time for next days paper to go to print.
Is that what you are saying? And if so, how would the reporter manage to do that?
-
What's the "real" evidence?
JohnM
It's a concept beyond your comprehension.
-
It's a concept beyond your comprehension.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, thanks for your input.
JohnM
-
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, thanks for your input.
JohnM
Already figured out how the reporter would have gotten hold of a Notarized Affidavit by Brennan?
-
Already figured out how the reporter would have gotten hold of a Notarized Affidavit by Brennan?
Stop running Martin, what's the "real" evidence?
JohnM
-
Stop running Martin, what's the "real" evidence?
JohnM
Why ask me again after you have already thanked me for my imput? Why do you want me to repeat myself?
And as for my question.... that's what I thought... You're clueless as to how the reporter could have gotten hold of Brennan's Notarized Affidavit. But, dishonest as you are, you're still going to imply that's the source for the newspaper article, right?
-
Why ask me again after you have already thanked me for my imput? Why do you want me to repeat myself?
Why do you want me to repeat myself?
It's a simple question Martin, what's the "real" evidence?
JohnM
-
It's a simple question Martin, what's the "real" evidence?
JohnM
Yes, I know it's a simple question. It's the answer that's beyond your comprehension....
Please don't thank me again.... Once is more than enough!
Btw why are your running for the question about Brennan's Notarized Affidavit?
-
Yes, I know it's a simple question. It's the answer that's beyond your comprehension...
It's not only for me Martin, there is a lot of people reading this and so far all you're doing is reinforcing that you don't know any evidence in this case and you clearly just come here to be a useless Troll.
JohnM
-
Thanks John!
The first thing that occurred to me is that he specified that the scope was a 4-power. Was that made public by the time this article was written? Or is it indicative that the information was leaked to the DMN by the police?
The author also gives additional details regarding the 3 shells by the snipers nest window, the gnawed chicken, the empty bottle, and then gives an accurate timeline of after the shells were found, the rifle which had both ends exposed was found at the opposite side of the floor.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/6b/aa/d6/6baad67bfa98dd84d375fb9e0a5ca798.jpg)
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
JohnM
-
Why hide the rifle right beside the stairs? He should have put it up against the north or east walls behind some books. It would have taken hours and hours to find it if he had done that.
-
Why hide the rifle right beside the stairs?
Until Oswald got off the 6th floor he may have carried his loaded rifle across the 6th floor just in case he encountered another employee because Oswald later showed that he was willing to kill anyone who got in his way like Tippit and again with the cops in the Texas Theater.
JohnM
-
Until Oswald got off the 6th floor he may have carried his loaded rifle across the 6th floor just in case he encountered another employee because Oswald later showed that he was willing to kill anyone who got in his way like Tippit and again with the cops in the Texas Theater.
JohnM
Big difference though to kill one of his own coworkers. Especially as they would not be armed. He'd have to kill 20 people just to make it out the front door. Then the cops would be waiting for him.
And he would only have one bullet left to do all that.
-
Big difference though to kill one of his own coworkers. Especially as they would not be armed. He'd have to kill 20 people just to make it out the front door. Then the cops would be waiting for him.
And he would only have one bullet left to do all that.
Big difference though to kill one of his own coworkers.
Why?
Especially as they would not be armed.
Kennedy wasn't armed.
He'd have to kill 20 people just to make it out the front door.
I never said Oswald was willing to take the rifle out the front door? and as for twenty? Oswald reportedly only encountered 3 people on his way out.
JohnM
-
Why not bring the rifle down the stairs then to the 1st floor?
Maybe he might have needed to shoot someone on the stairs.
-
Why not bring the rifle down the stairs then to the 1st floor?
Maybe he might have needed to shoot someone on the stairs.
As soon as Oswald distanced himself off the murder floor he was well on his way out, why would he overcomplicate his escape?
JohnM
-
As soon as Oswald distanced himself off the murder floor he was well on his way out, why would he overcomplicate his escape?
JohnM
Assuming he was the assassin though. He'd have had to make his way past Dorothy Garner. And if she was telling the truth, that would appear almost impossible.
-
Assuming he was the assassin though. He'd have had to make his way past Dorothy Garner. And if she was telling the truth, that would appear almost impossible.
Oswald could not have had his rifle after he left the 6th floor?
If you're trying to say that Garner should have seen Oswald as he went down the stairs then that's another question. According to Adams, Garner was standing with the other ladies watching the parade and I personally think with all the ruckus going on outside that the ladies would be trying to work out what was happening outside for at least a minute or two which gave Oswald plenty of time to go down the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Were you standing with anyone
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - With whom?
Miss ADAMS - I was standing with Sandra Styles, Elsie Dorman, and Dorothy May Garner.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHnT6gCV/TSBD-ids-1.jpg)
Credit ?
JohnM
-
Fair enough. We only have a wobbly account of what Dorothy Garner said. By the time Barry Earnst found her in 2009, she was in her 80's and couldn't remember much.
What has never been determined is if Oswald had his pistol on him as he fled from the TSBD. That would change things.
-
Why not bring the rifle down the stairs then to the 1st floor?
Maybe he might have needed to shoot someone on the stairs.
Good one
Baker: Who's that guy with the rifle?
Truly: That's okay, he works here.
Baker: Okay, he can go
Oswald: [SMIRK]
-
Oswald was well aware thing go better with Coke. That's all he needed to get out. At least 4 others descended from the 5th floor either via stairs or elevator after the lunchroom encounter. Seems evading detention by police immediately following the shooting wasn't much of a problem. Doubt it was planned though.
-
Oswald could not have had his rifle after he left the 6th floor?
If you're trying to say that Garner should have seen Oswald as he went down the stairs then that's another question. According to Adams, Garner was standing with the other ladies watching the parade and I personally think with all the ruckus going on outside that the ladies would be trying to work out what was happening outside for at least a minute or two which gave Oswald plenty of time to go down the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Were you standing with anyone
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - With whom?
Miss ADAMS - I was standing with Sandra Styles, Elsie Dorman, and Dorothy May Garner.
JohnM
Now, this is what I call fictitious evidence, where "Johnny" inserts his worthless opinion into the story and tries to sell it as "evidence".
The real evidence is that, according to the Stroud letter, Dorothy Garner said, after she saw the girls [Adams & Styles] go down, she saw Truly and the policeman come up. That's contemporary evidence showing that Adams and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the shots, and thus prior to the shooter being able to reach the stairs. The fact that she saw Truly and Baker come up, also means that Garner was in a position where she could see the stairs and/or the landing.
The WC didn't disregard the Stroud letter and Garner for nothing! It would be wise to ignore "Johnny's fictitious evidence" in a similar way.
-
Assuming he was the assassin though. He'd have had to make his way past Dorothy Garner. And if she was telling the truth, that would appear almost impossible.
Seems he found a way
-
Seems he found a way
Another LN nothingburger...
Amazing stuff; Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs without being seen, but according to LNs he did just that. Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th & Patton in time to shoot Tippit, but according to the LNs he did just that. Never mind that in both cases evidence needed to be ignored or manipulated.
LN "logic": Oswald is the killer, so regardless how impossible it is, he must have done those things...... WOW
-
Oswald was well aware thing go better with Coke. That's all he needed to get out. At least 4 others descended from the 5th floor either via stairs or elevator after the lunchroom encounter. Seems evading detention by police immediately following the shooting wasn't much of a problem. Doubt it was planned though.
I thought Dr Pepper made 'thing' things go better for Oswald.
And all he needed to get out was 'yours Truly' and a motorcycle cop (aka dumb & dumber).
You see, apparently one is automatically immune from wrongdoing as long as you worked in that building.
-
Another LN nothingburger...
Amazing stuff; Oswald couldn't have gone down the stairs without being seen, but according to LNs he did just that. Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th & Patton in time to shoot Tippit, but according to the LNs he did just that. Never mind that in both cases evidence needed to be ignored or manipulated.
LN "logic": Oswald is the killer, so regardless how impossible it is, he must have done those things...... WOW
:'(
And where are those fries I asked about?
-
Now, this is what I call fictitious evidence, where "Johnny" inserts his worthless opinion into the story and tries to sell it as "evidence".
The real evidence is that, according to the Stroud letter, Dorothy Garner said, after she saw the girls [Adams & Styles] go down, she saw Truly and the policeman come up. That's contemporary evidence showing that Adams and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the shots, and thus prior to the shooter being able to reach the stairs. The fact that she saw Truly and Baker come up, also means that Garner was in a position where she could see the stairs and/or the landing.
The WC didn't disregard the Stroud letter and Garner for nothing! It would be wise to ignore "Johnny's fictitious evidence" in a similar way.
Sorry Martin, not only did Truly and Baker never see Adams, Vickie testified that she saw Lovelady and Shelley together on the first floor and we know that Lovelady and Shelley entered the building much much later, and in addition what completely destroys your desperate ideas is that Adams made a correction on that very page of her signed deposition. Oops! Try again!
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1mbLQBX/stroud-letter-adams-correction.jpg)
Btw when do we get to see your "real" evidence? Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
Assuming he was the assassin though. He'd have had to make his way past Dorothy Garner. And if she was telling the truth, that would appear almost impossible.
You'd make a lousy assassin ;)
Sociopaths think they can get away with anything
That's why they often get caught
Safe to say ppl were distracted
-
The author also gives additional details regarding the 3 shells by the snipers nest window, the gnawed chicken, the empty bottle, and then gives an accurate timeline of after the shells were found, the rifle which had both ends exposed was found at the opposite side of the floor.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/6b/aa/d6/6baad67bfa98dd84d375fb9e0a5ca798.jpg)
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
JohnM
Yes, and the details of what was found in the TSBD were probably first hand witness accounts because Biffle went into the TSBD with the first wave of police and was locked in there most of the afternoon.
I question the source of the 4-power specification of the scope however. Unless that was prominently displayed on the scope and Biffle was able to see it.
-
Yes, and the details of what was found in the TSBD were probably first hand witness accounts because Biffle went into the TSBD with the first wave of police and was locked in there most of the afternoon.
I question the source of the 4-power specification of the scope however. Unless that was prominently displayed on the scope and Biffle was able to see it.
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin, not only did Truly and Baker never see Adams, Vickie testified that she saw Lovelady and Shelley together on the first floor and we know that Lovelady and Shelley entered the building much much later, and in addition what completely destroys your desperate ideas is that Adams made a correction on that very page of her signed deposition. Oops! Try again!
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1mbLQBX/stroud-letter-adams-correction.jpg)
Btw when do we get to see your "real" evidence? Hahahaha!
JohnM
You clearly don't know the evidence as well as you think.
In her testimony Vickie Adams does say that she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor, but Shelley and Lovelady said in their testimony they did not see her! Nevertheless, Vickie did most likely indeed see both men, but not immediately after coming off the stairs.
According to the Stroud letter, Dorothy Garner told Barefoot Sanders that Adams and Styles went down the stairs before she saw Truly and Baker come up. If this is true, the girls must have cleared the stairs on the 1st floor prior to Truly and Baker getting on to them, which in turn would mean that they would have had to leave the 4th floor within mere seconds after the shots. On 11/24/63 Victoria Adams was interviewed by FBI agents Hardin and Scott. She told them that she and Styles immediately ran to the stairs after the third shot and left the building at the back directly after coming down the stairs. They ran towards the railroad yard where a policeman stopped them and told them to return to the building, which they subsequently did.
The stairs used by Adams and Styles, and allegedly also used by Oswald, were in the back of the building. Some years ago Discovery's "unsolved history" attempted to reconstruct the timeline between the shots and the Baker/Oswald encounter in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Although not a completely accurate reconstruction (they did not include the landings on each floor and used stairs that continued on downwards without interruption) the video IMO does provide us with a fairly reasonable estimate of how much time was roughly needed to get from the front windows of the building to the stairs in the back, which is about 25 to 30 seconds.
As Adams and Styles would have to cover nearly the same, if not exactly the same, distance as Oswald, who in the video is presumed to be the gunman, it can be argued that Adams and Styles as well as the gunman would have been at the top of the stairs, about 25 to 30 seconds after the last shot, albeit on the 4th and 6th floor respectively.
The video continues to show "Oswald" coming down the stairs (without taking account for the landings) and arriving at the door of the 2nd floor lunchroom some 48 seconds after the shots. If correct, this would mean that "Oswald" would have had to come down 4 floors of stairs (without the landings) in approx 18 to 23 seconds. If we add on 2 seconds for each landing, that time time would go up to between 26 and 31 seconds. In order for Adams and Styles to stay in front of him, they also would have had a maximum of only 26 seconds to come down at least 2 floors.
In order to find out just how much time would be left for Adams and Styles to come down from the 4th floor and arrive at the 1st floor without seeing Truly and Baker, it has to be established just how long it took Baker and Truly to get to the stairs at the back of the building. The excellent 3d animation made by Mark Tyler offers a good starting point for that determination;
Not a valid vimeo URL
It shows that Baker (initially # 27 as motor cop and later # 46 as a physical person) needed approximately 30 seconds after the last shot to park his motor and run to the entrance of the TSBD building. It should be noted that in the animation Baker crosses paths with Billy Lovelady (# 94) who is moving towards the island and we see Gloria Calvery (# 93) running up to Lovelady to tell him the President had been shot, just like he said in his testimony. So, if Mark Tyler's animation is correct, we have Baker meeting up with Truly at the entrance of the TSBD approx 30 seconds after the last shot, which is roughly the same time as we have Adams and Styles at the top of the stairs on the 4th floor and the gunman at the top of the stairs on the 6th floor. There might be a slight discrepancy of a second or so, here or there, but that would not alter the basic elements of the timeline.
A while back Colin Crow made a video about the time needed by Baker (and Truly) to get to the stairs
If we assume, as the video shows, that it took Baker roughly 30 seconds to the entrance of the TSBD and another 30 seconds to get Baker and Truly from the entrance of the building to the stairs in the back, we end up with the conclusion that Adams and Styles would have had roughly 35 seconds to get from the top of the stairs on the 4th floor to the first floor and out of the building. If, as the Discovery reconstruction shows, "Oswald" could have gotten down four floors to the 2nd floor lunchroom in approx 30 seconds, Adams and Styles probably could have gotten down 3 floors in about the same time and miss Baker and Truly by seconds. But the time available to Adams and Styles is probably a little bit more, because if Baker and Truly were indeed at the bottom of the stairs 60 seconds after the shots, they would have taken at least 15 seconds to go up one floor and "meet" Oswald, which seems a bit too much time to me.
The only real requirement for this entire scenario to work is of course that Adams and Styles must have been on the stairs at the same time as "Oswald" was.
What obviously doesn't fit with this scenario is Adams seeing Shelley and Lovelady at the bottom of the stairs. Even more so as both men, if they had been there, at that moment, must have seen Baker and Truly rushing towards the stairs where Adams and Styles had just been on. There is no statement to that effect from either Shelley or Lovelady.
Shelley said in his testimony that, after hearing the shots, he didn't do anything for a minute. He and Billy Lovelady then went across the street to a little island in front of the TSBD where they again stopped for a minute. While there - and this is IMO crucial - he saw Truly with an officer in front of the entrance of the TSBD. I would argue, that officer was Baker. Shelley estimated that he saw Truly and Baker some 3 minutes after the shots. After that they saw officers running down the railroad yard and they walked down that way on the dead-end street passing by the TSBD. They stayed at the railroad yard for a while and then returned to the TSBD, entering it at the backside through the shipping department where they saw Eddie Piper. Shelley testified he did not recall seeing Victoria Adams on the 1st floor, but added that he might have seen her at some point in time on the 4th floor. In his testimony, Billy Lovelady basically confirms what Shelley had told the WC. He estimated that the distance of the dead end street in front of the TSBD was between 75 and 100 yards. He said that he saw Truly and the officer [Baker] running into the building. He also confirms that Shelley and he entered the TSBD at the back the building. Asked who he saw there he answered: "I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie". He also said he saw "a few of the guys" who had come in.
Obviously, if Shelley and Lovelady entered the building several minutes after the shots, it could well be that Lovelady did indeed see Victoria Adams, who would have been on that floor for several minutes after coming down the stairs. It may even be that Victoria Adams did in fact see Shelley when he entered the building and that she simply did not connect the event to the moment she came down the stairs. In her testimony she said;
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly because of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock.
Mr. BELIN - When you say on the way out to the Houston Street dock, you mean now you were on the way out?
Miss ADAMS - While I was on the way out.
Mr. BELIN - Was anyone going along with you?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir; Sandra Styles.
Later in he testimony she was asked again, and she basically repeated the same thing;
Mr. BELIN - When you got to the bottom of the first floor, did you see anyone there as you entered the first floor from the stairway?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Who did you see?
Miss ADAMS - Mr. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see them on the first floor?
Miss ADAMS - Well, this is the stairs, and this is the Houston Street dock that I went out. They were approximately in this position here, so I don't know how you would describe that.
So, how much time did go by exactly between Adams and Styles arriving on the 1st floor and seeing Shelley and Lovelady? Was it straight away, a minute later or several minutes later. The testimony is IMO not precise enough to make that determination. Shelley and Lovelady may well have been the first people Adams did see after coming down the stairs, but that could have happened later than when she stepped of the stairs, as the WC said. One thing is for sure, Adams said she saw the men at the Houston Street dock, which is where they apparently came in. So, the sighting did not take place at the bottom of the stairs.
How's that for "real evidence", "Johnny"?
For your "scenario" to work, "Johnny", Adams & Styles must have stayed on the 4th floor at least 4 minutes after the shots, Adams must have lied FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, Dorothy Garner must have lied to Barefoot Sanders and Shelley and Lovelady must have lied in their testimony about not seeing Adams (they don't even mention Styles) or even being near the stairs exit. And all those lies must have been for what?
Do you want to embarras yourself some more with another narrowminded comment, "Johnny"?
-
How's that for "real evidence", "Johnny".....
You haven't provided any evidence, all I see is self serving speculation, ridiculous assumptions and "IMO's". How Pathetic!
Sorry Martin but your personal opinion doesn't and will never count, Adams is absolutely clear that she got to the first floor and encountered Lovelady and Shelley on her way out and you can type another thousand words but it won't change what Adams said.
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly because of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock.
JohnM
-
You haven't provided any evidence, all I see is self serving speculation, ridiculous assumptions and "IMO's". How Pathetic!
Sorry Martin but your personal opinion doesn't and will never count, Adams is absolutely clear that she got to the first floor and encountered Lovelady and Shelley on her way out and you can type another thousand words but it won't change what Adams said.
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly because of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock.
JohnM
Oh look.. what a surprise; the classic LN dismissal when he's got nothing to counter the information provided. All the information in my post is based on actual testimony and evidence. You just want to ignore it all because you have nothing to counter and you desperately want Vickie Adams to be wrong, just like the WC before you. Now, that's pathetic, propaganda boy!
Your own quote contains two separate statements; (1) Adams said she went down the back stairs "after the third shot" (which is backed up by Garner) and (2) she also said she encountered Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor, which in fact she did. However the evidence is clear, she couldn't have seen them as she came of the stairs because they were not there. She could, on the other hand, have seen both men after re-entering the building.
In my scenario it's just the exact moment that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady that is not correct. She didn't see them as she came off the stairs, but they were the first persons she saw as she re-entered the building, a few minutes later.
In your scenario Adams must have lied to FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, Dorothy Garner must have lied to Barefoot Sanders and Shelley and Lovelady must have lied in their testimony about not seeing Adams (they don't even mention Styles) or even being near the stairs exit. And all those lies must have been for what?
You calling this evidence "a personal opinion" only shows how little regard you have for the actual evidence and the truth. I dare you to counter all the information provided, point by point, with a plausible alternative or motivated denial.... Go on then, show me where you think I went wrong. But you won't, will you now, coward! You're too much a chicken to debate the facts honestly, because you know you will lose the argument.
-
In my scenario it's just the exact moment that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady that is not correct. She didn't see them as she came off the stairs, but they were the first persons she saw as she re-entered the building, a few minutes later.
So Adams was just another mistaken eyewitness, the typical Kook comeback! Hilarious.
JohnM
-
So Adams was just another mistaken eyewitness, the typical Kook comeback! Hilarious.
JohnM
She wasn't mistaken...
She went down the stairs directly after the shots, just like she told FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, just like she testified and just like Dorothy Garner confirmed to Barefoot Sanders...
And she did see Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor but not at the bottom of the stairs - as the WC claimed - but a couple of minutes later.
.
The pathetic alternative is that Adams & Styles must have stayed on the 4th floor at least 4 minutes after the shots, Adams must have lied FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, Dorothy Garner must have lied to Barefoot Sanders and Shelley and Lovelady must have lied in their testimony about not seeing Adams (they don't even mention Styles) or even being near the stairs exit. And all those lies must have been for what?
Is this all you've got? A pathetic attempt to ridicule the actual evidence placed in front of you? :D
-
She wasn't mistaken...
She went down the stairs directly after the shots, just like she told FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, just like she testified and just like Dorothy Garner confirmed to Barefoot Sanders...
And she did see Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor but not at the bottom of the stairs - as the WC claimed - but a couple of minutes later.
.
The pathetic alternative is that Adams & Styles must have stayed on the 4th floor at least 4 minutes after the shots, Adams must have lied FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, Dorothy Garner must have lied to Barefoot Sanders and Shelley and Lovelady must have lied in their testimony about not seeing Adams (they don't even mention Styles) or even being near the stairs exit. And all those lies must have been for what?
Is this all you've got? A pathetic attempt to ridicule the actual evidence placed in front of you? :D
Thumb1:
-
How come Adams and Styles went down the back stairs?
Shouldn't they have taken the much easier route of simply going down the passenger elevator?
-
She wasn't mistaken...
She went down the stairs directly after the shots, just like she told FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, just like she testified and just like Dorothy Garner confirmed to Barefoot Sanders...
And she did see Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor but not at the bottom of the stairs - as the WC claimed - but a couple of minutes later.
.
The pathetic alternative is that Adams & Styles must have stayed on the 4th floor at least 4 minutes after the shots, Adams must have lied FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, Dorothy Garner must have lied to Barefoot Sanders and Shelley and Lovelady must have lied in their testimony about not seeing Adams (they don't even mention Styles) or even being near the stairs exit. And all those lies must have been for what?
Is this all you've got? A pathetic attempt to ridicule the actual evidence placed in front of you? :D
Martin, can you post the 11/24/63 fbi report from Hardin and Scott?
JohnM
-
Martin, can you post the 11/24/63 fbi report from Hardin and Scott?
JohnM
Do your own homework....
-
Do your own homework....
Are you serious? You made a claim and all I'm asking for is your supporting evidence.
JohnM
-
So Adams was just another mistaken eyewitness, the typical Kook comeback! Hilarious.
JohnM
John, you are a man with a keen eye for detail, what is your take on the History Channel reenactment of the timing? Apart from the bizarre removal of any landings between floors in the cartoon (and not allowing for in the building used), do you notice any "editing" problems.
-
Are you serious? You made a claim and all I'm asking for is your supporting evidence.
JohnM
and he told u where it was
-
Are you serious? You made a claim and all I'm asking for is your supporting evidence.
JohnM
I thought you knew the evidence that you are ridiculing?
It's easy enough to find, but I'll help you... Ignore the website itself, but a copy can be found on this page, halfway down on the left;
http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/victoria-adams/#lightbox
Not a word about seeing Shelley or Lovelady....
-
I thought you knew the evidence that you are ridiculing?
Why all the evasion, either post your evidence or don't.
JohnM
-
and he told u where it was
Goth, maybe you can post Martin's evidence?
JohnM
-
Goth, maybe you can post Martin's evidence?
JohnM
maybe I can
-
maybe I can
Wow, another carbon copy of Weidmann.
JohnM
-
Why all the evasion, either post your evidence or don't.
JohnM
Already done
-
Already done
I have no time for your nonsense, you're now on ignore.
JohnM
-
I have no time for your nonsense, you're now on ignore.
JohnM
Go back to reply # 638
Or are you simply looking for a reason to run away from the evidence?
The irony of it all is that my timeline, based on actual testimony, shows that Adams and Styles could in fact have arrived on the 1st floor and left the building before Truly and Baker got to the stairs. It would have been a matter of seconds, but it could have happened that way.
-
Thanks, the Biffle abbreviated quotes and info seem to be a direct lift from Brennan's affidavit?
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
How would Biffle have obtained a sworn statement made to the police the day before?
Biffle quotes Brennan; he puts his statements in quotation marks, which normally implies that the speaker made the comments to the journalist, unless another audience is specified, which it is not here. And the quoted statements differ in several respects from Brennan's DPD statement, which again suggests that Brennan actually spoke with Biffle and that Biffle was quoting what Brennan told him. Let's read what Biffle quoted Brennan as saying:
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn't seem to be in no hurry."
This is a fraction of what Brennan told the DPD.
Also, notice the slang "didn't seem to be in no hurry," which is not how this sentence is worded in the DPD statement.
And then there is the obvious point that Biffle did not claim that he was quoting a DPD affidavit or that he was repeating what had been leaked to him by a DPD source.
The plain-sense, logical implication is that Brennan spoke with Biffle, as did numerous other witnesses, and that Biffle was quoting what Brennan told him, which in turn destroys Brennan's belated tale that he did not ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
-
How would Biffle have obtained a sworn statement made to the police the day before?
Biffle quotes Brennan; he puts his statements in quotation marks, which normally implies that the speaker made the comments to the journalist, unless another audience is specified, which it is not here. And the quoted statements differ in several respects from Brennan's DPD statement, which again suggests that Brennan actually spoke with Biffle and that Biffle was quoting what Brennan told him. Let's read what Biffle quoted Brennan as saying:
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn't seem to be in no hurry."
This is a fraction of what Brennan told the DPD.
Also, notice the slang "didn't seem to be in no hurry," which is not how this sentence is worded in the DPD statement.
And then there is the obvious point that Biffle did not claim that he was quoting a DPD affidavit or that he was repeating what had been leaked to him by a DPD source.
The plain-sense, logical implication is that Brennan spoke with Biffle, as did numerous other witnesses, and that Biffle was quoting what Brennan told him, which in turn destroys Brennan's belated tale that he did not ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
The plain-sense, logical implication is that Brennan spoke with Biffle, as did numerous other witnesses, and that Biffle was quoting what Brennan told him, which in turn destroys Brennan's belated tale that he did not ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.
Which is exactly why Collins, "Mytton" and other non-truth seekers will deny at all cost that Brennan ever talked to a reporter and instead claim - without a shred of evidence - that the information was leaked by the DPD or, even worse, that the reporter somehow got a copy of a Notarized Affidavit....
-
The most important evidence that keeps getting ignored is Adams own testimony that she saw and later corrected, confirming that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the way out, and to suggest that Adams made a massive mistake and saw Lovelady and Shelley much later on the way in is desperation at its best.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1mbLQBX/stroud-letter-adams-correction.jpg)
And the fact that the above story is 100% corroborated when Adams tells the exact same detailed story again to Leavelle is just the icing on the cake.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjFcHSJ0/leavelle-interview-Adams.jpg)
So in conclusion, the fact that Adams confirms on two separate occasions that she saw Lovelady and Shelley before she left the building has to be the considered evidence and under the incredibly unique once in a lifetime circumstances, any minor time discrepancies of when the girls left the forth floor pale into insignificance. And as for Lovelady, he couldn't confirm that he saw Adams but he did see a woman which when coupled with Adams testimony means that he must have seen Vickie.
Case Closed!
JohnM
-
John, you are a man with a keen eye for detail, what is your take on the History Channel reenactment of the timing? Apart from the bizarre removal of any landings between floors in the cartoon (and not allowing for in the building used), do you notice any "editing" problems.
Have you tried, for starters, to see how long it takes to cover 9 steps?
-
The most important evidence that keeps getting ignored is Adams own testimony that she saw and later corrected, confirming that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the way out, and to suggest that Adams made a massive mistake and saw Lovelady and Shelley much later on the way in is desperation at its best.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1mbLQBX/stroud-letter-adams-correction.jpg)
And the fact that the above story is 100% corroborated when Adams tells the exact same detailed story again to Leavelle is just the icing on the cake.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjFcHSJ0/leavelle-interview-Adams.jpg)
So in conclusion, the fact that Adams confirms on two separate occasions that she saw Lovelady and Shelley before she left the building has to be the considered evidence and under the incredibly unique once in a lifetime circumstances, any minor time discrepancies of when the girls left the forth floor pale into insignificance. And as for Lovelady, he couldn't confirm that he saw Adams but he did see a woman which when coupled with Adams testimony means that he must have seen Vickie.
Case Closed!
JohnM
Adams signed her own death warrant with that one.
Consequently, anything she said to Barry Earnst goes up in smoke, as does his book.
-
The most important evidence that keeps getting ignored is Adams own testimony that she saw and later corrected, confirming that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the way out, and to suggest that Adams made a massive mistake and saw Lovelady and Shelley much later on the way in is desperation at its best.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1mbLQBX/stroud-letter-adams-correction.jpg)
And the fact that the above story is 100% corroborated when Adams tells the exact same detailed story again to Leavelle is just the icing on the cake.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjFcHSJ0/leavelle-interview-Adams.jpg)
So in conclusion, the fact that Adams confirms on two separate occasions that she saw Lovelady and Shelley before she left the building has to be the considered evidence and under the incredibly unique once in a lifetime circumstances, any minor time discrepancies of when the girls left the forth floor pale into insignificance. And as for Lovelady, he couldn't confirm that he saw Adams but he did see a woman which when coupled with Adams testimony means that he must have seen Vickie.
Case Closed!
JohnM
The most important evidence that keeps getting ignored is Adams own testimony that she saw and later corrected, confirming that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the way out,
That's only "the most important evidence" for you....because you need it to keep your fairytale alive. In reality you're only cherry-picking the evidence you like.
And the fact that the above story is 100% corroborated when Adams tells the exact same detailed story again to Leavelle is just the icing on the cake.
You've got it backwards... Leavelle showed up unannounced at Vickie Adams's house in February 1964. It is with him that the Shelley/Lovelady thing got started. Prior to that Vickie Adams never said a word to anybody about seeing both men. It was Leavelle who wrote in his report: "I saw mr. Shelley and another employee named Bill. Vickie never saw or signed that report, which the WC subsequently used to discredit her as a witness.
Vickie Adams never said to anybody that she saw Shelley and Lovelady at the moment she came off the stairs. She just said she did see them, and that was true.
So in conclusion, the fact that Adams confirms on two separate occasions that she saw Lovelady and Shelley before she left the building has to be the considered evidence and under the incredibly unique once in a lifetime circumstances, any minor time discrepancies of when the girls left the forth floor pale into insignificance. And as for Lovelady, he couldn't confirm that he saw Adams but he did see a woman which when coupled with Adams testimony means that he must have seen Vickie.
Yeah right .....so, Adams & Styles must have stayed on the 4th floor at least 4 minutes after the shots, Adams must have lied FBI agents Hardin and Scott on 11/24/63, Dorothy Garner must have lied to Barefoot Sanders and Shelley and Lovelady must have lied in their testimony about not seeing Adams (they don't even mention Styles) or even being near the stairs exit. And all those lies must have been for what?
You do understand that you are desperately clinging to an unverified statement by Leavelle and a slight confusion by Adams herself about when exactly she saw both men, against a mountain of evidence that confirms to anybody with a functional brain that you not only are but must be completely wrong?
-
You do understand that you are desperately clinging to an unverified statement by Leavelle
Leavelle seemed like a straight up guy. Never any proof he was corrupt.
Meanwhile, by Adams own hand, she signs he testimony in which she states she saw Shelley.
Case closed.
-
Adams signed her own death warrant with that one.
Consequently, anything she said to Barry Earnst goes up in smoke, as does his book.
Are you really so superficial or just pretending to be?
Btw.. It's Barry Ernest
Leavelle seemed like a straight up guy. Never any proof he was corrupt.
Meanwhile, by Adams own hand, she signs he testimony in which she states she saw Shelley.
Case closed.
Nobody said anything about Leavelle being corrupt. All he wrote down is that Vickie Adams saw Shelley and a guy named Bill. He does not mention where and how.
And, yes, Adams said she saw Shelley and Lovelady, which is exactly what she did. She just did not see them as she and Styles came down the stairs. The evidence shows it's far more likely that she saw both men after they returned to the building, at around the same time Adams and Styles arrived there too.
This is classic LN / WC crap... "a witness is wrong unless he/she says something we like" and then we disregard all the rest.
-
And, yes, Adams said she saw Shelley and Lovelady, which is exactly what she did. She just did not see them as she and Styles came down the stairs. The evidence shows it's far more likely that she saw both men after they returned to the building, at around the same time Adams and Styles arrived there too.
This is classic LN / WC crap... "a witness is wrong unless he/she says something we like" and then we disregard all the rest.
She never told any of this to Mark Lane. In fact Mark Lane ignored her. For him to ignore her points to the reality it was only in later years that she changed her story.
-
Until Oswald got off the 6th floor he may have carried his loaded rifle across the 6th floor just in case he encountered another employee
Sure, with the one extra bullet. He better have hoped not to encounter a second employee.
because Oswald later showed that he was willing to kill anyone who got in his way like Tippit and again with the cops in the Texas Theater.
LOLOLOL
-
I never said Oswald was willing to take the rifle out the front door? and as for twenty? Oswald reportedly only encountered 3 people on his way out.
Yeah, and he "reportedly" ran past at least 12 people on the 4th and 5th floors without them noticing him.
-
Seems he found a way
Seems Chapman loves circular arguments.
-
You haven't provided any evidence, all I see is self serving speculation, ridiculous assumptions and "IMO's". How Pathetic!
Says the guy who made an entire video about Vince Bugliosi's self serving speculation, ridiculous assumptions and "IMO's".
Sorry Martin but your personal opinion doesn't and will never count, Adams is absolutely clear that she got to the first floor and encountered Lovelady and Shelley on her way out and you can type another thousand words but it won't change what Adams said.
Sure, she just "forgot" that she ever saw them and said that in her testimony.
-
The most important evidence that keeps getting ignored is Adams own testimony that she saw and later corrected,
Where does this say that Adams saw this and later corrected it?
And the fact that the above story is 100% corroborated when Adams tells the exact same detailed story again to Leavelle is just the icing on the cake.
Of course she did. On that late-night visit at the address that she had just moved to, and that Leavelle wouldn't have known about unless he followed her, after that "fire" he claimed her earlier statement had been destroyed in.
Seems legit.
-
She never told any of this to Mark Lane. In fact Mark Lane ignored her. For him to ignore her points to the reality it was only in later years that she changed her story.
Forget Mark Lane... It's a lame excuse! Pay attention what she actually said to investigators;
On 11/24/63 Victoria Adams told FBI agents Hardin & Scott that after the last shot she and her friend (Styles) immediately ran to and down the stairs at the back of the building
On 02/17/64 she told Jim Leavelle that after the third shot she went out the backdoor and there was no one on the stairs
On 04/07/64 she testified to the WC;
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly because of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs,
Pretty consistent and yet, according to the LNs... all lies! Go figure
it was only in later years that she changed her story.
Victoria Adams never changed her story. If you want to debate this case, please ensure first that you have at least some basic knowledge of the facts!
-
Have you tried, for starters, to see how long it takes to cover 9 steps?
Did you like how he managed to travel two floors on the stairs in 6 seconds? Was Tink being channeled?
-
Forget Mark Lane... It's a lame excuse! Pay attention what she actually said to investigators;
Its not lame. The whole Mark Lane issue makes Miss Adams later story look poor.
-
Its not lame. The whole Mark Lane issue makes Miss Adams later story look poor.
Of course it is lame. Mark Lane has nothing to do with this.... there is no "Mark Lane issue" and/or "Miss Adams later story"
The fact remains that Victoria Adams said the same thing in all the official documents we have. She went down the stairs immediately after the third shot. After her testimony to the WC she disappeared for decades and spoke to nobody. If you want to deny this is what happened, you will need to explain why she lied to the FBI, Jim Leavelle and the WC and you also need to explain why Dorothy Garner would lie about what she saw to Barefoot Sanders.
You can't explain that (or you would have done so by now) and only drag Mark Lane into it as a diversion. The only story that's poor is your own.
-
Did you like how he managed to travel two floors on the stairs in 6 seconds? Was Tink being channeled?
I'm talking about the guy @2:30
I asked you if you had tried timing a few steps on stairs yourself
I find that at a casual rate of speed I get 2 steps per second
-
It appears to be "against your religion" to believe a word that Howard Brennan says.
Just a second there. Bias leaks brown all over the place. Brennan saw someone. OK give him that. Because he was willing ultimately to finger Oswald [or so it seemed] the Warren Report dedicated an entire page to him [p.63]...
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#near
Arnold Rowland saw someone also--
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm
...but because it didn't agree with the Oswald did it conclusion, he wasn't even mentioned in that final Report.
Get it?
-
The bullet exhibits a somewhat flattened side and butt-end. One can see in my avatar the notable difference between the perfectly round black circle in which it sits, and the (damaged) oval shape of the bullet's butt-end. This establishes that Ce399 did not emerge 'pristine' as CTers would have one believe.
There is something butt end about your posts besides the bullet. Most researchers claim that CE 399 appears to be NEARLY pristine...meaning it had been fired yeah...maybe into a mattress or massive pool of water but certainly not entirely through two human bodies shattering bones and tearing fibers. Why not grow a brain? Why not change your avatar to the butt end of your butt?
-
I'm talking about the guy @2:30
I asked you if you had tried timing a few steps on stairs yourself
I find that at a casual rate of speed I get 2 steps per second
So, 18 steps per floor x 4 floors is 72 steps = 36 seconds at your casual rate. How much to add for landings at floors 5, 4, 3 and 2? Maybe 3 seconds each? That’s another 12 seconds. Roughly 48 seconds from the time of entry to the stairwell to the door on the second floor.
That just leaves walking 180 feet or so from the SN, hiding the gun and entering the stairwell.
My question relates to 7'6" mark in the video you posted. He enters the stairwell at around 28 seconds. Then he is shown getting to the 4th floor 6 seconds later. Just one of the interesting editing moments from that "documentary".
-
When the discussion starts going in circle and covering the same items over and over again it is time for me to just ignore it. The sad part is that you believe your own untruths and refuse to listen to reason. One cannot reason with an unreasonable person, period.
Unreasonably unreasonable huh? That's been your game ever since you joined the forum. Ignore that one...betcha can't.
-
Until Oswald got off the 6th floor he may have carried his loaded rifle across the 6th floor just in case he encountered another employee because Oswald later showed that he was willing to kill anyone who got in his way like Tippit and again with the cops in the Texas Theater.
"His loaded rifle" huh? One bullet left in the clip? Throw us another bone.
If Oswald was such a homicidal maniac and he was ready to kill...why have a rifle with no more clips left? Why didn't he bring a pistol if he had one.
The sniper's nest movie sucked big green ones. Hid the rifle like laying it down behind a sofa. No stacks of boxes to negotiate around...and even John Mytton confirms [reply 579] Brennan's statement that the shooter was in no particular hurry.
-
Adams is absolutely insistent and consistent on one point in every statement she ever made concerning her actions that day - she started heading for the stairs within seconds of the final shot and she was running. This is corroborated by subsequent statements made by both Styles and Garner. She is also consistent in saying she saw no-one on the stairs.
We know from the Couch and Darnell films Shelley and Lovelady were out front of the TSBD when Baker reached the foot of the steps outside the front entrance.
If we accept this evidence we must come to the conclusion that Adams could not possibly have seen Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. It's impossible.
So we are left with two main possibilities - Adams lied about seeing Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor or this part of her WC testimony was added without her knowledge.
Lets look at motives. Why would Adams lie about this detail? I have no idea why she might do this but would be glad to hear some wild speculation about it. Why would the WC lie about this detail? I think that's obvious - to make it appear that Adams and Styles could not have been on the stairs at the same time as Oswald.
When Garner reached her office door Adams and Styles were already clattering down the 'very noisy' wooden stairs, she heard them clearly. She then moved closer to the area of the stairs where she would have and unobstructed view of anyone opening the door of the stairs coming down from the fifth floor and crossing the floor to go down the stairs to the third. More importantly, she would have heard anyone coming down. She was there moments later when Baker came up those same stairs. Oswald never came down those stairs. Adams never saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. Of these things we can be certain.
-
Adams said she ran down the stairs, ran out the back door, ran around the west side of the TSBD and when she arrived at the front door she listened to a motorcycle radio. The item she heard on the radio (a report about shots coming from the 4th floor) was not played on the radio until 12:37pm.
It does not take 7 minutes to run down the stairs, run out the back door, run around the west side of the TSBD and then go to the front door. More like 3 minutes. So there is a missing 4 minutes in her timeline. The 4 minutes she spent on the fourth floor before running down the back stairs.
Case closed.
-
Adams said she ran down the stairs, ran out the back door, ran around the west side of the TSBD and when she arrived at the front door she listened to a motorcycle radio. The item she heard on the radio (a report about shots coming from the 4th floor) was not played on the radio until 12:37pm.
It does not take 7 minutes to run down the stairs, run out the back door, run around the west side of the TSBD and then go to the front door. More like 3 minutes. So there is a missing 4 minutes in her timeline. The 4 minutes she spent on the fourth floor before running down the back stairs.
Case closed.
Adams said she ran down the stairs, ran out the back door, ran around the west side of the TSBD and when she arrived at the front door she listened to a motorcycle radio. The item she heard on the radio (a report about shots coming from the 4th floor) was not played on the radio until 12:37pm.
How in the world do you come up with BS like this. In all her known statements Adams is crystal clear that she and Styles came down the stairs, turned left and stepped out onto the loading dock at the back of the TSBD. Both then ran to the railroad yard where they were stopped by a police officer who told them to return to the TSBD. Adams then went back from the railroad yard along the front of the building where she saw several TSBD employees and overheard a police radio.
It does not take 7 minutes to run down the stairs, run out the back door, run around the west side of the TSBD and then go to the front door. More like 3 minutes. So there is a missing 4 minutes in her timeline. The 4 minutes she spent on the fourth floor before running down the back stairs.
Which, if true - it isn't - would mean that Adams lied to the FBI on 11/24/63, she lied to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64 and she lied in her WC testimony. It means also that Dorothy Garner lied to Barefoot Sanders when she told him - according to the Stroud letter - that she saw Adams and Styles go down before Truly and Baker came up.
You are so full of BS. If the girls had spent 4 minutes on the 4th floor, they would have seen Oswald pass by (if he was ever there) and they would have seen Truly and Baker come up, just like Garner. None of that happened. What really happened is that they went down the stairs straightaway after the third shot and the so-called "missing 4 minutes in her timeline" is accounted for by the time she needed to get to the railway yard and her walk back to the front entrance of the building.
-
Adams said she ran down the stairs, ran out the back door, ran around the west side of the TSBD and when she arrived at the front door she listened to a motorcycle radio. The item she heard on the radio (a report about shots coming from the 4th floor) was not played on the radio until 12:37pm.
How in the world do you come up with BS like this.
Its in Barry Ernsts book. Though he said it took him 5 minutes to do all that running when he did a test run. In reality it takes more like 3 minutes. He mentioned the motorcycle radio issue in his book. He knew it damaged Adamss timeline of events. She said she was back inside the building within 5 minutes, but the motorcycle radio issue proves she was outside at least another 2 minutes.
-
What did the WC reenactment show?
There was no official reenactment. That doesn't mean it can't be approximated using the same distances on another separate building though.
-
Its in Barry Ernsts book. Though he said it took him 5 minutes to do all that running when he did a test run. In reality it takes more like 3 minutes. He mentioned the motorcycle radio issue in his book. He knew it damaged Adamss timeline of events. She said she was back inside the building within 5 minutes, but the motorcycle radio issue proves she was outside at least another 2 minutes.
I don't care what is in Barry Ernest' book. So what if it took her 7 instead of 5 minutes to return inside the building. It makes no difference whatsoever for the timeline.
She and Styles ran down the stairs after the third shot. The went down the stairs and next to the exit of the stairs on the left there is a loading door. They turned left and stepped on to the loading platform. They then needed to walk to the other side of the platform to go down the stars. From there they had to run back in the other direction towards the railway yard. There they are stopped by police and sent back. She then walks along side the building to get to the street in front of it. From there she walks to the front entrance of the building and overheared a radio report.
She didn't carry a stopwatch and it may well have been 7 minutes that she needed to get back into the building, via the loading dock at the back. Shelley and Lovelady estimated they returned to the building after 5 minutes, but that could easily also have been 7 minutes. That's when Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady.
This way the entire timeline fits and nobody needs to lie to the investigators, like they would have had to do in your foolish version of the events.
-
There was no official reenactment. That doesn't mean it can't be approximated using the same distances on another separate building though.
Exactly, which is why you should go back to my reply 626 (page 63) where I do exactly that. Have an honest look at that and tell me (if you disagree) what I did wrong. I bet you can't!
What you need to be asking yourself is, why they left out Adams and Styles during the official reenactment.
-
Adams is absolutely insistent and consistent on one point in every statement she ever made concerning her actions that day - she started heading for the stairs within seconds of the final shot and she was running. This is corroborated by subsequent statements made by both Styles and Garner. She is also consistent in saying she saw no-one on the stairs.
We know from the Couch and Darnell films Shelley and Lovelady were out front of the TSBD when Baker reached the foot of the steps outside the front entrance.
If we accept this evidence we must come to the conclusion that Adams could not possibly have seen Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. It's impossible.
So we are left with two main possibilities - Adams lied about seeing Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor or this part of her WC testimony was added without her knowledge.
Lets look at motives. Why would Adams lie about this detail? I have no idea why she might do this but would be glad to hear some wild speculation about it. Why would the WC lie about this detail? I think that's obvious - to make it appear that Adams and Styles could not have been on the stairs at the same time as Oswald.
When Garner reached her office door Adams and Styles were already clattering down the 'very noisy' wooden stairs, she heard them clearly. She then moved closer to the area of the stairs where she would have and unobstructed view of anyone opening the door of the stairs coming down from the fifth floor and crossing the floor to go down the stairs to the third. More importantly, she would have heard anyone coming down. She was there moments later when Baker came up those same stairs. Oswald never came down those stairs. Adams never saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. Of these things we can be certain.
If we accept this evidence we must come to the conclusion that Adams could not possibly have seen Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. It's impossible.
So we are left with two main possibilities - Adams lied about seeing Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor or this part of her WC testimony was added without her knowledge.
There actually is a third option. She saw Shelley and Lovelady, not when she came off the stairs (because they weren't there), but instead when she reentered the building between 5 to 7 minutes later, when both men were indeed also in the shipping area. She saw them but got confused about when exactly she saw them.
Let's not forget that the first mention of her seeing Shelley and Lovelady was in Jim Leavelle's report of 02/07/64. Several months later... it's easy to get confused about a 5 - 7 minute time difference.
-
Exactly, which is why you should go back to my reply 626 (page 63) where I do exactly that. Have an honest look at that and tell me (if you disagree) what I did wrong. I bet you can't!
Your timeline has Adams and Styles running down the stairs at lighting speed and out the back door before Truly and Baker come in. That is possible in my opinion and they just got out the back door before Baker and Truly saw them. That puts Adams and Styles at the loading dock at about 12:31. From here Adams said she ran around the west side of the building, went to the front door, listened to a motorcycle radio and then went inside. If she ran out the rear door at 12:31, you have the problem of her claiming to run around the building but the timeline allows too much time - 6 minutes to do that. Something is off on her recollection of time.
What you need to be asking yourself is, why they left out Adams and Styles during the official reenactment.
They didn't get her to do a reenactment because they knew she had stayed at the window longer than she remembered. And if they left her do a reenactment of running from the window immediately, it would be misleading reenactment.
-
Your timeline has Adams and Styles running down the stairs at lighting speed and out the back door before Truly and Baker come in. That is possible in my opinion and they just got out the back door before Baker and Truly saw them. That puts Adams and Styles at the loading dock at about 12:31. From here Adams said she ran around the west side of the building, went to the front door, listened to a motorcycle radio and then went inside. If she ran out the rear door at 12:31, you have the problem of her claiming to run around the building but the timeline allows too much time - 6 minutes to do that. Something is off on her recollection of time.
They didn't get her to do a reenactment because they knew she had stayed at the window longer than she remembered. And if they left her do a reenactment of running from the window immediately, it would be a false reenactment. Better to have no reenactment rather than a false reenactment.
From here Adams said she ran around the west side of the building, went to the front door, listened to a motorcycle radio and then went inside.
Again, you skip the railway yard;
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I proceeded out to the Houston Street dock.
Mr. BELIN - That would be on this same diagram? It is marked Houston Street dock, and you went through what would be the north door, which is towards the rear of the first floor, is that correct?
And down some stairs towards the rear of the dock?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you go from there?
Miss ADAMS - I proceeded--which way is east and west?
Mr. BELIN - East is here. East is towards Houston, and west is towards the railroad tracks. You went east or west? Towards the railroad tracks or towards Houston Street?
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
And he said, "That is tough, get back." I said, "Well, was the President shot?" And he said, "I don't know. Go back." And I said, "All right."
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you come back by way of the street, or did you come back the same entrance you went out?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You went back in through the front entrance, through the front of the building?
Miss ADAMS - Well, I didn't go back in right away.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then? There is a street that would be a continuation of Elm Street that goes in front of the building, and Elm Street itself angles into the freeway. Did you go back either of those streets?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. I went by the one directly in front of the building.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do when you got there?
Miss ADAMS - When I got there, I happened to look around and noticed several of the employees, and I noticed Joe Molina, for one, was standing in front of the building, and also Avery Davis, who works with me, and I said, "What do you think has happened?"
And she said, "I don't know."
And I said, "I want to find out." I think the President is shot.
There was a motorcycle that was parked on the corner of Houston and Elm directly in front of the east end of the building, and I paused-there to listen to the report on the police radio, and they said that shots had been fired which apparently came either from the second floor or the fourth floor window, and so I panicked, as I was at the only open window on the fourth floor.
If she ran out the rear door at 12:31, you have the problem of her claiming to run around the building but the timeline allows too much time - 6 minutes to do that.
Nope.. that is not too much time.... She first had to go to the other side of the loading platform (near Houston street) to get off the platform, because that's where the only stairs are. She then had to walk back and pass the entire building again in the direction of the railway yard, where she got stopped by police. That could easily have taken 3 minutes or so. She then had to walk passed the side of the building towards the front and then walk all the way up to the front door. She also talked briefly with some co-workers. That also could easily have taken 3 tot 4 minutes. There is nothing wrong with the time line.
They didn't get her to do a reenactment because they knew she had stayed at the window longer than she remembered. And if they left her do a reenactment of running from the window immediately, it would be a false reenactment. Better to have no reenactment rather than a false reenactment.
Actually, no they didn't know that at all. There was no such information available to the WC. The re-enactment was done prior to the testimony of Marion Baker and Victoria Adams. Which begs the question, if they did not want her in the re-enactment, because she had nothing of evidentiary value to offer, then why did they call her to testify at all?
-
Adams is absolutely insistent and consistent on one point in every statement she ever made concerning her actions that day - she started heading for the stairs within seconds of the final shot and she was running. This is corroborated by subsequent statements made by both Styles and Garner. She is also consistent in saying she saw no-one on the stairs.
We know from the Couch and Darnell films Shelley and Lovelady were out front of the TSBD when Baker reached the foot of the steps outside the front entrance.
If we accept this evidence we must come to the conclusion that Adams could not possibly have seen Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. It's impossible.
So we are left with two main possibilities - Adams lied about seeing Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor or this part of her WC testimony was added without her knowledge.
Lets look at motives. Why would Adams lie about this detail? I have no idea why she might do this but would be glad to hear some wild speculation about it. Why would the WC lie about this detail? I think that's obvious - to make it appear that Adams and Styles could not have been on the stairs at the same time as Oswald.
When Garner reached her office door Adams and Styles were already clattering down the 'very noisy' wooden stairs, she heard them clearly. She then moved closer to the area of the stairs where she would have and unobstructed view of anyone opening the door of the stairs coming down from the fifth floor and crossing the floor to go down the stairs to the third. More importantly, she would have heard anyone coming down. She was there moments later when Baker came up those same stairs. Oswald never came down those stairs. Adams never saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. Of these things we can be certain.
Adam's is also consistent as is Styles that they were sent back to the TSBD by a police officer. The back of the building was not sealed off by Sergeant Harkness until after 12:36. At least 5 minutes after the shooting. How LHO slipped past the 4th floor is a matter of conjecture, but Adam's and Styles were still on the 4th floor when he went past it.
Mr. BELIN - How long did it take you after that to have the back part sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - The guard was arriving by the time I got off my motorcycle. There was already additional squads en route.
Mr. BELIN - How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.
Mr. BELIN - You are talking about the back part of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
===============================
This is confirmed by Inspector Sawyer:
Mr. BELIN. When you say check the security on the building, what do you mean by that?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, to be sure it was covered off properly, and then posted two men on the front entrance with instructions not to let anyone in or out.
Mr. BELIN. What about the rear entrance?
Mr. SAWYER. We'll, I also had the sergeant go around and check to be sure that all of those were covered, although he told me that they were already covered.
-------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. To go up and look around and come down?
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then you got down and what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I asked the Sergeant to doublecheck the security around the building, and then I took two patrolmen and stationed them at the front door and told them, with instructions not to let anybody in or out.
Mr. BELIN. Now up to the time you did this, had anyone else sealed off the building, that you know of?
Mr. SAWYER. When I arrived, the sergeant told me he had the building sealed off. There were officers all around the building. To the best of my recollection, there was no officer actually stationed on the front door, at the front door. There was some on the sidewalk in front of the front door, and also, as far as I know, had no instructions been issued to anyone to let anybody in or out.
-
Adam's is also consistent as is Styles that they were sent back to the TSBD by a police officer. The back of the building was not sealed off by Sergeant Harkness until after 12:36. At least 5 minutes after the shooting. How LHO slipped past the 4th floor is a matter of conjecture, but Adam's and Styles were still on the 4th floor when he went past it.
Mr. BELIN - How long did it take you after that to have the back part sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - The guard was arriving by the time I got off my motorcycle. There was already additional squads en route.
Mr. BELIN - How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.
Mr. BELIN - You are talking about the back part of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
===============================
This is confirmed by Inspector Sawyer:
Mr. BELIN. When you say check the security on the building, what do you mean by that?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, to be sure it was covered off properly, and then posted two men on the front entrance with instructions not to let anyone in or out.
Mr. BELIN. What about the rear entrance?
Mr. SAWYER. We'll, I also had the sergeant go around and check to be sure that all of those were covered, although he told me that they were already covered.
-------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. To go up and look around and come down?
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then you got down and what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I asked the Sergeant to doublecheck the security around the building, and then I took two patrolmen and stationed them at the front door and told them, with instructions not to let anybody in or out.
Mr. BELIN. Now up to the time you did this, had anyone else sealed off the building, that you know of?
Mr. SAWYER. When I arrived, the sergeant told me he had the building sealed off. There were officers all around the building. To the best of my recollection, there was no officer actually stationed on the front door, at the front door. There was some on the sidewalk in front of the front door, and also, as far as I know, had no instructions been issued to anyone to let anybody in or out.
Adam's is also consistent as is Styles that they were sent back to the TSBD by a police officer. The back of the building was not sealed off by Sergeant Harkness until after 12:36. At least 5 minutes after the shooting. How LHO slipped past the 4th floor is a matter of conjecture, but Adam's and Styles were still on the 4th floor when he went past it.
I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say here, but there are two observations to be made.
(1) Adams said that a policeman sent her back to the TSBD when she arrived at the railway yard! It wasn't Harkness who stopped her, because if he had, she would never have been able to get to the railway yard.
(2) If Harkness sealed of the back if the building within 6 minutes after the shooting, it means that Adams & Styles as well as Shelley & Lovelady must have re-entered the building before Harkness sealed it off. In other words, within 6 minutes after the shooting. After that they wouldn't have been allowed back in, as happened to Givens when he tried to re-enter.
So Harkness sealing off the back of the building only strengthens the argument that Adams & Styles must indeed have left the 4th floor immediately after the last shot, because otherwise they would not have been able to make it back in time prior to the building being sealed off.
-
She first had to go to the other side of the loading platform (near Houston street) to get off the platform, because that's where the only stairs are. She then had to walk back and pass the entire building again in the direction of the railway yard, where she got stopped by police. That could easily have taken 3 minutes or so. She then had to walk passed the side of the building towards the front and then walk all the way up to the front door. She also talked briefly with some co-workers. That also could easily have taken 3 tot 4 minutes. There is nothing wrong with the time line.
You're reading something into her testimony that is not there. The loading dock applies to the whole area at the north face of the TSBD, not just the little platform area at the north east side.
She did not cross over the dock area on the north east side, she went down the little stairs that has a door on it, then around the west side of the building.
-
You're reading something into her testimony that is not there. The loading dock applies to the whole area at the north face of the TSBD, not just the little platform area at the north east side.
She did not cross over the dock area on the north east side, she went down the little stairs that has a door on it, then around the west side of the building.
You're reading something into her testimony that is not there.
No, I am not. The whole thing is self-evident. When you look at the lay out of the first floor, you'll see that the stairs are on the north west side in the back of the building with the doorway facing an elevator. Inbetween the door of the stairs and the elevator is a loading door, which is the one Adams and Styles used to leave the building. She told FBI agents Hardin & Scott on 11/24/63 she turned left to leave the building, which is exactly where that loading door is.
But then they needed to get off the platform and the only stairs they could use were next to Houston Street dock, on the north east side of the building. To get from the stairs inside the building to the stairs to get of the loading dock they had to walk from one side of the building to the other, regardless if they did so inside the building or on the loading platform. The reason why the women did not encounter Truly and Baker is because they went out the building to the left at roughly the same time Truly and Baker were passing to elevators to run to the stairs inside the building!
In this video I borrowed from Colin Crow, at around 57 seconds, the loading door between the stairs and the elevator can be seen. In the video the door is closed, but on 11/22/63 it was open.
The video, which was shot at the TSBD, clearly shows how the elevator block obscures the view from the stairs into the shipping area. There is no way that Adams and Styles could have seen anybody from the stairs exit.
-
This floor plan supports Martin's scenario as the NW corner of the building blocks access to the western part of the loading dock,
https://i.servimg.com/u/f39/18/50/79/06/1st_fl10.jpg
No matter how they twist and turn things, the only logical explanation is that Adams and Styles did indeed leave the 4th floor after the last shot, just like they said they did.
Had they stayed four or five minutes later, they would have encountered men coming up the stairs and they probably wouldn't have been able to leave the building. They most certainly wouldn't have made it back in time, from a round trip around the building, to re-enter it before Harkness and two other officers sealed of the back between 12.36 and 12.37.
12.30.00 Last shot
12.30.30 Adams and Styles arrive at the stairs on the 4th floor in the North West corner
Shelley and Lovelady are in front of the building and making their way to the railway yard.
12:31.00 Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor and leave the building through the loading door
At the same time Truly and Baker pass the elevator block on the first floor and run towards the stairs, just missing the women
12.33.30 Adams and Styles arrive at the railway yard and are stopped by a police officer who sent them back to the building
12.35.00 Adams and Styles arrive at the front entrance of the building and Adams overhears a radio report
12.36.00 Adams and Styles re-enter the building just prior to it being closed off by Harkness
When she enters the building Adams sees Shelley and Lovelady, who have just entered the building themselves
12.37.00 Harkness seals off the building
The times are approximations, but the timeline works perfectly and includes all the known information without any witness having to lie.
I challenge anybody to come up with a similar timeline that starts with Adams and Styles leaving the 4th floor 4 to 5 minutes after the shots and still incorporates all the available information correctly.
-
Inbetween the door of the stairs and the elevator is a loading door, which is the one Adams and Styles used to leave the building.
That door, which was an overhead closing door, was closed on Nov 22nd 1963. I'm pretty sure i read that somewhere in someone elses testimony.
She told FBI agents Hardin & Scott on 11/24/63 she turned left to leave the building, which is exactly where that loading door is.
I think by that what is meant that when she reached the outside, she did a loop left around the pointed end of the loading dock. That is then where she met the police officer.
-
That door, which was an overhead closing door, was closed on Nov 22nd 1963. I'm pretty sure i read that somewhere in someone elses testimony.
I think by that what is meant that when she reached the outside, she did a loop left around the pointed end of the loading dock. That is then where she met the police officer.
You really need to think things through a bit better....
That door, which was an overhead closing door, was closed on Nov 22nd 1963. I'm pretty sure i read that somewhere in someone elses testimony.
Well, then produce that testimony. Not that it matters much for the timeline... the stairs are on the North West side of the building and the stairs to get off the loading platform are near Houston street at the North East side of the building. The women still had to walk from one side of the building to the other. The only difference would be that, if they walked inside the building rather than on the loading dock, they would have encountered Truly and Baker, which they didn't.
I think by that what is meant that when she reached the outside, she did a loop left around the pointed end of the loading dock. That is then where she met the police officer.
Yes the women had to do a loop around the pointed end of the loading dock in order to be able to walk towards the railway area. You can think all you like, but nowhere in her testimony or statements to investigators does Adams say she met the police officer at the pointed end of the loading dock.
And that also doesn't make any sense at all, as she does say that she returned to the building by walking passed the front towards the main entrance on Elm. In order to do that she first had to have been North West of the building somewhere in the railway yard. If a police man had stopped her at the pointed end of the loading dock, she would never have gotten to the railway yard, and thus never be able to walk back on the road in the front of the building. So, no... you are wrong.
-
This is an image of Vickie Adams outside the TSBD (red arrow) with friends near the motorcycle she overheard the message from. Hardly racing is she? It was only after hearing the message she ran inside (as she states in her testimony). Also, she wasn't just stopped by a police officer, she had a conversation with him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sxd85Lsm/vickie-adams-outside-TSBD.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
This is an image of Vickie Adams outside the TSBD (red arrow) with friends near the motorcycle she overheard the message from. Hardly racing is she? It was only after hearing the message she ran inside (as she states in her testimony). Also, she wasn't just stopped by a police officer, she had a conversation with him.
Hardly racing is she? It was only after hearing the message she ran inside (as she states in her testimony).
Running or not, she must have entered the building at the loading dock prior to 12.36 / 12.37 when Officer Harkness sealed of the back entrance.
Also, she wasn't just stopped by a police officer, she had a conversation with him.
Semantics... whether it qualifies as being stopped or not, she could not go any further. The officer told her to go back to the building. So, what's your point?
-
We're talking about the timeline for Vickie Adams leaving the fourth floor window until she re-enters the TSBD. The point is this - being stopped by an officer and returning to the TSBD does not take as long as being stopped, having a conversation then returning. The time spent in conversation with the officer must be taken into account which it is not at the moment. In her testimony she has the conversation with the officer, returns to the front of the TSBD where she meets colleagues and starts a conversation with them. While this is happening the message comes over the nearby motorcycle radio, about 12.36 - 12.37 and she rushes back inside just as the police are locking the building down.
The photo corroborates the following parts of her testimony - she returned to the front of the TSBD, was stood with colleagues, near a police motorcycle. There are no extra minutes unaccounted for in her testimony. That's the point.
-
We're talking about the timeline for Vickie Adams leaving the fourth floor window until she re-enters the TSBD. The point is this - being stopped by an officer and returning to the TSBD does not take as long as being stopped, having a conversation then returning. The time spent in conversation with the officer must be taken into account which it is not at the moment. In her testimony she has the conversation with the officer, returns to the front of the TSBD where she meets colleagues and starts a conversation with them. While this is happening the message comes over the nearby motorcycle radio, about 12.36 - 12.37 and she rushes back inside just as the police are locking the building down.
The photo corroborates the following parts of her testimony - she returned to the front of the TSBD, was stood with colleagues, near a police motorcycle. There are no extra minutes unaccounted for in her testimony. That's the point.
Agreed.. There are indeed no minutes unaccounted for. But we don't have to account for every minute or second. There are basically two options;
1. Just like Adams said in her statement to the FBI on 11/24/63, to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64 and in her WC testimony, she and Styles left the 4th floor immediately after the last shot
or
2. as the WC, and now the LNs claim, the women waited for several minutes on the 4th floor before going down. That claim is based entirely on a remark Adams first made to Jim Leavelle, on 02/07/64, that she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor.
We know from Adams' statements that she and Styles ran down the stairs at the North West corner of the building, left the building at the back running towards the railway yard, being sent back by a police officer, heading towards the front entrance of the building, hearing the radio message and entering the building again at the loading dock at the back. This all must have happened prior to 12.37 because at that moment Officer Harkness sealed off the back entrance to the building.
The first option, being that the girls ran down the stairs immediately after the last shot, enables them to be on the stairs in front of anybody coming from higher up and let's them arrive at the bottom of the stairs at 12.31, just before Truly and Baker get there to go up the stairs. As the girls went outside to the loading dock by using the door between the stairs and the elevator explains why they did not see Truly and Baker and were not seen by them.
This scenario leaves the girls around 6 minutes to make their way to the railway yard, being told by a police officer to return to the building, walking to the front of the building and down the street towards the main entrance, hearing the radio broadcast and re-enter the building at the loading dock at the back after walking down Houston street.
We know from their testimony that Shelley and Lovelady were at the front entrance of the building when the shots were fired. They went over to a little traffic island across the street and Lovelady saw Baker running towards the building. Both men then went down the street running parallel to the building towards the railway yard. They stayed there for a little while before returning to the TSBD and entering it at the loading dock at the back, according to their estimates, some 5 minutes after the shots.
This of course makes it physically impossible for Adams and Styles to have seen Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor of the TSBD when the came of the stairs at 12.31. It should be noted that the stairs are in the far North West corner of the building and anybody coming down those stairs would be looking at a freight elevator blocking the view for a large part of the shipping department. It may not have been physically possible for Adams to have seen Shelley and Lovelady at 12.31, but it is more than possible that in fact she saw both men when she re-entered the building at around 12.37, which is roughly the same time Shelley and Lovelady said they had entered the building as well.
So, now let's examine option 2. If the girls had stayed on the 4th floor for several minutes none of the information we know fits anymore. Had they gone down the stairs at around 12.35, as the LNs frequently suggest, they may have just been able to leave to building, but they would have had no possibility at all to go to the railway yard and subsequently the front entrance and hear the radio message and still re-enter the building prior to the lockdown by Officer Harknett at 12.37. So, option 2 simply doesn't add it.
Also, if option 2 was true, Victoria Adams must have lied about leaving immediately after the last shot to the FBI, to Jim Leavelle and the WC. Also, Dorothy Garner would have had to lie to Barefoot Sanders, who she told - according to the Stroud letter - that she saw the girls go down before Truly and the police man [Baker] came up. Now, why would these women lie about something like that?
In conclusion, the preponderance of evidence justifies the conclusion that Adams and Styles did in fact leave the 4th floor after the last shot, that they came down the stairs ahead of anybody coming from above and missed Truly and Baker by seconds. And that Adams did in fact see Shelley and Lovelady, but not when she came off the stairs but a few minutes later when they all had re-entered the building prior to 12.37.
It is inconceivable to me that the Warren Commission staff couldn't put two and two together and work out this timeline. I am more than convinced they did in fact figure it out, and thus understood that Victoria Adams was one of those witnesses that needed to be railroaded to prevent her from destroying their "Oswald on the stairs" narrative.
-
"Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."
-- Sean Murphy; January 27, 2011
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/W7McW4aaYMc/rmbO883N__wJ
JohnM
-
"Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."
-- Sean Murphy; January 27, 2011
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/W7McW4aaYMc/rmbO883N__wJ
JohnM
Over time Sandra Styles has said different things to different people. I recall she once said, on video I believe, that she could be the one who was mistaken and Victoria was correct after all. In the video below she confirms that she went down the stairs with Vickie Adams after the shots.
There isn't much point in cherry picking one piece of information and run with it, when you can't fit that same piece of information in a plausible way into a timeline of well known and established facts.
-
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qzjqe
JohnM
-
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qzjqe
JohnM
That's the same video that I have posted.
-
A really solid timeline has been established here for Adam's testimony. Are you saying you think Adams and Styles went down the stairs after Baker and Truly came up?
-
"Watch fourth-floor employee Sandra Styles talk to camera about her experiences that day.
http://www.travelchannel.com/video/jfk-assassination-witness
Sandra, in stating that she neither saw nor heard anyone else coming down the stairs, says it's possible that Oswald came down before her and Vicki Adams or after them: "He could have been behind us, he could have been ahead of us, I have no idea".
He could have been behind us... That's a very interesting comment for Sandra to make, for it backs up the Vicki Adams claim that the two ladies went to the stairs very soon after the shots."
Sean Murphy - posted November 13, 2013
No mention of his little insight here just a really odd observation picked out of a statement that seems to clearly demonstrate Styles didn't have a clue where Oswald was. "He could have been behind us" is not a very interesting comment to make, it's just part of what she was saying taken out of context. Not sure what point your making John.
-
"Watch fourth-floor employee Sandra Styles talk to camera about her experiences that day.
http://www.travelchannel.com/video/jfk-assassination-witness
Sandra, in stating that she neither saw nor heard anyone else coming down the stairs, says it's possible that Oswald came down before her and Vicki Adams or after them: "He could have been behind us, he could have been ahead of us, I have no idea".
He could have been behind us... That's a very interesting comment for Sandra to make, for it backs up the Vicki Adams claim that the two ladies went to the stairs very soon after the shots."
Sean Murphy - posted November 13, 2013
No mention of his little insight here just a really odd observation picked out of a statement that seems to clearly demonstrate Styles didn't have a clue where Oswald was. "He could have been behind us" is not a very interesting comment to make, it's just part of what she was saying taken out of context. Not sure what point your making John.
When I click on the link, the page goes to the TV guide of Discovery UK
-
When I click on the link, the page goes to the TV guide of Discovery UK
Try again. Worked OK for me. Give it a chance to load. Mrs Butler seems like a very believable lady.
-
Try again. Worked OK for me. Give it a chance to load. Mrs Butler seems like a very believable lady.
Perhaps it depends on where you are in the world. I still get the TV guide page...
Can somebody post the actual video here?
-
-
I got a TV guide as well. I just assumed the comment Murphy made was the most insightful thing he could come up with about it.
Question for Jerry - was there anything in it that indicated Sandra Styles and Victoria Adams didn't hit the stairs straight away? It's in relation to John's post where Murphy says Styles told him they didn't.
-
Thanks, but that same video has already been posted two times on the previous page. I doubt Styles will say something different in this one.... :D
-
I got a TV guide as well. I just assumed the comment Murphy made was the most insightful thing he could come up with about it.
Question for Jerry - was there anything in it that indicated Sandra Styles and Victoria Adams didn't hit the stairs straight away? It's in relation to John's post where Murphy says Styles told him they didn't.
"We heard three shots from we didn't know where and we went downstairs and out the back around to the front....seeing no one else in the stairwells.."
-
Seems to me he did, especially if he bought the Coke beforehand in order to use it as a prop all the way, if necessary.
Carrying the already-opened Coke, get to the Second Floor Lunch Room and hang out there, expecting to be encountered ("No, I didn't hear any shots," or "I work here"), when they leave, walk through Mrs. Reid's office to its front door and exit through it, walk down the wooden steps to the front floor, maybe hang out in the "lobby" for a few seconds, then walk to the rear of the building and exit it through the loading dock door.
Instead of looking suspicious by immediately walking or running away from the building, walk along the side of the building towards the front (as alleged by B. W. F.), cross over to the other side of the street, ... and, well, "take it from there".
-- MWT ;)
-
Adams said she ran down the stairs, ran out the back door, ran around the west side of the TSBD and when she arrived at the front door she listened to a motorcycle radio. The item she heard on the radio (a report about shots coming from the 4th floor) was not played on the radio until 12:37pm.
There’s no report at 12:37 of shots coming from the fourth floor. There’s a report of a man seeing a rifle being pulled in from the second floor, but it’s on channel 2. The motorcycles were on channel 1, weren’t they?
Also, as we’ve discussed multiple times, we don’t know how precise the dispatcher time-checks or the dispatcher clocks were.
-
There’s no report at 12:37 of shots coming from the fourth floor. There’s a report of a man seeing a rifle being pulled in from the second floor, but it’s on channel 2. The motorcycles were on channel 1, weren’t they?
Also, as we’ve discussed multiple times, we don’t know how precise the dispatcher time-checks or the dispatcher clocks were.
I wondered about that radio report as well. I looked at the transcripts and couldn't find it either.
There are on the transcript however, at 12.36, two calls by Sgt Harkness (one on each channel) saying that he had a witness who said the shots came from the 5th floor of the TSBD and that they were sealing of the building. Could it be that Victoria Adams overheard Harkness saying that and later remembered it as a radio call?
-
Also, as we’ve discussed multiple times, we don’t know how precise the dispatcher time-checks or the dispatcher clocks were.
They're still likely to be accurate to within 90 seconds or so i'm presuming though?
-
They're still likely to be accurate to within 90 seconds or so i'm presuming though?
This is what James C. Bowles, the man in charge of the Dallas Police dispatchers, told the HSCA;
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
Btw, we know from their testimony that Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the TSBD about five minutes after the shots. Sgt Harkness, in his testimony, states that he sealed off the back entrance of the TSBD at around 12.36 or 12.37.
If, as you assumed earlier, Adams and Styles waited several minutes on the 4th floor, before coming down the stairs and seeing Shelley and Lovelady (who were not there until approx 12.35), have you already figured out how Adams and Styles could leave the building, run to the railway yard where a policeman turned them back, walked to the front of the building and subsequently to the main enterance, on the other side of the building, where Adams heard the radio call and then walked down Houston street to the loading dock where she re-entered the TSBD prior to the building being sealed off by Sgt Harkness at around 12.36 or 12.37?
-
Styles and Adams never ran over to the railroad yard. They were stopped behind the TSBD by an officer, presumeably Sargeant Harkness, and told to return to the building.
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
There is a railroad spur running parallel to the dock behind the TSBD. That is where Adams encountered the officer.
------------------------------
Sandra Styles confirms they encountered a policeman at the rear of the TSBD and returned to the front of the building:
FBI Statement 3/19/64
"...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
Adams and Styles never went over to the Railroad Yard.
-
Styles and Adams never ran over to the railroad yard. They were stopped behind the TSBD by an officer, presumeably Sargeant Harkness, and told to return to the building.
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
There is a railroad spur running parallel to the dock behind the TSBD. That is where Adams encountered the officer.
------------------------------
Sandra Styles confirms they encountered a policeman at the rear of the TSBD and returned to the front of the building:
FBI Statement 3/19/64
"...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
Adams and Styles never went over to the Railroad Yard.
Styles and Adams never ran over to the railroad yard. They were stopped behind the TSBD by an officer, presumeably Sargeant Harkness, and told to return to the building.
BS.. Nobody said they ran over to the railroad yard. They ran towards it. There is a difference. Sgt Harkness was in front of the TSBD until 12.36 when he passed a message on to the DPD dispatcher. If the girls were stopped behind the TSBD, they would have turned around and re-entered to building. They did no such thing.
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
And he said, "That is tough, get back." I said, "Well, was the President shot?" And he said, "I don't know. Go back." And I said, "All right."
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you come back by way of the street, or did you come back the same entrance you went out?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You went back in through the front entrance, through the front of the building?
Miss ADAMS - Well, I didn't go back in right away.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then? There is a street that would be a continuation of Elm Street that goes in front of the building, and Elm Street itself angles into the freeway. Did you go back either of those streets?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. I went by the one directly in front of the building.
If an officer had stopped the girls behind the TSBD, they would never have had the possibility to go to the front of the building.
Sandra Styles confirms they encountered a policeman at the rear of the TSBD and returned to the front of the building:
FBI Statement 3/19/64
"...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
More BS... Sandra Styles did not confirm the encounter took place "at the rear of the TSBD". She told the FBI that they went around to the side of the building
Which fits perfectly with Adams saying she did not go back the same way she came out the building, but instead went to the front of the building. Styles actually tells the FBI exactly that.... the policeman told her "to go around to the front of the building"
The bottom line is that the girls came down the stairs at the North West corner of the building, let the TSBD by going down the stairs at the North East said of the loading platform. They then ran towards the railway yard and encountered a police office somewhere between the North West corner of the building and the railway yard. He told them to go back and they walked along the side of the building towards the street that runs parallel to the TSBD, turned left and walked along the front of the building towards the entrance, where Adams overheard the message of Sgt Harkness to the DPD dispatcher at around 12.36. Exactly what I have been saying the time line shows.
If you want the girls to be up on the 4th floor until 4 to 5 minutes after the shots (i.e. 12.34 or 12.35), they wouldn't have had the time to do all that before 12.36 when Harkness transmitted his message to the DPD dispatcher.
If you want to punch a hole in the time line you need to come up with something better than this cherry picked stuff.
-
Styles and Adams never ran over to the railroad yard. They were stopped behind the TSBD by an officer, presumeably Sargeant Harkness, and told to return to the building.
BS.. Nobody said they ran over to the railroad yard. They ran towards it. There is a difference. Sgt Harkness was in front of the TSBD until 12.36 when he passed a message on to the DPD dispatcher. If the girls were stopped behind the TSBD, they would have turned around and re-entered to building. They did no such thing.
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
And he said, "That is tough, get back." I said, "Well, was the President shot?" And he said, "I don't know. Go back." And I said, "All right."
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you come back by way of the street, or did you come back the same entrance you went out?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You went back in through the front entrance, through the front of the building?
Miss ADAMS - Well, I didn't go back in right away.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then? There is a street that would be a continuation of Elm Street that goes in front of the building, and Elm Street itself angles into the freeway. Did you go back either of those streets?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. I went by the one directly in front of the building.
If an officer had stopped the girls behind the TSBD, they would never have had the possibility to go to the front of the building.
Sandra Styles confirms they encountered a policeman at the rear of the TSBD and returned to the front of the building:
FBI Statement 3/19/64
"...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
More BS... Sandra Styles did not confirm the encounter took place "at the rear of the TSBD". She told the FBI that they went around to the side of the building
Which fits perfectly with Adams saying she did not go back the same way she came out the building, but instead went to the front of the building. Styles actually tells the FBI exactly that.... the policeman told her "to go around to the front of the building"
The bottom line is that the girls came down the stairs at the North West corner of the building, let the TSBD by going down the stairs at the North East said of the loading platform. They then ran towards the railway yard and encountered a police office somewhere between the North West corner of the building and the railway yard. He told them to go back and they walked along the side of the building towards the street that runs parallel to the TSBD, turned left and walked along the front of the building towards the entrance, where Adams overheard the message of Sgt Harkness to the DPD dispatcher at around 12.36. Exactly what I have been saying the time line shows.
If you want the girls to be up on the 4th floor until 4 to 5 minutes after the shots (i.e. 12.34 or 12.35), they wouldn't have had the time to do all that before 12.36 when Harkness transmitted his message to the DPD dispatcher.
If you want to punch a hole in the time line you need to come up with something better than this cherry picked stuff.
No, she makes absolutely no mention of the railroad yard. She left no room for doubt.
Styles: "...went down the backstairs and left the building at the back door (Houston Street) and went around to the side of the building (behind the TSBD) where we saw a policeman..."
------------------------------------------------------
Adams states where they were going and they did not get very far.
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
----------------------------------
You said they ran to the Railroad yard. You stated they were stopped in the RR Yard.
Weidmann reply #674 to Gerry Down
"How in the world do you come up with BS like this. In all her known statements Adams is crystal clear that she and Styles came down the stairs, turned left and stepped out onto the loading dock at the back of the TSBD. Both then ran to the railroad yard where they were stopped by a police officer who told them to return to the TSBD. Adams then went back from the railroad yard along the front of the building where she saw several TSBD employees and overheard a police radio."
Your statement never happened. Nothing in their statements could even lead a person to believe what you posted.
The only ones who punched holes in your timeline are Harkness, Adams, and Styles.
-
No, she makes absolutely no mention of the railroad yard. She left no room for doubt.
Styles: "...went down the backstairs and left the building at the back door (Houston Street) and went around to the side of the building (behind the TSBD) where we saw a policeman..."
------------------------------------------------------
Adams states where they were going and they did not get very far.
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
----------------------------------
You said they ran to the Railroad yard. You stated they were stopped in the RR Yard.
Weidmann reply #674 to Gerry Down
"How in the world do you come up with BS like this. In all her known statements Adams is crystal clear that she and Styles came down the stairs, turned left and stepped out onto the loading dock at the back of the TSBD. Both then ran to the railroad yard where they were stopped by a police officer who told them to return to the TSBD. Adams then went back from the railroad yard along the front of the building where she saw several TSBD employees and overheard a police radio."
Your statement never happened. Nothing in their statements could even lead a person to believe what you posted.
The only ones who punched holes in your timeline are Harkness, Adams, and Styles.
Just how pathetic can you be? Because I used the word "where" instead "when" in one post, you dismiss everything that's in front of you?
So, they encountered the police man (at the side of the building) before getting to the railroad yard. So what? It still makes no major difference to the time line. To get to the front of the building, where Adams said she was when she heard the radio message at 12.36 the girls still had to go around the building and back in those days there was an extention to the building which reached nearly to the entrance of the car park at the end of the parallel road.
Going around the building would have taken them at least 4 to 5 minutes and Adams said she was at the front entrance when she heard the 12.36 radio call. It's easy to figure out, yet you seem to be struggling because of your bias.
You can't even explain how, in your foolish opinion, Harkness, Adams and Styles punch holes in my timeline.
Here is a floor plan of the first floor of the TSBD and adjacent buildings.....
https://i.servimg.com/u/f39/18/50/79/06/1st_fl10.jpg
Try to retrace the route Adams and Styles took..... Go on then
And one more thing;
No, she makes absolutely no mention of the railroad yard. She left no room for doubt.
Styles: "...went down the backstairs and left the building at the back door (Houston Street) and went around to the side of the building (behind the TSBD) where we saw a policeman..."
I haven't seen her FBI 302 statement, but I don't believe for a second that Sandra Styles told the FBI what you have written in brackets. Why don't you show us the 302 for that interview?
The side of the building is not "behind the TSBD"! And the back door of the building isn't on Houston Street either. It's on the loading dock at the back of the building.
Do you really believe you can fool anybody with this kind of BS?
And a final comment;
I am trying to work out a time line that comprises of all the available evidence, without any witness having to lie. I'm doing that for myself and those who are truly interested in it and have an open mind. I am not doing it for a WC defender with a bias who needs to cherry pick and misrepresent to pathetically challenge the time line, without actually being able to provide an alternative version that fits all the evidence.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything as it is perfectly clear that you couldn't be convinced if all the participants would stand before you and told you what actually happened. You just believe what you want to believe....and I'll just pity you!
-
Just how pathetic can you be? Because I used the word "where" instead "when" in one post, you dismiss everything that's in front of you?
So, they encountered the police man (at the side of the building) before getting to the railroad yard. So what? It still makes no major difference to the time line. To get to the front of the building, where Adams said she was when she heard the radio message at 12.36 the girls still had to go around the building and back in those days there was an extention to the building which reached nearly to the entrance of the car park at the end of the parallel road.
Going around the building would have taken them at least 4 to 5 minutes and Adams said she was at the front entrance when she heard the 12.36 radio call. It's easy to figure out, yet you seem to be struggling because of your bias.
You can't even explain how, in your foolish opinion, Harkness, Adams and Styles punch holes in my timeline.
Here is a floor plan of the first floor of the TSBD and adjacent buildings.....
https://i.servimg.com/u/f39/18/50/79/06/1st_fl10.jpg
Try to retrace the route Adams and Styles took..... Go on then
And one more thing;
No, she makes absolutely no mention of the railroad yard. She left no room for doubt.
Styles: "...went down the backstairs and left the building at the back door (Houston Street) and went around to the side of the building (behind the TSBD) where we saw a policeman..."
I haven't seen her FBI 302 statement, but I don't believe for a second that Sandra Styles told the FBI what you have written in brackets. Why don't you show us the 302 for that interview?
The side of the building is not "behind the TSBD"! And the back door of the building isn't on Houston Street either. It's on the loading dock at the back of the building.
Do you really believe you can fool anybody with this kind of BS?
And a final comment;
I am trying to work out a time line that comprises of all the available evidence, without any witness having to lie. I'm doing that for myself and those who are truly interested in it and have an open mind. I am not doing it for a WC defender with a bias who needs to cherry pick and misrepresent to pathetically challenge the time line, without actually being able to provide an alternative version that fits all the evidence.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything as it is perfectly clear that you couldn't be convinced if all the participants would stand before you and told you what actually happened. You just believe what you want to believe....and I'll just pity you!
I am sorry Martin that the whole Adams- Styles timeline thing didn't work out for you. Damn that Adams, Styles, and Harkness for ruining that for you.
I have a new for you to work on while I am gone. I did not know Harkness also pantsed Rowland about a second person in the SN. One other person showing Rowland just made up the story.
Mr. BELIN - Did you actually talk to any other person whose name you recorded in your little book there?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir; Arnold Rowland.
Mr. BELIN - Arnold Rowland?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did he say?
Mr. HARKNESS - He said that he saw a man on one of those floors. He didn't clearly identify it, as he saw a man with a high-powered rifle walking around up there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he say anything else that you could have recorded there?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else you remember?
Mr. HARKNESS - Except his address. I have his address as 3026 Hammerly.
Mr. BELIN - Did he say anything else?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir.
-
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I proceeded out to the Houston Street dock.
Mr. BELIN - That would be on this same diagram? It is marked Houston Street dock, and you went through what would be the north door, which is towards the rear of the first floor, is that correct?
And down some stairs towards the rear of the dock?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you go from there?
Miss ADAMS - I proceeded--which way is east and west?
Mr. BELIN - East is here. East is towards Houston, and west is towards the railroad tracks. You went east or west? Towards the railroad tracks or towards Houston Street?
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
And he said, "That is tough, get back." I said, "Well, was the President shot?" And he said, "I don't know. Go back." And I said, "All right."
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
The railroad yard is not mentioned, it doesn't have anything to do with anything. Adams is saying that after leaving the Houston Street dock she (and Styles) went left (east) towards the railroad tracks. If we assume the spur running around the back of the TSBD is the track in question she doesn't get very far before being stopped by the police officer. They are nowhere near the railroad yard which is why it isn't mentioned by anyone. She gets into a conversation with this officer and accepts she has to go back into the TSBD. Although its's quicker to go back the way they came to get in the building Adams wants to go round to the front entrance. They make there way round the building to the street that runs directly in front of the TSBD. After this Adam's testimony is littered with phrases indicating she was in no rush to get back in:
"Mr. BELIN - Well, did you come back by way of the street, or did you come back the same entrance you went out?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You went back in through the front entrance, through the front of the building?
Miss ADAMS - Well, I didn't go back in right away.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then? There is a street that would be a continuation of Elm Street that goes in front of the building, and Elm Street itself angles into the freeway. Did you go back either of those streets?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. I went by the one directly in front of the building."
Mr. BELIN - What did you do when you got there?
Miss ADAMS - When I got there, I happened to look around and noticed several of the employees, and I noticed Joe Molina, for one, was standing in front of the building, and also Avery Davis, who works with me, and I said, "What do you think has happened?"
And she said, "I don't know."
And I said, "I want to find out." I think the President is shot."
She wanders round to the front of the building, spots some of her colleagues and strikes up her second conversation after coming out of the building.
"There was a motorcycle that was parked on the corner of Houston and Elm directly in front of the east end of the building, and I paused-there to listen to the report on the police radio, and they said that shots had been fired which apparently came either from the second floor or the fourth floor window, and so I panicked, as I was at the only open window on the fourth floor."
It seems clear from her testimony she was in no rush to get back inside, the idea she stood around for 3 or 4 minutes on the fourth floor is incompatible with her testimony. She makes it absolutely clear time and again she leaves within seconds of the last shot and is corroborated by Styles and Garner. Also Garner's statement of hearing the girls go down the stairs and seeing Baker come up those same stairs invalidates the 3 to 4 minute interval, as does Adam's sudden, overwhelming need to find out what's going on.
The timeline has Adams racing out of the building @ 12:01, making her way towards the tracks round the back of the TSBD, getting into a conversation with a police officer, making her way round to the front of the TSBD (presumably in no big hurry any longer), getting into a conversation with colleagues and stood around until she hears the message on the police radio.
Adams does not see Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor as she and Styles race out of the building. The timeline (not to mention the work of Barry Ernest) establishes that.
"
-
I am sorry Martin that the whole Adams- Styles timeline thing didn't work out for you. Damn that Adams, Styles, and Harkness for ruining that for you.
I have a new for you to work on while I am gone. I did not know Harkness also pantsed Rowland about a second person in the SN. One other person showing Rowland just made up the story.
Mr. BELIN - Did you actually talk to any other person whose name you recorded in your little book there?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir; Arnold Rowland.
Mr. BELIN - Arnold Rowland?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did he say?
Mr. HARKNESS - He said that he saw a man on one of those floors. He didn't clearly identify it, as he saw a man with a high-powered rifle walking around up there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he say anything else that you could have recorded there?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else you remember?
Mr. HARKNESS - Except his address. I have his address as 3026 Hammerly.
Mr. BELIN - Did he say anything else?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir.
I am sorry Martin that the whole Adams- Styles timeline thing didn't work out for you. Damn that Adams, Styles, and Harkness for ruining that for you.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Except for outright denial and dishonest misrepresentation of the evidence, you've absolutely nothing to offer to challenge or debate the time line I have provided.
You haven't even got the guts to tell me what you think is wrong with the time line. Truly pathetic and the best confirmation for me that you know I am right! You must be really scared to find out the truth...
Run Jack run.....
-
Mark Lane not being interested in Vicky Adams' story says it all.
Plus her "sighting of Ruby" at the front of the TSBD did not help her cause.
-
Your inability to provide an alternative timeline says it all.
And what is that Jack Ruby thing all about? She sees a man who seems to be a reporter on the corner of Houston and Elm and she sees him again on TV that night. The same night Jack Ruby is caught on camera pretending to be a reporter at the Henry Wade press conference.
I wish there was something simple in this whole mess.
-
...where Adams heard the radio call and then walked down Houston street to the loading dock where she re-entered the TSBD prior to the building being sealed off by Sgt Harkness at around 12.36 or 12.37?
Adams didn't walk down to the Houston St. dock:
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do ?
Miss ADAMS - Following that, I pushed the button for the passenger elevator, but the power had been cut off on the elevator, so I took the stairs to the second floor.
It is obvious from this excerpt she re-enters the building through the front. There is one curious aspect about this part of her testimony that might relate to the route the assassin used to after the shooting - she says 'the power had been cut off on the elevator'. Adams worked on the 4th floor and every day she was at work she would have used this elevator at least twice. She would be extremely familiar with this particular piece of equipment, with how it operated normally.
In his affidavit taken on the day of the assassination Bill Shelley states that after the shots he ran into Gloria Calvery then "went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened. I was on the first floor then and I stayed at the elevator and was told not to let anyone out of the elevator. I left the elevator and went with the police on up to the other floors I left Jack Dougherty in charge of the elevator"
I'm assuming the use of the word elevator (singular) refers to the passenger elevator by the front door. He uses the same singular expression in his WC testimony. If this is the case it would mean Adams never encountered Shelley on the first floor at any time in the aftermath of the shooting.
-
I have a new for you to work on while I am gone. I did not know Harkness also pantsed Rowland about a second person in the SN. One other person showing Rowland just made up the story.
Mr. BELIN - Did you actually talk to any other person whose name you recorded in your little book there?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir; Arnold Rowland.
Mr. BELIN - Arnold Rowland?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did he say?
Mr. HARKNESS - He said that he saw a man on one of those floors. He didn't clearly identify it, as he saw a man with a high-powered rifle walking around up there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he say anything else that you could have recorded there?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else you remember?
Mr. HARKNESS - Except his address. I have his address as 3026 Hammerly.
Mr. BELIN - Did he say anything else?
Mr. HARKNESS - No, sir.
How exactly does that “show Rowland just made up the story”?
Way to change the subject, by the way.
-
I haven't seen her FBI 302 statement, but I don't believe for a second that Sandra Styles told the FBI what you have written in brackets. Why don't you show us the 302 for that interview?
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0353b.gif)
-
Brilliant stuff John, as a newbie I wouldn't even know where to begin to get something like this.
Seems to corroborate Adams' account - left almost straight away, the encounter with the policeman then round to the front. It seems she didn't hang outside to chat but what I do find weird is that she had no problem with the elevator. It's probably nothing but, equally, it might be something.
-
Brilliant stuff John, as a newbie I wouldn't even know where to begin to get something like this.
Seems to corroborate Adams' account - left almost straight away, the encounter with the policeman then round to the front. It seems she didn't hang outside to chat but what I do find weird is that she had no problem with the elevator. It's probably nothing but, equally, it might be something.
What it also shows is that Jack Nessan is a complete fraud, trying to insert false information (in brackets) Styles' statement to completely misrepresent what she actually said.
No, she makes absolutely no mention of the railroad yard. She left no room for doubt.
Styles: "...went down the backstairs and left the building at the back door (Houston Street) and went around to the side of the building (behind the TSBD) where we saw a policeman..."
No wonder the troll is running.....
-
Adams didn't walk down to the Houston St. dock:
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do ?
Miss ADAMS - Following that, I pushed the button for the passenger elevator, but the power had been cut off on the elevator, so I took the stairs to the second floor.
It is obvious from this excerpt she re-enters the building through the front. There is one curious aspect about this part of her testimony that might relate to the route the assassin used to after the shooting - she says 'the power had been cut off on the elevator'. Adams worked on the 4th floor and every day she was at work she would have used this elevator at least twice. She would be extremely familiar with this particular piece of equipment, with how it operated normally.
In his affidavit taken on the day of the assassination Bill Shelley states that after the shots he ran into Gloria Calvery then "went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened. I was on the first floor then and I stayed at the elevator and was told not to let anyone out of the elevator. I left the elevator and went with the police on up to the other floors I left Jack Dougherty in charge of the elevator"
I'm assuming the use of the word elevator (singular) refers to the passenger elevator by the front door. He uses the same singular expression in his WC testimony. If this is the case it would mean Adams never encountered Shelley on the first floor at any time in the aftermath of the shooting.
Adams didn't walk down to the Houston St. dock:
You are correct. I picked up on that as well, just before I left for a meal with friends.
It is obvious from this excerpt she re-enters the building through the front.
Indeed, which makes it beyond clear that she and Styles left the building at the loading dock in the back, walked towards the railraod yard situated at the North West side of the building. After being told by a police officer to return to the building they walked West, along side the TSBD and it's extention, turned left onto the parallel road in front of the TSBD and walked East towards the main entrance, where they entered the building. The only conclusion is that they walked the long way around the building from the back to the front. As Vickie Adams heard a radio call at around 12.36 or 12.37, they must have left the TSBD at the back at least 4 to 5 minutes earlier.
Even Vickie Adams herself estimated it took her 5 minutes to get from the back to the front of the building, exactly as the time line shows
Mr. BELIN - Now trying to reconstruct your actions insofar as the time sequence, which we haven't done, what is your best estimate of the time between the time the shots were fired and the time you got back to the building? How much time elapsed? If you have any estimate. Maybe you don't have one.
Miss ADAMS - I would estimate not more than 5 minutes elapsed.
Mr. BELIN - Is there any particular reason why you make this estimation?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir; going down the stairs toward the back, I was running. I ran to the railroad tracks. I moved quickly to the front of the building, paused briefly to talk to someone, listened only to the report of the windows from which the shot supposedly was fired, and returned to the building.
-
Mark Lane not being interested in Vicky Adams' story says it all.
Plus her "sighting of Ruby" at the front of the TSBD did not help her cause.
Your obsession with Mark Lane and your complete disregard for the established facts disqualifies you completely for a reasonable debate like the one we are trying to have here.
-
Your obsession with Mark Lane and your complete disregard for the established facts disqualifies you completely for a reasonable debate like the one we are trying to have here.
That's not fair. Mark Lane having no interest in her timing story highly suggests Mark Lane himself considered it rubbish. It also suggests she did not push the issue with him. So if she didn't push the issue with him, why was she pushing the issue decades later with Barry Ernst?
-
That's not fair. Mark Lane having no interest in her timing story highly suggests Mark Lane himself considered it rubbish. It also suggests she did not push the issue with him. So if she didn't push the issue with him, why was she pushing the issue decades later with Barry Ernst?
Might I suggest for your next drive by topic; Willy Wonka and how he wasn't interested in Victoria Adams either
So if she didn't push the issue with him, why was she pushing the issue decades later with Barry Ernst?
Where does it say that Victoria Adams was or wasn't pushing the issue with Mark Lane?
As for Barry Ernest, it took him 35 years to track down Victoria Adams and initially she was hestitant to talk to him, so where do you get the notion that she was pushing the issue with Ernest?
The fact is that Victoria Adams disappeared completely after her WC testimony and talked to nobody until Barry Ernest showed up.
Have you even looked at and understood the time line I have put together?
-
The fact is that Victoria Adams disappeared completely after her WC testimony and talked to nobody until Barry Ernest showed up.
She met Mark Lane and talked to him on camera:
On camera a few weeks later, she went through the story one more time: how she left the window after the shots were fired, how she heard no one on the stairs; how she thought she saw Ruby in the crowds. But Lane and Sahl were concerned only with the latter and why Ruby happened to be where he said he wasn’t. They didn’t want to know about anything else, constantly interrupting her and bringing her back to Ruby. She couldn’t wait to get off the show. Meeting them both had not impressed Miss Adams. They didn’t want her story; neither did the government.
Ernest, Barry. The Girl on the Stairs.
-
She met Mark Lane and talked to him on camera:
On camera a few weeks later, she went through the story one more time: how she left the window after the shots were fired, how she heard no one on the stairs; how she thought she saw Ruby in the crowds. But Lane and Sahl were concerned only with the latter and why Ruby happened to be where he said he wasn’t. They didn’t want to know about anything else, constantly interrupting her and bringing her back to Ruby. She couldn’t wait to get off the show. Meeting them both had not impressed Miss Adams. They didn’t want her story; neither did the government.
Ernest, Barry. The Girl on the Stairs.
She met Mark Lane and talked to him on camera:
So where is the footage?
They didn’t want her story; neither did the government.
The WC - for obvious reasons - and perhaps Mark Lane were not interested in her story. So what?
I'm not interested in the WC fairytale.... Does that mean to you that the fairytale isn't true?
-
She met Mark Lane and talked to him on camera:
So where is the footage?
You'll have to ask Barry Ernst that. I suspect he no longer believes the Vicky Adams story as he doesn't seem to do any interviews/JFK conferences on this issue. It was only after Vicky Adams died that he found the signed WC testimony where she had personally put corrections on the very page that mentioned she saw Shelley.
-
You'll have to ask Barry Ernst that. I suspect he no longer believes the Vicky Adams story as he doesn't seem to do any interviews/JFK conferences on this issue. It was only after Vicky Adams died that he found the signed WC testimony where she had personally put corrections on the very page that mentioned she saw Shelley.
You do a lot of speculating, but you don't look at the time line I have presented and tell me where I am wrong. Why is that?
-
Mark Lane not being interested in Vicky Adams' story says it all.
Plus her "sighting of Ruby" at the front of the TSBD did not help her cause.
Are you forgetting the 26 volumes came out in Nov '64 - and without proper indexing is an understatement
It took researchers almost two years to sort it out, Weisberg makes no mention in Whitewash I or II.
II is after RtJ in 1966 Was her timing even an issue yet? - I think that came later, after the book anyway
says it all? - hardly.
..and do you know if she was the only one to see "Ruby"?
-
You'll have to ask Barry Ernst that. I suspect he no longer believes the Vicky Adams story as he doesn't seem to do any interviews/JFK conferences on this issue. It was only after Vicky Adams died that he found the signed WC testimony where she had personally put corrections on the very page that mentioned she saw Shelley.
Please demonstrate how you know Vickie Adams “personally put corrections (sic) on the very page that mentioned she saw Shelley”.
-
I wish there was something simple in this whole mess.
Where's the fun in that? ;)
-
Dear Martin,
Gerry is not going to challenge the timeline or present an alternative. He can't as it's a solidly sensible interpretation of the available evidence (why the timeline is a threat to him is baffling). Instead he pretends to know what Mark Lane thinks and feels which is bizarre, (I can only imagine and speculate that Adams must have felt incredibly disappointed that Lane focused solely on the Ruby aspect of her account. The blame for not taking her account seriously would seem to be Lanes, not Adams).Regardless, don't bite on such rotten bait.
The importance of the timeline is that it independently confirms Adams' assertion that the Shelley/Lovelady encounter on the first floor did not happen. I would go further and suggest it was deliberately added to the WC testimony and is not a misplaced memory by Adams as I believe there is some evidence (quite slight) that Adams never saw Shelley at all on the first floor in the minutes after the shooting. There seems to be a concerted attempt to undermine Adams' testimony on this specific point:
Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
Mr. BALL - Across the street, you mean directly south?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, slightly to the right, you know where the light is there?
Mr. BALL - Yes.
Mr. SHELLEY - That little, old side street runs in front of our building and Elm Street.
Mr. BALL - It dead ends?
Mr. SHELLEY - There's concrete between the two streets.
Mr. BALL - Elm Street dead ends there just beyond the building, doesn't it?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, that's also Elm that goes under the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - That is Elm that goes under the triple underpass?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - You went to the concrete between the two Elm Streets?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, where they split.
Mr. BALL - You went out there and then what did you do?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, officers started running down to the railroad yards and Billy and I walked down that way.
Mr. BALL - How did you get down that way; what course did you take?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked down the middle of the little street.
Mr. BALL - The dead-end street?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Shelley is saying that as they were stood on the steps Gloria Calvery came up and told them about the shooting. Both he and Lovelady immediately went across to"that little,old island" (interestingly Lovelady uses the exact same phrase in his testimony). He states they are stood there for 3 to 4 minutes before he sees Truly and Baker entering the building. WTF. This is a clear attempt to distort the timeline of events immediately after the shooting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHRT9yJT/gloria-calvery-gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This Gif is part of some stunning work (I thought so anyway) by Sandy Larsen and, the one and only, Tommy Graves. It shows the moment the distraught Calvery tells Lovelady about the news. I don't know if it's already been established but I personally suspect the man stood at the bottom of the steps, turning round to get a better look at the approaching Baker is Shelley. If so, it strengthens the notion that a deliberate attempt has been made by the WC to distort events immediately after the shooting. But why?
-
And you have this.....
Mr. BALL - You heard the shots. And how long after that was it before Gloria Calvary came up?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, approximately 3 minutes, I would say.
Uncommonly common estimates, don’t you think? Both erroneous to the same extent......just like a 27" bag for a 34" disassembled rifle.
The testimony of Billy Nolan Lovelady was taken at 3:50 p.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Messrs. Joseph A. Ball and Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
The testimony of William H. Shelley was taken at 4:10 p.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Messrs. Joseph A. Ball and Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Sure were whipping them through in early April it seems. Then again, Ball and Belin had spent considerable time at the TSBD in late March "tidying things up".
-
Just reviewed Shelley WC testimony in light of your post. I originally thought he was saying he was on the "little' old island" for three to four minutes before seeing Truly/Baker but he's not.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
He's saying it took Calvery 3 to 4 minutes to get to their position on the steps after which they moved over to the "little, old island", the only mistake being Shelley has them on the 'island' when they see Truly and Lovelady has them walking away from the building. Both men are caught out in exactly the same lie thanks to Couch/Darnell, using exactly the same expressions (little, old island). The funny thing is Lovelady states "Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot", as if it took her 3 to 4 minutes to run approximately 100 ft.
Couch/Darnell shows Calvery outside the steps of the TSBD as Baker arrives, this seems perfectly reasonable if she was running.
I'm finding Adams' testimony to be completely reliable while the Shelley/Lovelady testimonies proven to be fabricated (on this particular point at least).
-
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
:D :D :D D'OH
Getting your story straight is one thing. Answering questions you've not even been asked is quite another.
We've worked out Adams timeline, what about Shelley and Lovelady?
-
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
:D :D :D D'OH
Getting your story straight is one thing. Answering questions you've not even been asked is quite another.
We've worked out Adams timeline, what about Shelley and Lovelady?
An interesting proposal Dan. Did they see the officer heading west from the front of the TSBD toward the car park (Officer Smith from memory). They moved to the west end of the TSBD annex and entered through the door there back into the south western part of the first floor. (Hence the mention of Piper). Not a particularly long journey. I believe an early statement had Shelley going inside to call his wife on the phone. I wonder who those two white guys were that Baker recalled seeing on his way through the first floor?
-
Let's try and put it all together. For the purpose of this exercise I'll assume that the killer did in fact come down the stairs immediately after the shots. I'll refer to the shooter on the 6th floor as "Oswald"
12.30.00 Last shot
12.30.30 "Oswald" arrives at the stairs on the 6th floor
Adams and Styles arrive at the stairs on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner sees them go down the stairs
Officer Baker arrives at the front entrance (seen by Lovelady) and meets Truly, after just parking his bike
Shelley and Lovelady are in front of the main entrance of the building. Gloria Calvary tells them the President has been shot.
They first go to the little traffic island in front of the TSBD and then decide to go towards the railroad yard
Lovelady and Shelley see Truly and Baker entering the building
Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
Mr. BALL - Across the street, you mean directly south?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, slightly to the right, you know where the light is there?
Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
12:31.00 "Oswald" arrives at the 2nd floor and goes into the lunchroom after decending 4 flights of stairs
Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor, after decending 3 flights of stairs, and leave the building through the loading door
Truly and Baker, somewhat delayed by trying to call an elevator down, pass the elevator block on the first floor and
run towards the stairs, just missing the women
This timeline demonstrates that if "Oswald" and Adams & Styles both arrive at the stairs 30 seconds after the last shot and they descent the stairs at roughly the same speed, they could in theory have been on the stairs at the same time, with "Oswald" arriving on the 2nd floor around the same time Adams & Styles arrived on the 1st floor.
12:31.15 Baker arrives on the 2nd floor (Truly is already climbing the stairs to the 3rd floor) and meets Oswald in the lunchroom
Adams and Styles arrive at the North East side of the loading dock and go down the stairs
12:31.30 Adams and Styles have gone round the most Northern point of the loading dock and start running toward the railroad yard
12.33.00 Adams and Styles are stopped by a police officer who tells them to go back to the building.
The women walk along side the railway track to the front of the building.
Shelley and Lovelady are in that same location
Mr. BALL - Shelley and you went down how far?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. See how those tracks goes---
Mr. BALL - You went down the dead end on Elm?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And down to the first tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - What did you and Billy Lovelady do?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end.
Mr. BALL - At the west end?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room.
12.34.00 Adams and Styles arrive at the road that runs parallel to the TSBD.
12.35.00 After walking the distance from the warehouse building next to the TSBD, Adams and Styles arrive at the front entrance of the building
12.36.00 Adams hears a radio report about the shots having been fired from the TSBD building.
Adams and Styles enter the TSBD through the front entrance and take the stairs to the 2nd floor,
Adams walks through the office space to the North West corner and takes the freight elevator to the 4th floor.
Shelley and Lovelady enter the building at the back and Lovelady - according to his testimony - sees a girl
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Shelley only saw Eddie Piper
Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper.
12.37.00 Harkness seals off the building
The times are approximations, but the timeline works perfectly and includes all the known information without any witness having to lie.
I challenge anybody to come up with a similar timeline that starts with Adams and Styles leaving the 4th floor 4 to 5 minutes after the shots and still incorporates all the available information correctly.
-
The most important question that needs to be answered is: how and where could Victoria Adams have seen Shelley and Lovelady?
We know for a fact that, after the shots, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles left the building by way of the stairs in the North West corner and the loading dock at the back of the building.
We also know for a fact that Shelley and Lovelady were at the front of the building when the shots rang out.
We have photographic evidence placing Victoria Adams at the front of the building confirming her testimony that she re-entered the building through the main entrance. She took the stairs to the second floor and walked through the office space to the North West corner where she took a freight elevator to the 4th floor. In other words, she never returned to the first floor
Shelley and Lovelady both confirm in their testimony that they entered the building through one of the loading doors on the first floor of the building.
The only time and place that Adams and Styles might have crossed paths with Shelley and Lovelady is in or near the parking lot West of the TSBD building!
Based on this information, how and where could Victoria Adams have seen Shelley and Lovelady inside the building?
-
Shelley is saying that as they were stood on the steps Gloria Calvery came up and told them about the shooting. Both he and Lovelady immediately went across to"that little,old island" (interestingly Lovelady uses the exact same phrase in his testimony).
Shelley said in his affidavit that he talked to Calvery across the street at the “corner of the park”, not on the steps.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/med_res_d/)
-
Shelley said in his affidavit that he talked to Calvery across the street at the “corner of the park”, not on the steps.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/med_res_d/)
I'm not impressed with this affidavit as it is hardly precise and leaves things out.
With "across the street at the corner of the park" he most likely means the little traffic island between the parallel road alongside the TSBD and Elm street, where he and Lovelady, according to their testimony first went.
He leaves out completely that he went, with Lovelady, to the end of the dead end parallel street, where the people in charge of the TSBD had their car park.
This is typical for statements made immediately after such an event. People often can't wrap their mind around what has happened and have problems recollecting exactly what happened, so they leave out things. This is also why lawyers advise their clients not to give statements to the police when they get arrested.
-
I posted the following Gif in Reply #739. It's based on the work of Sandy Larsen and Tommy Graves and their identification of Gloria Calvery http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25790-the-identification-of-gloria-calvery-in-zapruder-and-darnell/
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHRT9yJT/gloria-calvery-gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It shows the moment Calvery tells Lovelady (on the steps) about the assassination. It is my belief the man in the baggy black suit at the bottom of the steps is Bill Shelley. Larsen and Graves put forward a compelling case for the identification of Calvery and, if accepted, we can state the following:
Shelley and Lovelady lie in both their affidavits and WC testimony.
Calvery, Shelley and Lovelady are at the steps at the same time Baker races past Truly (it seems to me that Shelley is looking directly at Baker as he approaches).
When they get their stories straight for the WC Shelley and Lovelady state that Calvery doesn't reach them for 3 or 4 minutes. The Gif shows this is a lie as does the fact Lovelady states Calvery comes running up and she only has about 100ft to travel, easily bringing her to the steps at the same time as Baker.
Shelley and Lovelady state they make their way to "the little, old island" (both use this exact phrase) in front of the TSBD. I believe they are here for 3 or 4 minutes for the following reason - after leaving the island they "walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while". This would have them at the west corner of the TSBD by the spur track, exactly the same place Adams and Styles walk by after their conversation with the police officer who won't let them pass. As they never meet I'm assuming Adams and Styles have already passed this position by the time Shelley and Lovelady get there.
From Sandra Styles' FBI 302 provided by John Iacoletti (reply #725) it appears Styles goes straight into the building and uses the passenger elevator to get back to her office. Adams stays outside, chatting to colleagues, at some point she hears the messge on the police motorcycle radio and has to talk her way past a police officer to get in the building. Once inside she tries the passenger elevator but it doesn't work so she walks up to the second floor. That she is free to use the elevator is possibly important in the timeline of Shelley.
After a short while by the spur track Shelley and Lovelady enter the TSBD through a side door at the west end of the building. At some point, as Shelley states, "Mr. Truly left me guarding the elevator, not to let anybody up and down the elevator or stairway." He says elevator, singular, he says exactly the same thing in his affidavit, which implies the passenger elevator. If it is the case he is guarding the passenger elevator then this must be after Adams has tried to use it, found the power was off, then used the stairs.
Provisional Timeline
12:30 Final shot
12:30.30 - 12:31 Calvery arrives running to the TSBD steps, tells Shelley and Lovelady about the assassination.
Baker races past Truly and into the building followed by Truly.
Adams and Styles hit the stairs and race out of the Back door
Baker/Truly reach freight elevators then begin running up stairs
12:31 - 12:32 Shelley/Lovelady go across to "little,old island"
Baker/Truly lunchroom encounter (?)
Adams/Styles encounter with police officer at the spur track
12:32 - 12:34 Adams/Styles round the front west corner of TSBD
Shelley/Lovelady make their way to the same corner
12:34 - 12:36 Styles makes her way inside, no officer on the door, takes the elevator
Adams chats with colleagues out front
Shelley/Lovelady enter side door
12:36 - 12:38 Adams hears radio message and tries to get back in but has to talk her way past a police officer. She tries elevator then uses stairs
Shelley/Lovelady enter first floor
At some point shortly after this Shelley is told to guard the elevators and stairway.
Remember - it's only provisional.
-
It shows the moment Calvery tells Lovelady (on the steps) about the assassination. It is my belief the man in the baggy black suit at the bottom of the steps is Bill Shelley. Sanders and Graves put forward a compelling case for the identification of Calvery and, if accepted,
It’s not even the slightest bit compelling. There’s no good reason to think that this is Calvery.
-
We know from Altgens 6 exactly where Lovelady is stood when the shooting starts and we know from his WC testimony he is still stood there when Calvary "came running up".
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. LOVELADY - I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot.
Mr. BALL - Who was this girl?
Mr. LOVELADY - Gloria Calvary.
Lovelady goes on to state that Bill Shelley is stood nearby and that Gloria was very close to the shooting when it happened. He also makes it clear that after hearing Calvary's account he and Shelley leave the steps:
Mr. BALL - Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yeah.
Mr. BALL - When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or--she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn't know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you know, behind our building there and we run towards that little, old island and kind of down there in that little street. We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying and policemen started running out that way and we said we better get back into the building, so we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp and went into the back dock back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - First of all, let's get you to tell us whom you left the steps with.
Mr. LOVELADY - Mr. Shelley.
In the Gif I posted Baker is running past Truly so we can time it approximately 20 to 30 seconds after the final shot. In it we see a white male with a receding hairline stood in exactly the spot Lovelady was photographed in Altgens 6, a photo taken seconds before the final shot. We know from the WC testimonies of both Lovelady and Shelley they didn't leave the steps until after Calvary had come running up to them. In the Gif the woman who appears to be talking to Lovelady is wearing a black headscarf, a black top and what appears to be a lighter coloured skirt. She is linking arms with a woman who is all in white - scarf, top and skirt. If this is Calvary telling Lovelady about the assassination then two things must be true:
1) She must have "been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit"
2) She was close enough to the TSBD so that she could run back and reach the steps before Baker got there
The Zapruder footage reveals that two women, dressed very similarly to those in the Gif are stood in a position that can be considered 'right close' to the assaination. Close enough to 'see the blood'.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqJG67Hy/Gloria-Calvary-in-Zfilm.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Where they are stood is approximately 100-120 ft away from the TSBD steps, easily close enough to run back to the steps before Baker reaches them.
We know Loveladys' position on the steps when the shooting occurs
We know he doesn't leave that position until after Gloria Calvary comes running up
We know Gloria Calvary was very close to where the assassination occurred
We know she ran back to the TSBD
We know the two women in the Gif are dressed very similarly to two women in the Zfilm 'right close' to the assassination
We know Bill Shelley is stood nearby
And you don't find this even slightly compelling. Not even slightly.
-
It is not this complicated. Every witness time estimate prior to 12:36 is a guesstimate.
12:36 is the referenced time that the Police sealed the TSBD. After leaving the TSBD and walking near the tracks by the loading dock behind the TSBD, Styles and Adams are told to return to the building.
Prior to the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the building at 12:36, as they are walking through the TSBD on their way to the Houston Street exit, Styles and Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady near the elevator.
12:37 is also a known time. Adams is listening to officer JJ Hill on the Police Radio while standing in front of the TSBD. Adams is then given permission to re enter the building. The front door was also closed to in and out traffic at 12:37.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is Adams and Styles never left the fourth floor as quickly as they thought they did or they took way more time than estimated to walk through the building. The actual encounters and time frames suggest they left several minutes after the shots were fired.
-
It is not this complicated. Every witness time estimate prior to 12:36 is a guesstimate.
12:36 is the referenced time that the Police sealed the TSBD. After leaving the TSBD and walking near the tracks by the loading dock behind the TSBD, Styles and Adams are told to return to the building.
Prior to the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the building at 12:36, as they are walking through the TSBD on their way to the Houston Street exit, Styles and Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady near the elevator.
12:37 is also a known time. Adams is listening to officer JJ Hill on the Police Radio while standing in front of the TSBD. Adams is then given permission to re enter the building. The front door was also closed to in and out traffic at 12:37.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is Adams and Styles never left the fourth floor as quickly as they thought they did or they took way more time than estimated to walk through the building. The actual encounters and time frames suggest they left several minutes after the shots were fired.
It is not this complicated.
It seems to be way too complicated for you
Every witness time estimate prior to 12:36 is a guesstimate.
That would be true if any of the witnesses actually gave a time estimate. They didn't! Victoria Adams told the FBI on 11/24/63 that she and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the last shot. She said the same thing again to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64, again to the FBI on 03/23/64 and she repeated it again in her testimony. Dorothy Garner told Barefoot Sanders that the girls went down before Truly and Baker came up. And Sandra Styles told the FBI on 03/19/64 she and Adams left "at that time" after hearing the shots and seeing people running. That's the first flaw in your theory.
12:36 is the referenced time that the Police sealed the TSBD. After leaving the TSBD and walking near the tracks by the loading dock behind the TSBD, Styles and Adams are told to return to the building.
There is no reference anywhere to a police man telling Adams and Styles "behind the TSBD" to go back into the building. It didn't happen, because if it had happened they wouldn't have been allowed to continue walking west (which they did) and would have simply turned around and entered the building via the loading dock. Also, by 12.36 there were already police officers and media in the building and running up the stairs. Adams and Styles encountered nobody as they came down the stairs. That's the second flaw in your theory.
The girls did not encounter the police man until they cleared the north west corner of the building. Being at that location allowed them to return to the building by walking around the west side of building and the warehouse extension, towards Elm street, turn left and walk along the parallel road in front of the TSBD towards the front entrance. There is no way in the world that the women could have covered that distance in only one or two minutes to hear the radio broadcast. That's the third flaw in your time line.
Prior to the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the building at 12:36, as they are walking through the TSBD on their way to the Houston Street exit, Styles and Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady near the elevator.
Adams and Styles did not walk through the TSBD on their way out. They came down the stairs in the North West corner of the building, turned left and stepped onto the loading dock. Read Adams' testimony! Also, Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the building through one of the loading doors at the west side of the building and they did so approx 5 or 6 minutes after the shots. For Adams and Styles to have seen them, as they were going out, means that the girls did not leave the building any sooner than 12.35 or 12.36. That simpy does not match with the known time line combining all the available evidence.
12:37 is also a known time. Adams is listening to officer JJ Hill on the Police Radio while standing in front of the TSBD. Adams is then given permission to re enter the building. The front door was also closed to in and out traffic at 12:37.
Actually, it isn't a know time. The time stamps on the DPD radio could be off by as much as 2 minutes, according to J.C. Bowles, the supervisor for the DPD dispatchers. Again, Adams (and Styles) could not have been at the front entrance of the TSBD to hear the radio call, at 12.36 or 12.37, if she only left the building at the back one or two minutes earlier. There is no way they could have walked around the building in less than 2 minutes. That's the fourth flaw in your time line
The only conclusion that can be drawn is Adams and Styles never left the fourth floor as quickly as they thought they did or they took way more time than estimated to walk through the building. The actual encounters and time frames suggest they left several minutes after the shots were fired.
Your "conclusion" is all over the place. Not only does it not account for all the known information, but it also means - if your conclusion were true - that Adams, Styles and Garner all must have lied to the investigators over and over again, for no apparent reason.
It is beyond me how you can say that "actual encounters and time frames suggest they left several minutes after the shots" when you apparently don't even know that the girls never walked through the building, at least not on the first floor! But more importantly, you have failed completely to explain how the "information" you have offered in this post even justifies the conclusion that the girls left the 4th floor "several minutes after the shots"
-
Wow. Construct a timeline that demonstrates the reference to Shelley and Lovelady must be a fabrication then have it refuted by using the fabricated reference as a starting point. Welcome to the pantomime debate - "Oh yes it is, oh no it isn't..."
Shelley and Lovelady lie in their affidavits and their WC testimonies. In their affidavits taken on the day of the assassination both men commit exactly the same 'lie of omission'. They both neglect to mention the same part of their later WC testimonies - their walk towards the railroad yard and their subsequent entry into the TSBD via "the side door into the shipping room".
Shelley's affidavit can be broken down as follows up to the point where he enters the TSBD after the shooting:
1) Standing on the front steps of the TSBD
2) Heard 3 shots
3) Ran across the street
4) Met Gloria Calvery who told him about assassination (we know from Larsen/Graves Gif this is a lie)
5) Straight back into TSBD
Lovelady's affidavit is a marvel of vagueness:
1) Stood with Bill Shelley on steps of TSBD
2) Heard 3 shots
3) "After it was over we went back into the building"
Wandering down towards the railroad yard, watching all the activity then entering the TSBD through the side door is a significant part of their later testimonies. Both men deliberately omit this part of their testimony from their story taken down on the day of the assassination. Why do they want to hide that they were at the side door of the shipping room on the west side of the building?
Months later, in their WC testimonies the 'side door' issue seems to be resolved but once again both men lie in exactly the same way. This time it's not a 'lie of omission' but a specific lie that attempts to distort the time that Baker and Truly enter the TSBD.
Mr. BALL - Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Mr. BALL - She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Here Shelley is saying that he saw Truly and Baker going into the TSBD 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting. He knows it was this long because of how long it took Gloria Calvery to get from her position near the assassination (in reality Calvery was at the steps before Baker got there). He also reveals his lie in the affidavit by stating he was stood at the door (of the TSBD) when Calvery ran up, he didn't meet her across the street.
Lovelady tells exactly the same lie in his testimony:
Mr. BALL - You heard the shots. And how long after that was it before Gloria Calvary came up?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, approximately 3 minutes, I would say.
Mr. BALL - Three minutes is a long time.
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, it's---I say approximately; I can't say because I don't have a watch; it could.
Mr. BALL - Had people started to run?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I couldn't say because she came up to us and we was talking to her, wasn't looking that direction at that time, but when we came off the steps--see, that entrance, you have a blind side when you go down the steps.
Mr. BALL - Right after you talked to Gloria, did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you run or walk?
Mr. LOVELADY - Medium trotting or fast walk.
Mr. BALL - A fast walk?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to turn around and see Truly and the policeman go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - Somebody hollered and I looked.
It is exactly the same lie - Calvery takes about three minutes to run about 100 ft, after she tells him about the assassination Lovelady and Shelley leave the steps, then he notices Truly and Baker. We know from Couch and Darnell this is a lie.
Two different types of lie told at two different times for two different purposes by the same men. This is not a matter of speculation. What is not certain is purpose of each individual lie
-
Mr. BALL - Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yeah.
If they left the steps together, then why are the guy you think is Lovelady and the guy you think is Shelley not both on the steps?
Apart from that, here are some other problems with your “compelling case”:
- Shelley said he ran into Calvery across the street
- We don’t know what Calvery was wearing that day
- Karen Westbrook, who was standing with Calvery, places them both farther down Elm.
- Nobody who described Calvery running up crying said that she climbed the steps to tell them what happened.
- Neither Calvery or anyone else described her being accompanied by someone else she was “linking arms” with.
- Anyone standing along that section of Elm would be “close enough to see the blood”.
Instead of resolving the discrepancies as you do by assuming that Lovelady and Shelley were lying (for what reason?), it is much more simply resolved by discarding your unproven notion that black-blob-person on the steps is Calvery telling everyone that the president was shot.
-
I am not assuming that Shelley and Lovelady are lying, I am merely pointing out the fact that they are both lying. They both 'lie by omission' when they leave out going towards the railroad yard, walking up the dead-end street, waiting by the spur track, watching all the police activity, walking through the car park on the west side of the TSBD and entering through the side door of the shipping room. These actions form the majority of their account from the time of the last shot to the time they enter the TSBD and both men deliberately leave it out. What's going on at this side door that's so important? Furthermore, both men, as far as I'm concerned, deliberately leave the impression they re-enter the TSBD through the front door.
Far more amazing than this is the lie they both construct for their WC testimony, again both men lying in exactly the same way although this time its a different type of lie. If you respond to this post John, and I doubt you will, I would like to hear from you, or from anyone on this forum, the reason you think both men deliberately and knowingly insist Gloria Calvery took 3 to 4 minutes to make her way to them even though she was running and even though someone mooching along at a leisurely, Oswald-like 3 mph can cover 132 ft in 30 seconds. This is a recorded fact in their testimonies. It is only after this 3 to 4 minute interval that they have Baker and Truly about to enter the building. What do we think about that? Really chaps, what is your opinion of this blatant attempt to distort the time Truly and Baker enter the TSBD? I don't know why they're doing it (yet) but I know for a fact they are doing it.
John, I was really put out when someone who I regard as a senior figure in this area of study was so dismissive of my attempts without reason (reply #749), I came back with a solid case for the identification of Calvery in the Larsen/Graves Gif which you then blanked. I now regard this identification of Calvery no longer as compelling. It's solid. This is confirmed by the embarrassingly weak critique you have posted and, unlike you, I will have the decency to respond to it.
If they left the steps together, then why are the guy you think is Lovelady and the guy you think is Shelley not both on the steps?
I'm pointing out irrefutable examples of Shelley and Lovelady deliberately deceiving the authorities, deliberately twisting the truth of what happened that day and this is your lead question?? Okay. Nowhere does it state Shelley was on the steps when Calvery came running up to them. Lovelady gives the impression he is:
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area.
This is the exact position we know he was standing as the assassination was taking place from Altgens 6. It's the exact position he is stood in when Calvery comes running up seconds later. It's the exact position he's stood in the Larsen/Graves Gif as Gloria tells him what's happened. Altgens 6 shows the position on the steps of a white male with a receding hairline identified as Lovelady. Approximately 30 seconds later the Larsen/Graves Gif shows exactly the same thing.
In the quote you use Lovelady states that he was "near Mr. Shelley". It doesn't state Shelley was on the steps, why does Shelley need to be on the steps to be near Lovelady? He doesn't. The L/G Gif has Shelley stood directly in front of the steps, not on the steps but still near to Lovelady. After Calvery finishes talking they leave the steps together. We can see Shelley stood directly in front of the steps as Calvery talks to Lovelady who is on the steps.
Shelley said he ran into Calvery across the street
You know as well as I do that in his WC testimony Shelley states the following:
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
Everybody knows you know this. Everybody knows you are aware that Shelley makes it absolutely clear in his WC testimony that Calvery runs up to them at the steps and then he and Lovelady run over to the "little, old island" (I love it that they both use exactly this same phrase in their testimonies as if it wasn't clear already they'd got their story straight). This is what we see in the L/G Gif, Shelley at the steps when Calvery arrives. His point about meeting Calvery across the street in his affidavit can be discarded as can his assertion he immediately ran back into the building and phoned his wife. That you would bring this up when you know it is refuted in the WC testimony is beyond desperate.
We don’t know what Calvery was wearing that day
When I first read this point my cheeks reddened with embarrassment for you. You've obviously rolled out the big guns with the first two points of your devastating critique and now we're at the padding. In fact it's cruel to continue this dissection of your post (Anyone standing along that section of Elm would be “close enough to see the blood - ?????).
The identification of Calvery in the L/G Gif stands. The Gif captures the moment the distraught Calvery encounters Lovelady on the steps with Shelley nearby. We can time this moment 20-30 seconds after the final shot (more than enough time for Calvery to run the distance. 3 to 4 minutes!! Please).
This identification (bringing together multiple testimonies, Altegens and Zapruder) can be used as the starting point for this provisional timeline:
12:30 Final shot
12:30.30 - 12:31 Calvery arrives running to the TSBD steps, tells Shelley and Lovelady about the assassination.
Baker races past Truly and into the building followed by Truly.
Adams and Styles hit the stairs and race out of the Back door
Baker/Truly reach freight elevators then begin running up stairs
12:31 - 12:32 Shelley/Lovelady go across to "little,old island"
Baker/Truly lunchroom encounter (?)
Adams/Styles encounter with police officer at the spur track
12:32 - 12:34 Adams/Styles round the front west corner of TSBD
Shelley/Lovelady make their way to the same corner
12:34 - 12:36 Styles makes her way inside, no officer on the door, takes the elevator
Adams chats with colleagues out front
Shelley/Lovelady enter side door
12:36 - 12:38 Adams hears radio message and tries to get back in but has to talk her way past a police officer. She tries elevator then uses stairs
Shelley/Lovelady enter first floor
At some point shortly after this Shelley is told to guard the elevators and stairway.
Remember - it's only provisional
-
Any discussion on Oswald's escape should take into account Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's report that about 15 minutes after the assassination he saw Oswald run from the rear of the TSBD and get into a Rambler station wagon driven by a man with a dark complexion. In spite of Craig's sterling record as a police officer, WC apologists have rejected Craig's account because it destroys the WC's version of Oswald's movements after the shooting. There is good evidence that supports Craig's account, as Dr. Michael Kurtz explains:
The Warren Report mentions that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that about fifteen minutes after the assassination, he saw Oswald run from the rear of the Depository building, scamper down an incline to Elm Street, and enter a Rambler station wagon driven by a dark complected man. According to the commission, "Craig may have seen a person enter a white Rambler station wagon 15 or 20 minutes after the shooting . . . but the Commission has concluded that this man was not Lee Harvey Oswald, because of the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was far away from the building by that time."
What was that "overwhelming evidence"? It should be mentioned that even if the commission's version is accepted, Oswald was not "far away from the building by that time." According to the commission, at 12:44 Oswald was getting off McWatters's bus only five blocks east of the Depository building. He then walked for four minutes to the Greyhound bus station only four blocks away. The "overwhelming evidence" is the testimony of William Whaley [the cab driver]. Remember that Whaley failed to select Oswald out of police lineup as his taxicab passenger. He also testified that Oswald was wearing two jackets, while the commission claimed that he wore none. In his taxi logbook, Whaley recorded the time of his pickup at the bus station as 12:30, yet the commission said that the real time was 12:48.
Let us now examine Roger Craig's testimony in order to determine if it is consistent and accurate and supported by other evidence. Deputy Craig watched the motorcade in front of the Criminal Courts building on Houston Street. After hearing the shots, he raced to the grassy knoll area. Photographs of the scene show Craig in the large crowd of people converging on the knoll after the shooting. Craig then returned to the south side of Elm Street. As he was standing there with a group of law enforcement officials, he noticed a man run down the grassy embankment to the right front of the Texas School Book Depository building. A light green Rambler station wagon, driven by a heavy-set, dark-complected man, was traveling west on Elm Street. As the running man reached the curb, the station wagon stopped and the man entered. . . .
There is, in fact, substantial evidence that provides far more corroboration for Craig's testimony than for the totally unsubstantiated statements of Whaley. Carolyn Walther was watching the motorcade from Houston Street. She saw a man standing on the fourth or fifth floor in the southeast corner window of the Depository building. He was holding a gun. Next to him was a man dressed in a brown sport coat. Shortly after the assassination, James Worrell saw a man run out of the back of the Depository. The man was five feet eight inches to five feet ten inches tall, average weight, had dark hair, and was wearing a dark sports jacket. The man was moving south on Houston Street.
Richard Randolph Carr watched the motorcade from Houston and Commerce streets. Shortly before the shooting, he saw a man wearing a brown sport coat in an upper floor of the Book Depository building. A couple of minutes after the shooting, Carr saw the same man walking very fast heading south on Houston Street. After going around the block, the man entered a grey or green Rambler station wagon. Marvin Robinson was driving his car west on Elm Street about fifteen minutes after the shooting. He saw a man come down the grassy incline and enter a Rambler station wagon, which then drove away.
Mrs. James Forrest was standing in a group of people who had gathered on the incline near the grassy knoll. As she was standing, she saw a man suddenly run from the rear of the Depository building, down the incline, and then enter a Rambler station wagon. The man she saw running down and entering the station wagon strongly resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. "If it wasn't Oswald," Mrs. Forrest has declared, "it was his identical twin." The testimony of Walther, Worrell, Carr, Robinson, and Forrest all provide strong substantiation for Roger Craig's story.
Craig's story is also supported by photographic evidence. One photograph shows Deputy Craig running toward the grassy knoll. Another shows him standing near the grassy knoll. Another shows him standing on the south side of Elm Street looking toward the Book Depository building. In the same photograph, a light-colored Rambler station wagon can be seen heading west on Elm Street. In another photograph, Craig is seen looking toward Elm Street in the general direction of the station wagon. . . .
Despite the impressive corroboration for Craig's testimony, the Warren Commission chose to reject it. Instead, it accepted the unsubstantiated and contradictory testimony of taxi driver William Whaley. There is no corroboration for Whaley's story. Whaley did tell the commission that when Oswald entered his cab, an elderly lady tried to enter it from the opposite side. Oswald volunteered to let her have the cab, but the lady refused because another taxi was waiting just behind Whaley's. There is no indication that the commission attempted to locate the other cab. Both the driver and the lady could have supported Whaley's observations. By studying the logbook of the other cab, it would be possible to attempt to trace the lady. Neither the police nor the commission did so.
Whaley testified that Oswald "had on two jackets." The commission decided there was none. At the police lineup, Whaley picked out eighteen-year-old David Knapp instead of twenty-four-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald (Knapp did not even resemble Oswald). Whaley registered 12:30 p.m. in his logbook as the time when his passenger entered the cab. This, of course, eliminated Oswald, since Oswald was in the Depository building at that time. The commission attempted to explain this by noting that Whaley recorded all trips in fifteen-minute intervals, regardless of how long the actual trip took. Since the commission decided Oswald entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48, it did not explain why Whaley entered 12:30 instead of 12:45 in his book. Nor did it explain why other trips were entered at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10, rather than regular quarter-hour intervals. In his original log, Whaley entered 500 North Beckley as the spot where he let Oswald out. The commission decided that Whaley was wrong here, also.
It should be obvious to the disinterested observer that the Warren Commission was trying to fabricate a case against Oswald as a lone assassin and murderer. There is not one iota of evidence to substantiate Whaley's testimony about the cab ride. Deputy Sheriff Craig's story is supported by the testimony of five other witnesses as well as five photographs. (Crime of the Century, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 130-133, original emphasis).
-
Any discussion on Oswald's escape should take into account Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's report that about 15 minutes after the assassination he saw Oswald run from the rear of the TSBD and get into a Rambler station wagon driven by a man with a dark complexion. In spite of Craig's sterling record as a police officer, WC apologists have rejected Craig's account because it destroys the WC's version of Oswald's movements after the shooting. There is good evidence that supports Craig's account, as Dr. Michael Kurtz explains:
Any discussion on Oswald's escape should take into account Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's report that about 15 minutes after the assassination he saw Oswald run from the rear of the TSBD
Didn't Roger Craig say "somebody looking like Oswald" or words to that effect?
Anyway, where do you think Oswald was for those 15 minutes? He couldn't have been inside the TBSD because that was locked down at around 12.36 or 12.37. So, where was he?
-
"The Warren Report mentions that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that about fifteen minutes after the assassination, he saw Oswald run from the rear of the Depository building, scamper down an incline to Elm Street..."
Craig doesn't say this or anything remotely like this. Craig is in no position to see anything happening at the rear of the TSBD:
Mr. BELIN - All right. Your heard someone whistle?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes. So I turned and--uh-saw a man start to run down the hill on the north side of Elm Street, running down toward Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN - And, about where was he with relation to the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CRAIG - Uh--directly across that little side street that runs in front of it, He was on the south side of it.
Mr. BELIN - And he was on the south side of what would be an extension of Elm Street, if Elm Street didn't curve down into the underpass?
Mr. CRAIG - Eight; right,
Mr. BELIN - And where was he with relation to the west side of the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CRAIG - Right by the--uh--well, actually, directly in line with the west corner--the southwest corner,
Mr. BELIN - He was directly in line with the southwest corner of the building?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes,
Mr. BELIN - And he was on the south curve of that street that runs right in front of the building there?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes,
Mr. BELIN - And he started to run toward Elm Street as it curves under the underpass?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes ; directly down the grassy portion of the park,
The man Craig sees is directly in line with south-west corner of the TSBD and on the south side of the little dead-end street that runs in front of it. He is in front of the TSBD at the west corner. In the bottom left-hand corner of the diagram below there is a red and white bar marked 0 - 20, Craig places the man he sees approximately where the 0 is:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0j976jZT/TSBD-1st-Floorplan.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
As far as I know the triangle(ish) structure at the west of the TSBD (marked "warehouse bldg" and "load'g dock") was completely empty at the time of the assassination, I could be totally wrong about that. I'm assuming the door marked "walk door" is the entrance Lovelady and Shelley were so keen to avoid mentioning in their affidavits. Was this door guarded after the police lockdown? I can't find any mention of it.
-
It is not this complicated.
It seems to be way too complicated for you
Every witness time estimate prior to 12:36 is a guesstimate.
That would be true if any of the witnesses actually gave a time estimate. They didn't! Victoria Adams told the FBI on 11/24/63 that she and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the last shot. She said the same thing again to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64, again to the FBI on 03/23/64 and she repeated it again in her testimony. Dorothy Garner told Barefoot Sanders that the girls went down before Truly and Baker came up. And Sandra Styles told the FBI on 03/19/64 she and Adams left "at that time" after hearing the shots and seeing people running. That's the first flaw in your theory.
12:36 is the referenced time that the Police sealed the TSBD. After leaving the TSBD and walking near the tracks by the loading dock behind the TSBD, Styles and Adams are told to return to the building.
There is no reference anywhere to a police man telling Adams and Styles "behind the TSBD" to go back into the building. It didn't happen, because if it had happened they wouldn't have been allowed to continue walking west (which they did) and would have simply turned around and entered the building via the loading dock. Also, by 12.36 there were already police officers and media in the building and running up the stairs. Adams and Styles encountered nobody as they came down the stairs. That's the second flaw in your theory.
The girls did not encounter the police man until they cleared the north west corner of the building. Being at that location allowed them to return to the building by walking around the west side of building and the warehouse extension, towards Elm street, turn left and walk along the parallel road in front of the TSBD towards the front entrance. There is no way in the world that the women could have covered that distance in only one or two minutes to hear the radio broadcast. That's the third flaw in your time line.
Prior to the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the building at 12:36, as they are walking through the TSBD on their way to the Houston Street exit, Styles and Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady near the elevator.
Adams and Styles did not walk through the TSBD on their way out. They came down the stairs in the North West corner of the building, turned left and stepped onto the loading dock. Read Adams' testimony! Also, Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the building through one of the loading doors at the west side of the building and they did so approx 5 or 6 minutes after the shots. For Adams and Styles to have seen them, as they were going out, means that the girls did not leave the building any sooner than 12.35 or 12.36. That simpy does not match with the known time line combining all the available evidence.
12:37 is also a known time. Adams is listening to officer JJ Hill on the Police Radio while standing in front of the TSBD. Adams is then given permission to re enter the building. The front door was also closed to in and out traffic at 12:37.
Actually, it isn't a know time. The time stamps on the DPD radio could be off by as much as 2 minutes, according to J.C. Bowles, the supervisor for the DPD dispatchers. Again, Adams (and Styles) could not have been at the front entrance of the TSBD to hear the radio call, at 12.36 or 12.37, if she only left the building at the back one or two minutes earlier. There is no way they could have walked around the building in less than 2 minutes. That's the fourth flaw in your time line
The only conclusion that can be drawn is Adams and Styles never left the fourth floor as quickly as they thought they did or they took way more time than estimated to walk through the building. The actual encounters and time frames suggest they left several minutes after the shots were fired.
Your "conclusion" is all over the place. Not only does it not account for all the known information, but it also means - if your conclusion were true - that Adams, Styles and Garner all must have lied to the investigators over and over again, for no apparent reason.
It is beyond me how you can say that "actual encounters and time frames suggest they left several minutes after the shots" when you apparently don't even know that the girls never walked through the building, at least not on the first floor! But more importantly, you have failed completely to explain how the "information" you have offered in this post even justifies the conclusion that the girls left the 4th floor "several minutes after the shots"
Interesting but wrong. Styles stated they were told to return to the front of the building and Adams stated they traveled in southwest direction.
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Styles: "...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
-------------------------------------
The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order. It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times to their encounters with fellow employees, officers and radio transmissions. The presented forced fit timeline with time guesstimates proved beyond a doubt the ladies never left the fourth floor as early as stated. The timeline the WC established using known times associated with statements proves they left later than they estimated.
-
Interesting but wrong. Styles stated they were told to return to the front of the building and Adams stated they traveled in southwest direction.
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Styles: "...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
-------------------------------------
The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order. It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times to their encounters with fellow employees, officers and radio transmissions. The presented forced fit timeline with time guesstimates proved beyond a doubt the ladies never left the fourth floor as early as stated. The timeline the WC established using known times associated with statements proves they left later than they estimated.
:D you are scratching at the walls. The WC timeline has been debunked.
and what is..." She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order..." what is that?
-
Way back in this thread I responded to this claim with a question:
I did. Every statement I made about his story is factual. He did not ID Oswald in the police lineup. At first he wasn't sure which window he saw. He said the shooter lingered in the window. He claimed he didn't ID Oswald at the police station because he feared for his life, yet he spoke with reports about the shooting and identified himself while speaking with them, on 11/22--odd behavior if he feared Oswald's accomplices might kill him.
We should remember that Brennan only agreed to ID Oswald as the shooter after prolonged "interviews" by federal agents. Most of his testimony is credible and agrees with that of several other witnesses. The only doubtful element in his testimony, other than his belated Oswald ID, is his statement that the gunman was standing.
Where did you get information that supposedly indicates that Howard Brennan spoke with reporters and identified himself on 11/22/63?
And the answer was that it came out of a book written by Mark Lane:
"The silence is deafening"? So if you don't get a reply within a certain timeframe, you assume your question is being dodged?
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92). Does anyone take seriously Brennan's belated claim that he failed to positively ID Oswald in the police lineup because he feared for his life? Does anyone here believe that?
Given the disgraceful manner in which the police rigged the lineups, it is quite significant that Brennan declined to make a positive ID. It was only after he was browbeaten for weeks by the FBI that Brennan finally agreed to ID Oswald as the man he had seen in the window. Brennan's foreman, Sandy Speaker, said Brennan was "a nervous wreck" after his FBI "interviews," and that "they made him say what they wanted him to say."
By the way, Brennan was 120 feet away from the TSBD, and the man he saw was behind a window. I seriously doubt that anyone could have seen the man well enough, clearly enough, from that distance and under those conditions, to later make a reliable identification.
"But Brennan was farsighted," some WC apologists will note. So what? Being farsighted does not mean that you have unusually good vision from a distance; it just means that you can see normally from a distance but cannot see normally from short range without glasses or contacts. I'm farsighted and I could not see someone clearly enough from 120 feet away through a window to make a reliable identification.
To get some idea of the unlikelihood of Brennan's belated ID of Oswald, go to a football field, stand on the goal line, close your eyes, and have a random stranger whom you've never seen before stand on the 40 yard line. 40 yards equals 120 feet, or nearly half a football field. And have the stranger stand behind a plate of glass. Look at him for no more than a few minutes, and then come back and tell me that you believe you could recognize him, with a reasonable degree of certainty, hours later among several other people.
And a correction to one of my earlier statements: I said that Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard no movement above him after the shots were fired. James Jarman said this, not Williams, although Williams apparently agreed since he did not mention hearing movement above him after the shots either.
This is my reply:
Thank you for the reply.
Anyway, Brennan's 11/22/63 interview with reporters is discussed in Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (p. 92).
Here is what I found in "Rush to Judgment:"
"Furthermore, Brennan's anxiety about himself and his family did not prevent him from speaking to reporters on November 22, when he gave not only his impressions as an eyewitness but also his name. (688)
Footnote 688 : The Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963.
I haven't been able to find access online to that newspaper (DMN 11/23/63) without subscribing for at least 3-months to the newspaper. But I do have a copy of the 50th anniversary reprint on the way. If anyone here has access to that newspaper and wants to search for whatever Mark Lane might be referencing, please do and post here what you find.
In the meantime, here is what Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth (who was there) wrote in his 2013 book "Witness to History" about this:
"Outside of the building, the police did their utmost not only to protect the general crime scene but also to insulate potentially valuable witnesses from the press. Of the eight or so people I first tried to interview around the book depository, the most important was Howard Brennan, a steamfitter - he had his hard hat with him - who was stationed directly across the street opposite Lee Harvey Oswald perched in the sixth-floor window. Brennan watched in amazement as the shooter aimed and fired, then calmly aimed and fired again.
The first police APB (all points bulletin) came at a quarter to one and was based on Brennan's dexcription of the shooter.
Attention all squads.
Attention all squads.
The suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought bo be a .30-caliber rifle.
I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into their conversation. 'I saw him up there in that window,' I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. 'No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry.'
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. 'O course,' he answered. 'I saw him real good.'
Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him - a request they were glad to fulfill. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press lest he endanger himself or his family. Who knew what accomplices the assassin might have? In fact, for that reason he hesitated to identify Oswald positively in the later police line-up.
And here is what is written in Brennan's book:
From Page 17 of "Witness to History" by Howard Brennan:
"...Before I could reflect any longer I was confronted by a television reporter and cameraman. They wanted to interview me and find out what I knew about the shooting. I did not want to talk to him and I certainly did not want my picture broadcast. If there were more people involved than the young man I had seen then showing me on television as an eyewitness would be like hanging a target over my heart for someone to shoot at.
He kept asking 'Who are you, what do you know about the shooting of the President?' I turned my back on him without answering. He continued to try to get me to talk even though I moved away frim him. Finally I said 'I don't know anything.'
I learned later that my wife, Louise, had been watching television and saw the reporter trying to interview me. Even though my name wasn't given, she knew that I must have seen the assassination. My little grandson, who was less than two, pointed at the TV and said 'There's Granddaddy!' My daughter Vicki had watched the whole scene in a beauty shop. I felt exposed to the whole world as I tried to evade that reporter and cameraman. I don't know how long the reporter stayed with me, but it had to be for several minutes: each time he'd approach me I'd turn or move away a few steps. It is my sincere belief that Lee Harvey Oswald came out of the front door of the Depository while I was trying to avoid the TV reporter. If my attention had not been distracted I might have spotted him right there."
Later at the Sheriff's office:
"With more time to think, I recounted every detail about the young man that might help them apprehend him. His facial features, distinguishing marks, anything that would help. I was asked, 'If you saw this man again, could you identify him?' I said, 'I believe I can!' I knew that I could never forget the face I had seen in the window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Sorrels said, 'We appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Brennan. Your testimony may be very important.' I began to realize how important it was. Just then, as I was finishing with my testimony to be signed, another man came in whom I assumed to be an F.B.I Agent who informed us that President John F. Kennedy had died from a massive bullet wound to the head. The F.B.I. and Secret Service men in the office didn't respond visibly to the news, but I think, like me, they had somehow hoped against hope that it wasn't true.
.
.
.
Then came a report that one of the employees at the Texas Book Depository was missing. At that moment, I just wanted to get away from it all. Mr. Sorrels introduced me to two men who were with the F.B.I. 'We'll be going with you,' one of them said. 'For awhile we feel that we should put you in protective custody as a precautionary measure.' I wasn't sure exactly what that meant, but I had a pretty good idea. They felt that since the killer hadn't been caught and may have seen the telecast, that my life might be in danger. If there was a conspiracy, there might be others who would want to silence me. 'We'll be with you at all times for awhile, but we'' do everything in our power to stay in the background.'
.
.
.
Later his wife Louise asked:
"...'How long are they going to watch us?' she asked. I shook my head. 'I don't know. I guess as long as they think I may be in any kind of danger.' Louise shuddered visibly when I said that and I could see the very thought was upsetting her. I reassured her, 'Now don't worry, I'm not really in any danger. They're just doing it as a precaution.'
This didn't seem convincing to her. 'Howard,' she said, 'I'm afraid. We don't know who might be out there looking for you!' I couldn't reply to that. Louise wanted to know everything that had happened in the minutest detail. I repeated the events of the day to her, recounting details that were larger than life. Then she told me something I hadn't heard before. 'I heard on the television that the police have arrested someone they suspect as the killer' This news hit me like a thunderbolt. If this were so, it was a relief. But at the same time, I felt in even more danger, because if the police had found the young man who was in the sixth floor window, there might well be others who would do whatever they could to keep me from identifying him. We turned the television on again. We were becoming more and more embroiled in the drama that was developing and could only wonder what would happen next."
Jack replied to my request regarding the newspaper article:
Here is the transcribed article.
Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan.
I don't seem to be able to copy and paste the actual newspaper article.
Later, Iacoletti graciously posted an image of the article:
Here's the 11/23 DMN Biffle article.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/DMN-nov23-biffle.png)
And yesterday I received a copy of the 50th anniversary reprint of that newspaper. I do see a difference, here is an image of that page, and page 5 of section 4, of the reprint:
(https://i.vgy.me/iB7EQt.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/GDTiFT.jpg)
As you can see, The in the place of the James Ewell article "Suspected Assassin Has Lived in Russia" we find an article titled "President's Murder Charged to Oswald" with credits as follows: (The following story was prepared from material gathered by Dallas News Staff Writers James Ewell, Hugh Aynesworth and John Rutledge.) I suspect the differences can be attributed to different editions of that day's morning paper, the front page of the reprint that I have says: Vol. 115-No. 54, for whatever that is worth.
Anyway, the details contained in the article "President's Murder Charged to Oswald" include the answer to a question that I asked: Was the 4-power scope specification publicly known when Biffle wrote his article? If you look near the bottom of page 4-5, this information is printed, in the second column from the left, along with other details that could have only come from the police. It appears to me that Biffle most likely got this information about the scope from one of his fellow writers or from their article. And I also believe that Brennan's name, age, occupation, and quotes also came from one of his fellow writers, most likely Hugh Aynesworth who admits in his book to overhearing Brennan talking to the police outside the TSBD on 11/22/63, and/or other sources within the DPD. Aynesworth also writes in his book that Brennan was trying to avoid reporters on 11/22/63. Therefore, I reiterate that I believe that Mark Lane's assumption in his book that Brennan willing gave his name, etc to reporters on 11/22/63 is in error.
-
Any discussion on Oswald's escape should take into account Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's report that about 15 minutes after the assassination he saw Oswald run from the rear of the TSBD
Didn't Roger Craig say "somebody looking like Oswald" or words to that effect?
After he saw photos of Oswald, Craig said the man ran from the TSBD and jumped into the station wagon was either Oswald or someone who looked "strikingly" like him.
Anyway, where do you think Oswald was for those 15 minutes? He couldn't have been inside the TBSD because that was locked down at around 12.36 or 12.37. So, where was he?
I think he could have been in the TSBD. Craig said the man came from the rear of the building. I think the man was one of the two men whom several witnesses saw on the sixth floor just before the shooting. The man's escape might have been facilitated by the phony Secret Service agents whom Sergeant Harkness encountered in the rear of the TSBD a few minutes after the shooting (Harkness said the men told him they were SS, but there no genuine SS agents behind the TSBD at that time).
-
If the man Craig saw did indeed come from inside the TSBD this is the probable route:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTbhPFxZ/Oswald-escape-rambler.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/CzkBnGqs)
There is the possibility that this picture captures the Nash Rambler picking up the man Craig saw:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqHkHmTs/Rambler1-Time.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0ybfBHTK/Rambler3-CU.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The front of the vehicle is not dissimilar to a '63 Nash Rambler:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65s4Xb4G/nash-rambler.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If this picture is indeed the Nash Rambler picking up the man Craig saw, it gives a time of 12:40 pm. How does this fit in with Craig's timeline which has been given as 15 minutes?
-
Interesting but wrong. Styles stated they were told to return to the front of the building and Adams stated they traveled in southwest direction.
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Styles: "...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
-------------------------------------
The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order. It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times to their encounters with fellow employees, officers and radio transmissions. The presented forced fit timeline with time guesstimates proved beyond a doubt the ladies never left the fourth floor as early as stated. The timeline the WC established using known times associated with statements proves they left later than they estimated.
Interesting but wrong. Styles stated they were told to return to the front of the building and Adams stated they traveled in southwest direction.
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Styles: "...We then went around to the side of the building where we saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that area...."
And how in the world does this differ from what I have been saying all along?
Styles and Adams come down the stairs in the north west corner of the building. They left the building via the loading platform at the back and ran towards the railroad yard. Somewhere between the north west corner of the building and the railroad yard a police man told them to return to the building, which they did. They walked in south west direction alongside the west side of the building and it's warehouse extension until they got to the dead end road which runs along side the front of the TSBD and provides access to a parking lot. There they turned left and walked along the parallel road toward the main entrance of the TSBD. When they got there, Styles entered the building straight away and Adams stayed a minute of so to talk to people, which is when she heard the radio message at around 12.36.
This picture, I borrowed from Dan, shows the west side of the building and the warehouse extension.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTbhPFxZ/Oswald-escape-rambler.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/CzkBnGqs)
It shows the loading dock at the back of the TSBD, where Styles and Adams came from and it shows where the dead end parallel road is in front of the TSBD
Now let me ask you this; It would have taken the women at least a minute to get to and down the stairs and another couple of minutes to go around the building. If Victoria Adams was at the main entrance of the TSBD and heard the radio message at around 12.36, how in the world could she (and Styles) have stayed on the 4th floor for 4 minutes after the last shot, like you seem to claim they did?
The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order.
BS... There is no evidence for such an assumption and anybody looking honestly at the timeline based on actual testimony knows it is a physical impossibility to place them in the wrong order.
It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times to their encounters with fellow employees, officers and radio transmissions. The presented forced fit timeline with time guesstimates proved beyond a doubt the ladies never left the fourth floor as early as stated. The timeline the WC established using known times associated with statements proves they left later than they estimated.
Then give us that time line.... Go on then, and make sure Adams is at the front entrance at 12.36 or 12.37..... This should be good.
-
I am not assuming that Shelley and Lovelady are lying, I am merely pointing out the fact that they are both lying. They both 'lie by omission' when they leave out going towards the railroad yard, walking up the dead-end street, waiting by the spur track, watching all the police activity, walking through the car park on the west side of the TSBD and entering through the side door of the shipping room. These actions form the majority of their account from the time of the last shot to the time they enter the TSBD and both men deliberately leave it out.
How do you know they deliberately left it out?
Far more amazing than this is the lie they both construct for their WC testimony, again both men lying in exactly the same way although this time its a different type of lie. If you respond to this post John, and I doubt you will, I would like to hear from you, or from anyone on this forum, the reason you think both men deliberately and knowingly insist Gloria Calvery took 3 to 4 minutes to make her way to them even though she was running and even though someone mooching along at a leisurely, Oswald-like 3 mph can cover 132 ft in 30 seconds.
Wait. So you know that they are lying because you somehow know how long it took Calvery to get there, because you know that’s her in Couch? Nice circular argument. What if that’s not Calvery?
Everyone has opinions about who these blobs are. Some people insist that your Lovelady is actually Molina and that Lovelady is already on his way up the Elm extension.
John, I was really put out when someone who I regard as a senior figure in this area of study was so dismissive of my attempts without reason (reply #749), I came back with a solid case for the identification of Calvery in the Larsen/Graves Gif which you then blanked. I now regard this identification of Calvery no longer as compelling. It's solid. This is confirmed by the embarrassingly weak critique you have posted and, unlike you, I will have the decency to respond to it.
I responded. I gave you a list of discrepancies to your “solid case”.
If they left the steps together, then why are the guy you think is Lovelady and the guy you think is Shelley not both on the steps?
I'm pointing out irrefutable examples of Shelley and Lovelady deliberately deceiving the authorities, deliberately twisting the truth of what happened that day and this is your lead question?? Okay. Nowhere does it state Shelley was on the steps when Calvery came running up to them.
You missed the point. In the film clip, your “Lovelady” is still on the steps and your “Shelley” is not. However, Lovelady testified:
Mr. BALL - First of all, let's get you to tell us whom you left the steps with.
Mr. LOVELADY - Mr. Shelley.
Altgens 6 shows the position on the steps of a white male with a receding hairline identified as Lovelady. Approximately 30 seconds later the Larsen/Graves Gif shows exactly the same thing.
Except for the small detail that this hasn’t been demonstrated to be Lovelady.
In the quote you use Lovelady states that he was "near Mr. Shelley". It doesn't state Shelley was on the steps, why does Shelley need to be on the steps to be near Lovelady?
Because he said they left the steps together.
Shelley said he ran into Calvery across the street
You know as well as I do that in his WC testimony Shelley states the following:
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
So which one is correct? I would argue that his Nov 22 recollection is more solid than his recollection 6 months later.
Everybody knows you know this. Everybody knows you are aware that Shelley makes it absolutely clear in his WC testimony that Calvery runs up to them at the steps and then he and Lovelady run over to the "little, old island" (I love it that they both use exactly this same phrase in their testimonies as if it wasn't clear already they'd got their story straight).
Exactly why you shouldn’t rely on it.
This is what we see in the L/G Gif, Shelley at the steps when Calvery arrives. His point about meeting Calvery across the street in his affidavit can be discarded as can his assertion he immediately ran back into the building and phoned his wife. That you would bring this up when you know it is refuted in the WC testimony is beyond desperate.
Except you haven’t actually proven this is Calvery, or the time period in question.
We don’t know what Calvery was wearing that day
When I first read this point my cheeks reddened with embarrassment for you. You've obviously rolled out the big guns with the first two points of your devastating critique and now we're at the padding. In fact it's cruel to continue this dissection of your post (Anyone standing along that section of Elm would be “close enough to see the blood - ?????).
Is this rhetoric supposed to actually address the objection?
The identification of Calvery in the L/G Gif stands.
“Stands”, how exactly?
The Gif captures the moment the distraught Calvery encounters Lovelady on the steps with Shelley nearby. We can time this moment 20-30 seconds after the final shot (more than enough time for Calvery to run the distance. 3 to 4 minutes!! Please).
This is just a restatement of your claim. You don’t know how much time elapsed before Calvery started running, nor do you even know where she was standing. You just decided it took her 20-30 seconds and that Lovelady and Shelley lied about it all based on an unproven claim that a black-scarved blob is Calvery telling another blob you’ve decided is Lovelady about the shooting.
-
And I also believe that Brennan's name, age, occupation, and quotes also came from one of his fellow writers, most likely Hugh Aynesworth who admits in his book to overhearing Brennan talking to the police outside the TSBD on 11/22/63, and/or other sources within the DPD.
You can certainly believe that, but there’s not evidence for it.
-
If the man Craig saw did indeed come from inside the TSBD this is the probable route:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTbhPFxZ/Oswald-escape-rambler.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/CzkBnGqs)
There is the possibility that this picture captures the Nash Rambler picking up the man Craig saw:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqHkHmTs/Rambler1-Time.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0ybfBHTK/Rambler3-CU.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The front of the vehicle is not dissimilar to a '63 Nash Rambler:
(https://i.postimg.cc/65s4Xb4G/nash-rambler.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If this picture is indeed the Nash Rambler picking up the man Craig saw, it gives a time of 12:40 pm. How does this fit in with Craig's timeline which has been given as 15 minutes?
Buell Frazier said Oswald walked out the back of the TSBD, right past him about 10-15 feet away, headed up Houston and was just crossing Elm when he (Buell) was distracted by something and he (Buell) turned his head away.
That statement was made on C-Span in 2002.
Make what you will of that 39yr gap.
-
The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order.
BS... There is no evidence for such an assumption and anybody looking honestly at the timeline based on actual testimony knows it is a physical impossibility to place them in the wrong order.
She prob got the order wrong. Happens everyday.
-
Craig said he saw the man "about" 15 minutes after the shooting.
Nobody has ever explained the presence of the phony Secret Service agents whom Harkness encountered behind the TSBD a few minutes after the shooting. Harkness stipulated that the men told him they were Secret Service agents. He said they were dressed in suits and were "well armed." Whoever they were, they could not have been Secret Service agents.
I would be interested in tracking down the story that some witnesses in the plaza thought they heard a gunshot a few minutes after the assassination.
-
"I am not assuming that Shelley and Lovelady are lying, I am merely pointing out the fact that they are both lying. They both 'lie by omission' when they leave out going towards the railroad yard, walking up the dead-end street, waiting by the spur track, watching all the police activity, walking through the car park on the west side of the TSBD and entering through the side door of the shipping room. These actions form the majority of their account from the time of the last shot to the time they enter the TSBD and both men deliberately leave it out."
How do you know they deliberately left it out?
I like that you're not questioning whether they're lying or not but whether they're lying deliberately, as if there was another way of lying.
Here's why I'm convinced they are leaving it out deliberately -
In their WC testimonies both men go into detail about watching the chaotic aftermath of the shooting, wandering down the dead-end road in the direction of the railroad yard, standing around watching all the police activity then re-entering the TSBD through a side-door on the west side of the building. Would it be fair to say all this activity constitutes the majority of their actions between hearing the shots and re-entering the TSBD? Their affidavits are taken on the day of the assassination yet both men have completely omitted this aspect of their actions. This alone makes me suspicious - one man forgets all this, maybe. But both? Hours after the event?
In their affidavits both men give the impression that very shortly after the shots they head straight back into the TSBD through the front entrance. They are deliberately distancing themselves from the side-door on the west side, it is a co-ordinated and concerted effort by both men.
Obviously you state that you favour the affidavits over the WC testimony so you don't believe any of this down towards the railroad yard/watching the police/going in the side-door happened anyway. You believe that Shelley went straight back in and phoned his wife. That's fair enough. I, however don't. Just because there are contradictory statements I don't think it's enough just to choose one over the other. We must try and understand why there are contradictory statements.
"Far more amazing than this is the lie they both construct for their WC testimony, again both men lying in exactly the same way although this time its a different type of lie. If you respond to this post John, and I doubt you will, I would like to hear from you, or from anyone on this forum, the reason you think both men deliberately and knowingly insist Gloria Calvery took 3 to 4 minutes to make her way to them even though she was running and even though someone mooching along at a leisurely, Oswald-like 3 mph can cover 132 ft in 30 seconds."
Wait. So you know that they are lying because you somehow know how long it took Calvery to get there, because you know that’s her in Couch? Nice circular argument. What if that’s not Calvery?
You have so missed the point here it's not even funny. Let me walk you through what's being said:
1) In their WC testimonies both men are saying that Calvery ran up to them (1st event) then they saw Baker and Truly at the steps (2nd event)
2) In their WC testimonies both men say it took at least 3 minutes for Calvery to come running up to them
The point you are missing is this - both men are saying it took Truly and Baker at least 3 minutes to reach the steps of the TSBD!!
We know for a fact that is a lie. You must surely be able to see this. We know from Couch and Darnell and multiple testimonies that Baker reaches the TSBD steps approximately 20 - 30 seconds after the final shot. We can be absolutely certain of this. But Shelley and Lovelady are both saying it was at least 3 minutes before this happened. They have been caught red-handed in a lie, both telling the same, deliberate co-ordinated lie just as they did in their affidavits but this time it was not a 'lie of omission'. There is no circular argument here!
This is enough to irrefutably demonstrate they are lying but there is one more detail. When both men refer to Calvery in their WC testimonies they consistently refer to her running. How long do you think it would take to run from the location of the assassination to the steps of the TSBD? Remember, a person slowly walking 3mph can cover over 130 ft in 30 seconds.
"If they left the steps together, then why are the guy you think is Lovelady and the guy you think is Shelley not both on the steps?
I'm pointing out irrefutable examples of Shelley and Lovelady deliberately deceiving the authorities, deliberately twisting the truth of what happened that day and this is your lead question?? Okay. Nowhere does it state Shelley was on the steps when Calvery came running up to them."
You missed the point. In the film clip, your “Lovelady” is still on the steps and your “Shelley” is not. However, Lovelady testified:
Mr. BALL - First of all, let's get you to tell us whom you left the steps with.
Mr. LOVELADY - Mr. Shelley.
This is semantics gone mad. A completely irrelevant detail blown up out of all proportion demonstrating an overwhelming inability to bring anything serious to the table. Not that it matters but I'll walk you through how you are getting even this bit of trivia wrong.
Ball is asking Lovelady "whom you left the steps with". The 'you' in this question obviously refers to Lovelady. Ball is asking who Lovelady was with when he left the steps to which he answers 'Mr Shelley'. The only person who needs to be on the steps here is Lovelady, that is how English works. You are making the assumption that Shelley has to be on the steps. The problem you are having is with the word 'with'. Shelley is stood very close to Lovelady but is not on the steps. They are still 'with' each. When Lovelady leaves the steps to walk away he is 'with' Shelley. This does not mean Shelley has to be on the steps, just as we see in the L/G gif.
There is another argument where the steps are being used a reference point but I cannot be bothered wasting any more of my life on this nonsense. It doesn't matter how much I spoon feed you on this you still won't accept what I'm saying.
I won't be dealing with any more of your points as they mean nothing. I've put an excellent argument forward to identify Calvery in the L/G Gif. If you want to argue the points I've made in a serious way I'm all for it but if you want to carry on with this nit-picking childishness I won't be bothering. I'm hear to learn and be challenged and to try and move forward somehow. I'm not hear to bicker with someone with an entrenched mentality who has already decided they are the chosen one with all the answers. If anyone really knew what was going on none of us would be here.
-
She prob got the order wrong. Happens everyday.
So, Dorothy Garner could get the order wrong (for which there is no evidence) but Victoria Adams couldn't get wrong where and when she had seen Lovelady and Shelley (for which there is plenty of evidence)?
BS:
-
The bottom line is this - Adams is insistent that the message she hears on the police motorcycle radio references shots coming from the second floor:
"There was a motorcycle that was parked on the corner of Houston and Elm directly in front of the east end of the building, and I paused-there to listen to the report on the police radio, and they said that shots had been fired which apparently came either from the second floor or the fourth floor window, and so I panicked, as I was at the only open window on the fourth floor.
Mr. BELIN - Did they say second floor or second floor from the top?
Miss ADAMS - It said second floor. So then I decided maybe I had better go back into the building, and going up the stairs---"
This seems like an unusual mistake for anyone to make. The shots came from the 6th floor, how can anyone make such an enormous mistake as to say the shooter was on the 2nd. Even months after the event in her WC testimony, knowing where the shots came from, Adams is still insistent she heard a message referencing a shooter on the second floor.
When we look at the transcripts of the Dallas Police Tapes we find the same, mistaken claim:
"We have a man here who says he saw him pull the weapon back through the window off of the second floor from the southeast corner of that depository building"
This message is surely the one Adams is referencing. It takes place at 12:37. I've heard elsewhere claims that these dispatch times are not wholly accurate which may be the case but it seems to me there is an independent way to check this. The shooting happens at 12:30 and this is totally reflected in the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes. So we can say with a certain amount of confidence the message Adams hears that causes her to head back into the TSBD takes place at 12:37.
If we accept their testimonies, it is hard to imagine Shelley and Lovelady being in a position to encounter Adams and Styles coming down the stairs (something Shelley doesn't acknowledge happening) any earlier than 12:35
Until someone can construct a realistic timeline in which Adams talks briefly to Shelley, races out the back door, down the Houston St dock stairs, makes her way to the very back of the TSBD, takes a right and encounters a police officer she has a conversation with, makes her way along the west side of the building, walks back up the dead-end street towards the front entrance of the TSBD and has a conversation with colleagues after which she hears the radio message and does all this in two minutes (120 seconds)...
...what's the point, it's not going to happen. A realistic timeline has already been proposed and, as Shelley himself points out in his WC testimony, the encounter with Adams and Shelley on the first floor did not take place. Propose an alternative timeline or enter into a dialogue about the arguments being made for the proposed timeline.
-
The bottom line is this - Adams is insistent that the message she hears on the police motorcycle radio references shots coming from the second floor:
"There was a motorcycle that was parked on the corner of Houston and Elm directly in front of the east end of the building, and I paused-there to listen to the report on the police radio, and they said that shots had been fired which apparently came either from the second floor or the fourth floor window, and so I panicked, as I was at the only open window on the fourth floor.
Mr. BELIN - Did they say second floor or second floor from the top?
Miss ADAMS - It said second floor. So then I decided maybe I had better go back into the building, and going up the stairs---"
This seems like an unusual mistake for anyone to make. The shots came from the 6th floor, how can anyone make such an enormous mistake as to say the shooter was on the 2nd. Even months after the event in her WC testimony, knowing where the shots came from, Adams is still insistent she heard a message referencing a shooter on the second floor.
When we look at the transcripts of the Dallas Police Tapes we find the same, mistaken claim:
"We have a man here who says he saw him pull the weapon back through the window off of the second floor from the southeast corner of that depository building"
This message is surely the one Adams is referencing. It takes place at 12:37. I've heard elsewhere claims that these dispatch times are not wholly accurate which may be the case but it seems to me there is an independent way to check this. The shooting happens at 12:30 and this is totally reflected in the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes. So we can say with a certain amount of confidence the message Adams hears that causes her to head back into the TSBD takes place at 12:37.
If we accept their testimonies, it is hard to imagine Shelley and Lovelady being in a position to encounter Adams and Styles coming down the stairs (something Shelley doesn't acknowledge happening) any earlier than 12:35
Until someone can construct a realistic timeline in which Adams talks briefly to Shelley, races out the back door, down the Houston St dock stairs, makes her way to the very back of the TSBD, takes a right and encounters a police officer she has a conversation with, makes her way along the west side of the building, walks back up the dead-end street towards the front entrance of the TSBD and has a conversation with colleagues after which she hears the radio message and does all this in two minutes (120 seconds)...
...what's the point, it's not going to happen. A realistic timeline has already been proposed and, as Shelley himself points out in his WC testimony, the encounter with Adams and Shelley on the first floor did not take place. Propose an alternative timeline or enter into a dialogue about the arguments being made for the proposed timeline.
This seems like an unusual mistake for anyone to make. The shots came from the 6th floor, how can anyone make such an enormous mistake as to say the shooter was on the 2nd.
The sixth floor is the second floor (from the top of the building). Maybe the last part of the description, in parenthesis, got lost somewhere in the transfer of information between the witness, officer on the scene, & dispatcher? Just a thought...
-
I like that you're not questioning whether they're lying or not but whether they're lying deliberately, as if there was another way of lying.
It would have to be deliberate (and false) in order for it to be a lie. Something isn’t a lie just because you believe something different happened. You’re making a lot of assumptions based on this claimed identification of Calvery in a blurry film clip a couple of seconds long.
This alone makes me suspicious - one man forgets all this, maybe. But both? Hours after the event?
In their affidavits both men give the impression that very shortly after the shots they head straight back into the TSBD through the front entrance. They are deliberately distancing themselves from the side-door on the west side, it is a co-ordinated and concerted effort by both men.
They would have no reason on November 22 to think that such a detail about where they went, how long it took, and what door they came back in had any relevance to the assassination whatsoever. In fact, I don’t even understand why you think them going in the side door was relevant enough for them to deliberately conceal it on Nov 22.
Obviously you state that you favour the affidavits over the WC testimony so you don't believe any of this down towards the railroad yard/watching the police/going in the side-door happened anyway.
Why would I think it didn’t happen? Just because they left out some details? I’m just wondering why you’re using a dubious identification of Calvery to claim that Lovelady and Shelley deliberately lied about how long they were on the steps.
"Far more amazing than this is the lie they both construct for their WC testimony, again both men lying in exactly the same way although this time its a different type of lie. If you respond to this post John, and I doubt you will, I would like to hear from you, or from anyone on this forum, the reason you think both men deliberately and knowingly insist Gloria Calvery took 3 to 4 minutes to make her way to them even though she was running and even though someone mooching along at a leisurely, Oswald-like 3 mph can cover 132 ft in 30 seconds."
IF they were wrong about how much time passed (and you don’t know that they were), it could simply mean that they misjudged the time. Time appears to slow down for people during traumatic events. That doesn’t mean they deliberately lied about it. But they’re not wrong just because you believe that a black-blob on the steps is Gloria Calvery. You’re assuming that they were lying about this without even a plausible reason for doing so.
The point you are missing is this - both men are saying it took Truly and Baker at least 3 minutes to reach the steps of the TSBD!!
We know for a fact that is a lie.
So this really has nothing to do with Calvery then. Maybe she took three minutes. You don’t know when she started running or that she ran the whole time. She was a large woman. Maybe they confused the order of events. Maybe they misjudged the time. That doesn’t make any of it a deliberate lie.
This is semantics gone mad. A completely irrelevant detail blown up out of all proportion demonstrating an overwhelming inability to bring anything serious to the table. Not that it matters but I'll walk you through how you are getting even this bit of trivia wrong.
Ball is asking Lovelady "whom you left the steps with". The 'you' in this question obviously refers to Lovelady. Ball is asking who Lovelady was with when he left the steps to which he answers 'Mr Shelley'. The only person who needs to be on the steps here is Lovelady, that is how English works.
You have to be on the steps in order to “leave the steps”, right? You think you know what happened better than Lovelady just because of a film clip that you can’t even demonstrate for a fact who is who in?
I've put an excellent argument forward to identify Calvery in the L/G Gif.
There’s nothing “excellent” about it. It’s all handwaving Tommy Graves nonsense that ignores several pieces of evidence, like Shelley’s affidavit and Westbrook’s interview which contradict it.
If you want to argue the points I've made in a serious way I'm all for it but if you want to carry on with this nit-picking childishness I won't be bothering.
As you wish, but “because I said so” arguments will only carry you so far.
I'm hear to learn and be challenged and to try and move forward somehow. I'm not hear to bicker with someone with an entrenched mentality who has already decided they are the chosen one with all the answers. If anyone really knew what was going on none of us would be here.
Says the guy who thinks he has it all figured out because of his “excellent” Calvary argument.
-
I am not assuming that Shelley and Lovelady are lying, I am merely pointing out the fact that they are both lying. They both 'lie by omission' when they leave out going towards the railroad yard, walking up the dead-end street, waiting by the spur track, watching all the police activity, walking through the car park on the west side of the TSBD and entering through the side door of the shipping room. These actions form the majority of their account from the time of the last shot to the time they enter the TSBD and both men deliberately leave it out. What's going on at this side door that's so important?
Being wrong or leaving out details of something you did or experienced months prior is not necessarily lying. Just about every witness that day recounted something incorrectly. That doesn't mean that everyone of them were liars. Your quickness to label Shelley and Lovelady as liars is a poor reflection on yourself.
-
Any discussion on Oswald's escape should take into account Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's report that about 15 minutes after the assassination he saw Oswald run from the rear of the TSBD and get into a Rambler station wagon driven by a man with a dark complexion. In spite of Craig's sterling record as a police officer, WC apologists have rejected Craig's account because it destroys the WC's version of Oswald's movements after the shooting. There is good evidence that supports Craig's account, as Dr. Michael Kurtz explains:
How does Roger Craig's report fit with Oswald being on McWatter's bus within 10 minutes after the shooting? Mrs Bledsoe testified that she saw Oswald on McWatter's bus and the transfer found in his shirt pocket leaves no doubt that he was on that bus.
-
When we look at the transcripts of the Dallas Police Tapes we find the same, mistaken claim:
"We have a man here who says he saw him pull the weapon back through the window off of the second floor from the southeast corner of that depository building"
This message is surely the one Adams is referencing. It takes place at 12:37.
But this message says nothing about the 4th floor, and Adams specifically mentioned panicking because she thought her window was the only open one on the 4th floor.
Also, as I mentioned previously and it was ignored, the 12:37 broadcast about the second floor was on channel 2, but that was reserved for motorcade traffic, and they went to Parkland.
I've heard elsewhere claims that these dispatch times are not wholly accurate which may be the case but it seems to me there is an independent way to check this. The shooting happens at 12:30 and this is totally reflected in the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes.
There’s no reference on the police tapes of the shooting happening at 12:30 on the channel 2 dispatcher’s clock.
-
But this message says nothing about the 4th floor, and Adams specifically mentioned panicking because she thought her window was the only open one on the 4th floor.
Also, as I mentioned previously and it was ignored, the 12:37 broadcast about the second floor was on channel 2, but that was reserved for motorcade traffic, and they went to Parkland.
There’s no reference on the police tapes of the shooting happening at 12:30 on the channel 2 dispatcher’s clock.
1)You're absolutely correct, there is no mention of any activity on the 4th floor and Adams states that "shots had been fired which apparently came either from the second
floor or the fourth floor window, and so I panicked, as I was at the only open window on the fourth floor." My point was that the report of a shooter in the 2nd floor window
seemed really unusual. Most other reports were about the 5th or 6th floors. I was struck that when Adams was asked to clarify whether she misheard the report or not she
was insistent it was about the 2nd floor. I then found it remarkably coincidental that a report was sent out over the radio containing the same unusual piece of information - a
possible shooter on the second floor. It also fit the timeline of Adams hearing the report then trying to get back inside and having to talk her way past an officer, so the process
of locking down the TSBD had begun but hadn't reached the point where they were refusing to let anyone back in. As you say, the lack of mention of the fourth floor is an
issue but, for me at least, it doesn't negate how interesting I find the coincidence of Adams testimony concerning a sighting on the second floor and there being a record of
such an unusual report.
2) I don't know about the point concerning Channel 2. In the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes channel 2 is represented but it has lots of radio traffic concerning the TSBD,
I'm assuming from officers who were part of the motorcade detail (ie; Harkness) but like I say I'm not up to speed on that.
3) Nowhere do I say there's a reference to the shooting happening at 12:30 on the channel 2 dispatcher's clock. It's like you've invented an allegation that I'm supposed to
refute (and it's not the first time you've done that). The last message on channel 2 before 12:30 is "Approaching Triple Underpass". The first message on channel 2 after
12:30 is "Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by". I didn't say there was a reference to the shooting, I said the shooting was reflected in the transcripts
and it clearly is.
-
You said “The shooting happens at 12:30 and this is totally reflected in the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes“, but it’s not reflected in the tapes when the shooting happened. For one thing, the dictabelts were sound activated and not continuous. For another, the last dispatcher time check before “approaching triple underpass” is 12:28, and “approaching triple underpass” is sufficiently vague to not know how far away Curry was when he said that. And Curry was ahead of the limo too. Then there is a 12:30 time check, then “go to the hospital”, then not another time check until 12:35. Per Bowles, the time checks can be rounded up or down from the actual dispatcher’s clock, and we don’t know how accurate the dispatcher clocks were to begin with. So no, a shooting time of 12:30 is not reflected in the tapes. Nor do we even know from any other source that 12:30 was the shooting time. At best we have a McIntyre photo that shows 12:30 on the Hertz clock with the limo coming out from the underpass on the other side, but we also don’t know how or when the Hertz clock was calibrated. So all of this combines to a conclusion that you can’t rely on the 12:37 time check for any precision surrounding when Adams heard something about the 2nd or 4th floor.
-
So no, a shooting time of 12:30 is not reflected in the tapes.
You've done it again, is there something wrong with you? Do you know you're doing it?
Nowhere have I said the shooting time of 12:30 reflected in the tapes. I've never heard the tapes so I wouldn't know. Yet again you twist what is actually written into what you want to hear, put this new version of things in other people's mouths and then claim your little victory.
That said, there's still valuable information in your post that I will look into.
-
Being wrong or leaving out details of something you did or experienced months prior is not necessarily lying. Just about every witness that day recounted something incorrectly. That doesn't mean that everyone of them were liars. Your quickness to label Shelley and Lovelady as liars is a poor reflection on yourself.
Does that also mean that Victoria Adams could have misremembered where and when she saw Shelley and Lovelady?
The time line I constructed based on the combined testimony of the witnesses shows that Adams & Styles passed by the South West corner of the building at around the same time Shelley & Lovelady were there....
-
Does that also mean that Victoria Adams could have misremembered where and when she saw Shelley and Lovelady?
The time line I constructed based on the combined testimony of the witnesses shows that Adams & Styles passed by the South West corner of the building at around the same time Shelley & Lovelady were there....
Of course it does. Absolutely.
-
Of course it does. Absolutely.
Ok, with that in mind, let me propose the following time line to you, based on the combined testimony and statements of various witnesses
For the purpose of this exercise I'll assume that the killer did in fact come down the stairs immediately after the shots. I'll refer to the shooter on the 6th floor as "Oswald"
12.30.00 Last shot
12.30.30 "Oswald" arrives at the stairs on the 6th floor
Adams and Styles arrive at the stairs on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner sees them go down the stairs
Officer Baker arrives at the front entrance (seen by Lovelady) and meets Truly, after just parking his bike
Shelley and Lovelady are in front of the main entrance of the building. Gloria Calvary tells them the President has been shot.
They first go to the little traffic island in front of the TSBD and then decide to go, down the dead end street in front of the TSBD,
towards the railroad yard
Lovelady and Shelley see Truly and Baker entering the building
Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
Mr. BALL - Across the street, you mean directly south?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, slightly to the right, you know where the light is there?
Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
12:31.00 "Oswald" arrives at the 2nd floor and goes into the lunchroom after decending 4 flights of stairs
Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor, after decending 3 flights of stairs, and leave the building through the loading door
just left of the stairs
Truly and Baker, somewhat delayed by trying to call the east elevator down, pass the elevator block on the first floor and
run towards the stairs, just missing the women
This timeline demonstrates that if "Oswald" and Adams & Styles both arrive at the stairs 30 seconds after the last shot and they descent the stairs at roughly the same speed, they could in theory have been on the stairs at the same time, with "Oswald" arriving on the 2nd floor around the same time Adams & Styles arrived on the 1st floor.
12:31.15 Baker arrives on the 2nd floor (Truly is already climbing the stairs to the 3rd floor) and meets Oswald in the lunchroom
Adams and Styles arrive at the North East side of the loading dock and go down the stairs
12:31.30 Adams and Styles have gone round the most Northern point of the loading dock and start running toward the railroad yard
12.33.00 Adams and Styles encounter a police officer, somewhere near the North Western corner of the TSBD, and are told to
go back to the building. The women walk along side the railway track, west of the TSBD and it's warehouse extension,
towards the parallel road in the front of the building.
Shelley and Lovelady are in that same location, roughly where the parallel road dead ends in a parking lot
Mr. BALL - Shelley and you went down how far?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. See how those tracks goes---
Mr. BALL - You went down the dead end on Elm?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And down to the first tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - What did you and Billy Lovelady do?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end.
Mr. BALL - At the west end?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room.
12.34.00 Adams and Styles arrive at the road that runs parallel to the TSBD, turn left and walk toward the main entrance.
12.35.00 After walking the distance from the warehouse building next to the TSBD, Adams and Styles arrive at the
front entrance of the building. Styles enters the building straight away, but Adams stays behind to talk to some co-workers.
The building is not yet sealed off.
12.36.00 Adams hears a radio report about the shots having been fired from the TSBD building. She enters the TSBD through the front
entrance. She persuades the police officer who sealed of the main entrance to let her in. She takes the stairs to the 2nd floor,
in the hall in the South East corner of the building. She then walks through the office space to the North West corner
(where the 2nd floor lunchroom is) and takes the freight elevator to the 4th floor with two men she believes to be police
officers or secret service.
Shelley and Lovelady enter the building and arrive at the first floor where Lovelady - according to his testimony - sees a girl
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Shelley only saw Eddie Piper
Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper.
12.37.00 Sgt Harkness seals off the building at the building
The times are approximations, but the timeline works perfectly and includes all the known information without any witness having to lie.
Did I get something wrong or miss something, Tim?
-
Ok, with that in mind, let me propose the following time line to you, based on the combined testimony and statements of various witnesses
For the purpose of this exercise I'll assume that the killer did in fact come down the stairs immediately after the shots. I'll refer to the shooter on the 6th floor as "Oswald"
12.30.00 Last shot
12.30.30 "Oswald" arrives at the stairs on the 6th floor
Adams and Styles arrive at the stairs on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner sees them go down the stairs
Officer Baker arrives at the front entrance (seen by Lovelady) and meets Truly, after just parking his bike
Shelley and Lovelady are in front of the main entrance of the building. Gloria Calvary tells them the President has been shot.
They first go to the little traffic island in front of the TSBD and then decide to go, down the dead end street in front of the TSBD,
towards the railroad yard
Lovelady and Shelley see Truly and Baker entering the building
Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
Mr. BALL - Across the street, you mean directly south?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, slightly to the right, you know where the light is there?
Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.
12:31.00 "Oswald" arrives at the 2nd floor and goes into the lunchroom after decending 4 flights of stairs
Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor, after decending 3 flights of stairs, and leave the building through the loading door
just left of the stairs
Truly and Baker, somewhat delayed by trying to call the east elevator down, pass the elevator block on the first floor and
run towards the stairs, just missing the women
This timeline demonstrates that if "Oswald" and Adams & Styles both arrive at the stairs 30 seconds after the last shot and they descent the stairs at roughly the same speed, they could in theory have been on the stairs at the same time, with "Oswald" arriving on the 2nd floor around the same time Adams & Styles arrived on the 1st floor.
12:31.15 Baker arrives on the 2nd floor (Truly is already climbing the stairs to the 3rd floor) and meets Oswald in the lunchroom
Adams and Styles arrive at the North East side of the loading dock and go down the stairs
12:31.30 Adams and Styles have gone round the most Northern point of the loading dock and start running toward the railroad yard
12.33.00 Adams and Styles encounter a police officer, somewhere near the North Western corner of the TSBD, and are told to
go back to the building. The women walk along side the railway track, west of the TSBD and it's warehouse extension,
towards the parallel road in the front of the building.
Shelley and Lovelady are in that same location, roughly where the parallel road dead ends in a parking lot
Mr. BALL - Shelley and you went down how far?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. See how those tracks goes---
Mr. BALL - You went down the dead end on Elm?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And down to the first tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building.
Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - What did you and Billy Lovelady do?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end.
Mr. BALL - At the west end?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room.
12.34.00 Adams and Styles arrive at the road that runs parallel to the TSBD, turn left and walk toward the main entrance.
12.35.00 After walking the distance from the warehouse building next to the TSBD, Adams and Styles arrive at the
front entrance of the building. Styles enters the building straight away, but Adams stays behind to talk to some co-workers.
The building is not yet sealed off.
12.36.00 Adams hears a radio report about the shots having been fired from the TSBD building. She enters the TSBD through the front
entrance. She persuades the police officer who sealed of the main entrance to let her in. She takes the stairs to the 2nd floor,
in the hall in the South East corner of the building. She then walks through the office space to the North West corner
(where the 2nd floor lunchroom is) and takes the freight elevator to the 4th floor with two men she believes to be police
officers or secret service.
Shelley and Lovelady enter the building and arrive at the first floor where Lovelady - according to his testimony - sees a girl
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Shelley only saw Eddie Piper
Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper.
12.37.00 Sgt Harkness seals off the building at the building
The times are approximations, but the timeline works perfectly and includes all the known information without any witness having to lie.
Did I get something wrong or miss something, Tim?
I'm too tired to try to process most of that right now. I'll just remark on a couple of your points. You have Adams and Styles at the stairwell 30 seconds after the shooting ended. In order to have them there that soon, you have to disregard Adams' time of 15 seconds of staying at the window. Barry Ernest said that she stood by that statement. The other thing is that Dorothy Garner never saw them go down the stairs. That being said, your scenario may work. As I said, I'm too tired to say with any certainty.
-
I'll just remark on a couple of your points. You have Adams and Styles at the stairwell 30 seconds after the shooting ended. In order to have them there that soon, you have to disregard Adams' time of 15 seconds of staying at the window. Barry Ernest said that she stood by that statement. The other thing is that Dorothy Garner never saw them go down the stairs.
The points Tim raises seem quite minor. I don't see why a young women running can't make it to the top of the stairs from the window in 15 seconds. Even with heels on. Garner may not be an eye-witness to Adams and Styles descending the stairs but she is certainly an ear-witness as she can hear them clattering down the noisy wooden stairs as she comes out of her office.
Another potential synchronisation comes from Truly's WC testimony. In it he describes how he and Baker run up to the 5th floor where they take the elevator up to the 7th. They go on to the roof and search round then begin to make their way back down until they reach the 1st floor:
"Mr. BELIN. About how long after these shots do you think it took you to go all the way up and look around the roof and come all the way down again?
Mr. TRULY. Oh, we might have been gone between 5 and 10 minutes. It is hard to say."
It may be possible to corroborate Truly's rough approximation. On the way down they reach the 4th floor:
"Mr. TRULY. Then we continued on down, and we saw officers on the fourth floor.
I don't recall that we stopped any more until we reached the first floor. But I do recall there was an officer on the fourth floor, by the time we got down that far."
A potential ID for the officer on the 4th floor comes from the WC testimony of J Herbert Sawyer, Inspector of Police with the Dallas Police Department, who arrives at the TSBD minutes after the shooting:
"Mr. SAWYER. We immediately went inside the building. I took--I believe Sgt. Harkness may have gone with me. I am not positive of that.
Mr. BELIN. Was the elevator on the first floor when you got there, or did you have to wait for it to come down?
Mr. SAWYER. Best of my recollection, it was there.
Mr. BELIN. You got to the elevator, went up, looked around back there. How long did you spend up there at the top floor that the elevator took you to?
Mr. SAWYER. Just took a quick look around and made sure there was nobody hiding on that floor. I doubt if it took over a minute at the most.
Mr. BELIN. To go up and look around and come down?
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir."
The elevator in question is the passenger elevator by the front entrance. The top floor this elevator reaches is the 4th floor. It is possible that the officer Truly sees on the 4th floor is Sgt. Harkness.
What I find completely mind-blowing about Truly's testimony is that when they first reach the freight elevators and look up it seems like both elevators are at the fifth floor. However, when they make it to the fifth floor the elevator nearest the stairs is gone!!! WTF!!!
If we're talking about the potential escape route of the assassin then why not just take the elevator. As Truly and Baker are ascending the stairs someone is descending in an elevator. How can it be that no-one seems to notice this happen???
-
I'm too tired to try to process most of that right now. I'll just remark on a couple of your points. You have Adams and Styles at the stairwell 30 seconds after the shooting ended. In order to have them there that soon, you have to disregard Adams' time of 15 seconds of staying at the window. Barry Ernest said that she stood by that statement. The other thing is that Dorothy Garner never saw them go down the stairs. That being said, your scenario may work. As I said, I'm too tired to say with any certainty.
You have Adams and Styles at the stairwell 30 seconds after the shooting ended. In order to have them there that soon, you have to disregard Adams' time of 15 seconds of staying at the window.
2 comments, Tim.
Victoria Adams talked to Barry Ernest 35 years after the event. I'm not sure how much value can be placed on a time estimate after all that time. But more importantly, Adams told the FBI on 11/24/63 that she and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the last shot. She said something similar to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64 and again to the FBI on 03/23/64 and she repeated it again in her testimony. And Sandra Styles told the FBI on 03/19/64 she and Adams left "at that time" after hearing the shots and seeing people running.
Having just read Victoria Adams' testimony again, she does say at some point that she left the window after "between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately, but she's hardly firm on the subject.
Secondly, I used as a guide, for the 30 seconds to get to the stairs, the time trial done by Discovery's "unsolved history"
In it, they timed "Oswald" as needing 27 seconds to get to the stairwell. I used 30 seconds just to be on the safe side. However, "Oswald" had to walk the distance of the building from the South East corner (the sniper's nest) to nearly the North West corner as boxes block his way for a short cut. He then had to turn left and walk from the East side of the building to the West side.
Adams and Styles, on the other hand, were situated in the middle between the East and West of the building with behind them a door that lead from the office space directly into the storage room behind it. The distance they had to walk was considerably less than "Oswald"
Mr. BELIN - Sometime after the third shot, and I don't want to get into the actual period of time yet, you went back into the stockroom which would be to the north of where your offices are located on the fourth floor, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. BELIN - When you got into the stockroom, where did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went to the back stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Are there any other stairs that lead down from the fourth floor other than those back stairs in the rear of the stockroom?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Those stairs would be in the northwest comer of the building, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running.
In the Discovery video "Oswald" needs only 17 seconds to walk the distance of the building from South East to North East. Adams and Styles could walk in a straight line to the stairs, as the 4th floor storage space was empty (if I recall correctly), and thus would have only required some 17 seconds to get there. They could indeed easily have stayed at the window for a few seconds and still be at the entrance of the stairs 30 seconds after the last shot.
The other thing is that Dorothy Garner never saw them go down the stairs.
Actually, we don't really know what Garner saw or not. The Stroud letter only tells us that;
"after miss Adams went downstairs she (miss Garner) saw mr Truly and the police man come up."
Garner was with Adams and Styles at the window. When the girls went to the stairs she followed them from the office to the storage space. There is no reason to assume that she did not see them go down the stairs.
-
Work the timeline back from what is known and trace it back to when they would have left the fourth floor.
The Shelley -Lovelady encounter takes place right before the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the front of the building. 1 minute is the aprroximate time it took the two women to return to the front steps. The rest is how long does it take to hurry through the building and out of the Houston exit door and go around the corner at the rear of the building. Adams guesstimated 5 minutes total.
Mr. BELIN - Now trying to reconstruct your actions insofar as the time sequence, which we haven't done, what is your best estimate of the time between the time the shots were fired and the time you got back to the building? How much time elapsed? If you have any estimate. Maybe you don't have one.
Miss ADAMS - I would estimate not more than 5 minutes elapsed
That would be the most time. In all likelihood it was much less if it only took 1 minute to return to the front of the building from the encounter with the officer.
------------------
Sargeant Harkness sealed the building off at 12:36. The encounter with the police officer maybe even Harkness himself took place at approximately 12:36.
Mr. BELIN - How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.
Mr. BELIN - You are talking about the back part of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Styles and Adams do as they are told by the officer and returned to the front of the building where Styles reenters the building and Adams stays and listens to the police radio.
-----------------------------------------------
At 12:37 Inspector Sawyer is told the rear of the building is sealed off and has been since 12:36. Sawyer then places two officers at the front entrance to seal off the front of the building. Adams after listening to the police radio is allowed to reenter the building by the two officers on the front steps.
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then you got down and what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I asked the Sergeant to doublecheck the security around the building, and then I took two patrolmen and stationed them at the front door and told them, with instructions not to let anybody in or out.
----------------------------------------
At 12:37 JJ Hills radio transmission is playing on the police radio.
12:37 pm Patrolman J. J. Hill:
"Get some men up here to cover this school depository building. It's believed the shot came from, as you see it on Elm Street, it would be upper right hand corner, second window from the end."
Adams and Styles did not leave the fourth floor until after Baker and Truly ascended the stairs passed the fourth floor.
Adams may also have just been listening to the conversation between the officers.
-
You've done it again, is there something wrong with you? Do you know you're doing it?
Nowhere have I said the shooting time of 12:30 reflected in the tapes.
This is getting tiresome. Your exact words:
"The shooting happens at 12:30 and this is totally reflected in the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes."
If you're trying to make a distinction between "reflected in the tapes" and "reflected in the transcripts of the tapes", then all I can say is that you have a lot of nerve accusing me of nitpicking semantics.
A shooting time of 12:30 is not "reflected in the transcripts of the Dallas Police tapes", ok?
Nor do we know for a fact that the shooting occurred at 12:30.
-
Actually, we don't really know what Garner saw or not. The Stroud letter only tells us that;
"after miss Adams went downstairs she (miss Garner) saw mr Truly and the police man come up."
According to Ernest, Garner told him in 2011 that she did not actually see them enter the stairway, but that she heard them. (The Girl on the Stairs, p. 267)
-
Nor do we know for a fact that the shooting occurred at 12:30.
Really? I beg to differ. Photo here shows 12:30 on the clock mere seconds after the last shot and the car speeding away.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X26OpAHBGAU/UBmWjgKwMwI/AAAAAAAAGJY/AacrpAHdjFE/s2500/November-22-1963-JFKs-Car-Is-Seen-West-Of-The-Triple-Underpass-Just-After-Assassination.jpg)
-
Work the timeline back from what is known and trace it back to when they would have left the fourth floor.
The Shelley -Lovelady encounter takes place right before the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the front of the building. 1 minute is the aprroximate time it took the two women to return to the front steps. The rest is how long does it take to hurry through the building and out of the Houston exit door and go around the corner at the rear of the building. Adams guesstimated 5 minutes total.
Mr. BELIN - Now trying to reconstruct your actions insofar as the time sequence, which we haven't done, what is your best estimate of the time between the time the shots were fired and the time you got back to the building? How much time elapsed? If you have any estimate. Maybe you don't have one.
Miss ADAMS - I would estimate not more than 5 minutes elapsed
That would be the most time. In all likelihood it was much less if it only took 1 minute to return to the front of the building from the encounter with the officer.
Work the timeline back from what is known and trace it back to when they would have left the fourth floor.
If you mean by "what is known" the "encounter" with Shelley and Lovelady then working back the time line from there simply doesn't work.
You have to make up stuff and create a false narrative to fit all the known information in.
The combined testimony of Shelley, Lovelady and Adams establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shelley and Lovelady's path could only have crossed with Adams and Styles path, in or near the end of the dead end street that runs parallel to the TSBD.
The Shelley -Lovelady encounter takes place right before the encounter with the police officer telling them to return to the front of the building.
It is physically impossible for this to have happened, because Shelley and Lovelady were outside at the front and later at the west side of the building until 12.35. There is nothing in their testimony that suggests they came anywhere near the stairs in the north west corner until after the building was sealed off and Shelley was told to watch the elevators.
Sandra Styles entered the building at the front entrance, at 12.35, prior to Vickie Adams, who stuck around to talk with co-workers. She heard the radio broadcast at 12.36 and entered the front entrance of the building.
The rest is how long does it take to hurry through the building and out of the Houston exit door and go around the corner at the rear of the building.
That's a misrepresentation of the facts. The girls did not run through the building, nor did they exit it at Houston street or go around the corner at the rear of the building. You seem to suggest that they actually walked along Houston street towards Elm, which is simply not true.
Mr. BELIN - Now trying to reconstruct your actions insofar as the time sequence, which we haven't done, what is your best estimate of the time between the time the shots were fired and the time you got back to the building? How much time elapsed? If you have any estimate. Maybe you don't have one.
Miss ADAMS - I would estimate not more than 5 minutes elapsed
That would be the most time.
Five minutes would indeed work. The girls came down the stairs at the north west corner of the building, turned left and stepped onto the loading dock. There they walked towards Houston street to go down the only stairs there were to leave the platform. They then ran north and went around the most northern part of the loading dock. From there they ran in westerly direction towards the railroad yard
Mr. BELIN - East is here. East is towards Houston, and west is towards the railroad tracks. You went east or west? Towards the railroad tracks or towards Houston Street?
Miss ADAMS - I went west towards the tracks.
Mr. BELIN - How far west did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went approximately 2 yards within the tracks and there was an officer standing there, and he said, "Get back to the building." And I said, "But I work here."
And he said, "That is tough, get back." I said, "Well, was the President shot?" And he said, "I don't know. Go back." And I said, "All right."
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I went back, only I went southwest.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you come back by way of the street, or did you come back the same entrance you went out?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You went back in through the front entrance, through the front of the building?
Miss ADAMS - Well, I didn't go back in right away.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then? There is a street that would be a continuation of Elm Street that goes in front of the building, and Elm Street itself angles into the freeway. Did you go back either of those streets?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir. I went by the one directly in front of the building.
In all likelihood it was much less if it only took 1 minute to return to the front of the building from the encounter with the officer.
There isn't even a remote possibility that somebody could go round 3 sides of the building in 1 minute.
Your 1 minutes "estimate" is a physical impossibility!
------------------
Sargeant Harkness sealed the building off at 12:36. The encounter with the police officer maybe even Harkness himself took place at approximately 12:36.
Mr. BELIN - How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS - It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.
Mr. BELIN - You are talking about the back part of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Styles and Adams do as they are told by the officer and returned to the front of the building where Styles reenters the building and Adams stays and listens to the police radio.
Harkness was at the back of the building at 12.36. He said so in his testimony. Styles and Adams re-entered the building at the front entrance at 12.35 and 12.36 respectively.
There is no possibility at all that Harkness was the officer told the girls to return to the building. If he had, he wouldn't have allowed the girls to walk to the front of the building!
-----------------------------------------------
At 12:37 Inspector Sawyer is told the rear of the building is sealed off and has been since 12:36. Sawyer then places two officers at the front entrance to seal off the front of the building. Adams after listening to the police radio is allowed to reenter the building by the two officers on the front steps.
Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down.
Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then you got down and what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I asked the Sergeant to doublecheck the security around the building, and then I took two patrolmen and stationed them at the front door and told them, with instructions not to let anybody in or out.
----------------------------------------
At 12:37 JJ Hills radio transmission is playing on the police radio.
12:37 pm Patrolman J. J. Hill:
"Get some men up here to cover this school depository building. It's believed the shot came from, as you see it on Elm Street, it would be upper right hand corner, second window from the end."
At 12:37 Inspector Sawyer is told the rear of the building is sealed off and has been since 12:36. Sawyer then places two officers at the front entrance to seal off the front of the building. Adams after listening to the police radio is allowed to reenter the building by the two officers on the front steps.
Styles could enter the building without being stopped by police, which means she entered at 12.35. Adams was stopped and had to talk her way in at 12.36 or 12.37
Adams and Styles did not leave the fourth floor until after Baker and Truly ascended the stairs passed the fourth floor.
Adams may also have just been listening to the conversation between the officers.
Nothing you have presented here holds water. All of your "conclusions" are in direct contradiction to the known testimony and some of it is simply made up. Your entire "theory" requires that the girls were able to get from the back to the front of the building in 1 minute which never happened.
Adams and Styles did not leave the fourth floor until after Baker and Truly ascended the stairs passed the fourth floor.
Even if that were true, the girls could still not have encountered Shelley and Lovelady as they came of the stairs, because they were still outside and did not re-enter the building until 12.35.
The reason why you focus on details rather than the entire picture is that you simply can not construct a complete alternate time line that still has all the known facts in the right place.
-
Really? I beg to differ. Photo here shows 12:30 on the clock mere seconds after the last shot and the car speeding away.
And you can guarantee with 100% certainty that the clock on top of the TSBD was accurate to the second?
-
For god sake, Martin. Give me a xxxxing break! Look at the xxxxing picture! Stop seeing conspiracy EVERYWHERE! And now with a sinister "incorrect" clock?! Jesus!
-
For god sake, Martin. Give me a xxxxing break! Look at the xxxxing picture! Stop seeing conspiracy EVERYWHERE! And now with a sinister "incorrect" clock?! Jesus!
Suggestion: Go with '12:30-ish'
;)
-
Really? I beg to differ. Photo here shows 12:30 on the clock mere seconds after the last shot and the car speeding away.
Perhaps you missed my earlier remark on the subject in this thread.
At best we have a McIntyre photo that shows 12:30 on the Hertz clock with the limo coming out from the underpass on the other side, but we also don’t know how or when the Hertz clock was calibrated.
-
For god sake, Martin. Give me a xxxxing break! Look at the xxxxing picture! Stop seeing conspiracy EVERYWHERE!
Who said anything about a "conspiracy" with regard to the Hertz clock? Or that something was "sinister" about it?
-
For god sake, Martin. Give me a xxxxing break! Look at the xxxxing picture! Stop seeing conspiracy EVERYWHERE! And now with a sinister "incorrect" clock?! Jesus!
I never said that the clock was incorrect. Since you rely on the clock being accurate it is justified to ask you how you know that clock was absolutely correct.
It has nothing to do with seeing a conspiracy anywhere. LNs have been claiming for years that the clock Markham relied on, the watch Bowley relied on and the clocks at the hospital where Tippit died were all not accurate, so why can't the same question not be raised about the clock on top of the TSBD?
-
When Truly and Baker arrive at the double freight elevator shaft both elevators appear to be stopped at the 5th floor. It's approximately 40 -50 seconds after the final shot:
Mr. BELIN. Now, you got to the elevator, and what did you do then?
Mr. TRULY. I looked up. This is two elevators in the same well. This elevator over hero
Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to the west one?
Mr. TRULY. I am pointing to the west one. This elevator was on the fifth floor. Also, the east elevator-- as far as I can tell--both of them were on the fifth floor at that time.
This is, more or less, confirmed by Baker:
Mr. BELIN - What did you see when you looked up the elevator shaft?
Mr. BAKER - At that time I thought there was just one elevator there, you know, one big freight elevator, and to me they looked like they were up there, I didn't know how many floors in that building but you could see them up there, it looked like just at that time, I thought it was just one, when I looked up there, and it looked to me anywhere from three to four floors up.
Mr. BELIN - Was either elevator moving at the time or--pardon me, was there any elevator moving at the time you saw and looked up the shaft?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear any elevator moving?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Mr. Truly pushed the button, I believe you said.
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - When he pushed the button did any elevator start moving?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - When you looked up the elevator shaft did it appear as if there was one elevator covering the complete shaft or did it appear there was one elevator that you saw covering half of the shaft?
Mr. BAKER - Like I say, I thought it was one elevator there and it was covering the whole deal up there so to me it appeared to be one.
Mr. BELIN - It didn't appear to be two elevators on different floors?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
The point being both elevators are together a few floors up. After the 'Lunchroom Encounter' both men make their way up to the 5th floor to find one of the elevators is gone:
Mr. TRULY. When we reached the fifth floor, the east elevator was on that floor.
Mr. BELIN. What about the west elevator? Was that on the fifth floor?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. I am sure it wasn't, or I could not have seen the east elevator.
Truly is a bit nonplussed as to how this can be, he assumes it must be one of the boys getting stock, which would be slightly unusual as the lunch break hasn't yet finished. I will give a rough approximation of 4 minutes from the time of the last shot to Truly and Baker reaching the 5th floor:
Mr. BELIN. I believe you said when you first saw the elevators, you thought they were both on the same floor, the fifth floor.
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then how do you explain that when you got to the fifth floor, one of the elevators was not there?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know, sir. I think one of my boys was getting stock off the fifth floor on the back side, and probably moved the elevator at the time somewheres between the time we were running upstairs. And I would not have remembered that. I mean I wouldn't have really heard that, with the commotion we were making running up the enclosed stairwell.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anyone on the fifth floor?
Mr. TRULY. Yes. When coming down I am sure I saw Jack Dougherty getting some books off the fifth floor.
On the way down Truly has a recollection of seeing Dougherty working during his lunch break. I will give a rough approximation of 6 minutes between the final shot and this sighting of Dougherty on the 5th floor.
Mr. BELIN. But when you got to the fifth floor that west elevator was not there?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Was it on any floor below the fifth floor?
Mr. TRULY. I didn't look.
Mr. BELIN. As you were climbing up the floors, you did not see it?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And if it wasn't on the fifth floor when you got there, it could have been on the sixth or seventh, I assume.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I don't believe so, because I think I would have heard or seen it coming downstairs when I got on the fifth floor elevator, on the east side.
Mr. BELIN. Well, suppose it was just stopped on the sixth floor when you got on the fifth floor elevator. Would you have seen it then?
Mr. TRULY. I think so, yes, sir. As we started up from the fifth floor, you could see the top of it at an angle.
Mr. BELIN. Were you looking in that direction as you rode up on the fifth floor, or were you facing the east?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. I don't know which way I was looking. I was only intent on getting to the seventh floor.
Mr. BELIN. So you cannot say when you passed the sixth floor whether or not an elevator was there?
Mr. TRULY. I cannot.
Mr. BELIN. When you got to the seventh floor, you got out of the east elevator. Was the west elevator on the seventh floor?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Are you sure it was not on the seventh floor?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear the west elevator running at any time when you were riding the elevator from the fifth to the seventh?
Mr. TRULY. I was not aware of it.
When Truly gets on the elevator on the 5th floor he's not sure where the missing elevator might be. He's certain it not on the seventh after getting off there but it could possibly be on the 6th floor. There is only one person I am aware of that testifies to the use of the elevators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. In his affidavit, taken on the day of the assassination, Jack Dougherty makes the following statement:
"I had already gone back to work and I gone down on the fifth [sic] to get some stock when I heard a shot. It sounded like it was coming from inside the building, but I couldn't tell from where. I went down on the first floor, and asked a man named Eddie Piper if he had heard anything and he said yes, that he had heard three shots. I then went back on the sixth floor."
Even though the lunch break wasn't finished, even though the President of the United States was driving by the front of the building he was working in and even though almost all his colleagues were watching, Jack decides to go back to work (maybe he wasn't a big JFK fan). He states he was working and that he had "gone down to the 5th" (from the 6th floor??) when he heard a shot. To my mind what follows is really bizarre - he is convinced the sound of the shot is coming from inside the building, he rides down to the 1st floor, asks Piper if he heard anything, Piper tells him he heard 3 shots so Jack heads back to the 6th floor!! When he says he goes back to the 6th is he confirming that he was originally on the 6th before the shots occurred (gone down to the fifth)?
Was he on the fifth at all? Bonnie Ray Wiliams, Hank Norman and Junior Jarman didn't mention him. Was Dougherty on the 6th when the shooting took place?
We know Dougherty was on the fifth when Truly and Baker were coming down, maybe he was just dropping the assassin off on the first floor
-
Should have added this. Dougherty puts himself on 6th floor in WC testimony:
Mr. BALL - Now, you were on the first floor in the domino room when you finished your lunch, didn't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And did you stay there any length of time after you finished your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir---just a short length of time.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, then, I went back to work.
Mr. BALL - And where did you go to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let me see---oh, up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - Did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
-
The points Tim raises seem quite minor. I don't see why a young women running can't make it to the top of the stairs from the window in 15 seconds. Even with heels on. Garner may not be an eye-witness to Adams and Styles descending the stairs but she is certainly an ear-witness as she can hear them clattering down the noisy wooden stairs as she comes out of her office.
It's possible, I suppose. However, they would have really had to be flying.And tearing down those wooden stairs in their three inch heeled shoes they would have been making a racket. If they left as early as Adams recalled, then Oswald would have simply followed behind them.
-
If Oswald was higher up coming down the stairs there's no way they would've heard him while they were clattering down enclosed wooden steps wearing high heels. Truly makes the point he wouldn't have heard the elevator being used for the same reason. Oswald's real obstacle would be getting past Garner on the fourth without making the same kind of noise.
-
You have Adams and Styles at the stairwell 30 seconds after the shooting ended. In order to have them there that soon, you have to disregard Adams' time of 15 seconds of staying at the window.
2 comments, Tim.
Victoria Adams talked to Barry Ernest 35 years after the event. I'm not sure how much value can be placed on a time estimate after all that time. But more importantly, Adams told the FBI on 11/24/63 that she and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the last shot. She said something similar to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64 and again to the FBI on 03/23/64 and she repeated it again in her testimony. And Sandra Styles told the FBI on 03/19/64 she and Adams left "at that time" after hearing the shots and seeing people running.
Having just read Victoria Adams' testimony again, she does say at some point that she left the window after "between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately, but she's hardly firm on the subject.
Secondly, I used as a guide, for the 30 seconds to get to the stairs, the time trial done by Discovery's "unsolved history"
In it, they timed "Oswald" as needing 27 seconds to get to the stairwell. I used 30 seconds just to be on the safe side. However, "Oswald" had to walk the distance of the building from the South East corner (the sniper's nest) to nearly the North West corner as boxes block his way for a short cut. He then had to turn left and walk from the East side of the building to the West side.
Adams and Styles, on the other hand, were situated in the middle between the East and West of the building with behind them a door that lead from the office space directly into the storage room behind it. The distance they had to walk was considerably less than "Oswald"
(https://i.imgur.com/2a1Sz86.jpg)
I measured it in Gimp. Adams and Styles would have travelled about 93% of the distance that Oswald would have. So, no, not considerably less.
Mr. BELIN - Sometime after the third shot, and I don't want to get into the actual period of time yet, you went back into the stockroom which would be to the north of where your offices are located on the fourth floor, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. BELIN - When you got into the stockroom, where did you go?
Miss ADAMS - I went to the back stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Are there any other stairs that lead down from the fourth floor other than those back stairs in the rear of the stockroom?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Those stairs would be in the northwest comer of the building, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running.
In the Discovery video "Oswald" needs only 17 seconds to walk the distance of the building from South East to North East. Adams and Styles could walk in a straight line to the stairs, as the 4th floor storage space was empty (if I recall correctly), and thus would have only required some 17 seconds to get there. They could indeed easily have stayed at the window for a few seconds and still be at the entrance of the stairs 30 seconds after the last shot.
The other thing is that Dorothy Garner never saw them go down the stairs.
Actually, we don't really know what Garner saw or not. The Stroud letter only tells us that;
"after miss Adams went downstairs she (miss Garner) saw mr Truly and the police man come up."
Garner was with Adams and Styles at the window. When the girls went to the stairs she followed them from the office to the storage space. There is no reason to assume that she did not see them go down the stairs.
When Mrs Garner said that when the girls went to the stairs she followed them from the office to the storage space, she also said that they had already started heading down. She never saw them enter the stairwell.
-
Tim,
The women would only have to cover nearly half the distance than anybody on the 6th floor. The discovery video and the official reconstruction has "Oswald" walking from the sniper's nest in the south east corner towards the north east corner and just before he got there, turning to the left to go towards the stairs in the north west corner.
Adams and Styles were in the middle of the 4th floor, behind one of the center windows. All they had to do is turn around and walk out of the office through the door directly behind them. That would have gotten them in the storage space, where at that time no boxes were stored, making it possible from them to walk in a straight line to the stairwell.
I have Oswald's path marked in orange. There was no door directly behind Adams and Styles.
-
I measured it in Gimp. Adams and Styles would have travelled about 93% of the distance that Oswald would have. So, no, not considerably less.
When Mrs Garner said that when the girls went to the stairs she followed them from the office to the storage space, she also said that they had already started heading down. She never saw them enter the stairwell.
I measured it in Gimp. Adams and Styles would have travelled about 93% of the distance that Oswald would have. So, no, not considerably less.
I think you are overlooking the door between the office and the storage space right behind where the girls were watching through the window. In the drawing you've got them going the long way around.
But regardless, if the girls and the shooter both left their locations directly after the shots, even by your measurements, the girls would still arrive at the stairs before the shooter. And that's not taking in account that Brennan said the shooter did not leave instantly.
When Mrs Garner said that when the girls went to the stairs she followed them from the office to the storage space, she also said that they had already started heading down. She never saw them enter the stairwell.
If she said "they had already started heading down" she knew they were already on the stairs, regardless if she actually saw them or not, right?
-
If Oswald was higher up coming down the stairs there's no way they would've heard him while they were clattering down enclosed wooden steps wearing high heels.
Why is there "no way"? Did he synchronize his footsteps with theirs somehow?
-
I think you are overlooking the door between the office and the storage space right behind where the girls were watching through the window.
Thumb1:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/adams-door.png)
-
I have Oswald's path marked in orange. There was no door directly behind Adams and Styles.
We seem to be writing at the same time. I had not seen your previous post when I wrote the post you've now responded to. In the meantime I had removed my post again.
As for there not being a door directly behind where the girls were, connecting the office and the storage space, you may wish to re-examine the 4th floor plan used by the WC, because that clearly shows the presence of that door.
Thanks to John for posting the floor plan.
-
I measured it in Gimp. Adams and Styles would have travelled about 93% of the distance that Oswald would have. So, no, not considerably less.
I think you are overlooking the door between the office and the storage space right behind where the girls were watching through the window. In the drawing you've got them going the long way around. Also, if the orange line represents the shooter, it should be longer, all the way to the south east corner.
But regardless, if the girls and the shooter both left their locations directly after the shots, even by your measurements, the girls would still arrive at the stairs before the shooter. And that's not taking in account that Brennan said the shooter did not leave instantly.
When Mrs Garner said that when the girls went to the stairs she followed them from the office to the storage space, she also said that they had already started heading down. She never saw them enter the stairwell.
If she said "they had already started heading down" she knew they were already on the stairs, regardless if she actually saw them or not, right?
I had looked at what you are calling a door and ruled it out. In looking again at the diagram of the fourth floor, it looks like it is labeled as a door.
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/adams-door.png)
That's a much clearer image of the fourth floor diagram than I have.
-
That's a much clearer image of the fourth floor diagram than I have.
Do you agree that if the girls used that door, it would reduce the distance to the stairs even further than you had calculated?
-
We seem to be writing at the same time. I had not seen your previous post when I wrote the post you've now responded to. In the meantime I had removed my post again.
As for there not being a door directly behind where the girls were, connecting the office and the storage space, you may wish to re-examine the 4th floor plan used by the WC, because that clearly shows the presence of that door.
Thanks to John for posting the floor plan.
I had been looking at my copy of the fourth floor plan when I was coming up with the path that I thought Adams and Styles took. "Door" is hard to see.
-
Do you agree that if the girls used that door, it would reduce the distance to the stairs even further than you had calculated?
Of course.
-
Of course.
Great. This means the girls could actually already be on the stairs on the 4th floor before the shooter even got to the stairwell on the 6th floor, right?
And if they go down the stairs at the same speed, the girls (with only 3 flights to go) could have arrived on the 1st floor before the shooter (who had 4 flights of stairs to go) could have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom, right?
-
Great. This means the girls could actually already be on the stairs on the 4th floor before the shooter even got to the stairwell on the 6th floor, right?
And if they go down the stairs at the same speed, the girls (with only 3 flights to go) could have arrived on the 1st floor before the shooter (who had 4 flights of stairs to go) could have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom, right?
I suppose that it's possible, yes.
-
Martin,
What time do you have Shelley and Lovelady entering the side-door on the west of the building?
-
I suppose that it's possible, yes.
Great. My next question would be about Shelley and Lovelady.
In Adam's testimony it says that she saw both men as she arrived on the 1st floor, but we know from Shelley's and Lovelady's testimony that both men were at the front of the building, near the main entrance, when the shots were fired. We also know from the same testimony that Lovelady saw Officer Baker running towards the building and entering it with Truly, at an estimated 30 seconds after the shots were fired. Shelley and Lovelady also tell us that they first went to a little traffic island and then down the dead end road running parallel to the TSBD towards the parking lot on the west side of the TSBD where they stayed for a while. They did not re-enter the TSBD until 12.35, just prior to it being sealed off.
All this means that Shelley and Lovelady could physically not have been anywhere near the stairs in the north west corner of the TSBD at around 1 minute after the last shot, right?
We also know that Sandra Styles re-entered the TSBD through the main entrance at the front of the building at roughly 12.35 and that Victoria Adams stayed outside for a short while to talk to co-workers. She then heard a radio broadcast at 12.36 and tried to re-enter the building which by then had been sealed off. She had to talk her way in, went up the stairs to the 2nd floor, walked through the office space towards the freight elevators in the back of the building and went up to the 4th floor with two men she thought were police officers or secret service.
The only location where Shelley & Lovelady and Styles & Adams possibly crossed paths was at or near the parking lot at the end of the dead end street. Shelley and Lovelady said they were there before entering the building at the west side and Adams and Styles passed there when they were making their way to the front entrance.
So, the question is; could it be that Adams was mistaken in her testimony and that she saw Shelley and Lovelady (possibly as the first persons she knew) as their paths crossed at the parking lot?
-
Martin,
What time do you have Shelley and Lovelady entering the side-door on the west of the building?
At 12.35... just prior to the building being sealed off
-
Great. My next question would be about Shelley and Lovelady.
In Adam's testimony it says that she saw both men as she arrived on the 1st floor, but we know from Shelley's and Lovelady's testimony that both men were at the front of the building, near the main entrance, when the shots were fired. We also know from the same testimony that Lovelady saw Officer Baker running towards the building and entering it with Truly, at an estimated 30 seconds after the shots were fired. Shelley and Lovelady also tell us that they first went to a little traffic island and then down the dead end road running parallel to the TSBD towards the parking lot on the west side of the TSBD where they stayed for a while. They did not re-enter the TSBD until 12.35, just prior to it being sealed off.
All this means that Shelley and Lovelady could physically not have been anywhere near the stairs in the north west corner of the TSBD at around 1 minute after the last shot, right?
We also know that Sandra Styles re-entered the TSBD through the main entrance at the front of the building at roughly 12.35 and that Victoria Adams stayed outside for a short while to talk to co-workers. She then heard a radio broadcast at 12.36 and tried to re-enter the building which by then had been sealed off. She had to talk her way in, went up the stairs to the 2nd floor, walked through the office space towards the freight elevators in the back of the building and went up to the 4th floor with two men she thought were police officers or secret service.
The only location where Shelley & Lovelady and Styles & Adams possibly crossed paths was at or near the parking lot at the end of the dead end street. Shelley and Lovelady said they were there before entering the building at the west side and Adams and Styles passed there when they were making their way to the front entrance.
So, the question is; could it be that Adams was mistaken in her testimony and that she saw Shelley and Lovelady (possibly as the first persons she knew) as their paths crossed at the parking lot?
It's possible that Adams was mistaken about seeing Shelley and Lovelady but I doubt that she was. She recalled it on two separate occasions.
-
It's possible that Adams was mistaken about seeing Shelley and Lovelady but I doubt that she was. She recalled it on two separate occasions.
Okay, can you find a way that she possibly could not have been mistaken when we know, from their testimony, that Shelley and Lovelady were outside the building when the shots were fired and did not return to the 1st floor until 12.35, just prior to the building being sealed off.
We also know that Victoria Adams re-entered the building through the main entrance at the front, after hearing a DPD radio message at 12.36. She went up the stairs to the 2nd floor, walked through the office space to the freight elevator at the back of the building and went up to the 4th floor with two police officers.
I take it that you agree that if it is physical impossible for two people to be in eyesight of eachother at a particular time, it is impossible for one of the people to have seen the other, right?
When and where exactly do you propose Adams could have seen Shelley and Lovelady inside the building?
-
Just working on a potential exit strategy for the assassin (assuming it's not Oswald). The assassin has to get from the 6th floor to an exit, presumably on the first floor. The front entrance is not an option. Adams tells us their is a police officer at the Houston Street dock exit. IMO the best option is the side-door on the west of the TSBD, the same door Shelley and Lovelady enter the building.
When Truly and Baker reach the elevators they look up to see them both on the fifth floor. By the time they reach the fifth floor the west elevator is gone. In his affidavit Jack Dougherty states he brings the elevator down from the fifth to the first and then back up again. Assuming it takes the elevator 30 seconds to get from the 5th to the 1st floor and 30 seconds to go back up again Dougherty's trip to the first floor cannot take place before Truly and Baker arrive there. I'm assuming the assassin is with Dougherty, he travels down to the first floor and leaves the building via the shipping room side-door.
The trip to the first floor must take place between Truly and Baker arriving at the elevators initially (40 to 50 seconds after the last shot) and their arrival at the fifth floor. A rough guesstimation for Truly/Baker reaching the 5th floor = 3 to 4 minutes (let's say 3.5 minutes)
Therefore the trip down takes place between 1 and 3.5 minutes after the final shot with the elevator taking 30 seconds to make the trip.
A reasonable estimate for the elevator arriving on the 1st floor would be 3 to 3.5 minutes after the final shot. This would have the assassin arriving at the side-door within seconds of Shelley and Lovelady opening the same door.
This seems to have some interesting possibilities, especially as this may well be the exit taken by the man Roger Craig sees. Still work to do perfecting the various timelines.
-
It's possible that Adams was mistaken about seeing Shelley and Lovelady but I doubt that she was. She recalled it on two separate occasions.
Although I've not read it yet I'm given to understand that in Barry Ernest's "The Girl On The Stairs" Adams categorically denies ever having made this statement and that it is a complete fabrication. She states the brief encounter was with a young African-American man. Sandra Styles denies the encounter with Shelley occurred. In his WC testimony even Shelley doesn't acknowledge it happening and Lovelady's testimony concerning this is a joke. The timelines are only confirming this reality.
-
Although I've not read it yet I'm given to understand that in Barry Ernest's "The Girl On The Stairs" Adams categorically denies ever having made this statement and that it is a complete fabrication. She states the brief encounter was with a young African-American man. Sandra Styles denies the encounter with Shelley occurred. In his WC testimony even Shelley doesn't acknowledge it happening and Lovelady's testimony concerning this is a joke. The timelines are only confirming this reality.
All that is true, but the fact remains that in her WC testimony Adams does say she saw Shelley and Lovelady as she arrived on the 1st floor. Let's stick with that for the moment and see what Tim comes up with.
-
Okay, can you find a way that she possibly could not have been mistaken when we know, from their testimony, that Shelley and Lovelady were outside the building when the shots were fired and did not return to the 1st floor until 12.35, just prior to the building being sealed off.
We also know that Victoria Adams re-entered the building through the main entrance at the front, after hearing a DPD radio message at 12.36. She went up the stairs to the 2nd floor, walked through the office space to the freight elevator at the back of the building and went up to the 4th floor with two police officers.
I take it that you agree that if it is physical impossible for two people to be in eyesight of eachother at a particular time, it is impossible for one of the people to have seen the other, right?
When and where exactly do you propose Adams could have seen Shelley and Lovelady inside the building?
I already agreed that it is possible that she encountered them outside the building. I say possible but it's not plausible because of the particulars that she provided during her testimony.
-
Although I've not read it yet I'm given to understand that in Barry Ernest's "The Girl On The Stairs" Adams categorically denies ever having made this statement and that it is a complete fabrication. She states the brief encounter was with a young African-American man. Sandra Styles denies the encounter with Shelley occurred. In his WC testimony even Shelley doesn't acknowledge it happening and Lovelady's testimony concerning this is a joke. The timelines are only confirming this reality.
Sandra Styles did not rule out the encounter. She just said that she couldn't remember it.
-
Although I've not read it yet I'm given to understand that in Barry Ernest's "The Girl On The Stairs" Adams categorically denies ever having made this statement and that it is a complete fabrication. She states the brief encounter was with a young African-American man. Sandra Styles denies the encounter with Shelley occurred. In his WC testimony even Shelley doesn't acknowledge it happening and Lovelady's testimony concerning this is a joke. The timelines are only confirming this reality.
Who was the woman that Lovelady saw when he came through the first floor?
-
I already agreed that it is possible that she encountered them outside the building. I say possible but it's not plausible because of the particulars that she provided during her testimony.
But what if the particulars she provided during her testimony simply do not match with the known facts? Please remember that her testimony was some 5 + months after the events.
The combined testimony shows that the only possible location where Adams could have crossed paths with Shelley and Lovelady is in or near the parking lot at the west side of the TSBD anywhere between 12.33 and 12.35.
If you feel it's not plausible, there surely must be some other scenario that is more plausible to you, right? I'd would appreciate it if you try to fit that scenario, whatever it is, into the known time line, if you can.
-
In the book Ernest talks to Sandra Styles (married name Butler)
"A few people were milling around on the first floor," she explained. "One was a black man." That was apparently the same man Ms. Adams had mentioned. I casually asked her if William Shelley or Billy Lovelady were there.
"No," she said, emphasizing she would have recognized them since she knew both men well.
"The Girl On The Stairs" pg353
As for Billy Lovelady's WC testimony about Vicki Adams. as I say, it's a joke. Completely unprompted and totally out of context he blurts out her name:
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Read the full testimony. Nobody had mentioned anything about Vicki Adams up to that point, it was the unprovoked answer of a badly coached witness. He even goes on to say Shelley was talking with her, something Shelley had already denied.
It's okay if you don't want to accept the timeline Martin's putting forward. It's not mandatory. But at least it's reasonable.
-
Who was the woman that Lovelady saw when he came through the first floor?
Who knows? But he said he wasn't sure it was Vickie.
The strangest thing about that is that he wasn't even asked about Adams. He was only asked who he saw in the first floor
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.
Seems a strange way to answer a question....
But anyway, as Shelley and Lovelady did not return to the 1st floor of the TSBD until 12.35 it could have been any woman Lovelady saw, but not Vickie Adams, because she wasn't there. She was still outside the main entrance and after entering the building, at or shortly after 12.36, she never went back to the first floor.
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do ?
Miss ADAMS - Following that, I pushed the button for the passenger elevator, but the power had been cut off on the elevator, so I took the stairs to the second floor.
<>
Mr. BELIN - Do those stairs go above floor 2?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir; they didn't.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do when you got to the second floor?
Miss ADAMS - I went into the Texas School Book Depository office and just listened for a few minutes to the people that were congregating there, and decided there wasn't anything interesting going on, and went out and walked around the hall to the freight elevator meaning the one on the northwest corner.
Mr. BELIN - Would it have been the west or the east? The one nearest the stairs or the other one?
Miss ADAMS - Yes; the one nearest the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Miss ADAMS - I went into the elevator which was stopped on the second floor, with two men who were dressed in suit and hats, and I assumed they were plainclothesmen.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Miss ADAMS - I tried to get the elevator to go to the fourth floor, but it wasn't operating, so the gentlemen lifted the elevator gate and we went out and ran up the stairs to the fourth floor.
-
But what if the particulars she provided during her testimony simply do not match with the known facts? Please remember that her testimony was some 5 + months after the events.
The combined testimony shows that the only possible location where Adams could have crossed paths with Shelley and Lovelady is in or near the parking lot at the west side of the TSBD anywhere between 12.33 and 12.35.
If you feel it's not plausible, there surely must be some other scenario that is more plausible to you, right? I'd would appreciate it if you try to fit that scenario, whatever it is, into the known time line, if you can.
Her Testimony wasn't quite four months after the event. But even four months is a long time when it comes to recalling minor deatils that you would have never thought to commit to memory at the time. Adams recalled the position on the first floor where she encountered Lovelady and Shelley. She marked on a floor plan about where it was. What are we to make of that?
-
In the book Ernest talks to Sandra Styles (married name Butler)
"A few people were milling around on the first floor," she explained. "One was a black man." That was apparently the same man Ms. Adams had mentioned. I casually asked her if William Shelley or Billy Lovelady were there.
"No," she said, emphasizing she would have recognized them since she knew both men well.
"The Girl On The Stairs" pg353
As for Billy Lovelady's WC testimony about Vicki Adams. as I say, it's a joke. Completely unprompted and totally out of context he blurts out her name:
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Read the full testimony. Nobody had mentioned anything about Vicki Adams up to that point, it was the unprovoked answer of a badly coached witness. He even goes on to say Shelley was talking with her, something Shelley had already denied.
It's okay if you don't want to accept the timeline Martin's putting forward. It's not mandatory. But at least it's reasonable.
Sandra Styles Butler told Sean Murphy that she may have seen them but she just couldn't recall doing so. I've read Adams' testimony scores of times.
-
Her Testimony wasn't quite four months after the event. But even four months is a long time when it comes to recalling minor deatils that you would have never thought to commit to memory at the time. Adams recalled the position on the first floor where she encountered Lovelady and Shelley. She marked on a floor plan about where it was. What are we to make of that?
What are we to make of that?
As the combined testimony of Adams, Shelley and Lovelady make it impossible for that encounter to have happened, one has to consider the possibility that she remembered incorrectly.
It's the only element that simply doesn't fit in an otherwise pretty solid time line. And not only that, it couldn't possibly fit which ever way to look at it.
As Adams and Styles were coming of the stairs, regardless if that was at 12.31 or 12.34, Shelley and Lovelady where outside the building from the moment the shots were fired until 12.35, one minute before the place was sealed off.
If the encounter had taken place just after 12.35, Adams and Styles wouldn't have been allowed out of the building by police at the back of the TSBD, but more importantly, by the time Shelley and Lovelady did enter the 1st floor, at 12.35, Styles and Adams were at the main entrance of the building.
In my view there are three options;
1. The encounter never happened and Adams remembered something that never took place.
2. The girls crossed paths with Shelley and Lovelady at the parking lot and Adams only parcially remembered
3. The testimony of Adams was tampered with.
If there is a fourth option, please let me know, because I can't think of it....
-
Sandra Styles Butler told Sean Murphy that she may have seen them but she just couldn't recall doing so. I've read Adams' testimony scores of times.
Sandra Styles seems to have flip flopped several times. She told Murphy that they didn't leave the 4th floor straight away, but she told the FBI in 1964 that they left after the last shot.
Sandra Styles is not going to resolve this matter one way or another.
-
What are we to make of that?
As the combined testimony of Adams, Shelley and Lovelady make it impossible for that encounter to have happened, one has to consider the possibility that she remembered incorrectly.
It's the only element that simply doesn't fit in an otherwise pretty solid time line. And not only that, it couldn't possibly fit which ever way to look at it.
As Adams and Styles were coming of the stairs, regardless if that was at 12.31 or 12.34, Shelley and Lovelady where outside the building from the moment the shots were fired until 12.35, one minute before the place was sealed off.
If the encounter had taken place just after 12.35, Adams and Styles wouldn't have been allowed out of the building by police at the back of the TSBD, but more importantly, by the time Shelley and Lovelady did enter the 1st floor, at 12.35, Styles and Adams were at the main entrance of the building.
In my view there are three options;
1. The encounter never happened and Adams remembered something that never took place.
2. The girls crossed paths with Shelley and Lovelady at the parking lot and Adams only parcially remembered
3. The testimony of Adams was tampered with.
If there is a fourth option, please let me know, because I can't think of it....
I rule out option 3 altogether. The fourth option would be that Adams descended later than she recalled.
-
I rule out option 3 altogether. The fourth option would be that Adams descended later than she recalled.
;D ;D or she deliberately lied about it because she knew what chaos it would cause in the future.
-
I rule out option 3 altogether. The fourth option would be that Adams descended later than she recalled.
No surprise there, as far as option 3 is concerned. It is, however, still a viable option to be considered if no other plausible explanation is found.
The fourth option is no option at all, as it can be ruled out completely based on the known information.
The building was sealed of by 12.37, so if Adams and Styles came down the stairs after that time, they wouldn't have been able to leave the building
We know from her testimony that Adams was at the front entrance at 12.36, where she heard a radio call and then entered the building. She took the stairs to the 2nd floor, walked through the office space to the freight elevators in the back of the building and saw two men whom she believed were police men or secret agents. She then took the stairs up to the 4th floor. This means that by 12.36 there were already law enforcement people in the building. Had Styles and Adams descended at 12.36 they would most likely have encountered police men running up the stairs, but they didn't
We also know that Adams and Styles left the building at the back, walked around the loading dock and towards the railroad yard. At some point a policeman told them to return to the building and they did so by walking towards Elm street, passing the TSBD and it's warehouse extension at the west side of the building, and turning left on the dead end parallel road in front of the TSBD and walking toward the main entrance, where they arrived at 12.35, as Styles went immediately into the building, which at that time was not yet sealed off.
I would argue that it would have taken the women, on high heels, at least four minutes to walk the distance around the building and have a conversation with the policeman. Working backwards, this would mean that they must have left the building no later than 12.31 which fits perfectly with the scenario of them leaving the window immediately after the shots, running towards the stairs, going down and just missing Truly and Baker.
And then there is this to consider;
Victoria Adams told the FBI on 11/24/63 that she and Styles went down the stairs immediately after the last shot. She said the same thing again to Jim Leavelle on 02/07/64, again to the FBI on 03/23/64 and she repeated it again in her testimony. Dorothy Garner told Barefoot Sanders that the girls went down before Truly and Baker came up. And Sandra Styles told the FBI on 03/19/64 she and Adams left "at that time" after hearing the shots and seeing people running.
Your 4th option basically requires all these statements to be false.
If you don't think these statements are false, we can rule out option 4 all together, which basically leaves us, to reach agreement, options 1 and 2
1. The encounter never happened and Adams remembered something that never took place.
2. The girls crossed paths with Shelley and Lovelady at the parking lot and Adams only parcially remembered
Right?
-
;D ;D or she deliberately lied about it because she knew what chaos it would cause in the future.
The first time it is mentioned that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady is in the report Jim Leavelle wrote on 02/07/64.
He showed up at Adams' new addres, where she had only just moved in, and told her he needed to interview her again because a previous interview had gone lost.
I don't believe Vickie Adams ever saw the report Leavelle wrote, but it was that document that the WC focused on and which by itself seems to have been enough for them to leave Adams out of the reconstruction in March 1964, prior to taking her testimony.
This, to me, seems a very strange way of doing things, as the purpose of a reconstruction is to determine what actually happened. You can not do that if you start leaving out people before doing the reconstruction!
-
I rule out option 3 altogether.
Why? Other testimony was tampered with.
(https://harveyandlee.net/Merging_2_Lives/Cadigan_Altered.jpg)
-
The first time it is mentioned that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady is in the report Jim Leavelle wrote on 02/07/64.
He showed up at Adams' new addres, where she had only just moved in, and told her he needed to interview her again because a previous interview had gone lost.
And what exactly was Leavelle's motivation for doing this, as there had been no fire at the police station?
-
If there is a fourth option, please let me know, because I can't think of it....
Is there any possibility that she could have seen Lovelady and Shelley still on the first floor when she re-entered the front door at 12:36?
-
Is there any possibility that she could have seen Lovelady and Shelley still on the first floor when she re-entered the front door at 12:36?
No, because, according to her testimony, she never returned to the first floor.
She entered the building, and took the stairs in the south east corner. They only went to the 2nd floor, so she walked through the office space to the freight elevators in the back. When she got there she saw two men whom she believed to be law enforcement officers. They all went on the elevator, but it wouldn't work. So, Adams came off the elevator and took the stairs in the north west corner to the 4th floor.
In theory it could be that, instant of going up straight away, she first went down the stairs to the 1st floor, maybe to get to the other elevator, and then went back up the stairs again to the 4th floor, but if she did, there is no mention of it anywhere. It could however, at least in theory, explain the sighting of Shelley and Lovelady
-
No, because, according to her testimony, she never returned to the first floor.
She entered the building, and took the stairs in the south east corner.
Well, she would have briefly been on the first floor in order to take the stairs up to the second floor.
-
Well, she would have briefly been on the first floor in order to take the stairs up to the second floor.
Well, if you put it that way, yes she was on the first floor for perhaps a couple of seconds before she took the stairs to the 2nd floor.
But let me be more precise; there is nothing in her testimony that suggests she ever went beyond the boundry of the hallway behind the main entrance or returned to the shipping area on the first floor.
I seriously doubt that she could have seen Shelley and Lovelady from the hallway, if that's where you were going with this. The stairs to the 2nd floor are against the east wall of the building, which means that she would have to make a right turn as soon as she walked into the hallway. There would be no need for her to walk all the way to the counter that separated the hallway from the shipping warehouse.
-
What I'm getting at is could see have seen them in the shipping area when coming in through the main entrance?
-
What I'm getting at is could see have seen them in the shipping area when coming in through the main entrance?
Yes, that idea crossed my mind after I had written my previous post. I have now changed it and it contains the answer to your question
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/first-floor-entrance.png)
The second set of doors is a short counter. Not sure about the first set of doors.
-
I think the set of doors near where the number 10 is are in fact complete doors, separating the shipping area from the main entrance.
There is one thing that has been bothering me. Shelley and Lovelady are supposed to have re-entered the building on the west side, but all the doors on the western side of the building actually go to the basement. For them to get to the 1st floor they would have to climb the stairs in the north west corner or those seen in the floorplan west of the main entrance.
So, maybe there is something after all to the possibility saw both men, coming up those stairs, as she re-entered the building through the main entrance. There is, however, no evidence for it.
-
Are you sure about that? I see 2 overhead door openings on the first floor layout on the west side.
-
In the fabricated portion of Adams' WC testimony concerning Shelley and Lovelady we read this:
Mr. BELIN - Now what did you do after you encountered Mr. Shelley and Mr. Lovelady?
Miss ADAMS - I said I believed the President was shot.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what they said?
Miss ADAMS - Nothing.
Adams didn't just see Shelley and Lovelady on the 1st floor, she interacted with them, spoke to them. It must be obvious to you that she couldn't have done that from the main entrance.
-
Are you sure about that? I see 2 overhead door openings on the first floor layout on the west side.
Yes, but they open up to a loading dock at the west side of the building, as can be seen on this photo Dan posted earlier
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTbhPFxZ/Oswald-escape-rambler.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/CzkBnGqs)
If you look where the yellow line ("Oswald's pressumed escape route) starts, there is a door providing access to the basement area under the loading dock. I think there are more doors like that going north, but I am not sure. In any case, for Shelley and Lovelady to have entered through a door at the west side, they either would have had to take the door to the basement or climb on top of the loading platform and enter the first floor directly.
Am I sure? No, but it seems more logical to me they would go through the basement door and climb the stairs up to the first floor....
-
In the fabricated portion of Adams' WC testimony concerning Shelley and Lovelady we read this:
Mr. BELIN - Now what did you do after you encountered Mr. Shelley and Mr. Lovelady?
Miss ADAMS - I said I believed the President was shot.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what they said?
Miss ADAMS - Nothing.
Adams didn't just see Shelley and Lovelady on the 1st floor, she interacted with them, spoke to them. It must be obvious to you that she couldn't have done that from the main entrance.
If this is what really happened, rather than simply misremembered.
She couldn't have spoken to the men from the main entrance, that's true, but she could have spoken to them as their paths crossed near the parking lot at the end of the dead end street
-
Adams and Ernest talking about her WC testimony:
I asked if she remembered seeing the Shelley/Lovelady
incident in the copy of testimony she was given to correct.
"I don't recall seeing that section at all," she answered. "If it
had been in there, and since I didn't see them, i would have
edited it out.
The Girl On The Stairs (pg 349)
She doesn't pass Shelley and Lovelady outside. If she did she would be walking back to the TSBD, not running out the door.
-
If you count windows, you'll see that the triangular area west of the building is on the same level as the first floor.
-
If you count windows, you'll see that the triangular area west of the building is on the same level as the first floor.
You are correct. I thought I was looking at the loading dock (which would have been at the same level as the dock behind the building on the north side) but at second look it may well be the roof of the extension of the first floor.
-
Adams and Ernest talking about her WC testimony:
I asked if she remembered seeing the Shelley/Lovelady
incident in the copy of testimony she was given to correct.
"I don't recall seeing that section at all," she answered. "If it
had been in there, and since I didn't see them, i would have
edited it out.
The Girl On The Stairs (pg 349)
She doesn't pass Shelley and Lovelady outside. If she did she would be walking back to the TSBD, not running out the door.
She doesn't pass Shelley and Lovelady outside. If she did she would be walking back to the TSBD, not running out the door.
I am not sure what you are saying here. If you look at the photo you posted, you see a dead end road running parallel to the front of the TSBD. That's the road Shelley and Lovelady used to walk towards the parking lot. I estimate they got there about 3 minutes after the shots and they waited there for a while.
Adams and Styles came from behind the building and, probably somewhere near the boxcar, they were told by a police man to return to the building.
They then walked along the track towards the same parking lot entrance. According to the timeline they would have been there about 4 minutes after the shots.
This is the only place where they came in the vicinity of eachother during the period 12.30 to 12.36. I am not saying with any kind of certainty it happened, but this may well be the best location to explain the encounter that Adams misremembered as having taken place inside the building.
-
You are correct. I though I was looking at the loading dock (which would have been at the same level as the dock behind the building on the north side) but at second look it may well be the roof of the extension of the first floor.
Thumb1:
That's what it looks like to me.
-
She doesn't pass Shelley and Lovelady outside. If she did she would be walking back to the TSBD, not running out the door.
I am not sure what you are saying here. If you look at the photo you posted, you see a dead end road running parallel to the front of the TSBD. That's the road Shelley and Lovelady used to walk towards the parking lot. I estimate they got there about 3 minutes after the shots and they waited there for a while.
Adams and Styles came from behind the building and, probably somewhere near the boxcar, they were told by a police man to return to the building.
They then walked along the track towards the same parking lot entrance. According to the timeline they would have been there about 4 minutes after the shots.
This is the only place where they came in the vicinity of eachother during the period 12.30 to 12.36. I am not saying with any kind of certainty it happened, but this may well be the best location to explain the encounter that Adams misremembered as having taken place inside the building.
Adams and Styles reached the west corner of the TSBD before Shelley and Lovelady got there. As you point out, their paths would surely have crossed if Shelley/Lovelady got there first but none of them - Shelley, Lovelady, Adams or Styles - record such an encounter. The encounter between Adams and Shelley/Lovelady is a complete fabrication, it doesn't need to be considered, it doesn't need to be explained as a displaced memory by Adams. Both Adams and Styles categorically deny the Shelley/Lovelady encounter on the first floor. Shelley doesn't even acknowledge it. But if they had bumped into each other at the west corner someone would have mentioned it.
I think the best explanation is that Shelley/Lovelady spent 3 to 4 minutes outside the TSBD (as they claim in their testimonies) and then began to make their way down the dead-end street towards the railroad yard. Adams/Styles round the corner about 12:34, Shelley/Lovelady arrive shortly after.
-
Adams and Styles reached the west corner of the TSBD before Shelley and Lovelady got there. As you point out, their paths would surely have crossed if Shelley/Lovelady got there first but none of them - Shelley, Lovelady, Adams or Styles - record such an encounter. The encounter between Adams and Shelley/Lovelady is a complete fabrication, it doesn't need to be considered, it doesn't need to be explained as a displaced memory by Adams. Both Adams and Styles categorically deny the Shelley/Lovelady encounter on the first floor. Shelley doesn't even acknowledge it. But if they had bumped into each other at the west corner someone would have mentioned it.
I think the best explanation is that Shelley/Lovelady spent 3 to 4 minutes outside the TSBD (as they claim in their testimonies) and then began to make their way down the dead-end street towards the railroad yard. Adams/Styles round the corner about 12:34, Shelley/Lovelady arrive shortly after.
Adams and Styles reached the west corner of the TSBD before Shelley and Lovelady got there. As you point out, their paths would surely have crossed if Shelley/Lovelady got there first but none of them - Shelley, Lovelady, Adams or Styles - record such an encounter. The encounter between Adams and Shelley/Lovelady is a complete fabrication, it doesn't need to be considered, it doesn't need to be explained as a displaced memory by Adams.
Well, one thing is for sure. The encounter doesn't fit in any kind of scenario. It could indeed be a fabrication but in order to reach that conclusion with any kind of legal certainty, it is in fact necessary to rule out all the other options.
Both Adams and Styles categorically deny the Shelley/Lovelady encounter on the first floor. Shelley doesn't even acknowledge it. But if they had bumped into each other at the west corner someone would have mentioned it.
That's not completely true. Yes, it is true that Adams claimed the encounter never took place to Barry Ernest, but that happened 35 years after the fact. In her WC testimony she said it did happen. As for Styles, she never said anything more than that she did not remember. And Shelley said in his testimony he only saw Eddie Piper.
What I find interesting is what possible probative value there was for the WC to actually ask Shelley if he, out of all the TSBD employees, had seen Victoria Adams. If they had asked him if he had seen Oswald, that would have been a valid question, the answer to which could contribute to a finding of fact pertinent to the case. But an encounter between Shelley and Adams would be of no significance to the actual case..... unless of course, they were looking for a way to discredit her as a witness.
But if they had bumped into each other at the west corner someone would have mentioned it.
Yes, I agree
I think the best explanation is that Shelley/Lovelady spent 3 to 4 minutes outside the TSBD (as they claim in their testimonies) and then began to make their way down the dead-end street towards the railroad yard. Adams/Styles round the corner about 12:34, Shelley/Lovelady arrive shortly after.
If that were the case, they would have passed eachother on the dead end street, somewhere in front of the TSBD.
-
"If that were the case, they would have passed each other on the dead end street, somewhere in front of the TSBD."
Not necessarily, in his WC testimony Shelley makes it clear he is stood on the "little, old island" then begins to walk towards the railroad track in the middle of the street:
Mr. BALL - You went to the concrete between the two Elm Streets?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, where they split.
Mr. BALL - You went out there and then what did you do?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, officers started running down to the railroad yards and Billy and I walked down that way.
Mr. BALL - How did you get down that way; what course did you take?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked down the middle of the little street.
Mr. BALL - The dead-end street?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Adams and Styles would have been on the pavement/sidewalk, Shelley and Lovelady in the middle of the street and the Couch film makes it clear there would have been a row of cars between them.
-
"If that were the case, they would have passed each other on the dead end street, somewhere in front of the TSBD."
Not necessarily, in his WC testimony Shelley makes it clear he is stood on the "little, old island" then begins to walk towards the railroad track in the middle of the street:
Mr. BALL - You went to the concrete between the two Elm Streets?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, where they split.
Mr. BALL - You went out there and then what did you do?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, officers started running down to the railroad yards and Billy and I walked down that way.
Mr. BALL - How did you get down that way; what course did you take?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked down the middle of the little street.
Mr. BALL - The dead-end street?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Adams and Styles would have been on the pavement/sidewalk, Shelley and Lovelady in the middle of the street and the Couch film makes it clear there would have been a row of cars between them.
Are you really saying that the cars parked inbetween the sidewalk and the middle of the road obscured vision in such a way that you could not see who was walking on the other side of the car?
-
I think the best explanation is that Shelley/Lovelady spent 3 to 4 minutes outside the TSBD (as they claim in their testimonies) and then began to make their way down the dead-end street towards the railroad yard.
Mr Shelley's 11/22 affidavit states he ran out towards the 'island' and bumped into Ms Calvery. Not an encounter he would have been likely to misremember---------just a few months before he had been best man at her wedding! His WC testimony constitutes a blatant change of story.
It seems v. likely that Mr Lovelady remained on the steps that Mr Shelley had just left. (A little while later that day, Mr Lovelady would tell Mr James Jarman that he saw Mr Oswald confronted by a police officer at the front door-----and cleared by Mr Roy Truly. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz about this same front-of-house incident.)
Now! Compare Mr Lovelady in Wiegman with Mr Yellow-Arrow in Darnell-----------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/QG1CULC.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/4amm7qi.jpg)
Looks a heck of a lot like the same guy, no?
Thumb1:
-
Mr Shelley's 11/22 affidavit states he ran out towards the 'island' and bumped into Ms Calvery. Not an encounter he would have been likely to misremember---------just a few months before he had been best man at her wedding! His WC testimony constitutes a blatant change of story.
It seems v. likely that Mr Lovelady remained on the steps that Mr Shelley had just left. (A little while later that day, Mr Lovelady would tell Mr James Jarman that he saw Mr Oswald confronted by a police officer at the front door-----and cleared by Mr Roy Truly. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz about this same front-of-house incident.)
Now! Compare Mr Lovelady in Wiegman with Mr Yellow-Arrow in Darnell-----------------------
Looks a heck of a lot like the same guy, no?
Thumb1:
A little while later that day, Mr Lovelady would tell Mr James Jarman that he saw Mr Oswald confronted by a police officer at the front door-----and cleared by Mr Roy Truly.
Mr Ford, is there any evidence for this and if so, where can I find it?
-
Are you really saying that the cars parked inbetween the sidewalk and the middle of the road obscured vision in such a way that you could not see who was walking on the other side of the car?
Please show me where I've written that.
A more reasonable interpretation of what I wrote would be as follows (remembering this is a purely speculative point) - if Adams/Styles are on the pavement/sidewalk moving towards the TSBD front entrance and Shelley/Lovelady are on the same pavement/sidewalk moving towards the railroad yard it would be inconceivable that they would not have some type of interaction. If, as seems to be the case, they were walking down the same street but, more or less, on opposite sides, with cars in between them, the chances of them not noticing each other rise dramatically - there's lots of people running round, they might be deeply engaged in conversation etc.
I am not saying and did not say they would be obscured from each other by a row of cars. That it a really strange interpretation of the point I was making (as far as I'm concerned)
-
Mr Shelley's 11/22 affidavit states he ran out towards the 'island' and bumped into Ms Calvery. Not an encounter he would have been likely to misremember---------just a few months before he had been best man at her wedding! His WC testimony constitutes a blatant change of story.
It seems v. likely that Mr Lovelady remained on the steps that Mr Shelley had just left. (A little while later that day, Mr Lovelady would tell Mr James Jarman that he saw Mr Oswald confronted by a police officer at the front door-----and cleared by Mr Roy Truly. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz about this same front-of-house incident.)
Now! Compare Mr Lovelady in Wiegman with Mr Yellow-Arrow in Darnell-----------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/QG1CULC.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/4amm7qi.jpg)
Love this graphic. A while back in this thread (# 728) I posted a Gif of this moment I got from the work of Sandy Larsen and Tommy Graves who make a compelling case for this showing the moment Gloria Calvery tells Billy Lovlady about the assassination, something I agree with and have argued for myself. This graphic really lends weight to the argument, it is very difficult to escape the similarity between the two 'Lovelady's' in the two images. It also lends weight to the identification of Bill Shelley stood at bottom of the steps.
Some people want to believe yellow arrow man is Joe Molina but he is absolutely adamant in his WC testimony that he doesn't move from the top step and has the glass door immediately behind him.
Once again - great graphic Thumb1:
Looks a heck of a lot like the same guy, no?
Thumb1:
-
Love this graphic. A while back in this thread (# 728) I posted a Gif of this moment I got from the work of Sandy Larsen and Tommy Graves who make a compelling case for this showing the moment Gloria Calvery tells Billy Lovlady about the assassination, something I agree with and have argued for myself. This graphic really lends weight to the argument, it is very difficult to escape the similarity between the two 'Lovelady's' in the two images. It also lends weight to the identification of Bill Shelley stood at bottom of the steps.
Some people want to believe yellow arrow man is Joe Molina but he is absolutely adamant in his WC testimony that he doesn't move from the top step and has the glass door immediately behind him.
Once again - great graphic Thumb1:
Thank you, Mr O'Meara! Thumb1:
Are you suggesting this guy is Mr Shelley?---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/J6ksfLY.jpg)
Way too large, surely!
Mr Shelley appears not to have remained on the steps. Either he really did run into Ms Calvery at the corner of the park (as per his 11/22 affidavit), or his affidavit statement uses her (a personal friend) as cover to hide the fact that he immediately after the shooting went back in the building. Let's not forget what Officer Baker let slip to the WC: that he saw two white men on the first floor when he was crossing it with Mr Truly. ???
-
A little while later that day, Mr Lovelady would tell Mr James Jarman that he saw Mr Oswald confronted by a police officer at the front door-----and cleared by Mr Roy Truly.
Mr Ford, is there any evidence for this and if so, where can I find it?
Mr Weidmann, this information was given to the HSCA by Mr Jarman on 25 Sep 1977
-
Mr Weidmann, this information was given to the HSCA by Mr Jarman on 25 Sep 1977
Thanks. I've been trying to locate Jarman's HSCA testimony, but so far to no avail. I did however find an opinion article where it said Jarman told this to a HSCA investigator. Could that be correct?
-
Jarman HSCA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ehe1U2NRMt4Usp5qkf8WedLSxoohL7m/view
-
Jarman HSCA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ehe1U2NRMt4Usp5qkf8WedLSxoohL7m/view
Thumb1:
It seems v. likely that Mr Lovelady remained on the steps that Mr Shelley had just left. (A little while later that day, Mr Lovelady would tell Mr James Jarman that he saw Mr Oswald confronted by a police officer at the front door-----and cleared by Mr Roy Truly. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz about this same front-of-house incident.)
I have now read the Jarman HSCA testimony as well as all sorts of other information on the subject of Shelley and Lovelady I came across while searching with google. I must say that if what Jarman said is true, it's a complete game changer. If Oswald indeed exited the building when Truly and Baker were still on the steps of the entrance, it means that Oswald must have left the building in less than 30 seconds after the shots, making it physically impossible for him to be the shooter on the 6th floor and reducing the lunchroom encounter between Baker and Oswald to the realm of fiction.
-
Thank you, Mr O'Meara! Thumb1:
Are you suggesting this guy is Mr Shelley?---------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/J6ksfLY.jpg)
Way too large, surely!
Mr Shelley appears not to have remained on the steps. Either he really did run into Ms Calvery at the corner of the park (as per his 11/22 affidavit), or his affidavit statement uses her (a personal friend) as cover to hide the fact that he immediately after the shooting went back in the building. Let's not forget what Officer Baker let slip to the WC: that he saw two white men on the first floor when he was crossing it with Mr Truly. ???
Shelley wears an over-size, baggy black suit. You can get an idea of it if you go through individual frames of this video - - in the first image you posted he looks a lot skinnier than he does in the second. For the work done by Sandy Larsen and Tommy Graves on identifying this as the moment Gloria Calvery tells Lovelady about the assassination go to this site - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25790-the-identification-of-gloria-calvery-in-zapruder-and-darnell/
-
Please show me where I've written that.
A more reasonable interpretation of what I wrote would be as follows (remembering this is a purely speculative point) - if Adams/Styles are on the pavement/sidewalk moving towards the TSBD front entrance and Shelley/Lovelady are on the same pavement/sidewalk moving towards the railroad yard it would be inconceivable that they would not have some type of interaction. If, as seems to be the case, they were walking down the same street but, more or less, on opposite sides, with cars in between them, the chances of them not noticing each other rise dramatically - there's lots of people running round, they might be deeply engaged in conversation etc.
I am not saying and did not say they would be obscured from each other by a row of cars. That it a really strange interpretation of the point I was making (as far as I'm concerned)
Dan, I merely asked for clarification of what you were saying.
-
Thumb1:
I have now read the Jarman HSCA testimony as well as all sorts of other information on the subject of Shelley and Lovelady I came across while searching with google. I must say that if what Jarman said is true, it's a complete game changer. If Oswald indeed exited the building when Truly and Baker were still on the steps of the entrance, it means that Oswald must have left the building in less than 30 seconds after the shots, making it physically impossible for him to be the shooter on the 6th floor and reducing the lunchroom encounter between Baker and Oswald to the realm of fiction.
But we now know that Mr Oswald claimed to have gone "outside to watch the P. parade". Along with an increasing number of people, I believe that's precisely what he did.
If so, then it would seem that Mr Lovelady----------
a) didn't notice Mr Oswald standing near him at the time of the shooting (--->he would tell the HSCA that Mr Oswald could have been there without his having noticed him)
b) just after the shooting, did notice Officer Baker and Mr Truly running past him and up the steps
c) turning around in response to this and looking back up the steps, did see (i) Officer Baker appearing to confront Mr Oswald who (being at the front door) appeared to be only now exiting... (ii) Mr Truly appearing to 'clear' Mr Oswald with the officer
d) misconstrued the encounter between Mr Oswald and the officer as Mr Oswald being stopped on his way out of the building.
In reality, Officer Baker was just asking Mr Oswald did he work here (-------> could he tell him where the nearest stairs were).
Remember! The DPD were happily telling the press on 11/22 that Mr Oswald was 'stopped' at the front door---------just as police were rushing in. Only when it was established (later that evening) that Officer Baker had entered the building barely half a minute after the last shot, the lunchroom hoax was created in order to destroy Mr Oswald's rock-solid alibi.
Thumb1:
-
Shelley wears an over-size, baggy black suit. You can get an idea of it if you go through individual frames of this video - - in the first image you posted he looks a lot skinnier than he does in the second. For the work done by Sandy Larsen and Tommy Graves on identifying this as the moment Gloria Calvery tells Lovelady about the assassination go to this site - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25790-the-identification-of-gloria-calvery-in-zapruder-and-darnell/
I'm well aware of what Mr Shelley looked like in that suit, and there's no way this guy is him---------------
(https://i.imgur.com/doEj2S0.gif)
-
But we now know that Mr Oswald claimed to have gone "outside to watch the P. parade". Along with an increasing number of people, I believe that's precisely what he did.
If so, then it would seem that Mr Lovelady----------
a) didn't notice Mr Oswald standing near him at the time of the shooting (--->he would tell the HSCA that Mr Oswald could have been there without his having noticed him)
b) just after the shooting, did notice Officer Baker and Mr Truly running past him and up the steps
c) turning around in response to this and looking back up the steps, did see (i) Officer Baker appearing to confront Mr Oswald who (being at the front door) appeared to be only now exiting... (ii) Mr Truly appearing to 'clear' Mr Oswald with the officer
d) misconstrued the encounter between Mr Oswald and the officer as Mr Oswald being stopped on his way out of the building.
In reality, Officer Baker was just asking Mr Oswald did he work here (-------> could he tell him where the nearest stairs were).
Remember! The DPD were happily telling the press on 11/22 that Mr Oswald was 'stopped' at the front door---------just as police were rushing in. Only when it was established (later that evening) that Officer Baker had entered the building barely half a minute after the last shot, the lunchroom hoax was created in order to destroy Mr Oswald's rock-solid alibi.
Thumb1:
If you are right, why do you think Truly went along with the lunchroom hoax? He already mentioned the encounter in his first affidavit.
-
If you are right, why do you think Truly went along with the lunchroom hoax? He already mentioned the encounter in his first affidavit.
Presumably he was pressured into the lie by the 'investigating' authorities. Given that he appears to have cleared a non-employee whom Officer Baker had caught walking away from the stairway at least one floor above the second floor (see Baker's 11/22 affidavit), one can only imagine that he was only too happy to play ball!
-
Presumably he was pressured into the lie by the 'investigating' authorities. Given that he appears to have cleared a non-employee whom Officer Baker had caught walking away from the stairway at least one floor above the second floor (see Baker's 11/22 affidavit), one can only imagine that he was only too happy to play ball!
And implicate an employee in a murder Truly knew - in your scenario - he couldn't have committed?
And what about all the other people on the stairs who also must have seen Baker running towards the building and interacting with Oswald and Truly? How could Truly be sure they all would keep their mouths shut or tell the same story as he?
-
And implicate an employee in a murder Truly knew - in your scenario - he couldn't have committed?
Better than have it come out that he had cleared a non-employee caught walking away from the rear stairway! Besides, I wouldn't assume that Mr Truly was whiter-than-white going into 11/22.
And what about all the other people on the stairs who also must have seen Baker running towards the building and interacting with Oswald and Truly? How could Truly be sure they all would keep their mouths shut or tell the same story as he?
He couldn't. Nor could the 'investigators'. But pressure could be applied (and it was, and it worked). The one thing Mr Truly could be sure of was that his goose was cooked if the world got wind that he had cleared that non-employee. So-------------least worst option. He must have breathed a sigh of relief when Mr Oswald was murdered on the Sunday...
-
Better than have it come out that he had cleared a non-employee caught walking away from the rear stairway! Besides, I wouldn't assume that Mr Truly was whiter-than-white going into 11/22.
He couldn't. Nor could the 'investigators'. But pressure could be applied (and it was, and it worked). The one thing Mr Truly could be sure of was that his goose was cooked if the world got wind that he had cleared that non-employee. So-------------least worst option. He must have breathed a sigh of relief when Mr Oswald was murdered on the Sunday...
I'm having major difficulties wrapping my head around this "scenario" as the implications are staggering. My main concern is that this entire theory is derived from a comment made by Jarman to the HSCA about what Lovelady is supposed to have told him some 15 years earlier. It is easy to start with a conclusion based on such a shaky comment and look for "evidence" and assumptions that go along with it, but that would be a false narrative. We know how this works, as we've seen the WC do it time after time.
I can not get passed the possibility that Jarman simply misremembered what Lovelady told him, if indeed Lovelady told him anything to begin with. Let's not ignore the fact that this is just one version of what could have happened. You've got Roger Craig saying he saw a man looking like Oswald running down the grassy hill and towards a Rambler at around 12.40. Then we have Frazier who is on record saying that, about 10 minutes after the shots, he saw Oswald walking down Houston towards the junction with Elm Street and disappear in the crowd. And then of course there is the official version of Oswald leaving the building within 3 minutes after the shots. They all can't be true!
It is my belief that the best lie is one that stays as close to the truth as possible, and involves the smallest number of people possible, preferably on a need to know basis, and that's not what I am seeing here. The consequences and implications of what Jarman told the HSCA are massive as it opens the door to speculation about a massive conspiracy, which I honestly do not believe ever existed.
Even if somebody like Truly was coerced, he would still, by playing along, become an accessory after the fact to the murder of a President and the framing of a man he must have known was innocent. The same goes for Shelley and Lovelady, to name but a few. It seems inconceivable to me that all these people would be able to carry such a heavy burden for the rest of their lives and not say anything to anybody.
Do you have any information/evidence to support you opinion about Truly and what he is supposed to have done as well as his motivation for doing it?
-
I'm having major difficulties wrapping my head around this "scenario" as the implications are staggering. My main concern is that this entire theory is derived from a comment made by Jarman to the HSCA about what Lovelady is supposed to have told him some 15 years earlier.
Happy to allay your concern, Mr Weidmann: the 'entire theory' is most certainly not 'derived from a comment made by Jarman to the HSCA.' That's only one clue among many as to what really happened.
Now! Let's get one thing clear. The idea that Mr Oswald went out front to watch the motorcade is not our theory, it is his own claim:
(https://i.imgur.com/cWBHXoT.jpg)
Kindly note: Captain Fritz, Agents Bookhout & Hosty, et al suppressed this claim (it only came to light last year!). Now why do you think they might have wanted to lie about what Mr Oswald told them as to his whereabouts at the time of the assassination?
The idea that Mr Oswald had an encounter with an officer at the front entrance just after the assassination is not our theory, it is both Mr Oswald's own claim (as recalled by Postal Inspector Holmes) and the information first given to the press on 11/22/63 by the DPD.
This case now comes down to two rival claims:
1. Mr Oswald's (I went outside to watch the P. parade)
2. The official "investigators'" (He shot JFK from the sixth floor)
Claim #2 has had 57 years to vindicate itself, and the results have been v. poor, to say the least.
Claim #1 is in the rudest of rude health. It constitutes not just the only serious counter-claim to the official theory-------------it's looking more and more like the only serious claim, period.
All we're doing here is merely reestablishing the basic facts that were already known to Captain Fritz & Co. by the early afternoon of 11/22/63!
Thumb1:
-
Now! Let's get one thing clear. The idea that Mr Oswald went out front to watch the motorcade is not our theory, it is his own claim:
This is not Oswald's claim. It's Fritz's claim. These are not Oswald's notes or a statement signed by him. As such they can't be used to support any kind of claim.
-
Ok, then the stuff Fritz claimed Oswald said about carrying a pistol, or denying the curtain rod story can be discarded too.
-
This is not Oswald's claim. It's Fritz's claim.
Incorrect, Mr O'Meara!
-
Incorrect, Mr O'Meara!
Dear Alan,
Have you recently found a tape recording of the interrogation session at issue?
-- MWT ;)
-
Incorrect, Mr O'Meara!
Well that settles that ???
-
When considering the potential escape route of the assassin (assuming its not Oswald) I keep getting drawn back to the fifth floor magical, mystery missing elevator. When Truly and Baker reach the elevators and look up they see both elevators up around the fifth floor but by the time they get up to the fifth floor (3 minutes later?) the west elevator is gone. What happened to it?
Jack Dougherty testifies that after he heard the shots whilst on the fifth floor he takes the elevator down to the first floor for his, slightly bizarre, encounter with Eddie Piper. He takes the elevator all the way down to the first floor, walks the entire length of the building to ask Piper if he heard anything. When Piper confirms he heard the shots Dougherty turns around and takes the elevator up to the sixth floor. Piper doesn't mention this encounter in his WC testimony even though he is specifically asked "And the first people that you saw on the floor after the shooting was who?" The slightly odd thing is that no-one noticed the elevator being used - not Truly and Baker on their way up or Dorothy Garner on the fourth floor.
By the time Truly and Baker have finished on the roof and are on their way down Truly sees Dougherty on the fifth floor. Could the assassin simply have taken the elevator down to the first floor and left by either the Houston Street dock exit or the door on the west side of the building.
-
He takes the elevator all the way down to the first floor, walks the entire length of the building to ask Piper if he heard anything.
Why do you think Piper was an entire length of the building away from the elevators?
-
As I understand it Piper was at the windows at the front of the building. In his affidavit the day after the assassination he states:
"I went to the front window on the first floor and ate my lunch and waited to see the President's parade go by. I saw the President pass and heard some shots..."
With the elevators being on the far north wall and the front windows on the far south Dougherty walks the complete length of the building (assuming Piper was still in the same area shortly after the shots).
I just find it really strange Dougherty would think to go all the way down and across to see Piper, who told him he heard shots and then go back up to the sixth floor, especially when he states in his WC testimony that he heard the noise when he was on the fifth floor and thought it came from above. He went up to the sixth knowing there had been shots coming from that area. Doesn't smell right.
-
Mr. BALL. And were you sitting there when you heard the shot?
Mr. PIPER. That’s right.
Mr. BALL. Tell me what you heard?
Mr. PIPER. I heard one shot, and then the next shot went off-the one that shot him and I got on up and went on back, back where they make coffee at the end of the counter where I could see what happened and before I could get there, the third shot went off, and I seen the people all running and in a few minutes someone came in the building, and I looked up and it was the bossman and a policeman or someone.
Mr. BALL. You say you heard one shot-you heard two shots and you got up and then what happened, where did you go?
Mr. PIPER. I came out to the end of the counter where they make coffee there by the stand.
I'm not totally sure though where this counter was where they make coffee.
-
Mr. BALL. And were you sitting there when you heard the shot?
Mr. PIPER. That’s right.
Mr. BALL. Tell me what you heard?
Mr. PIPER. I heard one shot, and then the next shot went off-the one that shot him and I got on up and went on back, back where they make coffee at the end of the counter where I could see what happened and before I could get there, the third shot went off, and I seen the people all running and in a few minutes someone came in the building, and I looked up and it was the bossman and a policeman or someone.
Mr. BALL. You say you heard one shot-you heard two shots and you got up and then what happened, where did you go?
Mr. PIPER. I came out to the end of the counter where they make coffee there by the stand.
I'm not totally sure though where this counter was where they make coffee.
It was the northern end of one of the long benches where Troy West worked/slept. Not that far from the elevators and clock.
-
It was the northern end of one of the long benches where Troy West worked/slept. Not that far from the elevators and clock.
Where was the clock in the TSBD?
-
Where was the clock in the TSBD?
It was on the pillar outside Shelley's office, facing the packing tables. Whoops, that was the phone. the clock was on the wall outside the small store room.
(https://i.ibb.co/r43HH23/28-C102-F5-7-F6-F-4-F2-F-8587-75-E8-C1-BCED85.jpg)
-
It was on the pillar outside Shelley's office, facing the packing tables. Whoops, that was the phone. the clock was on the wall outside the small store room.
So facing west?
-
It was the northern end of one of the long benches where Troy West worked/slept. Not that far from the elevators and clock.
"Slept"?
West had a consistent routine of arriving to work 5 to 10 minutes early and thus was easy to work around.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what time you got to work that particular morning?
Mr. WEST - It was about 10 minutes to 8. I always be 5 or 10 minutes early.
And in addition at lunchtime on the 22nd West left the area and went in (to presumably the washroom) and washed his hands and face, and again if this was his daily routine this was also easily worked around.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I went in and washed my hands and face and then got ready to put my coffee on.
And as for the clock, Piper on the 22nd recalls.
I saw the President pass and heard some shots and looked at the clock there and saw it was 12:55PM.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/piper3.htm
JohnM
-
So facing west?
Sorry Gerry, see my updated post and pic.....I was going from memory (stupidly). Yes facing west.
-
Sorry Gerry, see my updated post and pic.....I was going from memory (stupidly). Yes facing west.
I don't think this storage room can be the storage room in between Shelleys office and the domino room because this room looks like it is in a corner on the photo. It does have heavy locking mechanisms on it though. Could this room be in the basement?
Unless Shelley could access the storage room from inside his office? Such a doorway doesn't appear on any floor plan that i know of though.
(https://i.ibb.co/qYWZFwy/Storage-room.png)
-
I don't think this storage room can be the storage room in between Shelleys office and the domino room because this room looks like it is in a corner on the photo. It does have heavy locking mechanisms on it though. Could this room be in the basement?
Unless Shelley could access the storage room from inside his office? Such a doorway doesn't appear on any floor plan that i know of though.
(https://i.ibb.co/qYWZFwy/Storage-room.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/r6TrCTG/F2-DFC926-44-B7-4170-A9-E0-28-E59-CBE1-C13.jpg)
See number 13. I agree it does look some what strange given the floor plan
-
When considering the potential escape route of the assassin (assuming its not Oswald) I keep getting drawn back to the fifth floor magical, mystery missing elevator. When Truly and Baker reach the elevators and look up they see both elevators up around the fifth floor but by the time they get up to the fifth floor (3 minutes later?) the west elevator is gone. What happened to it?
Jack Dougherty testifies that after he heard the shots whilst on the fifth floor he takes the elevator down to the first floor for his, slightly bizarre, encounter with Eddie Piper. He takes the elevator all the way down to the first floor, walks the entire length of the building to ask Piper if he heard anything. When Piper confirms he heard the shots Dougherty turns around and takes the elevator up to the sixth floor. Piper doesn't mention this encounter in his WC testimony even though he is specifically asked "And the first people that you saw on the floor after the shooting was who?" The slightly odd thing is that no-one noticed the elevator being used - not Truly and Baker on their way up or Dorothy Garner on the fourth floor.
By the time Truly and Baker have finished on the roof and are on their way down Truly sees Dougherty on the fifth floor. Could the assassin simply have taken the elevator down to the first floor and left by either the Houston Street dock exit or the door on the west side of the building.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJtLr89t/TSBD-1st-floor-wrapping-station.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It looks like a kettle on the right of this pic. Maybe this is where Piper was stood when Dougherty makes his unlikely trip downstairs. It doesn't really matter, it's the possibility that the assassin used the elevator to escape that seems like the interesting bit.
-
Something about Dougherty's interaction with Eddie Piper keeps bothering me. The impression I get from his testimony is that he is stood on the fifth floor, he hears a noise like a backfire coming from above then immediately goes all the way down to the fifth floor to ask Piper if he heard anything.
However, we know he doesn't come down straight away. There's not enough time for him to take the elevator down to the fifth, converse with Piper then take it back up to the sixth before Truly and Baker arrive at the elevator shaft. Truly and Baker get there approximately 40 - 50 seconds after the final shot and are there approximately 5 -15 seconds trying to get the elevator. So we know that Dougherty doesn't get in the elevator for almost one whole minute before coming down. He hears the 'noise' and then takes almost one minute, at least, before coming down.
It must be remembered Dougherty places himself working on the fifth floor when he hears the noise, the same floor as Jarman, Norman and Williams. He doesn't notice them and they don't notice him. This might be explained by Dougherty being on the west side of the building and the others being more to the east. But shortly after the shooting Jarman and co. run to the west side of the building and still they don't notice each other.
One explanation for this is if Dougherty is on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
-
A March '64 memo to Ball, Belin and Craig from Norman Redlich specifically discusses the importance of the missing west elevator. It also reveals that at some point behind the scenes some people were willing to consider the possibility that Oswald had an accomplice:
"If Oswald was not acting alone, it is very likely that an employee of the TSBD building was his accomplice. It is also possible that an employee of the TSBD might have information and for some reason be afraid to come forward. Through persistent questioning on such matters as the elevator locations we might be able to locate the person or persons who may know more than they are telling."
In the memo two scenarios are considered - that the west elevator is taken up to the 6th floor as Truly and Baker ascend the stairs and that the west elevator was taken down to the first floor during their ascent. In both cases the problem is Williams, Jarman and Norman, all on the fifth and who all hear nothing as far as an elevator is concerned but the fact of the matter is the elevator did move so they surely heard something whatever the scenario. Mind you, they never heard Dougherty who was supposed to be collecting stock on the fifth and two of them never heard Baker pounding up the stairs and racing to the east elevator only a few feet from where they were standing. Notably, Williams did see Baker and neglected to mention to him that there was a shooter on the floor above them (the direction Baker was headed). Strange.
-
A March '64 memo to Ball, Belin and Craig from Norman Redlich specifically discusses the importance of the missing west elevator. It also reveals that at some point behind the scenes some people were willing to consider the possibility that Oswald had an accomplice:
"If Oswald was not acting alone, it is very likely that an employee of the TSBD building was his accomplice. It is also possible that an employee of the TSBD might have information and for some reason be afraid to come forward. Through persistent questioning on such matters as the elevator locations we might be able to locate the person or persons who may know more than they are telling."
In the memo two scenarios are considered - that the west elevator is taken up to the 6th floor as Truly and Baker ascend the stairs and that the west elevator was taken down to the first floor during their ascent. In both cases the problem is Williams, Jarman and Norman, all on the fifth and who all hear nothing as far as an elevator is concerned but the fact of the matter is the elevator did move so they surely heard something whatever the scenario. Mind you, they never heard Dougherty who was supposed to be collecting stock on the fifth and two of them never heard Baker pounding up the stairs and racing to the east elevator only a few feet from where they were standing. Notably, Williams did see Baker and neglected to mention to him that there was a shooter on the floor above them (the direction Baker was headed). Strange.
Another possibility is that the west elevator was on the 6 floor when Truly called up. It might not have moved until Baker and Truly took the east elevator on the 5th to the roof.
-
In his WC testimony, Junior Jarman is adamant that when he and Hank Norman enter the TSBD through the Houston Street dock entrance to go up to the fifth floor, they have to go around to the west elevator as the east one is on the sixth floor. Something he confirms once they get up to the fifth:
Representative FORD - And where did you get on the elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - We walked around to the back entrance and went through this door here, and this elevator here was up on six, I believe. And we walked around the elevator and took the west elevator up.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - As you rode the elevator, you noticed the other one was on the sixth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
Once Jarman and Norman have reached the 5th floor we have the situation where the west elevator is on 5 and the east elevator is on 6. Bonnie Ray Williams is still on 6 as he is yet to join Jarman and Norman on 5. Williams testifies that he takes the east elevator down to 5:
Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you left there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. How did you get down there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I took an elevator down.
Mr. BALL. You didn't go down the stairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which elevator did you take?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I took the east elevator down.
This seems to be the state of play when Truly arrives at the bottom of the elevator shaft with Baker - both elevators on 5. The interesting part is Jack Dougherty. As far as I can make it out both he and Bonnie Ray Williams are up on 6 when Jarman and Norman ride up to 5 in the west elevator. The most likely scenario is that he is on 6 when the shots are fired and calls the west elevator up to 6 as Truly and Baker ascend. After Truly steers Baker to the east elevator on 5 (with Williams and co. hiding in the south-western corner) they go up to the roof, missing out the 6th floor, and it is at this time that Dougherty descends to the first floor, drops off his passenger(s), and returns to the 5th.
-
In his WC testimony, Junior Jarman is adamant that when he and Hank Norman enter the TSBD through the Houston Street dock entrance to go up to the fifth floor, they have to go around to the west elevator as the east one is on the sixth floor. Something he confirms once they get up to the fifth:
Representative FORD - And where did you get on the elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - We walked around to the back entrance and went through this door here, and this elevator here was up on six, I believe. And we walked around the elevator and took the west elevator up.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - As you rode the elevator, you noticed the other one was on the sixth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
Once Jarman and Norman have reached the 5th floor we have the situation where the west elevator is on 5 and the east elevator is on 6. Bonnie Ray Williams is still on 6 as he is yet to join Jarman and Norman on 5. Williams testifies that he takes the east elevator down to 5:
Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you left there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. How did you get down there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I took an elevator down.
Mr. BALL. You didn't go down the stairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which elevator did you take?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I took the east elevator down.
This seems to be the state of play when Truly arrives at the bottom of the elevator shaft with Baker - both elevators on 5. The interesting part is Jack Dougherty. As far as I can make it out both he and Bonnie Ray Williams are up on 6 when Jarman and Norman ride up to 5 in the west elevator. The most likely scenario is that he is on 6 when the shots are fired and calls the west elevator up to 6 as Truly and Baker ascend. After Truly steers Baker to the east elevator on 5 (with Williams and co. hiding in the south-western corner) they go up to the roof, missing out the 6th floor, and it is at this time that Dougherty descends to the first floor, drops off his passenger(s), and returns to the 5th.
I think that analysis of the testimonies indicates that Jack called the west elevator down after Jarman and Norman arrived on the 5th floor. They closed the gate, allowing it to be "called". Jack did not.
-
In his WC testimony, Junior Jarman is adamant that when he and Hank Norman enter the TSBD through the Houston Street dock entrance to go up to the fifth floor, they have to go around to the west elevator as the east one is on the sixth floor. Something he confirms once they get up to the fifth:
Representative FORD - And where did you get on the elevator?
Mr. JARMAN - We walked around to the back entrance and went through this door here, and this elevator here was up on six, I believe. And we walked around the elevator and took the west elevator up.
Representative FORD - How could you tell this elevator was at six?
Mr. JARMAN - Because after we got around to the other side we looked up.
Representative FORD - You could see it was on six?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - This was about what time?
Mr. JARMAN - That was about 12:25 or 12:28.
Representative FORD - You got off the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - As you rode the elevator, you noticed the other one was on the sixth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
Once Jarman and Norman have reached the 5th floor we have the situation where the west elevator is on 5 and the east elevator is on 6. Bonnie Ray Williams is still on 6 as he is yet to join Jarman and Norman on 5. Williams testifies that he takes the east elevator down to 5:
Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you left there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. How did you get down there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I took an elevator down.
Mr. BALL. You didn't go down the stairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which elevator did you take?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I took the east elevator down.
This seems to be the state of play when Truly arrives at the bottom of the elevator shaft with Baker - both elevators on 5. The interesting part is Jack Dougherty. As far as I can make it out both he and Bonnie Ray Williams are up on 6 when Jarman and Norman ride up to 5 in the west elevator. The most likely scenario is that he is on 6 when the shots are fired and calls the west elevator up to 6 as Truly and Baker ascend. After Truly steers Baker to the east elevator on 5 (with Williams and co. hiding in the south-western corner) they go up to the roof, missing out the 6th floor, and it is at this time that Dougherty descends to the first floor, drops off his passenger(s), and returns to the 5th.
Interesting that Williams would tell the FBI on Saturday 23rd that he took the stairs down to join Jarman and Norman. If Dougherty had taken the elevator to the 6th floor and was still on that floor when Truly called up, both elevators would have been on the 6th not the 5th.
-
Interesting that Williams would tell the FBI on Saturday 23rd that he took the stairs down to join Jarman and Norman. If Dougherty had taken the elevator to the 6th floor and was still on that floor when Truly called up, both elevators would have been on the 6th not the 5th.
In this scenario, who takes the east elevator down to the 5th as Truly and Baker ascend the stairs?
It can't be Williams as he is already on the 5th before the shooting starts. If both elevators are on the 5th when Truly and Baker start up the stairs I can see Dougherty calling the west elevator up from the 5th to the 6th where he waits until Truly gets Baker in the east elevator on the 5th to go straight up to the 7th, avoiding Dougherty (and assassins?) on the 6th. It's only after Truly and Baker hit the roof that Dougherty descends to the 1st.
-
I think that analysis of the testimonies indicates that Jack called the west elevator down after Jarman and Norman arrived on the 5th floor. They closed the gate, allowing it to be "called". Jack did not.
Been thinking about this as it is important to establish the order people used the elevators. Apart from the assassin(s) we know four TSBD employees are up on the 5th and 6th floors at the time of the assassination. Jarman and Norman arrive together and must be considered a single entity for these purposes. It seems clear from the testimonies Williams is up there first - he washes up, gets his lunch from the Domino room, heads back up stopping to get pop from 2nd floor lunchroom. He uses the east elevator.
I would place Dougherty next - he goes down, eats his lunch in the Domino room then 'returns to work' after "just a short length of time". He uses the west elevator.
Jarman and Norman don't go up to the 5th floor until shortly before the motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza. Hank Norman notes that they were outside until they heard news that the motorcade was on Main St., some time after 12:23 (the only reference I can find to this is a second-hand one from "Reclaiming History" pg34-37). This ties in with Jarman's recollection of standing outside "until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25." This has Jarman and Norman arriving at the elevators about "12:25 or 12:28" as he states in his WC testimony. The big problem with this scenario is that both elevators should be up on 6 but they're not. Jarman is adamant the east elevator is up on 6 giving the strong impression the west elevator is on the 1st floor when he and Norman get on it. There is no mention of calling the west elevator down.
Need to figure out who uses the west elevator before Jarman and Norman get there. Obviously someone coming down to the 1st floor from a higher floor.
-
Another thought - it can be established with a fair amount of confidence that Jarman and Norman are in position on the 5th not long before the motorcade arrives on Houston, (somewhere between 2 - 4 minutes). Williams arrives after hearing movement on the floor beneath. By the time he gets down to the 5th there can only be seconds to spare before the motorcade arrives, in his affidavit he is clear the motorcade turns onto Houston just after he gets there. The upshot of this is that Williams is on the 6th 'having his lunch' for a lot longer than previously thought by some. He gives the time he goes down as approximately 12:20. It was more like 12:29.
-
Another thought - it can be established with a fair amount of confidence that Jarman and Norman are in position on the 5th not long before the motorcade arrives on Houston, (somewhere between 2 - 4 minutes). Williams arrives after hearing movement on the floor beneath. By the time he gets down to the 5th there can only be seconds to spare before the motorcade arrives, in his affidavit he is clear the motorcade turns onto Houston just after he gets there. The upshot of this is that Williams is on the 6th 'having his lunch' for a lot longer than previously thought by some. He gives the time he goes down as approximately 12:20. It was more like 12:29.
This makes sense, Mr O'Meara. Thumb1:
However! Mr Williams' extreme inconsistency across his various statements makes me wonder whether he ever went up to that sixth floor at all (after breaking for lunch).
Mr Arnold Rowland's WC testimony suggests an alternative scenario.
Mr Rowland is shown CE 356 and asked to mark it------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/QS9VYOz.jpg)
Then we get this-----------------
Mr. SPECTER - You testified before that there were other windows where you had seen people hanging out, is that correct?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you tell us and indicate on the picture, Exhibit 356, to the best of your ability to recollect just which those windows were?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was either two or three people in this window.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark that with a "B" if you would, please.
Note---------------this is the southeast window of the fifth floor (directly under the SN window)----------------------the same place Mr Williams will be at the time of the shooting--------------------but the time Mr Rowland is talking about is ~12.15.
Then we get this-----------------
Mr. SPECTER - How about the windows in the group marked "B," was either of those windows open?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were both completely open.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe with any more particularity the people you saw in the window which you have marked "B"?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was a white man hanging out either "G" or "B," I do not remember which. He was the only white man, besides the man in these windows that I saw--
Mr. SPECTER - When you said "these windows" you mean the first window you marked with a black circle and a black arrow?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
So-------------Mr Rowland is certain that there were people at window 'B', but uncertain as to whether one of them was white.
Mr. SPECTER - Is there anything else you can tell us about the people you saw in window "B"?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think to the best of my recollection there was either two or three people in window "B," and as I stated before, either "B" or "G" had a white man in the window. I do not remember which. I do remember it was one of the windows on the corner.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect if the other people in window "B" were white or Negro?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were Negro.
So----------------Mr Rowland is certain that two black men were in window 'B' at ~12.15.
Suggestion:
The two black men seen by Mr Rowland in window "B" at ~12.15 were Mr Bonnie Ray Williams and... Mr Eddie Piper.
Cf! This from Mr Piper's WC testimony:
Mr. BALL - Did you at any time go above the fourth floor on that date?
Mr. PIPER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you at any time go that day up above the fourth floor?
Mr. PIPER - No--no, sir.
Mr. BALL - You never did---either before or after the shots?
Mr. PIPER - No, sir.
Something is worrying Mr Ball!
Picture the scene: Messrs Jarman & Norman are down on the street in front of the building. At around 12.23, they notice Mr Williams up on the fifth floor (or: he calls down to them) and they decide to go up and join him.
-
Also worth noting!
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Thumb1:
-
In this scenario, who takes the east elevator down to the 5th as Truly and Baker ascend the stairs?
It can't be Williams as he is already on the 5th before the shooting starts. If both elevators are on the 5th when Truly and Baker start up the stairs I can see Dougherty calling the west elevator up from the 5th to the 6th where he waits until Truly gets Baker in the east elevator on the 5th to go straight up to the 7th, avoiding Dougherty (and assassins?) on the 6th. It's only after Truly and Baker hit the roof that Dougherty descends to the 1st.
The "official" version requires Dougherty to be the west elevator controller in the minutes following the shooting. He is required to leave the gates open so that it is not able to be "called" remotely by Truly.
-
Been thinking about this as it is important to establish the order people used the elevators. Apart from the assassin(s) we know four TSBD employees are up on the 5th and 6th floors at the time of the assassination. Jarman and Norman arrive together and must be considered a single entity for these purposes. It seems clear from the testimonies Williams is up there first - he washes up, gets his lunch from the Domino room, heads back up stopping to get pop from 2nd floor lunchroom. He uses the east elevator.
I would place Dougherty next - he goes down, eats his lunch in the Domino room then 'returns to work' after "just a short length of time". He uses the west elevator.
Jarman and Norman don't go up to the 5th floor until shortly before the motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza. Hank Norman notes that they were outside until they heard news that the motorcade was on Main St., some time after 12:23 (the only reference I can find to this is a second-hand one from "Reclaiming History" pg34-37). This ties in with Jarman's recollection of standing outside "until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25." This has Jarman and Norman arriving at the elevators about "12:25 or 12:28" as he states in his WC testimony. The big problem with this scenario is that both elevators should be up on 6 but they're not. Jarman is adamant the east elevator is up on 6 giving the strong impression the west elevator is on the 1st floor when he and Norman get on it. There is no mention of calling the west elevator down.
Need to figure out who uses the west elevator before Jarman and Norman get there. Obviously someone coming down to the 1st floor from a higher floor.
Some points to consider. If Dougherty goes back to work, getting stock from the upper floors, using the west elevator He does so after Jarman and Norman ascend. I agree with your timeline regarding the movements of Jarman and Norman. Truly mentions seeing them depart the front of the TSBD with Givens, crossing Houston then returning to go to the back of the building. Seems they changed their minds leaving Givens to continue alone to the parking lot.
The Dr Pepper machine was on the first floor near the back stairs. If the bottle was his he did not need to visit the second floor lunchroom.
The first time Williams mentioned his trip to the 6th floor was to the FBI on 11/23. On that occasion he said he used the back stairs to go down to join Jarman and Norman. His 'story" would evolve significantly over the succeeding months.
I recollect a statement by Frazier that he and Jack went to the front of the building late to watch the parade. Jack gave his reasons for changing his mind and going to work instead.
-
Another thought - it can be established with a fair amount of confidence that Jarman and Norman are in position on the 5th not long before the motorcade arrives on Houston, (somewhere between 2 - 4 minutes). Williams arrives after hearing movement on the floor beneath. By the time he gets down to the 5th there can only be seconds to spare before the motorcade arrives, in his affidavit he is clear the motorcade turns onto Houston just after he gets there. The upshot of this is that Williams is on the 6th 'having his lunch' for a lot longer than previously thought by some. He gives the time he goes down as approximately 12:20. It was more like 12:29.
It appears that Williams arrived on the 5th floor briefly before the motorcade arrived.
-
This makes sense, Mr O'Meara. Thumb1:
However! Mr Williams' extreme inconsistency across his various statements makes me wonder whether he ever went up to that sixth floor at all (after breaking for lunch).
Mr Arnold Rowland's WC testimony suggests an alternative scenario.
Mr Rowland is shown CE 356 and asked to mark it------------------
(https://i.imgur.com/QS9VYOz.jpg)
Then we get this-----------------
Mr. SPECTER - You testified before that there were other windows where you had seen people hanging out, is that correct?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you tell us and indicate on the picture, Exhibit 356, to the best of your ability to recollect just which those windows were?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was either two or three people in this window.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark that with a "B" if you would, please.
Note---------------this is the southeast window of the fifth floor (directly under the SN window)----------------------the same place Mr Williams will be at the time of the shooting--------------------but the time Mr Rowland is talking about is ~12.15.
Then we get this-----------------
Mr. SPECTER - How about the windows in the group marked "B," was either of those windows open?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were both completely open.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe with any more particularity the people you saw in the window which you have marked "B"?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was a white man hanging out either "G" or "B," I do not remember which. He was the only white man, besides the man in these windows that I saw--
Mr. SPECTER - When you said "these windows" you mean the first window you marked with a black circle and a black arrow?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
So-------------Mr Rowland is certain that there were people at window 'B', but uncertain as to whether one of them was white.
Mr. SPECTER - Is there anything else you can tell us about the people you saw in window "B"?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think to the best of my recollection there was either two or three people in window "B," and as I stated before, either "B" or "G" had a white man in the window. I do not remember which. I do remember it was one of the windows on the corner.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect if the other people in window "B" were white or Negro?
Mr. ROWLAND - They were Negro.
So----------------Mr Rowland is certain that two black men were in window 'B' at ~12.15.
Suggestion:
The two black men seen by Mr Rowland in window "B" at ~12.15 were Mr Bonnie Ray Williams and... Mr Eddie Piper.
Cf! This from Mr Piper's WC testimony:
Mr. BALL - Did you at any time go above the fourth floor on that date?
Mr. PIPER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you at any time go that day up above the fourth floor?
Mr. PIPER - No--no, sir.
Mr. BALL - You never did---either before or after the shots?
Mr. PIPER - No, sir.
Something is worrying Mr Ball!
Picture the scene: Messrs Jarman & Norman are down on the street in front of the building. At around 12.23, they notice Mr Williams up on the fifth floor (or: he calls down to them) and they decide to go up and join him.
Alan, the 2 people are likely Jarman and Norman who arrived around 12.25. Before they arrived the windows were closed so it is likely that Rowland looked back around the time of the ambulance leaving (12.25).
-
I recollect a statement by Frazier that he and Jack went to the front of the building late to watch the parade. Jack gave his reasons for changing his mind and going to work instead.
Do you have a source for that statement by Frazier? I've never heard him ever mention he had been talking to Dougherty at all that day. He never seems to mention Dougherty at all.
-
Do you have a source for that statement by Frazier? I've never heard him ever mention he had been talking to Dougherty at all that day. He never seems to mention Dougherty at all.
Gerry it might have been in one of Frazier's oral histories or interviews. When I heard it, it made sense as Frazier went outside late and simply stood at the top of the steps. I will search my notes to see if I recorded the source.
-
Gerry it might have been in one of Frazier's oral histories or interviews. When I heard it, it made sense as Frazier went outside late and simply stood at the top of the steps. I will search my notes to see if I recorded the source.
Thanks. Its a good idea to keep notes and records cos there is just so much data to sift through when examining this case.
My understanding is that Frazier went out early enough to the front steps. Doughertys claim before the WC was that it was so crowded outside the door that he didn't bother going out. That suggests there was a separation between the two. Dougherty was probably still eating in the domino room when Frazier went out. However if Dougherty and Arce were eating together, and Arce made it outside ok to watch the motorcade, that means Doughtery must have been on his own in the domino room finishing his lunch, then got up and saw that it was too crowded to attempt to go outside.
-
Thanks. Its a good idea to keep notes and records cos there is just so much data to sift through when examining this case.
My understanding is that Frazier went out early enough to the front steps. Doughertys claim before the WC was that it was so crowded outside the door that he didn't bother going out. That suggests there was a separation between the two. Dougherty was probably still eating in the domino room when Frazier went out. However if Dougherty and Arce were eating together, and Arce made it outside ok to watch the motorcade, that means Doughtery must have been on his own in the domino room finishing his lunch, then got up and saw that it was too crowded to attempt to go outside.
I found these.....
56:50 Got on the steps late...after 12.25 – didn’t see ambulance
Interview with Gary Mack 2002
And
39:10 did not see Belknap ambulance
HSCA interview
Still looking but it appears that Frazier did not venture onto the steps until after most of the other employees. This included Arce who claimed to have eaten lunch with Dougherty.
-
39:10 did not see Belknap ambulance
HSCA interview
Still looking but it appears that Frazier did not venture onto the steps until after most of the other employees. This included Arce who claimed to have eaten lunch with Dougherty.
I don't think Frazier had any interest in what was going on. After the shots were fired, he went down to the basement to eat a sandwich while all hell was breaking loose above him.
I'd say he would have gone back to work if he was left.
-
I don't think Frazier had any interest in what was going on. After the shots were fired, he went down to the basement to eat a sandwich while all hell was breaking loose above him.
I'd say he would have gone back to work if he was left.
Interesting to speculate what he would have done. We know he was one of the first to leave. It seems just after his details were taken he departed. Fritz asked Senkel to round up all those who had been on the 6th floor that morning and take them for questioning. This happened about the time of the rifle discovery. When Truly told Fritz that Oswald was missing. It would seem that Frazier had departed by then as he had been on the 6th floor that morning and Williams, Lovelady, Shelley, Arce and Dougherty were all taken for statements. Do you think he would have been allowed to leave the building if Fritz knew he had provided Oswald a ride to work that morning?
Then again, he had good reason to leave. He wanted to visit his abusive step-father in hospital.
-
Alan, the 2 people are likely Jarman and Norman who arrived around 12.25. Before they arrived the windows were closed so it is likely that Rowland looked back around the time of the ambulance leaving (12.25).
Agreed. Also, Rowland talks about the black male he sees in the snipers nest (who he describes as 'elderly but also notes " I didn't pay very much attention to him")around the same time (12:15 pm) as he sees the white male with the rifle. The black male is there until the motorcade reaches Main and Elvary which ties in very nicely with Jarman and Norman heading for the fifth after hearing the motorcade is on Main. The 'elderly' black male in the snipers nest at 12:15 must surely be Bonnie Ray Williams. That he is in the snipers nest and up on the 6th floor with a man holding a rifle points to William's heavy involvement in the assassination. This is reflected in the 'extreme inconsistencies' in his various statements, inconsistencies that display a particular pattern.
In his affidavit given on the day of the assassination Williams specifically distances himself from being on the 6th floor. He does not tell the truth about his movements leading up to the assassination (something he is never questioned about):
"We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got on the 5th floor we saw the President coming around the corner on Houston from Main Street."
It is difficult to imagine this is a 'misrememberance' rather than an outright lie. If it were not for the fact that Bonnie Ray left his lunch on the 6th floor there is a strong chance he would never have been placed there. Once Williams admits he was on the 6th having his lunch he appears embark on a campaign to minimise the time spent there. After each questioning this time gets longer and longer:
22nd November affidavit - is not on 6th floor having lunch
23rd November - tells FBI he stayed on 6th floor for 3 minutes
14th January - Carter and Griffin report Williams went down to 5th floor at 12:05
Warren Commission testimony -
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.
Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
The evolution of his statements regarding how long it was before he went down to the 5th floor have a specific pattern - 0, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes. We can synchronise Williams arrival time on the 5th with the statement of Hank Norman to find it is more like 12:29. It can be stated with some confidence Williams is involved in the assassination.
I'm not sure why you have Dougherty using the elevators after Jarman and Norman. How would he have time to collect stock on the 6th floor and make his way down to the 5th floor in the time allotted by the testimonies. If it's a question of Truly calling the elevator then I think an examination of Truly's actions with Baker might be beneficial.
-
Agreed. Also, Rowland talks about the black male he sees in the snipers nest (who he describes as 'elderly but also notes " I didn't pay very much attention to him")around the same time (12:15 pm) as he sees the white male with the rifle. The black male is there until the motorcade reaches Main and Elvary which ties in very nicely with Jarman and Norman heading for the fifth after hearing the motorcade is on Main. The 'elderly' black male in the snipers nest at 12:15 must surely be Bonnie Ray Williams. That he is in the snipers nest and up on the 6th floor with a man holding a rifle points to William's heavy involvement in the assassination. This is reflected in the 'extreme inconsistencies' in his various statements, inconsistencies that display a particular pattern.
In his affidavit given on the day of the assassination Williams specifically distances himself from being on the 6th floor. He does not tell the truth about his movements leading up to the assassination (something he is never questioned about):
"We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got on the 5th floor we saw the President coming around the corner on Houston from Main Street."
It is difficult to imagine this is a 'misrememberance' rather than an outright lie. If it were not for the fact that Bonnie Ray left his lunch on the 6th floor there is a strong chance he would never have been placed there. Once Williams admits he was on the 6th having his lunch he appears embark on a campaign to minimise the time spent there. After each questioning this time gets longer and longer:
22nd November affidavit - is not on 6th floor having lunch
23rd November - tells FBI he stayed on 6th floor for 3 minutes
14th January - Carter and Griffin report Williams went down to 5th floor at 12:05
Warren Commission testimony -
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.
Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
The evolution of his statements regarding how long it was before he went down to the 5th floor have a specific pattern - 0, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes. We can synchronise Williams arrival time on the 5th with the statement of Hank Norman to find it is more like 12:29. It can be stated with some confidence Williams is involved in the assassination.
I'm not sure why you have Dougherty using the elevators after Jarman and Norman. How would he have time to collect stock on the 6th floor and make his way down to the 5th floor in the time allotted by the testimonies. If it's a question of Truly calling the elevator then I think an examination of Truly's actions with Baker might be beneficial.
Dan, the official version works for Jack using the west elevator after Jarman and Norman. It is what can be inferred from the final versions offered. Jack admitted not closing the gates. Of course the WR did not want BRW on the 6th floor after 12.15.
See if you can find anything from Jarman and Norman prior to their testimonies before the WC that indicates Williams did not take the elevator up with them. Why would they both fail to tell authorities he didn’t go up with them for months? Their statements are only consistent with Williams' initial statement to the DPD. He told police he rode up with them at the time Oswald was brought in to the DPD in custody.
-
Alan, the 2 people are likely Jarman and Norman who arrived around 12.25. Before they arrived the windows were closed so it is likely that Rowland looked back around the time of the ambulance leaving (12.25).
Hmmm... Not so sure why this is 'likely', Mr Crow. Mr Rowland gives to understand that he saw two black men (and possibly a white man) at that fifth-floor window much earlier than that:
1. He timestamps his sighting of the man with the rifle at "about 15 or 16 after 12"
2. Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. My wife and I were both looking and making remarks that the people were hanging out the windows I think the majority of them were colored people, some of them were hanging out the windows to their waist, such as this. We made several remarks to this fact, and then she started watching the colored boy, and I continued to look, and then I saw the man with the rifle.
Also--------------how do we know window(s) "B" was/were closed between noon and Messrs Jarman and Norman's arrival?
Thumb1:
-
See if you can find anything from Jarman and Norman prior to their testimonies before the WC that indicates Williams did not take the elevator up with them. Why would they both fail to tell authorities he didn’t go up with them for months? Their statements are only consistent with Williams' initial statement to the DPD. He told police he rode up with them at the time Oswald was brought in to the DPD in custody.
(https://i.imgur.com/E8NHPnp.jpg)
Note also the positively Williams-esque lie about timeframe!
-
I suspect that Mr Williams, and perhaps others, did indeed go back up to the sixth floor, as per the agreed (innocent) arrangement described by Mr Williams-----------
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
------------only to be met by someone waving credentials and informing them that (for 'security reasons') the floor was out of bounds until after the motorcade.
I think Mr Williams, whatever he saw in those minutes, was quite innocent of any prior involvement in the assassination------------and came out of the experience quite terrified. (He looks v. upset as he sits in the back of the squad car.)
Cf! from Mr Roy Truly's testimony:
"I do know that they have been rather, as the expression goes, shook up about this thing, especially this tall one, Bonnie Williams. He is pretty superstitious, I would say."
This is Mr "Except for my niggers the boys are conservative, like me" Truly's way of saying 'If that n----- tells you guys anything troubling, take it with a pinch of salt'.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/E8NHPnp.jpg)
Note also the positively Williams-esque lie about timeframe!
Thanks Alan, not sure why I don’t have that one in my notes. I might argue that it is not entirely clear. He has an earlier statement in December that claims they all rode up together. Do you have the complete Jan 14 record? I would appreciate a full copy.
AFFIDAVIT
State of Texas
County of Dallas
City of Dallas
I Harold Norman, wish to make the following statement to Special Agents William Carter and Arthur W. Blake, United States Secret Service.
I am 25 years of age, and I live at 4858 Beulah Street, Dallas, Texas. I do not have a telephone at my residence. I have been employed as an order filler at the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas for about three years.
I was acquainted with Lee Oswald during the time that he was employed at this company, but I never did get to know him well. I have spoken to him briefly to say "Hello" or in connection with my work, but I never carried on any conversations with him. He did not mix with the employees and did not appear to want to make friends with me or any of the others. I never saw him at any time other than in the building at work.
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me. We took a position in the south-east corner of the building on the fifth floor and I was looking out the window which is closest to the east end of the building overlooking Elm Street.
Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me. I saw all of the people down on the street rut towards the west side of the building, so I went to that side with Williams and Jarman, and looked out the west side window. We discussed the shots, and where they had come from and decided we better go down stairs. We walked down the stairs to the first floor and did not see anyone else on the stairway as we went down. From the time of the shots until we started down-stairs was about five minutes.
I have read over the above statement and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
/s/Harold Norman
Harold Norman
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of December, 1963.
/s/William N. Carter
Something similar appears in his SS summary that appears as part of CD87.
-
Hmmm... Not so sure why this is 'likely', Mr Crow. Mr Rowland gives to understand that he saw two black men (and possibly a white man) at that fifth-floor window much earlier than that:
1. He timestamps his sighting of the man with the rifle at "about 15 or 16 after 12"
2. Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. My wife and I were both looking and making remarks that the people were hanging out the windows I think the majority of them were colored people, some of them were hanging out the windows to their waist, such as this. We made several remarks to this fact, and then she started watching the colored boy, and I continued to look, and then I saw the man with the rifle.
Also--------------how do we know window(s) "B" was/were closed between noon and Messrs Jarman and Norman's arrival?
Thumb1:
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you got to the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - We got out the elevator and pulled the gate down. That was in case somebody wanted to use it. Then we went to the front of the building, which is on the south side, and raised the windows.
Mr. BALL - Which windows did you raise?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, Harold raised the first window to the east side of the building, and I went to the second rear windows and raised, counting the windows, it would be the fourth one.
I seem to remember a comparison done between Hughes and Bronson images that compared windows. One of them (Bronson?) has the ambulance in the frame.
-
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you got to the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - We got out the elevator and pulled the gate down. That was in case somebody wanted to use it. Then we went to the front of the building, which is on the south side, and raised the windows.
Mr. BALL - Which windows did you raise?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, Harold raised the first window to the east side of the building, and I went to the second rear windows and raised, counting the windows, it would be the fourth one.
I seem to remember a comparison done between Hughes and Bronson images that compared windows. One of them (Bronson?) has the ambulance in the frame.
It seems to me that if Norman and Jarman closed the door of the elevator, and Truly and Baker couldn't use the elevator (which means the door was open on the 5th floor), somebody else must have used that elevator between the two events. Could have been Williams, calling the elevator up to the 6th floor, going back down to the 5th and leaving the door open?
-
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you got to the fifth floor?
Mr. JARMAN - We got out the elevator and pulled the gate down. That was in case somebody wanted to use it. Then we went to the front of the building, which is on the south side, and raised the windows.
Mr. BALL - Which windows did you raise?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, Harold raised the first window to the east side of the building, and I went to the second rear windows and raised, counting the windows, it would be the fourth one.
I seem to remember a comparison done between Hughes and Bronson images that compared windows. One of them (Bronson?) has the ambulance in the frame.
Yes, Mr Jarman claims this, but this doesn't mean we know it to be true. It could be------------like so much else with these guys--------------coached testimony or faulty memory. (They also claimed the southwest window was down after the assassination and had to be raised, whereas we know----from Ms Moorman's pre-assassination polaroid----that it was already open before the motorcade.)
The Bronson frames seem to me to show one of the windows in that southeast end pair already open. That would be the window that Mr Jarman is saying he didn't open. If Bronson is showing what I'm seeing, why on earth would Mr Norman go to an unopened window rather than the open one beside it? For that matter---------------why would Messrs Norman and Jarman put such distance between one another?
I am suggesting that the answer to both questions may be that Mr Williams was already at that open window------------and that Messrs Jarman & Norman's prior sighting of him up there explains their otherwise unaccountable decision to go to five rather than six (which was where people had talked about going to beforehand----and which offered an even better vantage point).
If this is what happened, then Mr Williams (after the assassination, realizing the true sinister role of whoever had kept him off the sixth floor) asked Messrs Norman & Jarman to pretend the three had come up to the fifth floor together. They did so, offering cover for their friend for as long as they could.
Thumb1:
-
It seems to me that if Norman and Jarman closed the door of the elevator, and Truly and Baker couldn't use the elevator (which means the door was open on the 5th floor), somebody else must have used that elevator between the two events. Could have been Williams, calling the elevator up to the 6th floor, going back down to the 5th and leaving the door open?
Who is the black male Rowland sees in the snipers nest about 12:15 and who disappears when the motorcade is a few blocks away on Main (Main and Elvary)?
-
Who is the black male Rowland sees in the snipers nest about 12:15 and who disappears when the motorcade is a few blocks away on Main (Main and Elvary)?
My guess would be Williams
-
My guess would be Williams
Mine too. I can see no other candidate who specifically places themselves in that area at that time. If anyone else has a better suggestion I'd like to hear it. If it is Williams a few things follow:
Williams was untruthful in his next-day affidavit
In his various statements he downplays how long he spent on the 6th floor
He is in the snipers nest
He is on the same floor as a white male with a rifle
He disappears from Rowland's view when the motorcade is on Main Street
This last point ties in nicely with Norman and Jarman's late arrival on the fifth floor (after hearing the motorcade was on Main Street). I would go as far to say the only reason Williams went down to the 5th is because he heard Norman and Jarman down there. He doesn't go down to the 5th floor until just before the arrival of the motorcade on Houston, approximately !2:29.
I cannot imagine how Williams is not directly involved in the assassination.
None of this holds water if the black male Rowland spots in the snipers nest window isn't Williams.
-
What age was the dark-complected man seen at that window by Mr Rowland? "Fifty; possibly 55 or 60."
What age was Mr Williams? _________
What kind of shirt did Mr Rowland's man have on? "Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
What kind of shirt did Mr Williams have on? __________
Mr Rowland's man's hair? "bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald"
Mr Williams' hair? __________
Doesn't sound like Mr Williams to me. Sounds a lot more like Mr Eddie Piper...
(https://i.imgur.com/FVJzIqh.jpg)
If not Mr Piper, then it must have been a member of the assassination team.
-
Meanwhile, the white man seen at that window some 15 minutes later was described by Mr Ronald Fischer as having had on "an open-neck shirt"; and by Mr Robert Edwards "a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect".
Which rules out Mr Oswald (as if we didn't already have plenty of things doing that!) Thumb1:
My money's still on this fellow-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/gpVOKl3.jpg)
Light-colored open neck shirt/sport shirt (~Fischer/Edwards~) under light brown jacket (~Baker~). Striking bald spot (~Euins~). And! Eminently confusable with Mr Oswald.
Thumb1:
-
If not Mr Piper, then it must have been a member of the assassination team.
Good afternoon Mr. Ford,
You will forgive me for editing your post in order to save space, and also to draw your attention to the quoted sentence.
A man was seen in the TSBD by multiple witnesses, wearing a brown sports coat. Presumably this same man left the building in a hurry shortly after the assassination, walked south on Houston and got into a Rambler which left at high speed. Has this man ever been identified? Perhaps he was a 'member of the assassination team?'
I will try and dig up the witness statements.
Enjoy your day sir.
-
What age was the dark-complected man seen at that window by Mr Rowland? "Fifty; possibly 55 or 60."
What age was Mr Williams? _________
What kind of shirt did Mr Rowland's man have on? "Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
What kind of shirt did Mr Williams have on? __________
Mr Rowland's man's hair? "bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald"
Mr Williams' hair? __________
Doesn't sound like Mr Williams to me. Sounds a lot more like Mr Eddie Piper...
(https://i.imgur.com/FVJzIqh.jpg)
If not Mr Piper, then it must have been a member of the assassination team.
I take it you believe someone "encouraged" Williams to slowly migrate his story to be eating lunch on the 6th floor after noon. They also "encouraged" Norman and Jarman to eventually abandon their belief that Williams went up with them. If it was Piper, surely he simply becomes the de facto Williams. Black employee who left the floor before the shooting, "nothing to see here".
-
What age was the dark-complected man seen at that window by Mr Rowland? "Fifty; possibly 55 or 60."
What age was Mr Williams? _________
What kind of shirt did Mr Rowland's man have on? "Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
What kind of shirt did Mr Williams have on? __________
Mr Rowland's man's hair? "bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald"
Mr Williams' hair? __________
Doesn't sound like Mr Williams to me. Sounds a lot more like Mr Eddie Piper...
(https://i.imgur.com/FVJzIqh.jpg)
If not Mr Piper, then it must have been a member of the assassination team.
Rowland is a remarkable witness in the level of detail he observes. He qualifies his observation of the black male in the snipers nest by saying "I didn't pay very much attention to him" which I'm going to use as a 'get out' for the inaccuracy of the specific details he gives. How does an ID of Piper even begin to fit with the testimonies of Norman and Jarman? Why does Williams place himself on the 6th floor at this time? Why does Dougherty place Piper on the 1st floor but then admits to being on the 6th floor moments before and after the shooting?
I think it is far more likely Rowland messed up on the details because he was more concerned looking out for the white guy with the rifle. I will certainly be following this train of thought but in the insane madhouse of contradiction and deception that is the TSBD it's hard to know where this will lead. The 'elderly' black male in the snipers nest will probably end up being Geneva Hines. It wouldn't surprise me anymore.
-
Meanwhile, the white man seen at that window some 15 minutes later was described by Mr Ronald Fischer as having had on "an open-neck shirt"; and by Mr Robert Edwards "a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect".
Which rules out Mr Oswald (as if we didn't already have plenty of things doing that!) Thumb1:
My money's still on this fellow-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/gpVOKl3.jpg)
Light-colored open neck shirt/sport shirt (~Fischer/Edwards~) under light brown jacket (~Baker~). Striking bald spot (~Euins~). And! Eminently confusable with Mr Oswald.
Thumb1:
Any more details on this guy? I've yet to come across him but he certainly looks the part (whatever that means)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/E8NHPnp.jpg)
This perfectly illustrates the problem with Vicky Adams testimony. According to the above, Normans EARLIEST account, the guys on the 5th floor ran down the back stairwell IMMEDIATELY after the shots had been fired. Which of course they didn't. They actually went to the west windows for a minute or two.
People make generalized statements, like Norman here, which people then take literally.
What likely happened is that Adams made a generalized statement early on, which she then later modified into a literal one due to bad memory.
-
This perfectly illustrates the problem with Vicky Adams testimony. According to the above, Normans EARLIEST account, the guys on the 5th floor ran down the back stairwell IMMEDIATELY after the shots had been fired. Which of course they didn't. They actually went to the west windows for a minute or two.
People make generalized statements, like Norman here, which people then take literally.
What likely happened is that Adams made a generalized statement early on, which she then later modified into a literal one due to bad memory.
On three previous occasions he related the trip to the sw windows. This is not his earliest account.
-
Rowland is a remarkable witness in the level of detail he observes. He qualifies his observation of the black male in the snipers nest by saying "I didn't pay very much attention to him" which I'm going to use as a 'get out' for the inaccuracy of the specific details he gives. How does an ID of Piper even begin to fit with the testimonies of Norman and Jarman? Why does Williams place himself on the 6th floor at this time? Why does Dougherty place Piper on the 1st floor but then admits to being on the 6th floor moments before and after the shooting?
I think it is far more likely Rowland messed up on the details because he was more concerned looking out for the white guy with the rifle. I will certainly be following this train of thought but in the insane madhouse of contradiction and deception that is the TSBD it's hard to know where this will lead. The 'elderly' black male in the snipers nest will probably end up being Geneva Hines. It wouldn't surprise me anymore.
I tend to agree with you Dan. I think that we can all agree that the assembled evidence shows that the events involving Williams did not play out as they were stated in the Warren Report.
-
On three previous occasions he related the trip to the sw windows. This is not his earliest account.
It shows how eyewitnesses change their story. Norman may only have said they went to the windows because Williams and Jarman said they did. Norman may have no independent recollection of going to the windows and this is coming through now in the Jan 1964 report.
Vicky Adams couldn't have come down the stars as quick as she stated for the simple reason that she would have ran straight into Truly and Baker. And of course Oswald which she claimed she never even heard on the stairs.
-
It shows how eyewitnesses change their story. Norman may only have said they went to the windows because Williams and Jarman said they did. Norman may have no independent recollection of going to the windows and this is coming through now in the Jan 1964 report.
Vicky Adams couldn't have come down the stars as quick as she stated for the simple reason that she would have ran straight into Truly and Baker. And of course Oswald which she claimed she never even heard on the stairs.
I could propose his story didn’t change. It simply did not contain a detail he had supplied on three previous occasions. I’m sure the investigators could work it out with corroboration. I wonder why Adams and Styles were not included in the recreations conducted by Ball and Belin. Dougherty was excluded also, such an important witness regarding the movement of the west elevator just before and after the shots.
-
I could propose his story didn’t change. It simply did not contain a detail he had supplied on three previous occasions. I’m sure the investigators could work it out with corroboration. I wonder why Adams and Styles were not included in the recreations conducted by Ball and Belin. Dougherty was excluded also, such an important witness regarding the movement of the west elevator just before and after the shots.
It was good not to include them. Adams and Styles were misremembering the timing and Dougherty, who was described as retarded by Truly, would only complicate matters even more. The result would have been a mess.
-
It was good not to include them. Adams and Styles were misremembering the timing and Dougherty, who was described as retarded by Truly, would only complicate matters even more. The result would have been a mess.
If they were misremembering surely that would have surfaced in the recreations. Do you believe Dougherty used the West elevator immediately before and after the shots?
-
Do you believe Dougherty used the West elevator immediately before and after the shots?
The problem is that Dougherty claimed to be right beside the north stairwell. If his memory is correct, he should have seen Oswald (or whoever fired the shots from the 6th floor) coming down the north stairwell.
If Oliver Stones JFK movie is to believed, a whole group of assassins were on the 6th floor at the time. Dougherty needs to explain why he heard no one come down the stairs.
Seems odd. Dougherty heard no one come down the stairs and neither did Adams and Styles. Maybe the stairs weren't as noisy as people claim.
-
The problem is that Dougherty claimed to be right beside the north stairwell. If his memory is correct, he should have seen Oswald (or whoever fired the shots from the 6th floor) coming down the north stairwell.
If Oliver Stones JFK movie is to believed, a whole group of assassins were on the 6th floor at the time. Dougherty needs to explain why he heard no one come down the stairs.
Seems odd. Dougherty heard no one come down the stairs and neither did Adams and Styles. Maybe the stairs weren't as noisy as people claim.
And his moving of the west elevator before and after the shots? We know it did move. Do you think it was him?
-
And his moving of the west elevator before and after the shots? We know it did move. Do you think it was him?
It would have to be. Both Dougherty and Piper said he came down on the elevator and they had a conversation. I don't think you could trust Dougherty on his own, but with Piper backing him up, at least this sequence of events must have occurred.
-
It would have to be. Both Dougherty and Piper said he came down on the elevator and they had a conversation. I don't think you could trust Dougherty on his own, but with Piper backing him up, at least this sequence of events must have occurred.
And so you have the conundrum of Dougherty close to the elevator and yet not noticing a fleeing assassin descending the stairwell. It seems he is reliable when required but retarded when unsupportive of the official narrative. Interesting that Williams noticed Baker come up the stairs and head to the east elevator from his position about 100 feet away at the south west corner windows just moments later.
-
This perfectly illustrates the problem with Vicky Adams testimony. According to the above, Normans EARLIEST account, the guys on the 5th floor ran down the back stairwell IMMEDIATELY after the shots had been fired. Which of course they didn't. They actually went to the west windows for a minute or two.
People make generalized statements, like Norman here, which people then take literally.
What likely happened is that Adams made a generalized statement early on, which she then later modified into a literal one due to bad memory.
This is just completely incorrect. Nowhere in the statement is the word 'IMMEDIATELY' used or even hinted at. You have introduced it then started to make generalised statements off the back of it. Norman is simply listing what happened in a very basic statement:
Went outside
Came back inside
Up to fifth floor
BRW joins them
Watch parade
Shots
Run downstairs
Sure, he's missed out going to the west window but he also misses out other important points such as the location of the shooter. The notion of them running down the stairs immediately after the shots has been introduced by you.Then you use this made-up assumption to cast doubt on Vicki Adam's testimony (where did Adams come into it?)
Adams and Styles do make it down before Truly and Baker, something discussed in detail earlier in this thread.
Dougherty's story about going down to Piper is a falsehood (apart from being crazy). Also discussed earlier - Dougherty can't make it down from the 5th, have his encounter with Piper and get back up to the 5th before Truly and Baker arrive at the elevators. Therefore, after hearing the shots, Dougherty must be stood next to the elevator for a minute or more, at least, before he decides to go down for his totally encounter with Piper, something Piper has zero recollection of. Dougherty's story about going down to Piper is a lie,
Why can't Dougherty be the white male holding the rifle spotted by Rowland?
-
Dougherty's story about going down to Piper is a falsehood (apart from being crazy). Also discussed earlier - Dougherty can't make it down from the 5th, have his encounter with Piper and get back up to the 5th before Truly and Baker arrive at the elevators. Therefore, after hearing the shots, Dougherty must be stood next to the elevator for a minute or more, at least, before he decides to go down for his totally encounter with Piper, something Piper has zero recollection of. Dougherty's story about going down to Piper is a lie,
It actually fits well. Baker and Truly looked up the elevator shaft and saw both elevators on the 5th floor. This confirms Doughertys account that he was on the 5th floor. When Baker and Truly get up the stairs to the 5th floor, the west elevator is gone. Its gone because Dougherty has gone down to the 1st floor via the west elevator to talk to Piper.
-
It actually fits well. Baker and Truly looked up the elevator shaft and saw both elevators on the 5th floor. This confirms Doughertys account that he was on the 5th floor. When Baker and Truly get up the stairs to the 5th floor, the west elevator is gone. Its gone because Dougherty has gone down to the 1st floor via the west elevator to talk to Piper.
It doesn't fit well at all. You're saying Dougherty hears a shot coming from above him and in his haste to go all the way down to the first floor and ask someone about it he hangs around the elevator for about a minute. Can you explain why he would do that?
-
It doesn't fit well at all. You're saying Dougherty hears a shot coming from above him and in his haste to go all the way down to the first floor and ask someone about it he hangs around the elevator for about a minute. Can you explain why he would do that?
That's what he said he did. Dougherty did not realize there was anyone on the 5th floor (ie Williams, Jarmin and Norman). That's why he didn't go over to them to ask what the sound was. He went down to the first floor to meet someone and ask them. The person he happened to meet was Piper.
-
That's what he said he did. Dougherty did not realize there was anyone on the 5th floor (ie Williams, Jarmin and Norman). That's why he didn't go over to them to ask what the sound was. He went down to the first floor to meet someone and ask them. The person he happened to meet was Piper.
You're missing the point. Dougherty didn't hear the shot then go down to find out what was going on. If we take his testimony at face value it means he heard the shot, then just stood around for about a minute, then went down. Can you explain why he just stood at the elevator for almost a minute?
Also, your point about Dougherty not hearing BRW, Norman and Jarman doesn't hold up. BRW and co. are on the east side of the 5th floor. According to his testimony Dougherty is stood near the elevators on the west side of the 5th floor. After the hearing the shot Dougherty stands around for almost a minute but during this time BRW, Norman and Jarman run to the west side of the building. Towards Dougherty. Three men running on wooden floorboards towards Dougherty and he doesn't hear them? He doesn't hear or see them and they don't hear or see him for a very simple reason. Dougherty is not on the 5th floor. It would appear he is the man holding the rifle on the 6th floor
-
You're missing the point. Dougherty didn't hear the shot then go down to find out what was going on. If we take his testimony at face value it means he heard the shot, then just stood around for about a minute, then went down. Can you explain why he just stood at the elevator for almost a minute?
This is a good point. It might be that Dougherty turned his back and walked back to the elevator and this is when Oswald ran down the stairs.
This would explain why Dougherty didn't hear Williams, Norman and Jarman running across the 5th floor.
-
Seems odd. Dougherty heard no one come down the stairs and neither did Adams and Styles. Maybe the stairs weren't as noisy as people claim.
Maybe nobody came down the stairs.
-
You're missing the point. Dougherty didn't hear the shot then go down to find out what was going on. If we take his testimony at face value it means he heard the shot, then just stood around for about a minute, then went down. Can you explain why he just stood at the elevator for almost a minute?
Also, your point about Dougherty not hearing BRW, Norman and Jarman doesn't hold up. BRW and co. are on the east side of the 5th floor. According to his testimony Dougherty is stood near the elevators on the west side of the 5th floor. After the hearing the shot Dougherty stands around for almost a minute but during this time BRW, Norman and Jarman run to the west side of the building. Towards Dougherty. Three men running on wooden floorboards towards Dougherty and he doesn't hear them? He doesn't hear or see them and they don't hear or see him for a very simple reason. Dougherty is not on the 5th floor. It would appear he is the man holding the rifle on the 6th floor
Why would they run to the west side of the building when they heard the shots being fired directly above their heads in the east corner of the fifth floor?
-
Maybe nobody came down the stairs.
I was always struck by how fortuitous it was for the assassin(s) that Truly and Baker missed out the 6th floor on their way up the building. Being the cynic I am I came up with this crazy scenario -
Truly's role is to make sure the first police arriving don't go on the 6th floor so he stations himself just outside the front entrance steps. If none arrive for a few minutes, all well and good, no need to worry but Baker shows up in seconds. When Truly introduces himself to Baker he has already decided they are going to the roof (in his testimony he describes it as an almost psychic-like moment when he just knows where Baker needs to go). Truly takes control and leads the way. They get to the elevators and Truly can't call the west one down (or he only pretends to try) and the shouts to whoever is on the upper floors the equivalent of "I'm here with the police boys, It's showtime". Truly races up the stairs with Baker trailing behind.
Even though they are racing towards a shooter, civilian Truly leads the way, in front of a policeman with a drawn revolver. He has to lead the way because he has to control the situation but almost loses that control as Baker goes "off piste" on the second floor. Truly deals with that then gets them back on track. As they are on their way up the west elevator moves from the 5th to the 6th floor. On the 5th floor Truly leads Baker to the east elevator which they both jump in. On the way up to the roof they pass the elevator with the assassin(s) in.
Once they are on the roof the east elevator makes it's way down to the first floor, Dougherty drops off whatever or whoever he has to drop off, then returns to the fifth floor.
The only people on the stairs, in order:
Adams and Styles race down to see what's going on
Truly and Baker race up to the roof
BRW, Norman and Jarman head down to first as no elevator is available.
It's great to let the imagination run wild.
-
Why would they run to the west side of the building when they heard the shots being fired directly above their heads in the east corner of the fifth floor?
It is very quickly established that someone is shooting at the President of the United States and that person is on the floor directly above them. Why aren't BRW and co. shouting from the windows "He's up here"? Why don't they run straight downstairs and tell everyone they meet about the shooter on the 6th? But here's the kicker - why don't they tell Baker about it? A policeman on his way up towards the 6th and they don't even warn him!
It's almost as if they're hiding in the corner until the coast is clear and they can make their way down unnoticed.
It is noticeable when giving his WC testimony, Williams is not even asked why he didn't warn Baker.
-
It is very quickly established that someone is shooting at the President of the United States and that person is on the floor directly above them. Why aren't BRW and co. shouting from the windows "He's up here"? Why don't they run straight downstairs and tell everyone they meet about the shooter on the 6th? But here's the kicker - why don't they tell Baker about it? A policeman on his way up towards the 6th and they don't even warn him!
It's almost as if they're hiding in the corner until the coast is clear and they can make their way down unnoticed.
It is noticeable when giving his WC testimony, Williams is not even asked why he didn't warn Baker.
Interesting to theorise where you would wait on the 5th floor with someone shooting from the SE corner of the floor above.
Also interesting to wonder why Williams did not warn a cop who was heading up there to an armed assassin for all he knew.
-
Yes, it’s almost as if they didn’t really hear anything over their heads...
-
Yes, it’s almost as if they didn’t really hear anything over their heads...
Not even the shots?
-
I take it you believe someone "encouraged" Williams to slowly migrate his story to be eating lunch on the 6th floor after noon.
Maybe! Or maybe Mr Williams did spend a v. short time eating his lunch up there on his own, awaiting the expected arrival of his workmates, before being ordered off the floor by... someone.
Initially he tried to hide any visit to the sixth floor. Then he gave a series of garbled versions of the truth.
They also "encouraged" Norman and Jarman to eventually abandon their belief that Williams went up with them.
They never believed anything of the sort! And most likely it was Mr Williams himself who did the encouraging on the score of backing up his story.
If it was Piper, surely he simply becomes the de facto Williams. Black employee who left the floor before the shooting, "nothing to see here".
I'm not arguing that it was Mr Piper, just that he fits Mr Rowland's description much better than Mr Williams does.
If not Mr Piper, then a member of the assassination team.
Thumb1:
-
And so you have the conundrum of Dougherty close to the elevator and yet not noticing a fleeing assassin descending the stairwell. It seems he is reliable when required but retarded when unsupportive of the official narrative.
Spot on, Mr Crow! Thumb1:
-
Not even the shots?
I think the reasoning is: if they heard the shots fired directly above them from the 'sniper's nest', then what could be their motivation to run to the southwest corner in stead of alerting law enforcement by yelling or going downstairs? An assumption could be they rushed to the opposite corner in order to have a better view of the grassy knoll/parking lot area as many people on ground level rushed this area in pursuit of presumed hooters.
I believe one of them said the shots 'shook the building' which is nonsensical.
-
Maybe! Or maybe Mr Williams did spend a v. short time eating his lunch up there on his own, awaiting the expected arrival of his workmates, before being ordered off the floor by... someone.
Initially he tried to hide any visit to the sixth floor. Then he gave a series of garbled versions of the truth.
They never believed anything of the sort! And most likely it was Mr Williams himself who did the encouraging on the score of backing up his story.
I'm not arguing that it was Mr Piper, just that he fits Mr Rowland's description much better than Mr Williams does.
If not Mr Piper, then a member of the assassination team.
Thumb1:
As you are probably aware I agree with most of what you have written above. Likely that Rowland simply tried to provide information but was mistaken on finer detail. He described what happened on the 6th floor in essence.
I think we can all agree that analysis of all the assembled statements leads one to believe the Warren Report description of events on the 6th floor just prior to the shooting are unsupported. The investigation largely failed to explain the significant changes in events described before the WC from statements assembled in the months previous.
-
When Truly introduces himself to Baker he has already decided they are going to the roof (in his testimony he describes it as an almost psychic-like moment when he just knows where Baker needs to go). Truly takes control and leads the way. They get to the elevators and Truly can't call the west one down (or he only pretends to try) and the shouts to whoever is on the upper floors the equivalent of "I'm here with the police boys, It's showtime". Truly races up the stairs with Baker trailing behind.
Even though they are racing towards a shooter, civilian Truly leads the way, in front of a policeman with a drawn revolver.
This has always been odd. Why would Truly run head-long into the path of a fleeing shooter ahead of Baker? And why would Baker let him do that?
-
Maybe! Or maybe Mr Williams did spend a v. short time eating his lunch up there on his own, awaiting the expected arrival of his workmates, before being ordered off the floor by... someone.
Initially he tried to hide any visit to the sixth floor. Then he gave a series of garbled versions of the truth.
They never believed anything of the sort! And most likely it was Mr Williams himself who did the encouraging on the score of backing up his story.
I'm not arguing that it was Mr Piper, just that he fits Mr Rowland's description much better than Mr Williams does.
If not Mr Piper, then a member of the assassination team.
Thumb1:
How very annoying this particular area of study is.
"Of course it's not Piper," I thought. But best to check it out.
Piper watches the parade through the first floor window. Except there aren't first floor windows. Its those thick, distorted glass blocks and a concrete 'lattice-work'. Piper did not watch the parade through these.
So what puts him on the first floor at the time of the assassination? Troy Eugene West is at his wrapping station, as he always is, facing the very 'windows' Piper says he is at:
Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that time.
The only other person to put him on the first floor is Dougherty and his fantasy BS about coming down after hearing a shot.
There's nothing that puts Piper on the first floor. His claims that the window vibrated because of the shots (shots West never heard) now seems really suspect. He also claims that he and Truly had a shouted exchange concerning the elevators. This seems suspect as well as Baker has zero recollection of it.
I can't see anything that prevents Piper being spotted in the snipers nest by Rowland.
It's so annoying >:(
-
How very annoying this particular area of study is.
"Of course it's not Piper," I thought. But best to check it out.
Piper watches the parade through the first floor window. Except there aren't first floor windows. Its those thick, distorted glass blocks and a concrete 'lattice-work'. Piper did not watch the parade through these.
So what puts him on the first floor at the time of the assassination? Troy Eugene West is at his wrapping station, as he always is, facing the very 'windows' Piper says he is at:
Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that time.
The only other person to put him on the first floor is Dougherty and his fantasy BS about coming down after hearing a shot.
There's nothing that puts Piper on the first floor. His claims that the window vibrated because of the shots (shots West never heard) now seems really suspect. He also claims that he and Truly had a shouted exchange concerning the elevators. This seems suspect as well as Baker has zero recollection of it.
I can't see anything that prevents Piper being spotted in the snipers nest by Rowland.
It's so annoying >:(
Do you think Piper was munching Williams' chicken in the SN or was it Williams? I think we can agree that Rowland saw a black man in the SN before the shots. Amazing that he could predict A black man would be in the position the remnants of Williams lunch would be originally found in.
-
As you are probably aware I agree with most of what you have written above. Likely that Rowland simply tried to provide information but was mistaken on finer detail. He described what happened on the 6th floor in essence.
I think we can all agree that analysis of all the assembled statements leads one to believe the Warren Report description of events on the 6th floor just prior to the shooting are unsupported. The investigation largely failed to explain the significant changes in events described before the WC from statements assembled in the months previous.
Yes, Mr Crow, we do agree on a lot! Thumb1:
Another thought to throw into the mix here-------------
The conspirators' plan is for the sixth floor to be used to shoot from (or to stage a shooting from). This plan will surely not leave itself open to the contingency of perhaps multiple employees innocently deciding to watch the motorcade from that floor. Such a contingency will be factored in and addressed in advance. But how? Easy: (someone posing as?) a law enforcement/security detail person will be on hand to keep any pesky employees off the floor.
This would explain the curious detail I keep coming back to: Mr Williams' recollection that a number of employees had agreed to meet up at the sixth floor to watch the motorcade together. Yet, as events would transpire, not a single one of them ended up there at 12.30pm. Kind of convenient for whoever was up there at 12.30pm, no?
No way would this have been left to chance!
-
How very annoying this particular area of study is.
"Of course it's not Piper," I thought. But best to check it out.
Piper watches the parade through the first floor window. Except there aren't first floor windows. Its those thick, distorted glass blocks and a concrete 'lattice-work'. Piper did not watch the parade through these.
So what puts him on the first floor at the time of the assassination? Troy Eugene West is at his wrapping station, as he always is, facing the very 'windows' Piper says he is at:
Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that time.
The only other person to put him on the first floor is Dougherty and his fantasy BS about coming down after hearing a shot.
There's nothing that puts Piper on the first floor. His claims that the window vibrated because of the shots (shots West never heard) now seems really suspect. He also claims that he and Truly had a shouted exchange concerning the elevators. This seems suspect as well as Baker has zero recollection of it.
I can't see anything that prevents Piper being spotted in the snipers nest by Rowland.
It's so annoying >:(
It certainly is! Thumb1:
If that was Mr Piper, then his steadfast refusal to admit to a) having owned a plaid shirt, b) having looked out the SN window some 15 minutes before the motorcade must have been incredibly annoying for the 'investigating' authorities. An admission from him wouldn't have solved all problems, but it would have helped a lot...
If that wasn't Mr Piper, then his steadfast refusal to admit to being the man just meant he had the guts not to help the authorities explain away a witness's sighting of a non-employee up there.
Whatever the case, Mr Piper is clearly lying about his motorcade-time whereabouts. One need only point to the deal-breaker fact that the first-floor front window from which he claims to have viewed the motorcade gave no view. The damn glass is opaque!
-
Do you think Piper was munching Williams' chicken in the SN or was it Williams? I think we can agree that Rowland saw a black man in the SN before the shots. Amazing that he could predict A black man would be in the position the remnants of Williams lunch would be originally found in.
Mr Williams describes the oddest culinary confection: a sandwich containing chicken-on-the-bone. I reckon this weird mongrel of Regular Chicken Sandwich and Chicken Bones is the product of Mr Williams' trying to tell the WC what he thinks they need to hear!
Thumb1:
-
Mr Williams describes the oddest culinary confection: a sandwich containing chicken-on-the-bone. I reckon this weird mongrel of Regular Chicken Sandwich and Chicken Bones is the product of Mr Williams' trying to tell the WC what he thinks they need to hear!
Thumb1:
I couldn't agree more - a sandwich with bones in it? These Texas boys sure are tough.
For me, the most interesting part of 'Chickengate' is the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, the first person in the sniper's nest after the assassination. In his report given the day after the assassination he describes going into the Nest and states:
"Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
In his WC he displays a great eye for detail and does not waiver from seeing a "partially eaten piece of fried chicken" even though Ball is constantly steering him to say it was just a chicken bone (imo).
This is interesting for two reasons:
It places William's lunch in the sniper's nest
It strongly indicates Williams was interrupted while having his lunch. Something that IMO makes perfect sense.
Speculation Time 8)
We know from Norman's testimony that he and Jarman don't get up to the fifth floor until minutes before the motorcade arrives. Somewhere around 12:25, possibly later. Williams is up on 6 in the sniper's nest having his lunch when he hears movement downstairs, he abandons his lunch and goes down to 5 to investigate (why else would he just dump his lunch and not take it down. He's worked up an appetite laying flooring all morning). Norman and Jarman should not be there and now have to be controlled.
Afterwards Williams tries to make it sound like he was never on 6 but he has stupidly left the remains of his half eaten lunch up there. If it wasn't for that he would have got away with it (is this starting to sound like Scooby Doo?) After being caught out in a lie on his affidavit (something never mentioned during his WCT) he constantly tries to minimise the time he was up on 6 (3,5 10,15 and 20 minutes). But he doesn't go down to 5 until seconds before the motorcade arrives and there's a couple of clues to back this up:
In his original affidavit he states that just as he arrived on the fifth floor "we saw the President coming around the corner on Houston from Main Street."
In his WCT he describes what he saw of the motorcade:
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, to the best of my ability, what I remember was first coming off of--I believe it was Main Street--well, two motorcycle policemen came around. I think it was two or maybe three. They came around first. And then I think the President's car followed. And I believe a car was behind it carrying the Vice President, as I remember. I am not sure about it. President Kennedy was sitting in the back seat. I believe his wife was in the back seat. I believe Governor Connally was sitting in the front seat of the car as it was going down the street--I believe
There is no mention of the lead car, probably because he didn't see it. It must be noted that Williams outright lies about finishing his lunch in his WCT.
My problem is that just before the assassination, on the sixth floor I have Williams, Piper, Dougherty, a man with a rifle (could be Dougherty) and lets throw in an assassin or two for good measure. What the heck, lets have Oswald getting the coffees for everyone.
-
I couldn't agree more - a sandwich with bones in it? These Texas boys sure are tough.
For me, the most interesting part of 'Chickengate' is the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, the first person in the sniper's nest after the assassination. In his report given the day after the assassination he describes going into the Nest and states:
"Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken."
In his WC he displays a great eye for detail and does not waiver from seeing a "partially eaten piece of fried chicken" even though Ball is constantly steering him to say it was just a chicken bone (imo).
This is interesting for two reasons:
It places William's lunch in the sniper's nest
It strongly indicates Williams was interrupted while having his lunch. Something that IMO makes perfect sense.
Speculation Time 8)
We know from Norman's testimony that he and Jarman don't get up to the fifth floor until minutes before the motorcade arrives. Somewhere around 12:25, possibly later. Williams is up on 6 in the sniper's nest having his lunch when he hears movement downstairs, he abandons his lunch and goes down to 5 to investigate (why else would he just dump his lunch and not take it down. He's worked up an appetite laying flooring all morning). Norman and Jarman should not be there and now have to be controlled.
Afterwards Williams tries to make it sound like he was never on 6 but he has stupidly left the remains of his half eaten lunch up there. If it wasn't for that he would have got away with it (is this starting to sound like Scooby Doo?) After being caught out in a lie on his affidavit (something never mentioned during his WCT) he constantly tries to minimise the time he was up on 6 (3,5 10,15 and 20 minutes). But he doesn't go down to 5 until seconds before the motorcade arrives and there's a couple of clues to back this up:
In his original affidavit he states that just as he arrived on the fifth floor "we saw the President coming around the corner on Houston from Main Street."
In his WCT he describes what he saw of the motorcade:
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, to the best of my ability, what I remember was first coming off of--I believe it was Main Street--well, two motorcycle policemen came around. I think it was two or maybe three. They came around first. And then I think the President's car followed. And I believe a car was behind it carrying the Vice President, as I remember. I am not sure about it. President Kennedy was sitting in the back seat. I believe his wife was in the back seat. I believe Governor Connally was sitting in the front seat of the car as it was going down the street--I believe
There is no mention of the lead car, probably because he didn't see it. It must be noted that Williams outright lies about finishing his lunch in his WCT.
My problem is that just before the assassination, on the sixth floor I have Williams, Piper, Dougherty, a man with a rifle (could be Dougherty) and lets throw in an assassin or two for good measure. What the heck, lets have Oswald getting the coffees for everyone.
Dan, I have published for many years about the chicken lunch and the lies of Williams, Norman and Jarman regarding his movements. You will find there are about half a dozen police officers who described the remnants of chicken lunch in the SN before the arrival of Will Fritz. Gerry Hill was described in No More Silence by a reporter friend as yelling down to those on the street below about the lunch and holding it up.
The significance is that Rowland had already described a gunman in the SW window of the 6th floor to his wife at about 12.15. The owner of the lunch and a gunman were on the floor at the same time and in The southern corner windows of the 6th floor.
Williams initially tried to remove himself from that floor at lunchtime entirely in his statement. No doubt he realised the lunch was felt to be the assassin's. He would eventually have to own up but to his fortune the chicken was put in the bag and moved westward minutes after the shots, initially by Hill. By the time of his first interview Oswald was in custody. Within two days he was dead. By that time the lone Commie nut assassin story was taking shape nicely.
Jarman and Norman tried to claim Williams took the elevator up with them tight up until March when they testified. Suddenly there were only two on their way up to the fifth at about 12.20.
-
Dan, I have published for many years about the chicken lunch and the lies of Williams, Norman and Jarman regarding his movements. You will find there are about half a dozen police officers who described the remnants of chicken lunch in the SN before the arrival of Will Fritz. Gerry Hill was described in No More Silence by a reporter friend as yelling down to those on the street below about the lunch and holding it up.
The significance is that Rowland had already described a gunman in the SW window of the 6th floor to his wife at about 12.15. The owner of the lunch and a gunman were on the floor at the same time and in The southern corner windows of the 6th floor.
Williams initially tried to remove himself from that floor at lunchtime entirely in his statement. No doubt he realised the lunch was felt to be the assassin's. He would eventually have to own up but to his fortune the chicken was put in the bag and moved westward minutes after the shots, initially by Hill. By the time of his first interview Oswald was in custody. Within two days he was dead. By that time the lone Commie nut assassin story was taking shape nicely.
Jarman and Norman tried to claim Williams took the elevator up with them tight up until March when they testified. Suddenly there were only two on their way up to the fifth at about 12.20.
Weeks of crawling through the quagmire have got me to the same point with one refinement - the trigger for Norman and Jarman to make their way back to the TSBD is overhearing on a radio the motorcade had turned onto Main St. Nailing down this time specifically gives us an excellent idea of when they got to the fifth floor. Read somewhere a second-hand account of something in "Reclaiming History" this time was 12:23 but would really like to nail it down. It tallies with Jarman's WCT that they were stood outside until "12:20 to 12:25" and arriving at the elevators "12:25 to 12:28". I believe, for reasons stated above, BRW arrives at the fifth floor window seconds before the motorcade turns onto Houston after abandoning his lunch, which has him in the SN as late as 12:29 which would surely be at the same time as the shooter.
The reason BRW had to own up to the lunch is becasue his fingerprints must have been all over the bottle but we never get to find this out:
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.
Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
The next question must surely be "Whose fingerprints did you find on it? Guess what...?
-
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that.
Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Reminds one of something else found in the Depository that Lt. Day had to check for Mr Oswald's fingerprints!
(https://i.imgur.com/bti4UYr.jpg)
-
Friends, I still maintain that we ignore Mr Rowland's actual description of the 'elderly Negro' at our peril, not least this part------------
"Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
The evidence shows that the 'investigating' authorities saw the problem and tried hard to establish that he was either Mr Eddie Piper or Mr Troy West. Once it became clear that no Depository employee could be served up as an explanation for what Mr Rowland saw, they went on to Plan B: discredit Mr Rowland's character. This was the only recourse left to them if they wanted to neutralize a giveaway sighting of a non-employee on the sixth floor just 15 minutes before the assassination.
Thumb1:
-
Friends, I still maintain that we ignore Mr Rowland's actual description of the 'elderly Negro' at our peril, not least this part------------
"Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it."
The evidence shows that the 'investigating' authorities saw the problem and tried hard to establish that he was either Mr Eddie Piper or Mr Troy West. Once it became clear that no Depository employee could be served up as an explanation for what Mr Rowland saw, they went on to Plan B: discredit Mr Rowland's character. This was the only recourse left to them if they wanted to neutralize a giveaway sighting of a non-employee on the sixth floor just 15 minutes before the assassination.
Thumb1:
Alan what colour would you describe Williams' shirt that day? If it was Piper (or anyone else) why would Williams agree to get him to change his story? Also Norman and Jarman seem to be left out until months later. Surely they are key to Williams' timing too.
-
Reminds one of something else found in the Depository that Lt. Day had to check for Mr Oswald's fingerprints!
(https://i.imgur.com/bti4UYr.jpg)
Large sections of this document have not been filled in. Reminds me of the large sections of the autopsy face sheet which have been left black too. This tells me this document is not an original but a cover for hiding something.
The package Oswald carried in to the TSBD was only 27 inches long. It can't be ruled out that Oswald being set up that day and was told to bring in curtain rods and then when he realized he had been set up he denied bringing in curtain rods, thus ironically making him look guilty.
Both Randle and Frazier said the package was only 27 inches long.
-
Alan what colour would you describe Williams' shirt that day?
Dull green. Uniform color. I.e. not plaid, not a mixture of green and red, not a mixture of any other colors. Not the shirt Mr Rowland remembered. The only elements in Mr Rowland's description that match Mr Williams are sex, race and thinness. The rest just doesn't fit!
If it was Piper (or anyone else) why would Williams agree to get him to change his story?
Why would Mr Williams have to do any such thing?
Also Norman and Jarman seem to be left out until months later. Surely they are key to Williams' timing too.
Well, until January, at the latest. I think they simply acceded to his panicked request to cover for him.
Thumb1:
-
The package Oswald carried in to the TSBD was only 27 inches long.
Ms Randle and Mr Frazier's length estimates are an uncanny match for the curtain rods' length (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches------as marked on the rods themselves that Lt. Day received for fingerprinting)! Thumb1:
It can't be ruled out that Oswald being set up that day and was told to bring in curtain rods and then when he realized he had been set up he denied bringing in curtain rods, thus ironically making him look guilty.
The scenario you describe, Mr Down, can very much be ruled IN! Thumb1:
-
Dull green. Uniform color. I.e. not plaid, not a mixture of green and red, not a mixture of any other colors. Not the shirt Mr Rowland remembered. The only elements in Mr Rowland's description that match Mr Williams are sex, race and thinness. The rest just doesn't fit!
Why would Mr Williams have to do any such thing?
Well, until January, at the latest. I think they simply acceded to his panicked request to cover for him.
Thumb1:
You do know Williams ate something other than chicken that day.....
Mr. BALL. Did you have anything else in your lunch besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a bag of Fritos, I believe it was.
Anyone know the bright colours on a Fritos bag in 1963?
-
Well, until January, at the latest. I think they simply acceded to his panicked request to cover for him.
The Jan 14 FBI statements were still indicating he came up with them. No specific mention of Williams joining them from the 6th floor for 2 months after the assassination. Williams had abandoned his story of going up with the other two in the west elevator the day after. I believe Ball and Belin "sorted" the numerous inconsistencies in their statements out in the March visit to Dallas. That is where the possibility of Williams eating about 20 feet from a crouching mouse like Oswald in the SN was developed as the best option for the LN scenario.
They also sorted out many of the logistical problems with their movements post shots at that time.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jzpKMyv/Fritos.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Was the Fritos bag found with William's lunch? Can't recall it being mentioned.
-
You do know Williams ate something other than chicken that day.....
Mr. BALL. Did you have anything else in your lunch besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a bag of Fritos, I believe it was.
Anyone know the bright colours on a Fritos bag in 1963?
A bit of a reach, Mr Crow!
-
The Jan 14 FBI statements were still indicating he came up with them. No specific mention of Williams joining them from the 6th floor for 2 months after the assassination. Williams had abandoned his story of going up with the other two in the west elevator the day after. I believe Ball and Belin "sorted" the numerous inconsistencies in their statements out in the March visit to Dallas. That is where the possibility of Williams eating about 20 feet from a crouching mouse like Oswald in the SN was developed as the best option for the LN scenario.
They also sorted out many of the logistical problems with their movements post shots at that time.
The Jan 14 statement from Norman I posted states clearly that Mr Williams did not come up on the elevator with him & Mr Jarman.
On the bigger question----------
Again, Mr Crow, I'm suggesting we drop the assumption that Mr Williams spent any significant time up on that sixth floor after noon. Doesn't it seem pretty unlikely that the conspirators would not have devised a plan for commandeering that floor? Would they really have left their arena of operations to the vagaries of happenstance? ('So long as no pesky employee comes up there, we'll go ahead with the assassination!')
For all we know, a number of employees really did do what Mr Williams had been led to expect they would do---------go back up to six with the intention of watching the assassination from there. Why wouldn't they?
It is very possible that Mr Williams was met up there by (someone posing as?) a law enforcement/security detail man who told him the floor was out of bounds. It is also very possible that Mr Williams was not the only employee to have that experience. I'm thinking Messrs Piper, Givens*, Dougherty and Frazier specifically.
Add such a scenario into the mix, and the disastrous problems with each of the above men's testimony finds a simple common explanation: out of sheer self-protection, they were hiding an encounter with a 'cop'/'security man' on the sixth floor shortly before the motorcade.
Worth considering, no?
Also worth considering is the oddness of Messrs Norman and Jarman's decision to go up to the fifth floor and not up to the floor everyone had talked about watching the motorcade from (i.e. sixth). Did the pair down on the sidewalk spot Mr Williams up on the fifth floor and decide to join him?
Finally, I do not accept the assumption that the chicken bones (apparently) found up on six were Mr Williams'----------or that he ever in his life ate a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich!
*Perhaps this is the true circumstance behind Inspector Sawyer's comment that Mr Givens was "supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor... the man that did the shooting"? And perhaps Mr Givens really did go back up to six to get his cigarettes, only the reason it took a LONG time for him to go on the record about this trip upstairs was that the man he met up there was, horror of horrors, not Mr Lee Harvey Oswald-----------and not even a Depository employee?
-
The Jan 14 statement from Norman I posted states clearly that Mr Williams did not come up on the elevator with him & Mr Jarman.
On the bigger question----------
Again, Mr Crow, I'm suggesting we drop the assumption that Mr Williams spent any significant time up on that sixth floor after noon. Doesn't it seem pretty unlikely that the conspirators would not have devised a plan for commandeering that floor? Would they really have left their arena of operations to the vagaries of happenstance? ('So long as no pesky employee comes up there, we'll go ahead with the assassination!')
For all we know, a number of employees really did do what Mr Williams had been led to expect they would do---------go back up to six with the intention of watching the assassination from there. Why didn't they?
It is very possible that Mr Williams was met up there by (someone posing as?) a law enforcement/security detail man who told him the floor was out of bounds. It is also very possible that Mr Williams was not the only employee to have that experience. I'm thinking Messrs Piper, Givens*, Dougherty and Frazier specifically.
Add such a scenario into the mix, and the disastrous problems with each of the above men's testimony finds a simple common explanation: out of sheer self-protection, they were hiding an encounter with a 'cop'/'security man' on the sixth floor shortly before the motorcade.
Worth considering, no?
Also worth considering is the oddness of Messrs Norman and Jarman's decision to go up to the fifth floor and not up to the floor everyone had talked about watching the motorcade from (i.e. sixth). Did the pair down on the sidewalk spot Mr Williams up on the fifth floor and decide to join him?
Finally, I do not accept the assumption that the chicken bones (apparently) found up on six were Mr Williams'----------or that he ate a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich!
*Perhaps this is the true circumstance behind Inspector Sawyer's comment that Mr Givens was "supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor"?
Or...
Williams is a co-conspirator who has to own up to it being his lunch because his fingerprints were probably found on the bottle that was tested for fingerprints but was discarded because they weren't Oswald's. This amazingly important evidence was then destroyed. Mooney places the half eaten chicken in the SN, indicating Williams was interrupted having his lunch. Interrupted by the unexpected arrival of Jarman and Norman on the fifth which he has to check out. This doesn't happen until very close to the arrival of the motorcade on Houston (Norman, Jarman and Truly testify to the late decision to go up to the fifth floor). He arrives at the 5th floor window seconds before the motorcade turns off Main Street and has to take control of the situation.
Wiliams' excuse for being up on the 6th floor is that the others had talked about going up there to watch the motorcade, something that nobody else confirms. He made it up to justify his presence there.
Jarman and Norman are forced into lying about where Williams was. Givens is forced into lying about seeing Oswald on the 6th
Williams was sat in the SN with an assassin, very probably the man with the rifle Rowland saw.
IMO 8)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jzpKMyv/Fritos.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Was the Fritos bag found with William's lunch? Can't recall it being mentioned.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
-
The Jan 14 statement from Norman I posted states clearly that Mr Williams did not come up on the elevator with him & Mr Jarman.
On the bigger question----------
Again, Mr Crow, I'm suggesting we drop the assumption that Mr Williams spent any significant time up on that sixth floor after noon. Doesn't it seem pretty unlikely that the conspirators would not have devised a plan for commandeering that floor? Would they really have left their arena of operations to the vagaries of happenstance? ('So long as no pesky employee comes up there, we'll go ahead with the assassination!')
For all we know, a number of employees really did do what Mr Williams had been led to expect they would do---------go back up to six with the intention of watching the assassination from there. Why wouldn't they?
It is very possible that Mr Williams was met up there by (someone posing as?) a law enforcement/security detail man who told him the floor was out of bounds. It is also very possible that Mr Williams was not the only employee to have that experience. I'm thinking Messrs Piper, Givens*, Dougherty and Frazier specifically.
Add such a scenario into the mix, and the disastrous problems with each of the above men's testimony finds a simple common explanation: out of sheer self-protection, they were hiding an encounter with a 'cop'/'security man' on the sixth floor shortly before the motorcade.
Worth considering, no?
Also worth considering is the oddness of Messrs Norman and Jarman's decision to go up to the fifth floor and not up to the floor everyone had talked about watching the motorcade from (i.e. sixth). Did the pair down on the sidewalk spot Mr Williams up on the fifth floor and decide to join him?
Finally, I do not accept the assumption that the chicken bones (apparently) found up on six were Mr Williams'----------or that he ever in his life ate a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich!
*Perhaps this is the true circumstance behind Inspector Sawyer's comment that Mr Givens was "supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor... the man that did the shooting"? And perhaps Mr Givens really did go back up to six to get his cigarettes, only the reason it took a LONG time for him to go on the record about this trip upstairs was that the man he met up there was, horror of horrors, not Mr Lee Harvey Oswald-----------and not even a Depository employee?
Alan, the Jan 14 FBI statement from Norman does not mention Williams joining them from the 6th floor, I agree it varies from Jarman and his repeated claims (and Williams initial statement) in that detail.
As for the claim about employees mentioning returning to the 6th floor to watch, as far as I know only Williams mentioned this and he claimed Lovelady and Arce were involved. Those two were part of the floor laying crew, Jarman and Norman were not (although Norman did spend some time up there at times "shooting the breeze").
I don’t know exactly what happened. All I can try and show is that the official statements, when analysed, are not consistent with the final version of events that appear in the Warren Report. Also Williams, Norman and Jarman lied repeatedly about Williams movements, the former's story diverging significantly from the other two from Nov 23 until the time of their appearance before the commission. This occurred just after Ball and Belin travelled to Dallas to "sort things out" for the lone nut scenario.
-
I don’t know exactly what happened. All I can try and show is that the official statements, when analysed, are not consistent with the final version of events that appear in the Warren Report. Also Williams, Norman and Jarman lied repeatedly about Williams movements, the former's story diverging significantly from the other two from Nov 23 until the time of their appearance before the commission. This occurred just after Ball and Belin travelled to Dallas to "sort things out" for the lone nut scenario.
Both the WC and HSCA were covering up things. For example, the HSCA never asked white house photographer Robert Knuden if he had taken photos at JFKs autopsy, even though he had admitted to in Newsweek in 1977.
Why didn't they ask him?
Maybe they knew he had secretly taken photos and didn't want the public to know. In which case, best not to ask him on the public record.
-
A bit of a reach, Mr Crow!
Just trying to provide a possible reason for Rowland to describe someone wearing green and red clothing.
Can we agree that at least one TSBD employee had some encounter with an assassin or conspirator on the 6th floor before the shooting?
-
Or...
Williams is a co-conspirator who has to own up to it being his lunch because his fingerprints were probably found on the bottle that was tested for fingerprints but was discarded because they weren't Oswald's.
Mr Williams' fingerprints were possibly found on the bottle. Just as possible that A.N.Other's (non-employee) were found on it--------and that this was the reason it was discarded...
There is no real evidence the chicken bones/bottle had anything to do with Mr Williams---or even, for that matter, the assassination. His strained attempts in his WC testimony to tie himself to them are a complete mess.
This amazingly important evidence was then destroyed. Mooney places the half eaten chicken in the SN, indicating Williams was interrupted having his lunch. Interrupted by the unexpected arrival of Jarman and Norman on the fifth which he has to check out. This doesn't happen until very close to the arrival of the motorcade on Houston (Norman, Jarman and Truly testify to the late decision to go up to the fifth floor). He arrives at the 5th floor window seconds before the motorcade turns off Main Street and has to take control of the situation.
Wiliams' excuse for being up on the 6th floor is that the others had talked about going up there to watch the motorcade, something that nobody else confirms. He made it up to justify his presence there.
Jarman and Norman are forced into lying about where Williams was. Givens is forced into lying about seeing Oswald on the 6th
Williams was sat in the SN with an assassin, very probably the man with the rifle Rowland saw.
IMO 8)
Your scenario does have the large merit of internal coherence, Mr O'Meara, but pinning Mr Williams as a co-conspirator seems to me to leave unaddressed a number of issues, such as the lack of fit between Mr Williams and Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro'; Mr Rowland's sighting of two black men at the fifth floor window ~12.15pm; the improbability/absurdity of his claimed lunchtime victuals (chicken-on-the-bone sandwich); the lucky happenstance of Messrs Norman & Jarman deciding to go up to the fifth and not sixth floor (the more obvious vantage point, with or without any prior discussion amongst co-workers); Mr Williams' utter failure (odd in a co-conspirator) to say anything to incriminate Mr Oswald.
My read on Mr Williams is that the poor guy was majorly spooked out by something he saw shortly before the assassination--------or rather: it spooked him out once the assassination happened and he realised its true significance. And I suspect he was not the only employee to have had this experience.
FWIW! Thumb1:
-
As for the claim about employees mentioning returning to the 6th floor to watch, as far as I know only Williams mentioned this and he claimed Lovelady and Arce were involved.
Fair point, Mr Crow, but one could let it cut the other way-------------i.e. that Mr Williams was the only one to let slip what employees had arranged. Isn't it odd that other floors (5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd) were chosen by employees as vantage points but not the sixth-------which just so happened to be the floor where the action would be? I find it highly unlikely that this would have been left to chance. The weapon-holding man spotted by Mr Rowland at the southwest window sounds like a member of an assassination team secure in the knowledge that the floor belongs to them.
I don’t know exactly what happened. All I can try and show is that the official statements, when analysed, are not consistent with the final version of events that appear in the Warren Report. Also Williams, Norman and Jarman lied repeatedly about Williams movements, the former's story diverging significantly from the other two from Nov 23 until the time of their appearance before the commission. This occurred just after Ball and Belin travelled to Dallas to "sort things out" for the lone nut scenario.
We are in full concurrence, Mr Crow, about the tremendous significance both of Mr Rowland's testimony and of the problems with Mr Williams' ever-evolving story! Thumb1:
-
the lucky happenstance of Messrs Norman & Jarman deciding to go up to the fifth and not sixth floor (the more obvious vantage point, with or without any prior discussion amongst co-workers); Mr Williams' utter failure (odd in a co-conspirator) to say anything to incriminate Mr Oswald.
I sense a slight racial profiling there. Three black men together - must be up to something. Actually the three guys gave televised interviews over the years. That's a strong indication that they had done nothing wrong. Guilty people do not give televised interviews, they tend to avoid interviews like the plague.
One escape route that Oswald (or someone else if Oswald was innocent) could have used to escape from the 6th floor was on top of one of the elevators. If both elevators were on the 5th floor at the time of the shooting, as recalled by Baker and Truly, couldn't a 6th floor assassin simply have opened the elevator gate on the 6th floor and climbed onto the roof of the elevators. He could then ride the elevator down to the 1st floor (which is what Dougherty did) which would enable Oswald to get off on the floor above which was the second floor.
This might explain why Oswald then ran into the 2nd floor lunch room ahead of Baker and Truly for the 2nd floor lunch room encounter to take place.
-
I sense a slight racial profiling there. Three black men together - must be up to something. Actually the three guys gave televised interviews over the years. That's a strong indication that they had done nothing wrong. Guilty people do not give televised interviews, they tend to avoid interviews like the plague.
No racial profiling Gerry just conflicting statements that required clarification. A summary of each appear below with respect to the three at the fists floor window.
Jarman
11/23/63 DPD
"At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade."
11/24/63 FBI
He was on 5th floor with Williams and Norman when the parade passed.
12/2/63 SS
The floor laying crew came down just before noon. After eating his lunch he went with Williams and Jarman to fifth floor.
1/14/64 FBI
In this statement he claimed he ate his lunch with Williams and Norman on the first floor after noon. This is reinforced by saying that the other two were in his company the whole time they were on the first floor. He recalls they took the west elevator up to the fifth floor about 12.25.
Norman
11/26/63 FBI
As with Jarman's initial statement there was no mention of Williams joining he and Jarman just before the shooting, just that the three were watching the motorcade "about noon" from the fifth floor.
12/4/63 SS
"About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me."
1/14/64 FBI
He went outside with Jarman for a few minutes then went to the fifth floor on the west elevator about 12.10 to 12.20. Williams joined him and Jarman.
18/3/64 FBI
He simply states he was with Jarman and Williams on the 5th floor at 12.10 or 12.20 and he felt the shots occurred at this time. One might argue it might be a curious attempt to allow Williams to be clear of the 6th floor by 12.15pm. At this time again there was no indication that Williams joined them at the window.
Williams
11/22/63 DPD
In his initial statement nothing about visiting the 6th floor to eat lunch that day. He stated that the shots came from above. The floor laying crew were all brought in for questioning that day because they worked on that floor. We can conclude he is aware the 6th floor is a "spot of keen interest" to the police yet does not mention that he had been there. His statement implies that after leaving the 6th floor to break for lunch he went to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman and that they were there only a short time before the shooting.
11/23/63 FBI
Williams now tells of the lunch trip to the 6th floor. There are no details provided as to the contents of the lunch. He claimed he went back upstairs about 12. His stay on the 6th floor only lasts three minutes before joining Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor.
12/2/63 SS
Williams collected his lunch from the first floor and went to the 6th floor. He sat at windows "in the centre of the building". A Dr Pepper bottle and chicken bones (no mention of a lunch bag) were left together on the floor. He didn't see or hear anyone and only ate his lunch for a few minutes. The lunch was "finished" and he left immediately for the 5th floor prior to 12.15pm. (Note 12.15 is mentioned specifically!).
1/8/64 FBI
Williams again stated he ate lunch on the 6th floor at noon. Once again he recalled staying only a few minutes, leaving at 12.05pm, before joining Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor. In this interview he told for the first time that the motivation for going down was that he heard them below. According to this revised timeline he spends about 25 minutes with them before the motorcade arrived. Compare this with his first day statement, taken just 3 hours after the shots, where he stated that "just after we got on the 5th floor the motorcade arrived". In this report he further distanced himself from 12.15pm by effectively moving his departure time from the 6th floor from 12.13 to 12.05!
March 18th Internal Memorandum: Belin and Ball to Willens
In this extensive memorandum in the lead up to key witnesses testifying before the Commission, Ball and Belin ask the following questions on page 4.
Ball and Belin asked for clarification regarding the contents of the lunch, where it was eaten and whether it was in the sack. They wanted to know if Williams saw anyone while eating the lunch and what time he arrived on the 5th floor. They also wanted to know if there were fingerprints on the sack.
Understandably, these are some of the same questions anyone would have after reading his statements when compared to those of the numerous DPD officers who described the "assassins' lunch" in the SN upon arrival and those of his workmates (see above).
-
This might explain why Oswald then ran into the 2nd floor lunch room ahead of Baker and Truly for the 2nd floor lunch room encounter to take place.
The post-assassination lunchroom encounter between Mr Oswald, Officer Baker & Mr Truly never happened--------it seems Officer Baker did however catch an 'employee' walking away from the stairway higher up in the building. Thumb1:
-
No racial profiling Gerry just conflicting statements that required clarification.
Thumb1:
-
Mr Williams' fingerprints were possibly found on the bottle. Just as possible that A.N.Other's (non-employee) were found on it--------and that this was the reason it was discarded...
There is no real evidence the chicken bones/bottle had anything to do with Mr Williams---or even, for that matter, the assassination. His strained attempts in his WC testimony to tie himself to them are a complete mess.
Your scenario does have the large merit of internal coherence, Mr O'Meara, but pinning Mr Williams as a co-conspirator seems to me to leave unaddressed a number of issues, such as the lack of fit between Mr Williams and Mr Rowland's 'elderly Negro'; Mr Rowland's sighting of two black men at the fifth floor window ~12.15pm; the improbability/absurdity of his claimed lunchtime victuals (chicken-on-the-bone sandwich); the lucky happenstance of Messrs Norman & Jarman deciding to go up to the fifth and not sixth floor (the more obvious vantage point, with or without any prior discussion amongst co-workers); Mr Williams' utter failure (odd in a co-conspirator) to say anything to incriminate Mr Oswald.
My read on Mr Williams is that the poor guy was majorly spooked out by something he saw shortly before the assassination--------or rather: it spooked him out once the assassination happened and he realised its true significance. And I suspect he was not the only employee to have had this experience.
FWIW! Thumb1:
Williams WC testimony is evidence the lunch was his. His initial denial of it is evidence of guilt (a disgraceful omission by the WC), He owns up to it because his fingerprints are found on the bottle (another disgraceful omission by the WC, not to mention the destruction of such vital evidence. Follow the evidence? How?) IMO 8)
You're hanging on the word 'elderly. but Rowland makes it absolutely clear he is not really focusing on him. When he first mentions this figure he says " It was a colored man, I think." When he is asked to go into specific detail all he can muster is "It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him (doesn't mention his clothes, height, weight etc.)
The partially eaten piece of fried chicken on the bone found in the SN puts Williams there as does Rowland's black male. The lateness of Jarman and Norman's late trip the fifth floor (why not the seventh if they're so bothered about a great view) is well attested to and there are plenty of reasons to believe Williams doesn't go down to the fifth until the last minute.
What report or indication is there of any non-employee on the 6th floor turning people back or getting them to leave?
According to Rowland, "Williams" is on the same floor as the man with the rifle for at least 10 minutes.
The scenario outlined above has the least outlandish assumptions I can think of. Not much of a measure of the 'truth'.
-
Williams WC testimony is evidence the lunch was his. His initial denial of it is evidence of guilt (a disgraceful omission by the WC), He owns up to it because his fingerprints are found on the bottle (another disgraceful omission by the WC, not to mention the destruction of such vital evidence. Follow the evidence? How?) IMO 8)
So fingerprints that are not in evidence are to be adduced as evidence?
If the fingerprints on the bottle had been Mr Williams', that fact would surely have gone into the official record as it posed no threat to the official story. That no such thing happened may point------IMO------to their belonging to (unidentified, non-employee) A. N. Other, Esq.!
Alternatively, those chicken bones & that bottle had nothing to with the assassination... Cf-------------------
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.
You're hanging on the word 'elderly. but Rowland makes it absolutely clear he is not really focusing on him. When he first mentions this figure he says " It was a colored man, I think."
You are leaving out his clarification elsewhere as to why the hesitation on this score: "not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark"
When he is asked to go into specific detail all he can muster is "It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him (doesn't mention his clothes, height, weight etc.)
Huh? When asked to go into specific detail, he goes into specific detail-----------clothes, height, weight, hair, facial characteristics.
The partially eaten piece of fried chicken on the bone found in the SN puts Williams there as does Rowland's black male.
Again, there is good reason to doubt any actual linkage of those bones with Mr Williams and his bizarre Chicken-On-The-Bone-Sandwich!
The lateness of Jarman and Norman's late trip the fifth floor (why not the seventh if they're so bothered about a great view)
a) They were unfamiliar with it
b) Look!---------
(https://i.imgur.com/K2Tw7gI.png)
is well attested to and there are plenty of reasons to believe Williams doesn't go down to the fifth until the last minute.
Only if Messrs Jarman & Norman are telling the truth about his joining them.
There is an excellent reason to believe he got there before Messrs Norman & Jarman-----------------Mr Rowland's sighting of at least two black men at the southeast fifth-floor window ca. 12.15pm! I believe one of them was Mr Williams. The other? Mr Piper or Mr Lewis or Mr Jones---------take your pick!
What report or indication is there of any non-employee on the 6th floor turning people back or getting them to leave?
The curious fact that everyone stayed away from that 6th floor for the motorcade (which makes that floor unique amongst all the floors in the building on which people worked)!
According to Rowland, "Williams" is on the same floor as the man with the rifle for at least 10 minutes.
Yes, "Williams"...
The scenario outlined above has the least outlandish assumptions I can think of. Not much of a measure of the 'truth'.
Where we agree, Mr O'Meara, is on the probability that the black man on 6 seen by Mr Rowland was in on the conspiracy! Thumb1:
-
Where we agree, Mr O'Meara, is on the probability that the black man on 6 seen by Mr Rowland was in on the conspiracy! Thumb1:
This is the important point. There is nothing definitive that places Williams there but I do favour this interpretation. The fingerprints on the bottle are a problem for the official narrative whoever they belong to. In Day's WC testimony he is clear the bottle was tested for fingerprints and, although not specifically stated, he seems to be saying fingerprints were found but that they were not Oswald's. This leaves us with the probability they were either Williams or, as you say, a non-employee of the TSBD. Day implies they belonged to a TSBD employee (Williams?) but does not state whether he specifically tested the prints against those of the employee.
If the prints belonged to someone outside the TSBD the implications are staggering. They must surely be the assassin's. That would require someone to step in and take responsibility for the prints (Williams?)
Either way its a big problem for the official narrative.
-
The bottle was fingerprinted by Studebaker before 3pm on site. It appears that he also fingerprinted the lunch sack before its removal by Det. Johnson. It seems Day was unaware of these pieces of evidence prior to his return to the TSBD. At about this time media reports were talking of the cold blooded assassin eating a chicken lunch while waiting for the President to arrive. This notion persisted for some days. It was remnants of the assassin's lunch. Some Dallas police even held that belief for years after.
Day claimed that the lunch remnants were of no value as Oswald's prints were not on them and eventually discarded. It would seem that Oswald could not have had an assistant or the shooter was anyone but Oswald very early on.
The prints of other TSBD employees were not obtained until many months later most likely well after the “assassin's lunch” hit the dumpster.
(https://i.ibb.co/SXVmfKX/49321022-E506-44-B5-A49-A-7-E9702-B4-BEB1.jpg)
As for the testimony of Shelley that suggested Given's might have deposited the remnants, I believe this arose when Shelley was assisting police at City Hall when the lunch remnants were considered evidence. As Shelley had no idea of Williams returning to the sixth floor for lunch he merely provided Givens as the only employee he had seen eating that morning. It really counts for little other than providing insight that early on the police were keen to establish the owner of the chicken lunch.
-
Thanks for these thoughts, gents! Thumb1:
I don't believe the rats who killed Pres. Kennedy had any interest in setting up Mr Oswald as the (lone) shooter (the LN narrative was the creation of the 'investigating' authorities after the event). It's quite possible the original DPD line----------that the pop bottle and chicken bones belonged to the ice-cold shooter-----------was correct, and that individual was perfectly unconcerned about leaving behind such evidence.
Again I come back to the question of minimal pre-assassination planning. You plan to shoot (or stage a shooting?) from the sixth floor. Are you seriously going to leave it to chance that no legit employees will wander on to 'your' floor and come to the south-facing windows? Isn't it far more likely that you will contrive a scheme for keeping the floor clear?
A theory that has a non-participant employee being given free reign of the sixth floor up to just a couple of minutes pre-motorcade is v. problematical IMO. If Mr Rowland's description of the black man at the SN window were a good match for Mr Williams, I would be forced to conclude that he was in fact a participant. As things stand, however, it seems to me that Mr Rowland caught simultaneous sight of two members of the assassination team, both non-employees of the Depository.
-
Thanks for these thoughts, gents! Thumb1:
I don't believe the rats who killed Pres. Kennedy had any interest in setting up Mr Oswald as the (lone) shooter (the LN narrative was the creation of the 'investigating' authorities after the event). It's quite possible the original DPD line----------that the pop bottle and chicken bones belonged to the ice-cold shooter-----------was correct, and that individual was perfectly unconcerned about leaving behind such evidence.
Again I come back to the question of minimal pre-assassination planning. You plan to shoot (or stage a shooting?) from the sixth floor. Are you seriously going to leave it to chance that no legit employees will wander on to 'your' floor and come to the south-facing windows? Isn't it far more likely that you will contrive a scheme for keeping the floor clear?
A theory that has a non-participant employee being given free reign of the sixth floor up to just a couple of minutes pre-motorcade is v. problematical IMO. If Mr Rowland's description of the black man at the SN window were a good match for Mr Williams, I would be forced to conclude that he was in fact a participant. As things stand, however, it seems to me that Mr Rowland caught simultaneous sight of two members of the assassination team, both non-employees of the Depository.
Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.
-
Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.
Unless it was somebody else who encouraged Williams to leave, in which case he becomes a prime target.
-
Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.
Well argued, Mr Crow---------and this makes it seem highly unlikely IMO that Mr Williams was part of the conspiracy. He could have fed Mr Oswald to the lions with a contrived story, such as.... 'Oswald was real unfriendly as usual, so when I heard Junior & Harold arrive down below I decided to join them.' But no, he gives the WC nothing in that line.
Bottom line! Anyone apart from Mr Oswald up on the sixth floor up to very shortly before the motorcade is a disaster for the official story. And that this anyone is seen simultaneously with a man holding a rifle only adds compound interest to said disaster!
-
Unless it was somebody else who encouraged Williams to leave, in which case he becomes a prime target.
Exactly! Thumb1: The only real point of disagreement we all have here is the when of Mr Williams' being asked to leave the sixth floor---------I put it upon his arrival there (most likely the person 'encouraging' him to go back down is positioned near the stairway/elevators); others put it later.
-
Well argued, Mr Crow---------and this makes it seem highly unlikely IMO that Mr Williams was part of the conspiracy. He could have fed Mr Oswald to the lions with a contrived story, such as.... 'Oswald was real unfriendly as usual, so when I heard Junior & Harold arrive down below I decided to join them.' But no, he gives the WC nothing in that line.
Bottom line! Anyone apart from Mr Oswald up on the sixth floor up to very shortly before the motorcade is a disaster for the official story. And that this anyone is seen simultaneously with a man holding a rifle only adds compound interest to said disaster!
Here we agree entirely. It was not Oswald who "encouraged" Williams to leave the sixth floor. It seems we now have opened other possibilities. Did Williams go to the 6th floor with his lunch after noon at all? He certainly didn’t mention that on the afternoon of the assassination. Why might he fail to remember that important detail and yet the very next day he recalled venturing to the 6th floor albeit momentarily?
-
Here we agree entirely. It was not Oswald who "encouraged" Williams to leave the sixth floor. It seems we now have opened other possibilities. Did Williams go to the 6th floor with his lunch after noon at all? He certainly didn’t mention that on the afternoon of the assassination. Why might he fail to remember that important detail and yet the very next day he recalled venturing to the 6th floor albeit momentarily?
Excellent question, Mr Crow!
Perhaps Mr Williams told the 'investigating' authorities how he was not allowed on to the sixth floor, and they leaned on him to pretend he had actually managed to spend at least some time up there? They badly needed to scotch any unhelpful claims/rumors of an alien presence up there shortly before the motorcade. Otherwise pinning the crime on Mr Oswald as a lone actor would become impossible.
-
Excellent question, Mr Crow!
Perhaps Mr Williams told the 'investigating' authorities how he was not allowed on to the sixth floor, and they leaned on him to pretend he had actually managed to spend at least some time up there? They badly needed to scotch any unhelpful claims/rumors of an alien presence up there shortly before the motorcade. Otherwise pinning the crime on Mr Oswald as a lone actor would become impossible.
Maybe we can conduct an exercise to establish common ground and see what can be concluded. I would include Dan in this (and anyone else who would like to participate rationally).
First question, were remnants of a lunch, an empty Dr Pepper bottle, chicken bones, including an unfinished piece, a lunch sack and Doritos bag found on the sixth floor by police about half an hour after the shots?
-
Maybe we can conduct an exercise to establish common ground and see what can be concluded. I would include Dan in this (and anyone else who would like to participate rationally).
First question, were remnants of a lunch, an empty Dr Pepper bottle, chicken bones, including an unfinished piece, a lunch sack and Doritos bag found on the sixth floor by police about half an hour after the shots?
I'll start the ball rolling with Luke Mooney's next day 'Sheriff's Report':
"I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor..."
To me this report isn't ringing any alarm bells. A description of the SN and a rifle rest. It seems that the half-eaten piece of chicken (I'm assuming this is a piece of fried chicken on the bone) is his first real observation. However, no mention of a lunch bag, soda bottle, Fritos etc just the chicken piece.
That it was half-eaten cries out that the owner was interrupted whilst eating it. In my mind it also demonstrates a lack of professionalism if we are talking about a trained assassin here. On a job this big it is difficult to imagine a professional hitman bringing his lunch with him.
-
I think that the basics are fairly straightforward. The inclusion of the Doritos bag may not be essential but was mentioned by Studebaker during his WC testimony.
Unless anyone objects I believe we can agree that the lunch remnants were found on the 6th floor within half an hour or so of the shots.
My next question is, in what state were they originally found? Were all the chicken bones inside the lunch sack or were there bones outside the bag?
-
Something else to consider. The chicken lunch and pop bottle were widely considered to be the assassin's for days. We know Studebaker dusted the bottle and likely the lunch sack in situ. They left the building about 3pm with Det Johnson and were entered into evidence by him about 3.20pm.
Does anyone think Day checked these items for Oswald's prints before Vince Drain was provided the evidence that night? Methinks he was preoccupied with CE139. Why doesn’t the pop bottle and lunch sack appear on that list of items transferred to the FBI? After all, Day by his own admission did not discover that another TSBD employee had eaten lunch on the 6th floor until Monday 25th. Why with hold it from the FBI for analysis? You can add the wooden weatherstrip to that select group also.
-
I would be very careful with any admissions by Day, remember that palm print?
The palm print is such an obvious plant, you could water it and call it a Dahlia.
-
Something else to consider. The chicken lunch and pop bottle were widely considered to be the assassin's for days. We know Studebaker dusted the bottle and likely the lunch sack in situ. They left the building about 3pm with Det Johnson and were entered into evidence by him about 3.20pm.
Does anyone think Day checked these items for Oswald's prints before Vince Drain was provided the evidence that night? Methinks he was preoccupied with CE139. Why doesn’t the pop bottle and lunch sack appear on that list of items transferred to the FBI? After all, Day by his own admission did not discover that another TSBD employee had eaten lunch on the 6th floor until Monday 25th. Why with hold it from the FBI for analysis? You can add the wooden weatherstrip to that select group also.
In his WCT Day states:
"... there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.
Is he saying he still has the bottle and sack at the DPD as late his WC testimony?
-
In his WCT Day states:
"... there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.
Is he saying he still has the bottle and sack at the DPD as late his WC testimony?
It would appear that he did not have Williams prints until mid June 1964. A month after his WC testimony he provided this.
(https://i.ibb.co/k58XGD7/082-D0-D5-E-E3-D5-4-B80-ABFC-82-F9-FA35-AF3-D.jpg)
In his WC testimony Day claimed he discovered the owner of the lunch on Monday 25 November. Until that time Williams had provided this to authorities about his movements and activities.
11/22/63 DPD
In his initial statement nothing about visiting the 6th floor to eat lunch that day. He stated that the shots came from above. The floor laying crew were all brought in for questioning that day because they worked on that floor. We can conclude he is aware the 6th floor is a "spot of keen interest" to the police yet does not mention that he had been there. His statement implies that after leaving the 6th floor to break for lunch he went to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman and that they were there only a short time before the shooting.
11/23/63 FBI
Williams now tells of the lunch trip to the 6th floor. There are no details provided as to the contents of the lunch. He claimed he went back upstairs about 12. His stay on the 6th floor only lasts three minutes before joining Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor.
He had not spoken of any lunch components or even any position on the east side of the building. After Day's discovery Williams provided this on December 2.
Williams collected his lunch from the first floor and went to the 6th floor. He sat at windows "in the centre of the building". A Dr Pepper bottle and chicken bones (no mention of a lunch bag) were left together on the floor. He didn't see or hear anyone and only ate his lunch for a few minutes. The lunch was "finished" and he left immediately for the 5th floor prior to 12.15pm. (Note 12.15 is mentioned specifically, one doesn’t need to be Einstein to know the relevance of that).
-
I think that the basics are fairly straightforward. The inclusion of the Doritos bag may not be essential but was mentioned by Studebaker during his WC testimony.
Unless anyone objects I believe we can agree that the lunch remnants were found on the 6th floor within half an hour or so of the shots.
My next question is, in what state were they originally found? Were all the chicken bones inside the lunch sack or were there bones outside the bag?
Anyone want to dispute the idea that the evidence suggests that originally at least one chicken bone was found outside the lunch sack?
-
Anyone want to dispute the idea that the evidence suggests that originally at least one chicken bone was found outside the lunch sack?
Jerry Hill states in his WCT:
"On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack..."
This is obviously the half eaten chicken piece spotted by Mooney (who isn't sure which stack of boxes the chicken piece is on but Hill seems to confirm it's the stack that actually forms part of the SN)
At some point the chicken piece seems to go missing and all we hear about is chicken bones.
-
Jerry Hill states in his WCT:
"On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack..."
This is obviously the half eaten chicken piece spotted by Mooney (who isn't sure which stack of boxes the chicken piece is on but Hill seems to confirm it's the stack that actually forms part of the SN)
At some point the chicken piece seems to go missing and all we hear about is chicken bones.
Harry Weatherford
The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "I came down to the 6th floor, and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said "here are some shells." I went over to where he was and saw 3 expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade."
Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
-
It would appear that he did not have Williams prints until mid June 1964. A month after his WC testimony he provided this.
(https://i.ibb.co/k58XGD7/082-D0-D5-E-E3-D5-4-B80-ABFC-82-F9-FA35-AF3-D.jpg)
In his WC testimony Day claimed he discovered the owner of the lunch on Monday 25 November. Until that time Williams had provided this to authorities about his movements and activities.
11/22/63 DPD
In his initial statement nothing about visiting the 6th floor to eat lunch that day. He stated that the shots came from above. The floor laying crew were all brought in for questioning that day because they worked on that floor. We can conclude he is aware the 6th floor is a "spot of keen interest" to the police yet does not mention that he had been there. His statement implies that after leaving the 6th floor to break for lunch he went to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman and that they were there only a short time before the shooting.
11/23/63 FBI
Williams now tells of the lunch trip to the 6th floor. There are no details provided as to the contents of the lunch. He claimed he went back upstairs about 12. His stay on the 6th floor only lasts three minutes before joining Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor.
He had not spoken of any lunch components or even any position on the east side of the building. After Day's discovery Williams provided this on December 2.
Williams collected his lunch from the first floor and went to the 6th floor. He sat at windows "in the centre of the building". A Dr Pepper bottle and chicken bones (no mention of a lunch bag) were left together on the floor. He didn't see or hear anyone and only ate his lunch for a few minutes. The lunch was "finished" and he left immediately for the 5th floor prior to 12.15pm. (Note 12.15 is mentioned specifically, one doesn’t need to be Einstein to know the relevance of that).
I'm probably going 'off piste' here but I wanted to check when the 12:15 pm time became important. In his same-day affidavit Rowland certainly hints at a 12:15pm time for spotting the man with the rifle but there is no mention of the black male in the SN. So I went to Rowland's statement of 24th November, the day before Day discovers the owner of the lunch. In it there is no mention of the man in the SN but at the bottom of the statement I noted it says "I have read this 3 page statement which contains to my knowledge the correct truth"
But there are only 2 pages.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_358.pdf
Does this mean anything? Also, is there a piece of chicken and chicken bones in the sack or are they the same thing?
-
Also, is there a piece of chicken and chicken bones in the sack or are they the same thing?
The sack was photographed near the soda bottle on the 6th floor. It was well away from the snipers window.
-
Harry Weatherford
The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "I came down to the 6th floor, and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said "here are some shells." I went over to where he was and saw 3 expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade."
Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
I notice in Weatherford's statement the sack, which was on the same box as the chicken piece when Mooney got there, is now on the floor. So much for securing the scene.
-
The sack was photographed near the soda bottle on the 6th floor. It was well away from the snipers window.
. . . at the time of the photograph.
-
The sack was photographed near the soda bottle on the 6th floor. It was well away from the snipers window.
The sack was first noticed on the same box as the chicken piece by Mooney. This box was confirmed to be the tall stack on the right as you enter the SN.
-
Interesting discussion, gents!
Sorry to be a bore, but has anyone ever seen anyone eating a chicken leg between two slices of bread? And were any crusts or crumbs found in the vicinity of bones/bottle to alleviate one's sense that the weird confection Mr Williams described to the WC was never consumed by him or any other Depository employee on 11/22/63 or any other date?
Seems to me pretty obvious that Mr Williams is haplessly and hopelessy trying to reconcile his actual victuals (chicken sandwich) with the chicken bone(s) found on the sixth floor.
Thumb1:
-
Interesting discussion, gents!
Sorry to be a bore, but has anyone ever seen anyone eating a chicken leg between two slices of bread? And were any crusts or crumbs found in the vicinity of bones/bottle to alleviate one's sense that the weird confection Mr Williams described to the WC was never consumed by him or any other Depository employee on 11/22/63 or any other date?
Seems to me pretty obvious that Mr Williams is haplessly and hopelessy trying to reconcile his actual victuals (chicken sandwich) with the chicken bone(s) found on the sixth floor.
Thumb1:
Agreed. There is no such thing as a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich, not even among Texans. I can't come up with a better idea as to why he's saying this but I don't understand why he doesn't just say a piece of chicken. There's no mention of bread anywhere and it's not like he hasn't had time to think about it or to be 'coached'.
-
Agreed. There is no such thing as a chicken-on-the-bone sandwich, not even among Texans. I can't come up with a better idea as to why he's saying this but I don't understand why he doesn't just say a piece of chicken. There's no mention of bread anywhere and it's not like he hasn't had time to think about it or to be 'coached'.
Whatever reason he has for describing such an absurd sandwich, it's evident he's working too hard to please someone!
Thumb1:
-
Something else to consider. The chicken lunch and pop bottle were widely considered to be the assassin's for days. We know Studebaker dusted the bottle and likely the lunch sack in situ. They left the building about 3pm with Det Johnson and were entered into evidence by him about 3.20pm.
Does anyone think Day checked these items for Oswald's prints before Vince Drain was provided the evidence that night? Methinks he was preoccupied with CE139. Why doesn’t the pop bottle and lunch sack appear on that list of items transferred to the FBI? After all, Day by his own admission did not discover that another TSBD employee had eaten lunch on the 6th floor until Monday 25th. Why with hold it from the FBI for analysis? You can add the wooden weatherstrip to that select group also.
Do we agree that at the time FBI acquired the evidence the bag and bottle should have been included?
-
Interesting discussion, gents!
Sorry to be a bore, but has anyone ever seen anyone eating a chicken leg between two slices of bread? And were any crusts or crumbs found in the vicinity of bones/bottle to alleviate one's sense that the weird confection Mr Williams described to the WC was never consumed by him or any other Depository employee on 11/22/63 or any other date?
Seems to me pretty obvious that Mr Williams is haplessly and hopelessy trying to reconcile his actual victuals (chicken sandwich) with the chicken bone(s) found on the sixth floor.
Thumb1:
Sorry to be a bore, but has anyone ever seen anyone eating a chicken leg between two slices of bread?
As usual your awesome research skills are beyond compare! ;D
A short google search revealed a stack of examples of Chicken on the Bone Sandwiches. LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/59knfHB4/chicken-on-bone-sandwich.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLr4vYgj/chicken-on-bone-sandwich2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx5Pj51g/chicken-on-bone-sandwich3.jpg)
Bone-in Chicken Sandwich. Yes please
https://roadfood.com/topic/bone-in-chicken-sandwich-yes-please/
JohnM
-
Is Williams still alive? Maybe someone could ask him.
-
The sack was first noticed on the same box as the chicken piece by Mooney. This box was confirmed to be the tall stack on the right as you enter the SN.
JIM EWELL, NEWS REPORTER
I had been a newspaper reporter for about fifteen years, and I thought that I was a seasoned professional. But now that the weight of this was coming down on me, I was beginning to get woozy. I felt light headed. But I do remember standing there with the police not knowing if they still had somebody trapped
upstairs, or if there was going to be an outbreak of gunfire if they exposed somebody. And again, we didn't know how badly hurt was, at least I didn't. Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald's little fried chicken lunch. It in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff.
From No More Silence.
-
As usual your awesome research skills are beyond compare! ;D
A short google search revealed a stack of examples of Chicken on the Bone Sandwiches. LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/59knfHB4/chicken-on-bone-sandwich.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLr4vYgj/chicken-on-bone-sandwich2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx5Pj51g/chicken-on-bone-sandwich3.jpg)
Bone-in Chicken Sandwich. Yes please
https://roadfood.com/topic/bone-in-chicken-sandwich-yes-please/
JohnM
2016! :D
-
2016! :D
Sorry Ford, but shifting the goalposts won't help you, I answered your question below in intricate detail, you really aren't very good at this, maybe tiddlywinks is a more appropriate hobby for you. LOL!
Sorry to be a bore, but has anyone ever seen anyone eating a chicken leg between two slices of bread?
JohnM
-
Sorry Ford, but shifting the goalposts won't help you, I answered your question below in intricate detail, you really aren't very good at this, maybe tiddlywinks is a more appropriate hobby for you. LOL!
JohnM
2016 :D
Pathetic.
-
2016 :D
Pathetic.
Right on cue, Ford needs all the help he can get but unfortunately he lucked out if you're the best help that he can get.
JohnM
-
Here's what Mr Williams told FBI 11/23/63:
(https://i.imgur.com/LwtRHaZ.jpg)
I think this may be coming very close to the truth, leaving out only
--------there was somebody on the sixth floor, who told him to leave*
--------Messrs Jarman & Norman didn't join him until a good bit later
--------before that, he was in the company of at least one other employee (another black man) at the fifth-floor window (as seen by Mr Rowland)
*'seeing no one there' in the FBI report recalls the now notorious 'They saw no one there' in Mr Truly's FBI interview report, where 'there' is the building's front entrance--------where the LHO-Baker encounter the DPD had been telling the world about suddenly had NOT taken place!
-
Sorry Ford, but shifting the goalposts won't help you, I answered your question below in intricate detail, you really aren't very good at this, maybe tiddlywinks is a more appropriate hobby for you. LOL!
JohnM
:D
Mr Williams bought his lunch from the catering truck that day. You think it was a bespoke 'soul food' truck?
-
:D
Mr Williams bought his lunch from the catering truck that day. You think it was a bespoke 'soul food' truck?
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/EYJORmtu5s4sU/200.gif)
Mr. BALL. Did you carry your lunch that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. Do you usually carry your lunch to work?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I do.
Mr. BALL. That was your habit, carrying your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that day, on November 22d, how did you carry your lunch from home to work?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I carried my lunch from home to work in a brown paper bag. I believe it was size No. 6 or maybe 8--paper bag.
Your research skills continue to be an absolute joke, even tiddlywinks would be too complicated, maybe sitting in the corner contemplating your navel wouldn't be too much effort. ;)
JohnM
-
Do we agree that at the time FBI acquired the evidence the bag and bottle should have been included?
Trying to make sense of this. Anything forensically linked to the case from the TSBD goes through Day. He seems to be preoccupied with the rifle for most of the time until Drain takes it and certain other items off to Washington that night. These items are then returned to Dallas (why?) on the 24th but then are recollected on the 26th plus further evidence:
(https://i.postimg.cc/X71bynz1/FBI-list-of-evidence.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/56zGhW18)
Missing from this list are the sack, the bottle, a packet of cigarettes and one of the spent hulls. WTF. Included in it are cartons taken from TSBD and the prints Day lifted. Day still has the sack and bottle in his office at the time of his WC testimony (so he says). I'm assuming the missing hull made it to the FBI at some point but not anything to do with "Wiliams' lunch". When the evidence was sent off on the 26th Day had no idea who the fingerprints on the bottle belonged to. Is that why he decided to hang onto them?
-
Right on cue, Ford needs all the help he can get but unfortunately he lucked out if you're the best help that he can get.
JohnM
You are so easy to provoke.... It's highly entertaining how your ego always gets the better of you.
Your childish urge of always having to "win", must have wreaked havoc to your life.
-
Trying to make sense of this. Anything forensically linked to the case from the TSBD goes through Day. He seems to be preoccupied with the rifle for most of the time until Drain takes it and certain other items off to Washington that night. These items are then returned to Dallas (why?) on the 24th but then are recollected on the 26th plus further evidence:
(https://i.postimg.cc/X71bynz1/FBI-list-of-evidence.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/56zGhW18)
Missing from this list are the sack, the bottle, a packet of cigarettes and one of the spent hulls. WTF. Included in it are cartons taken from TSBD and the prints Day lifted. Day still has the sack and bottle in his office at the time of his WC testimony (so he says). I'm assuming the missing hull made it to the FBI at some point but not anything to do with "Wiliams' lunch". When the evidence was sent off on the 26th Day had no idea who the fingerprints on the bottle belonged to. Is that why he decided to hang onto them?
Dan the list to Drain on 22nd does not include the lunch sack, bottle or cigarette packet. It does not include a wooden strip removed from the SN window frame. At that point in time and for some time afterward the lunch remnants were widely referred to as the assassin's. On must question why they weren’t provided to the FBI as requested.
On that list were paper samples collected from the TSBD. They were not returned to Dallas with the other items.
-
You are so easy to provoke.... It's highly entertaining how your ego always gets the better of you.
Your childish urge of always having to "win", must have wreaked havoc to your life.
Awww, little loser diddums is having another meltdown. Hilarious!
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-20-2014/eYiACt.gif)
JohnM
-
Dan the list to Drain on 22nd does not include the lunch sack, bottle or cigarette packet. It does not include a wooden strip removed from the SN window frame. At that point in time and for some time afterward the lunch remnants were widely referred to as the assassin's. On must question why they weren’t provided to the FBI as requested.
On that list were paper samples collected from the TSBD. They were not returned to Dallas with the other items.
What's your take on what's going on here. Why are items returned to Dallas on the 24th then sent back? Why, given there are two opportunities, aren't the sack, bottle, cigarettes etc sent to the FBI. Surely the FBI has rank on this stuff. Are the FBI even aware of these items?
My best guess is that these items somehow interfered with the narrative of the lone assassin but who is driving this narrative and how many people are involved with implementing it?
Are the FBI and the DPD in cahoots or is the DPD holding out on them? Who makes the decision not to hand over the sack, bottle etc.?
"The more I know the less I understand"
Paul Weller "Changing Man"
-
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/EYJORmtu5s4sU/200.gif)
Mr. BALL. Did you carry your lunch that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. Do you usually carry your lunch to work?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I do.
Mr. BALL. That was your habit, carrying your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that day, on November 22d, how did you carry your lunch from home to work?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I carried my lunch from home to work in a brown paper bag. I believe it was size No. 6 or maybe 8--paper bag.
Your research skills continue to be an absolute joke, even tiddlywinks would be too complicated, maybe sitting in the corner contemplating your navel wouldn't be too much effort. ;)
JohnM
Norman's HSCA testimony......still sticking to Williams coming up with him and Jarman....and this.
(https://i.ibb.co/hZTWzgG/BEFAC1-D1-7307-48-F7-B57-E-5130-B8-B60758.jpg)
-
What's your take on what's going on here. Why are items returned to Dallas on the 24th then sent back? Why, given there are two opportunities, aren't the sack, bottle, cigarettes etc sent to the FBI. Surely the FBI has rank on this stuff. Are the FBI even aware of these items?
My best guess is that these items somehow interfered with the narrative of the lone assassin but who is driving this narrative and how many people are involved with implementing it?
Are the FBI and the DPD in cahoots or is the DPD holding out on them? Who makes the decision not to hand over the sack, bottle etc.?
"The more I know the less I understand"
Paul Weller "Changing Man"
Dan I seem to recall that the original transfer of evidence on the night of the assassination was not widely known at the time. Maybe Hoover pulled rank and demanded the stuff. It was returned as you saw and then removed again. Interesting that the paper samples were not returned at all as the FBI referred to them as "non evidence"!
I cannot explain why the lunch stuff did not go with the rest of the evidence that night. It’s not as if the media were not widely reporting that afternoon (and continued to do so for days) that the assassin waited in the SN eating chicken and drinking soda. Surely Hoover had heard this too. Of course by Monday, when Day claimed to discover that the lunch belonged to another employee Oswald was dead.
I do not believe the bottle or bag were analysed for Oswald's prints before the evidence was provided to Drain? I seem to remember Oswald's prints were not obtained immediately upon his arrival and were taken on a couple of occasions maybe between interrogations and lineups. I seem to recall about 8pm as one of them, or that could be the paraffin testing.
-
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/EYJORmtu5s4sU/200.gif)
Mr. BALL. Did you carry your lunch that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. Do you usually carry your lunch to work?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I do.
Mr. BALL. That was your habit, carrying your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that day, on November 22d, how did you carry your lunch from home to work?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I carried my lunch from home to work in a brown paper bag. I believe it was size No. 6 or maybe 8--paper bag.
Your research skills continue to be an absolute joke, even tiddlywinks would be too complicated, maybe sitting in the corner contemplating your navel wouldn't be too much effort. ;)
JohnM
:D
Your problem, Mr Mytton, is that I know the totality of the evidence better than you do!
Case in point! Mr Harold Norman told the HSCA that Mr Williams definitely got his lunch from the catering truck that day. This of course explains why he split off from Messrs Norman and Jarman after coming downstairs.
Mr Williams couldn't keep his story straight. That's why he's adding unnecessary detail in the portion of testimony you quote.
Keep trying, Mr Mytton. Maybe someday you might even get there! Thumb1:
-
This interesting little moment in Mr Norman's WC testimony supports what I am suggesting about Messrs Norman & Jarman's joining Mr Williams on five rather than the other way around:
Mr. BALL. And what did you and Junior do after you got off the elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. We walked around to the windows facing Elm Street and I can't recall if any were open or not but I remember we opened some, two or three windows ourselves.
Mr. BALL. Did somebody join you there?
Mr. NORMAN. Bonnie Ray, I can't remember if he was there when we got there or he came later. I know he was with us a period of time later.
Thumb1:
-
Awww, little loser diddums is having another meltdown. Hilarious!
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-20-2014/eYiACt.gif)
JohnM
And there is the overinflated ego again.... right on cue Thumb1:
-
And there is the overinflated ego again.... right on cue Thumb1:
And the meltdown continues. LOL!
JohnM
-
:D
Your problem, Mr Mytton, is that I know the totality of the evidence better than you do!
Case in point! Mr Harold Norman told the HSCA that Mr Williams definitely got his lunch from the catering truck that day. This of course explains why he split off from Messrs Norman and Jarman after coming downstairs.
Mr Williams couldn't keep his story straight. That's why he's adding unnecessary detail in the portion of testimony you quote.
Keep trying, Mr Mytton. Maybe someday you might even get there! Thumb1:
Yawn, welcome to the party, you do realize that all this has been thoroughly examined, dissected and analysed ad nausea years ago in one of Colin Crow's multipart Chicken Bone threads.
Let me slow this down for you, on one hand we have the fresh memories of Williams himself telling us that he brought his lunch from home and agreeing that carrying his lunch was his usual habit and on the other hand we have someone else who wasn't Williams, who had no need to even visit the Lunch Truck that day recalling an insignificant event of what someone else ate for lunch and who wasn't actually there when Williams masticated his meal, and compounding this problem are that these vague memories of Williams buying lunch that Norman probably didn't even witness first hand are from a decade and a half earlier.
Mr. BALL. Did you bring your lunch from home that day?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I believe I did.
Instead of looking at this through your usual heavily biased glasses, where you desperately cling to any sliver of self serving assumptions, why don't you put those World Famous deductive reasoning skills to the test and let's see where that takes you? Hmmm?
JohnM
-
Yawn, welcome to the party, you do realize that all this has been thoroughly examined, dissected and analysed ad nausea years ago in one of Colin Crow's multipart Chicken Bone threads.
Let me slow this down for you, on one hand we have the fresh memories of Williams himself telling us that he brought his lunch from home and agreeing that carrying his lunch was his usual habit and on the other hand we have someone else who wasn't Williams, who had no need to even visit the Lunch Truck that day recalling an insignificant event of what someone else ate for lunch and who wasn't actually there when Williams masticated his meal, and compounding this problem are that these vague memories of Williams buying lunch that Norman probably didn't even witness first hand are from a decade and a half earlier.
Mr. BALL. Did you bring your lunch from home that day?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I believe I did.
Instead of looking at this through your usual heavily biased glasses, where you desperately cling to any sliver of self serving assumptions, why don't you put those World Famous deductive reasoning skills to the test and let's see where that takes you? Hmmm?
JohnM
I don't know if you agree that Williams had his lunch on the 6th floor. If you do how long do you think he was up there before going down to the 5th because the way I read it he didn't go down until the last minute.
-
I don't know if you agree that Williams had his lunch on the 6th floor. If you do how long do you think he was up there before going down to the 5th because the way I read it he didn't go down until the last minute.
I know what JohnM thoughts were but I’ll give him a chance to relate them to you. Would be good to hear why he thought the lunch sack and bottle were not provided to Vince Drain on the evening of the assassination or transferred to the FBI during the second collection.
-
History shows us Oswald had no escape plan. In fact, Oswald’s behavior on the day of the event imo shows Oswald never expected to survive the day. Why would he care? He had little left in his life to live for. Study Oswald’s life. It’s a logical conclusion.
He had no escape plan because he didn't know he was the Patsy until the plot was underway.
-
Dan I seem to recall that the original transfer of evidence on the night of the assassination was not widely known at the time. Maybe Hoover pulled rank and demanded the stuff. It was returned as you saw and then removed again. Interesting that the paper samples were not returned at all as the FBI referred to them as "non evidence"!
Hoover never pulled rank. He never had the authority to do so. The DPD handed the evidence over to the FBI on Nov 22 voluntarily.
-
Hoover never pulled rank. He never had the authority to do so. The DPD handed the evidence over to the FBI on Nov 22 voluntarily.
How magnanimous of him.
The Dallas PD were in over their heads with the JFK investigation but Hoover (and LBJ) never really wanted to do a thorough investigation.
-
Hoover never pulled rank. He never had the authority to do so. The DPD handed the evidence over to the FBI on Nov 22 voluntarily.
So the DPD requested Drain to come and collect the stuff? How did the transfer come about Tim? Someone must have instigated it. Am I correct in believing that this transfer was not widely known about for some considerable time?
Mr. HOOVER. That is correct, When President Johnson returned to Washington he communicated with me within the first 24 hours, and asked the Bureau to pick up the investigation of the assassination because as you are aware, there is no Federal jurisdiction for such an investigation. It is not a Federal crime to kill or attack the President or the Vice President or any of the continuity of officers who would succeed to the Presidency.
However, the President has a right to request the Bureau to make special investigations, and in this instance he asked that this investigation be made. I immediately assigned a special force headed by the special agent in charge at Dallas, Tex., to initiate the investigation, and to get all details and facts concerning it, which we obtained, and then prepared a report which we submitted to the Attorney General for transmission to the President.
"Mr. CURRY - Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place, but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas, Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.
We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"
But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us."
Do you have an opinion why the bag and bottle, "the assassin's lunch' were not included that evening.
-
So the DPD requested Drain to come and collect the stuff? How did the transfer come about Tim? Someone must have instigated it. Am I correct in believing that this transfer was not widely known about for some considerable time?
"Mr. CURRY - Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place, but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas, Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.
We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"
But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us."
Do you have an opinion why the bag and bottle, "the assassin's lunch' were not included that evening.
Drain was not the only FBI agent to take possession of evidence that day. As I said, the DPD voluntarily handed the evidence over to the FBI. I do not have an opinion as to why the bag and bottle, "Williams' lunch" were not included that evening.
-
Drain was not the only FBI agent to take possession of evidence that day. As I said, the DPD voluntarily handed the evidence over to the FBI. I do not have an opinion as to why the bag and bottle, "Williams' lunch" were not included that evening.
Do you agree that at the time the evidence was transferred that the lunch was assumed to be associated with the assassination? Day's testimony infers that it was associated with Williams on the following Monday.
On that basis it should have been transferred.
-
And the meltdown continues. LOL!
JohnM
What meltdown? You really can't help yourself, can you now?
Anyway, thanks for proving my point over and over again.....
You are so easy to provoke.... It's highly entertaining how your ego always gets the better of you.
Your childish urge of always having to "win", must have wreaked havoc to your life.
-
Yawn, welcome to the party, you do realize that all this has been thoroughly examined, dissected and analysed ad nausea years ago in one of Colin Crow's multipart Chicken Bone threads.
Let me slow this down for you, on one hand we have the fresh memories of Williams himself telling us that he brought his lunch from home and agreeing that carrying his lunch was his usual habit
:D
So, Mr Mytton, you now all of a sudden are partial to "the fresh memories of Mr Williams himself"? Super! Let's start with what he says in his 11/22/63 affidavit------------
"We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior (...)"
This is what Mr Williams' freshest of fresh memories is telling us, so it must be what happened. Right?
Thumb1:
-
I don't know if you agree that Williams had his lunch on the 6th floor. If you do how long do you think he was up there before going down to the 5th because the way I read it he didn't go down until the last minute.
Some of JohnM's previous thoughts.......
"I reckon that Williams did in fact see Oswald in the sniper's nest because why would he go up to the 6th floor to sit with his mates and just plonk himself down in the middle of the floor without checking all the windows?
When Williams went down to the 5th floor he obviously went to the windows directly below the sniper's nest, so what stopped him doing the same on the floor above?
When confronted with the following wall of boxes, would Williams simply shout out to his friends and after not hearing an answer just move on or would he have a peek to see if his friends were there and perhaps just horsing around?
And from the following exchange from Williams testimony, after Ford heard Williams explain what happened on the 6th floor Ford immediately attempt to associate Williams with breaking the law, which could indicate that they thought that Williams was lying?
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
JohnM
From <https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.60.html>
C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?
JohnM
From <https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.80.html>
So at the end of the day, John essentially agreed with my analysis. We both believed that Williams saw the assassin before leaving. We differed in that John felt it was Oswald. I am not convinced.
-
Some of JohnM's previous thoughts.......
"I reckon that Williams did in fact see Oswald in the sniper's nest because why would he go up to the 6th floor to sit with his mates and just plonk himself down in the middle of the floor without checking all the windows? (...")
Mr Mytton believes Mr Williams saw Mr Oswald in the sniper's nest? This just gets funnier and funnier! No wonder Mr Williams was so terrified and kept on changing his story for months afterwards----------the poor man obviously feared a reprisal-haunting by the Lone Nut gunman's ghost!
I look forward to seeing a new Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-GIF proving that Mr Oswald, when seen in the right perspective, was an ageing black man! :D
-
Mr Mytton believes Mr Williams saw Mr Oswald in the sniper's nest? This just gets funnier and funnier! No wonder Mr Williams was so terrified and kept on changing his story for months afterwards----------the poor man obviously feared a reprisal-haunting by the Lone Nut gunman's ghost!
I look forward to seeing a new Soopah-Doopah-Mytton-GIF proving that Mr Oswald, when seen in the right perspective, was an ageing black man! :D
I wonder why Williams did not just tell the cops this the afternoon he was making his statement when he saw Oswald brought into custody. Would have saved us much anguish. Oswald, the guy who was gunned down in police protection less than two days later....that guy.
-
Do you have an opinion why the bag and bottle, "the assassin's lunch' were not included that evening.
Prob not deemed relevant. Just like the clipboard. Its not as if they could take the entire contents of the 6th floor away in a truck as evidence.
-
First of all, if Oswald had been the lone assassin and had possessed half the rifle skills that the WC attributed to him, he would have fired at JFK when the limousine was coming toward the TSBD on Houston Street. He would have had no tree obstructing his view (whereas it obstructed his view of Elm Street for nearly 2 seconds), and the limo would have been moving in a straight line toward him, instead of curving away from him on Elm Street. This would have been a much easier shooting feat.
When the WC asked J. Edgar Hoover about this when he testified, Hoover said the oak tree would have obstructed the lone gunman's view from the sixth-floor window! No, I am not kidding. And nobody at the hearing dared to point out to him that this was erroneous, that the view from the sixth-floor window would have been unobstructed.
-
Prob not deemed relevant. Just like the clipboard. Its not as if they could take the entire contents of the 6th floor away in a truck as evidence.
The clipboard was not found until after Oswald's death. How was it not deemed relevant on the evening of the assassination? It was processed by Studebaker in situ and entered into evidence with the long sack about 3.20pm.
-
First of all, if Oswald had been the lone assassin and had possessed half the rifle skills that the WC attributed to him, he would have fired at JFK when the limousine was coming toward the TSBD on Houston Street. He would have had no tree obstructing his view for nearly 2 seconds, and the limo would have been moving in a straight line toward him, instead of curving away from him on Elm Street. This would have been a much easier shooting feat.
When the WC asked J. Edgar Hoover about this when he testified, Hoover said the oak tree would have obstructed the lone gunman's view from the sixth-floor window! No, I am not kidding. And nobody at the hearing dared to point out to him that this was erroneous, that the view from the sixth-floor window would have been unobstructed.
Michael these are the facts. The lunch was deemed to be associated with the assassin for days. Why were the items not sent to the FBI for analysis that evening?
-
I wonder why Williams did not just tell the cops this the afternoon he was making his statement when he saw Oswald brought into custody. Would have saved us much anguish. Oswald, the guy who was gunned down in police protection less than two days later....that guy.
I agree, Williams did see the assassin. If it was Oswald as the Lone Assassin who had just been arrested, Williams would have no fear of telling the authorities, he would have the authorities on his side and would have been hailed a hero.
So that leaves us with two possibilities as far as I can see:
Williams was totally innocent, maybe saw the assassin and was told to leave.
or
Williams saw the assassin because he was an accomplice.
For me, the weight of evidence available leans heavily towards the latter possibility. Rowland spots the man with the rifle around 12:15pm but I think it has been adequately demonstrated that Williams didn't go down to the fifth floor until the last minute so he's up there for the best part of 15 minutes. If spotted he would have been shifted immediately. The only real problem with Rowland's description of the black male in the SN is his age. Willams' lunch is found on top of a stack of boxes that form the SN indicating he was either in or right next to the SN as he had lunch.
The big problem with Williams' lunch evidence is that it reveals the conspiracy. It reveals Oswald could not have been alone if he was the Lone Assassin.
The mystery I'd like to solve is why the evidence was taken by the FBI, returned, then taken again. Something v. fishy going on there.
-
I agree, Williams did see the assassin. If it was Oswald as the Lone Assassin who had just been arrested, Williams would have no fear of telling the authorities, he would have the authorities on his side and would have been hailed a hero.
So that leaves us with two possibilities as far as I can see:
Williams was totally innocent, maybe saw the assassin and was told to leave.
or
Williams saw the assassin because he was an accomplice.
For me, the weight of evidence available leans heavily towards the latter possibility. Rowland spots the man with the rifle around 12:15pm but I think it has been adequately demonstrated that Williams didn't go down to the fifth floor until the last minute so he's up there for the best part of 15 minutes. If spotted he would have been shifted immediately. The only real problem with Rowland's description of the black male in the SN is his age. Willams' lunch is found on top of a stack of boxes that form the SN indicating he was either in or right next to the SN as he had lunch.
The big problem with Williams' lunch evidence is that it reveals the conspiracy. It reveals Oswald could not have been alone if he was the Lone Assassin.
The mystery I'd like to solve is why the evidence was taken by the FBI, returned, then taken again. Something v. fishy going on there.
Dan, if Williams was part of a conspiracy would he have left his lunch behind? If he wasn’t part of a conspiracy and didn’t see anything why try to hide his presence on the sixth floor. The chicken lunch and pop bottle were part of the narrative for days. Surely Hoover would be keen to check them for Oswald's prints as soon as possible along with the rifle. What if the bottle or bag were the only items that had his prints?
-
Dan, if Williams was part of a conspiracy would he have left his lunch behind? If he wasn’t part of a conspiracy and didn’t see anything why try to hide his presence on the sixth floor. The chicken lunch and pop bottle were part of the narrative for days. Surely Hoover would be keen to check them for Oswald's prints as soon as possible along with the rifle. What if the bottle or bag were the only items that had his prints?
Why leave his lunch behind if he wasn't part of the conspiracy?
Why, after a hard morning laying floor would he leave behind a half eaten chicken piece? Why didn't he finish his lunch?
IMO he was interrupted while he was having his lunch and abandoned it immediately and never had a chance to go back for it.
What caused him to abandon his lunch?
If it was something he wasn't supposed to see or he was told to leave I think he would have took his chicken piece with him.
If he was told to leave why would he go down to the 5th floor instead? Why not flee the scene? Why not warn Norman and Jarman? Why not warn Baker on his way up towards the assassin?
Norman and Jarman weren't supposed to be there. They arrive on the 5th floor minutes before the motorcade arrives. Up to this point Williams and the man with the rifle (Dougherty?) have been on the 6th floor, undisturbed for almost 15 minutes at least. Suddenly there's a noise from the floor below, it has to be checked out and the situation controlled. Williams, stood in or at the SN drops his half eaten chicken on the stack of boxes and races down to the 5th floor. He arrives just as the Presidential limo turns onto Houston. The subsequently strange behaviour of Williams, Norman and Jarman after the shooting seems more explicable in this light, Williams is there to contain the situation.
Or not 8)
-
I wonder why Williams did not just tell the cops this the afternoon he was making his statement when he saw Oswald brought into custody. Would have saved us much anguish. Oswald, the guy who was gunned down in police protection less than two days later....that guy.
Mr Crow, it's obvious to any fairminded analyst of the case that the reason why Mr Williams did not just tell the cops this the afternoon he was making his statement was that Mr Mytton needs Mr Oswald up there, logic be damned! Thumb1:
-
Prob not deemed relevant. Just like the clipboard.
(Not wishing to take this excellent thread off-topic, but...) I suspect the clipboard was made relevant (months later) because of the discovery around that time of two curtain rods in the Depository.
Thumb1:
-
Michael these are the facts. The lunch was deemed to be associated with the assassin for days. Why were the items not sent to the FBI for analysis that evening?
It seems obvious, doesn't it?--------------Lt Day did here what he would do several months later with the curtain rods: check them for Mr Oswald's prints. When a negative result was given, the bones/bottle were deemed suddenly irrelevant and so not sent on to the FBI. It's not like the 'investigating' authorities had the slightest desire to discover that someone other than Mr Oswald had been at the SN! I mean, just imagine if the prints turned out not to belong to any Depository employee... Why, it would only confuse the already traumatized public terribly, and who would want that?
-
The only real problem with Rowland's description of the black male in the SN is his age.
Exactly------------Mr Williams had little or no hair, and was wearing a bright plaid shirt that day! And besides, who cares about a 20-year-old man being mistaken for a wrinkled man in his fifties? Happens all the time! Thumb1:
-
Exactly------------Mr Williams had little or no hair, and was wearing a bright plaid shirt that day! And besides, who cares about a 20-year-old man being mistaken for a wrinkled man in his fifties? Happens all the time! Thumb1:
Rowland makes it clear he didn't pay much attention to the man in the SN and his description must be viewed in that light.
He describes a black male who is very thin which comfortably describes BRW
He describes him as " bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald". BRW had a very high forehead and quite close cropped hair. Viewed from a distance, looking upwards with a dark background I think it's not beyond the realms of possibility BRW could appear 'practically bald':
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0F26sx9/BRW.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
He describes him as wearing "a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color". This is a reach but as we know he was wearing a green shirt and was also eating a bag of Fritos, a very bright red colour. I can see him holding the bag up in front of himself as he eats them and we know he finished them off (I believe Studebaker mentions Frito crumbs in the sack but I don't know what happened to the bag). Rowland, not paying much attention sees the bright colours held up in front of BRW and thinks it's part of the shirt.
As for his age, Rowland seems pretty sure he's quite elderly but he does say this:" Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way." It was marked in some way - BRW had a moustache!
He also notes, when asked about the age of the man with the rifle, that his estimation "could be obscured because of the distance," which he estimates as 150 to 175 feet.
Finally, he describes the man in the SN as being "fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark".
Rowland's observations have to be taken in the context of the distance, the elevation and, as he says himself, he wasn't really paying that much attention to the man in the SN. His description shouldn't be held as 100% accurate.
-
Rowland makes it clear he didn't pay much attention to the man in the SN and his description must be viewed in that light.
He describes a black male who is very thin which comfortably describes BRW
He describes him as " bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald". BRW had a very high forehead and quite close cropped hair. Viewed from a distance, looking upwards with a dark background I think it's not beyond the realms of possibility BRW could appear 'practically bald':
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0F26sx9/BRW.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
He describes him as wearing "a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color". This is a reach but as we know he was wearing a green shirt and was also eating a bag of Fritos, a very bright red colour. I can see him holding the bag up in front of himself as he eats them and we know he finished them off (I believe Studebaker mentions Frito crumbs in the sack but I don't know what happened to the bag). Rowland, not paying much attention sees the bright colours held up in front of BRW and thinks it's part of the shirt.
As for his age, Rowland seems pretty sure he's quite elderly but he does say this:" Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way." It was marked in some way - BRW had a moustache!
He also notes, when asked about the age of the man with the rifle, that his estimation "could be obscured because of the distance," which he estimates as 150 to 175 feet.
Finally, he describes the man in the SN as being "fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark".
Rowland's observations have to be taken in the context of the distance, the elevation and, as he says himself, he wasn't really paying that much attention to the man in the SN. His description shouldn't be held as 100% accurate.
The only real problem with Rowland's description of the black male in the SN is that it most of it doesn't fit Mr Williams, so let's ignore most of Rowland's description of the black male in the SN and cherry-pick the bits we like.
Got it, thanks! Thumb1:
-
The only real problem with Rowland's description of the black male in the SN is that it most of it doesn't fit Mr Williams, so let's ignore most of Rowland's description of the black male in the SN and cherry-pick the bits we like.
Got it, thanks! Thumb1:
But you do agree that Williams is up on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time Rowland makes his observation?
-
Hoover never pulled rank. He never had the authority to do so. The DPD handed the evidence over to the FBI on Nov 22 voluntarily.
This is erroneous. The FBI began badgering the DPD to hand over any and all evidence soon after the DPD had Oswald in custody. There was not much "voluntary" about it when the FBI was indicating that the DPD didn't "voluntarily" hand over the evidence, they might simply come and take it. And a few days later, after the FBI had "returned" the evidence to the DPD for less than 48 hours, the FBI flat-out demanded that the DPD hand over all the evidence again, this time forever, and the DPD complied.
And the WC never did explain why their alleged lone gunman, who supposedly possessed a high degree of marksmanship skills, did not fire at JFK when the limo was on Houston Street, when the shooting would have been much easier because his target was coming toward him in a straight line, but instead waited until his target was moving away from him at an angle and when his view of the target was obstructed for nearly 2 seconds. Any halfway competent marksman would have fired while the limo was on Houston Street while his target was coming straight toward him with nothing obstructing his view of the target.
-
This is erroneous. The FBI began badgering the DPD to hand over any and all evidence soon after the DPD had Oswald in custody. There was not much "voluntary" about it when the FBI was indicating that the DPD didn't "voluntarily" hand over the evidence, they might simply come and take it. And a few days later, after the FBI had "returned" the evidence to the DPD for less than 48 hours, the FBI flat-out demanded that the DPD hand over all the evidence again, this time forever, and the DPD complied.
You've been studying this case for how long? Well over 20 years? And you're still clueless on the facts of it. The DPD voluntarily handed over evidence to the FBI and Nov 22. It's right there in Curry's sworn testimony.
Mr. Curry. But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
The FBI never flat-out demanded that the DPD hand over any of the evidence at any time. Nor could they.
(https://i.imgur.com/fiqVZEC.jpg)
-
You've been studying this case for how long? Well over 20 years? And you're still clueless on the facts of it. The DPD voluntarily handed over evidence to the FBI and Nov 22. It's right there in Curry's sworn testimony.
Mr. Curry. But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
The FBI never flat-out demanded that the DPD hand over any of the evidence at any time. Nor could they.
(https://i.imgur.com/fiqVZEC.jpg)
Thumb1:
The FBI said that there was no palm print on the rifle.
The FBI said that the fingerprints on the trigger guard did not have enough points for a positive ID.
The FBI said that the fibers were a match to Oswald's shirt but could not be proven exclusively.
The FBI said that there was not enough evidence to say that the rifle was in the bag.
The FBI said that Lt Day didn't inform them about the palm print.
And on it goes, it looks like to me that the FBI analysed the evidence to their usual standards, so I'd like to know why giving the FBI the evidence was meant to screw over Oswald??
JohnM
-
You've been studying this case for how long? Well over 20 years? And you're still clueless on the facts of it. The DPD voluntarily handed over evidence to the FBI and Nov 22. It's right there in Curry's sworn testimony.
Mr. Curry. But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
The FBI never flat-out demanded that the DPD hand over any of the evidence at any time. Nor could they.
(https://i.imgur.com/fiqVZEC.jpg)
Any similar letter for the 22nd Tim? I did post the relevant testimony from Hoover and Curry. Seems fairly straightforward. Fritz did not want the evidence released.
Mr. HOOVER. That is correct, When President Johnson returned to Washington he communicated with me within the first 24 hours, and asked the Bureau to pick up the investigation of the assassination because as you are aware, there is no Federal jurisdiction for such an investigation. It is not a Federal crime to kill or attack the President or the Vice President or any of the continuity of officers who would succeed to the Presidency.
However, the President has a right to request the Bureau to make special investigations, and in this instance he asked that this investigation be made. I immediately assigned a special force headed by the special agent in charge at Dallas, Tex., to initiate the investigation, and to get all details and facts concerning it, which we obtained, and then prepared a report which we submitted to the Attorney General for transmission to the President.
-
Thumb1:
The FBI said that there was no palm print on the rifle.
The FBI said that the fingerprints on the trigger guard did not have enough points for a positive ID.
The FBI said that the fibers were a match to Oswald's shirt but could not be proven exclusively.
The FBI said that there was not enough evidence to say that the rifle was in the bag.
The FBI said that Lt Day didn't inform them about the palm print.
And on it goes, it looks like to me that the FBI analysed the evidence to their usual standards, so I'd like to know why giving the FBI the evidence was meant to screw over Oswald??
JohnM
Who is claiming giving the evidence was done with the intention of screwing over Oswald?
Why did the DPD fail to completely comply with the initial request?
Why would the DPD not hand over the bottle and lunchsack for analysis? Why didn’t the FBI query the DPD about it? What if Oswald‘s prints were all over them, do you think eating greasy chicken might lead to deposition of some fingerprints on glass and paper?
Fritz was considering that an employee was involved in a plot that evening, yet a couple of days later Day simply accepts an employee's ownership of material that was reported to be in the SN by numerous officers first on the scene. No bother to simply fingerprint Williams and check with the bag and bottle to corroborate his claim the day after Oswald is killed.
-
Any similar letter for the 22nd Tim? I did post the relevant testimony from Hoover and Curry. Seems fairly straightforward. Fritz did not want the evidence released.
There is no similar letter for the 22nd. I don't know if Fritz wanted the DPD to hang onto the evidence or not. It really wouldn't have mattered what he wanted. Curry was the Chief.
-
There is no similar letter for the 22nd. I don't know if Fritz wanted the DPD to hang onto the evidence or not. It really wouldn't have mattered what he wanted. Curry was the Chief.
Posted a couple of pages back in a post you replied to.....
Mr. CURRY - Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place, but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas, Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.
We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"
But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us."
You must have missed it.
We were talking of the initial evidence scoop up on the Friday evening not the second one on the afternoon of the 26th.
-
But you do agree that Williams is up on the 6th floor having his lunch at the time Rowland makes his observation?
I'm not convinced of that at all, Mr O'Meara!
-
There is no similar letter for the 22nd. I don't know if Fritz wanted the DPD to hang onto the evidence or not. It really wouldn't have mattered what he wanted. Curry was the Chief.
This isn't just to you Tim but anyone who might have an idea or even a good guess.
Why, after badgering the DPD to give them the evidence, do the FBI return the evidence on the 24th only to take it back permanently on the 26th?
They initially take it at almost midnight on the 22nd. It arrives in Washington in the early hours of the 23rd and is returned on the 24th. Surely the FBI had no time to carry out any real investigation of the evidence. So why return it?
Is there any documentation relating to this event?
-
It seems unlikely but could it be anything to do with the murder of Oswald on the 24th?
-
It seems unlikely but could it be anything to do with the murder of Oswald on the 24th?
Thumb1:
After noon on the 24th there will be no need for a trial in Texas. And who would trust them, they just let the killer be killed in their own building.
Yet still they hung onto potential evidence even though tasked with delivering all evidence in their to the FBI for a second time!
-
This isn't just to you Tim but anyone who might have an idea or even a good guess.
Why, after badgering the DPD to give them the evidence, do the FBI return the evidence on the 24th only to take it back permanently on the 26th?
They initially take it at almost midnight on the 22nd. It arrives in Washington in the early hours of the 23rd and is returned on the 24th. Surely the FBI had no time to carry out any real investigation of the evidence. So why return it?
Is there any documentation relating to this event?
I might guess some "tidying up" was required on some material. Chain of evidence stuff that was found lacking first time around.
-
I might guess some "tidying up" was required on some material. Chain of evidence stuff that was found lacking first time around.
This is a Hoover memo dated 24th November (4.00pm) and declassified in 2017:
https://images.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/docid-32263509.pdf
The pertinent paragraph reads:
"Chief of Police Curry I understand cannot control Capt. Fritz of the Homicide Squad, who is giving much information to the press. Since we now think it involves the Criminal Code on a conspiracy charge under section 241, we want them to shut up. Furthermore, I have ordered the evidence be secured by the Police Department. We sent most of the evidence back to them. We still have the bullets that were fired and will keep them."
There seems to be quite a lot of friction between the FBI and the DPD. Hoover, himself, ordered the return of the evidence to have it "secured by the Police Department". I don't know what this means and it sounds off. The very next sentence after this paragraph relates to Hoover wanting to "convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin".
Hoover is not impressed with the work of the DPD and believes it's the FBI who are doing all the important work:
"They did not really have a case against Oswald until we gave them our information. We traced the weapon, we identified the handwriting, we identified the fingerprints on the brown bag. We were able to identify the bullets as coming from that gun. All the Dallas Police had was three witnesses..."
The FBI did a lot of work on the 23rd but still had lots more to do. With this in mind, why would Hoover return all the evidence to the DPD when he is so critical of them?
-
This is a Hoover memo dated 24th November (4.00pm) and declassified in 2017:
https://images.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/docid-32263509.pdf
The pertinent paragraph reads:
"Chief of Police Curry I understand cannot control Capt. Fritz of the Homicide Squad, who is giving much information to the press. Since we now think it involves the Criminal Code on a conspiracy charge under section 241, we want them to shut up. Furthermore, I have ordered the evidence be secured by the Police Department. We sent most of the evidence back to them. We still have the bullets that were fired and will keep them."
There seems to be quite a lot of friction between the FBI and the DPD. Hoover, himself, ordered the return of the evidence to have it "secured by the Police Department". I don't know what this means and it sounds off. The very next sentence after this paragraph relates to Hoover wanting to "convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin".
Hoover is not impressed with the work of the DPD and believes it's the FBI who are doing all the important work:
"They did not really have a case against Oswald until we gave them our information. We traced the weapon, we identified the handwriting, we identified the fingerprints on the brown bag. We were able to identify the bullets as coming from that gun. All the Dallas Police had was three witnesses..."
The FBI did a lot of work on the 23rd but still had lots more to do. With this in mind, why would Hoover return all the evidence to the DPD when he is so critical of them?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241)
Seems J Edgar was initially a conspiracy theorist. Oswald was dead, who was the second person he had in mind I wonder.
-
On the 22nd the FBI take the evidence relating to the assassination from the DPD
On the 24th Hoover states in a memo " I have ordered the evidence be secured by the Police Department. We sent most of the evidence back to them."
On the 25th Chief Curry makes the following press release:
"When the investigation in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald is completed insofar as the Dallas Police Department is concerned, we intend to make the entire file public unless Federal authorities specifically request that some part be withheld and turned over to them. Unless we are specifically instructed otherwise from Washington, we believe it can and should become public information. At this time, we cannot designate when the release will be made."
On the 26th Henry Wade makes the following request to Curry on behalf of the Federal government:
"return over all of the evidence obtained in the investigation of the president over to the FBI for mailing to Washington."
In all this "William's lunch" remains never make it to the FBI and are still at the DPD when Day gives his WC testimony.
When the evidence is collected on the 26th Day is aware the prints on the remains do not belong to Oswald, he has heard they might belong to a TSBD employee (Williams?) but makes no effort to confirm this. Basically, he doesn't have a clue who the prints belong to but the decision is made not to hand this vital evidence, initially thought to be the assassin's, over to the FBI.
-
Perhaps very pertinent in the context of any Williams/Rowland/etc. discussion is what Mrs. Mary Hall told the HSCA on 12 Nov 1977:
-------------------she worked on the fifth floor of the Dal-Tex building
-------------------some time between 9.30-10.30 11/22/63 she saw a young man deliver a long box from an Honest Joe station wagon to the Depository
-------------------"she resumed her work and didn't look out of the window until around lunchtime when she looked across the street into the T.S.B.D.'s sixth floor window ('their sixth floor window was level with our fifth floor') and she saw a white male, wearing a hat, apparently looking for something among boxes. She showed the man to her co-worker, Gertrude Fowler, and a few minutes later they all went to have lunch and watch the President's motorcade."
-------------------later that day, after the assassination, she told the police about what she had seen.
Thumb1:
-
Can I suggest that the official version relating to movements on the sixth floor are not supported by the various statements. Also the according to what was known at the time the lunch sack and bottle should have been provided to the FBI for analysis.
-
Can I suggest that the official version relating to movements on the sixth floor are not supported by the various statements. Also the according to what was known at the time the lunch sack and bottle should have been provided to the FBI for analysis.
I think that's fairly certain.
-
Just came across this......from "The Oswald Affair" by Léo Sauvage March 1964. Note the date, it precedes Ball and Belin‘s trip to Dallas to "sort things out".
https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/The_Oswald_Affair/Oswald_Affair.html (https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/The_Oswald_Affair/Oswald_Affair.html)
"3. The Chicken Bones
Entering the storage room on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the police found, near the window from which the shots had been fired, an empty cigarette pack and the remains of a meal: a piece of partly eaten fried chicken, some chicken bones in a paper bag, and an empty Coca-Cola bottle. Officially announced Friday afternoon on television by Captain Fritz, this discovery was published in every newspaper around the world and taken as an indication of the cold-bloodedness of the assassin who had calmly waited, eating chicken and smoking cigarettes (though there was no mention of cigarette butts), for the moment to shoot.
Nobody doubted that the person who had eaten the chicken was the assassin, and some expected the police to pump Oswald’s stomach in order to prove that he was that person. Chief Curry, however, denied that there had ever been any such intention. He had enough evidence against, Oswald, he said, to dispense with stomach pumps. But like Captain Fritz, Curry seemed perfectly convinced that the chicken was Oswald’s, and on Sunday the FBI agent on the scene, Gordon Shanklin, made it final by informing Fred Powledge of the New York Times that a print of Oswald’s left index finger had been found on the paper bag containing the chicken bones.
Meanwhile, in his eagerness to establish that Lee Oswald had been in the Elm Street building at the time of the murder, Captain Fritz had triumphantly announced to press and television that no fewer than six witnesses had seen Oswald there shortly before the shooting. One of these witnesses, Captain Fritz said, had invited Oswald to come outside with him to watch the approaching motorcade from the street, and Fritz seemed to attach great importance to the fact that Oswald, after refusing the invitation, had asked that witness to send the freight elevator back up to him.
The chief of the Dallas Homicide Bureau did not explain how a hand-operated freight elevator could be sent anywhere without an operator in it, but in any event, side by side with the news of Oswald’s chicken lunch, the papers printed the story of his having been seen by several witnesses only so short a time before the crime that the Presidential motorcade was already approaching. The contradiction was obvious, and significant, for if Oswald hadn’t had enough time to have eaten that chicken between the departure of Captain Fritz’s witnesses and the assassination, was someone else waiting—and eating chicken—near the sixth-floor window from which President Kennedy was shot? Was that second man Oswald’s accomplice? Or was he perhaps the real assassin in whose place Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested?
I do not know whether the Dallas investigators spent any time pondering these dramatic questions. Nor do I know what laboratory tests—if any—were made on the remaining piece of chicken and the bones, in order, for example, to find tooth marks. (Captain Fritz could have learned about these possibilities in Söderman and O’Connell’s handbook, Modern Criminal Investigation without waiting for Soviet criminologist I. Karpets to remind him of them). Nor, again, do I know whether anyone in the Dallas Police Department thought of making plaster casts, or at least taking photographs, of the chicken leftovers before throwing them away. What is certain is that from Monday the 25th on, the chicken bones were never mentioned again. When, the following Wednesday, I expressed my concern over the question to Assistant District Attorney James Bowie in Dallas, he seemed not to share it at all. According to Mr. Bowie, Oswald was not the person who ate the chicken. This I had already assumed from Captain Fritz’s witnesses. Moreover, Mr. Bowie said—and this I had not previously heard—it had been discovered that the chicken was eaten and discarded near the window the day before the President was shot. Had the police found the man who had eaten it? Mr. Bowie didn’t know.
This was on November 27. On December 8, the New York Journal American published a “step by stealthy step” account of a copyrighted story by Gene Roberts originally published in the Detroit Free Press and then syndicated to various other newspapers across the country. Somewhere in the middle of that story, the following lines appeared:
“The storage room seemed made to order for an assassin. It was cluttered with rows of book cartons, some of them in stacks six feet high. Five depository employees had worked in the storage room until noon, covering its floor with plywood. One of them, Bonnie Ray Williams, walked near the window at the 10 o’clock smoking break, downed a bottle of pop, chewed on a piece of chicken. This killed the theory that the assassin had eaten chicken while waiting in ambush.”
This was the first I (or anyone else, I believe) had heard of Bonnie Ray Williams and the four other men who were working in the sixth-floor storage room until noon on the morning of the assassination. Neither Jack C. Cason, president of the Texas School Book Depository, nor Roy S. Truly, its manager, had ever mentioned them. On the day of the murder, indeed, Mr. Cason was quoted by the Dallas Morning News as saying that “President Kennedy’s killer could have been holed up in that sixth floor hideaway for as long as four days without anyone bothering him.” Nevertheless, Mr. Truly has since confirmed Gene Roberts’s modestly hidden scoop. “Maybe I left out a few things, talking to reporters,” he remarked when I reminded him on the phone that he had never spoken of the workmen before. “Yes, I may have forgotten about it, there were so many things to think of, and everybody was so upset.”
Well, maybe. But how is it that the police found Oswald’s palm print, but no other, on a carton, which it now develops, must have been shifted back and forth during the morning by several different hands? And since it now also appears that Oswald could not, because of the exceptional activity going on there all morning, have used the convenient hiding places of the sixth floor, where did he keep his rifle from sight until noon? When did he take it out from where he had hidden it? How did he get it to the sixth-floor window in time for the murder without being seen?
Moreover, if Gene Roberts’s story represents—as it seems to do—the present position of the Dallas authorities, one wonders how Bonnie Ray Williams convinced Assistant District Attorney Bowie that at the 10 o’clock smoking break on November 22, he was chewing chicken bones which, according to what Mr. Bowie himself told me, were already a day old."
Some interesting stuff there.....seems a mishmash of a number of statements. Remember Williams first official statement that provided any detail about the lunch occurred on December 2.
Did Williams originally try to say the chicken was left there at 10am? Or is there simply confusion with the Shelley claim that it was Givens who was eating at the smoke break?
-
Did Williams originally try to say the chicken was left there at 10am? Or is there simply confusion with the Shelley claim that it was Givens who was eating at the smoke break?
Mr Crow, it's quite possible that Mr Williams ate chicken/drank pop over by the SN at 10a.m., while Mr Givens ate chicken several windows down at the same or similar time-------------and that Mr Shelley only noticed/remembered the latter.
It's also quite possible that the chicken bones/pop had been left there the day before.
The initial DPD line that the chicken bones/pop bottle were related to the assassination may have been nothing more than a hasty assumption----------one which we do not have to share. I mean, it's not like the first person to find the half-eaten chicken noticed that it was still hot!
Then again... it's also quite possible that fingerprints were on that bottle which (had the bottle been forensically dusted) would have pointed to a non-employee.
Either way, Mr Williams' story remains a mess, and Mr Rowland's testimony a thorn in the LN side!
Thumb1:
-
It's also quite possible that the chicken bones/pop had been left there the day before.
I suspect alot of the evidence in the JFK assassination has simple explanations like this, like the police officer tutting his horn outside Oswalds rooming house. Yes, there could be a sinister explanation but likewise it could just be a police officer honking his horn to get a cat out of the road. We've all done that from time to time.
-
Mr Crow, it's quite possible that Mr Williams ate chicken/drank pop over by the SN at 10a.m., while Mr Givens ate chicken several windows down at the same or similar time-------------and that Mr Shelley only noticed/remembered the latter.
It's also quite possible that the chicken bones/pop had been left there the day before.
The initial DPD line that the chicken bones/pop bottle were related to the assassination may have been nothing more than a hasty assumption----------one which we do not have to share. I mean, it's not like the first person to find the half-eaten chicken noticed that it was still hot!
Then again... it's also quite possible that fingerprints were on that bottle which (had the bottle been forensically dusted) would have pointed to a non-employee.
Either way, Mr Williams' story remains a mess, and Mr Rowland's testimony a thorn in the LN side!
Thumb1:
But do you agree that from all that is known the lunch remnants should have been transferred to the FBI on Friday evening?
-
But do you agree that from all that is known the lunch remnants should have been transferred to the FBI on Friday evening?
Abso---------100%----------lutely! Thumb1:
-
I suspect alot of the evidence in the JFK assassination has simple explanations like this, like the police officer tutting his horn outside Oswalds rooming house. Yes, there could be a sinister explanation but likewise it could just be a police officer honking his horn to get a cat out of the road. We've all done that from time to time.
Apples & Oranges, Mr Down!
-
Apologies if this was asked...
If it was answered....it was probably not very well.
Why would someone sneak into the theater ...proceed to sneak upstairs and then later [illogically] leave that balcony seclusion and go back downstairs-- risking detection?
Using the floor plan we see that...Burroughs at the concession would have seen someone enter into the main auditorium but not if they cautiously went upstairs.
(https://harveyandlee.net/JH%20PIX/Davis_2.jpg)
-
There was a big debate on this forum a while back about where the concession stand was located.
-
Alan, I think we are much closer in thoughts than it might appear. When I first started looking at the Chicken lunch story many years ago I had no idea where it would lead. The assembled evidence clearly failEd to support the official narrative. We have employees changing significant events over time, there can be no debate that they did, it’s in the record. The closest I can come to the lone nut version is that Williams was encouraged by Oswald to vacate the sixth floor a few minutes before the shots. If this were the case one must ask, why didn’t Williams convey to this fact to the police on the afternoon of the assassination. He knew Oswald was in custody and was questioned about him. At that point he becomes the star prosecution witness.
Hi Colin,
what is your position on Williams' involvement in the assassination (if any)?
I find it very difficult to imagine that he is not directly involved even if he does not understand the full extent of what he's actually involved in. I strongly suspect he got Norman and Jarman to cover for him, it was just an unlucky last minute decision to go up to the 5th floor.
I also believe Doughrty is 'the man with the rifle'.
-
There was a big debate on this forum a while back about where the concession stand was located.
West side of the lobby. Besides it didn't matter....
There was a partition doorway between the entrance doorway and the lobby as shown in the floor plan..
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49432/m1/1/med_res/)
-
There was a big debate on this forum a while back about where the concession stand was located.
Thought you meant the catering service that delivered lunches to the TSBD. This catering service is something we've heard very little (as in nothing) about. You'd wonder if that catering service was a way to get assassins in and out of the TSBD, or deliver rifles etc.
-
Hi Colin,
what is your position on Williams' involvement in the assassination (if any)?
I find it very difficult to imagine that he is not directly involved even if he does not understand the full extent of what he's actually involved in. I strongly suspect he got Norman and Jarman to cover for him, it was just an unlucky last minute decision to go up to the 5th floor.
I also believe Doughrty is 'the man with the rifle'.
Dan my position is that the assembled evidence shows that the WC narrative of events immediately preceding the shooting are not supported. The lunch remnants were in the SN upon discovery and moved shortly after, prior to processing by Studebaker. The unfinished piece is suggestive that the person eating it was disturbed and did not return. Rowland's testimony indicates that and African American person was occupying the SN for a period for some minutes after 12.15, the time he observed a man with a rifle at the SW corner of the 6th floor.
Williams various statements prior to testifying "evolved" over time to the point that allowed Ball and Belin to place him 20 feet or so from their alleged assassin, oblivious to him cowering in the SN. Prior to their WC testimonies, Jarman and Norman provided statements that claimed he ascended with them on the elevator to the 5th floor. I believe that if Williams was the person Rowland observed that this "alibi" was concocted prior to Williams escort to City Hall for questioning. There was about an hour or so that this could have occurred.
I believe that the most likely scenario is one where someone (or something) convinced Williams to vacate his position. I don’t believe this to be of an overtly threatening nature but something perceived by Williams to be benign and reasonable at the time. I do not believe that this event involved Oswald.
If the man was not Williams, someone had to convince him to change his story and admit he was on the sixth floor at that time when he was not. I do not discount this as a possibility entirely but consider it less likely as it would also require Jarman and Norman to be convinced prior to their testimonies.
As for Dougherty, his actions were questioned by WC council very early on (the Eisenberg memo from memory). However, on balance I find it hard to consider him to be the shooter. His role in the west elevator movements just prior to and after the shooting are critical for the WC narrative.
-
Thought you meant the catering service that delivered lunches to the TSBD. This catering service is something we've heard very little (as in nothing) about. You'd wonder if that catering service was a way to get assassins in and out of the TSBD, or deliver rifles etc.
One can get any number of assassins into a CT clown car.
-
The following can be found in Commission Document 329 - FBI Gemberling Report of 22 Jan 1964
It appears that Williams, Jarman and Norman were interviewed on January 8 by Agents Carter and Griffin in response to the claim that Oswald had observed Jarman and another employee while eating lunch on the first floor of the TSBD.
(https://i.ibb.co/7gphBnk/DE01-C8-D9-5-FB2-4-B58-A627-511-FD99-C7-C2-B.jpg)
The statements appear below....
(https://i.ibb.co/LCCTZNx/2-C742-FFF-82-CC-4533-84-A9-B28-C6-DAFCE55.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/wWyhpc4/386-A531-A-D7-A3-4369-B35-A-4981-F2-C1-A68-A.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Bjq0rq3/99-B45-F41-DA82-4-B41-9-E9-C-ADF108-D31859.jpg)
-
It's fascinating that these ace FBI agents haven't got anything to say regarding the contradictory nature of Jarman's statement. It's January and they still haven't got their story straight!
My suspicion of Williams is based on my best reading of the various testimonies which has him up on the 6th floor a lot longer than he ever admits to. The sixth floor crew finish up around 11:45 to 11:50am, Williams washes up, collects his lunch, gets a bottle of soda and heads straight up to the sixth floor. He is probably up there about 11:55 to 12:00pm. He doesn't go down to the fifth floor until he hears Norman and Jarman there.
Norman and Jarman are outside until the motorcade has turned on to Main Street which is minutes before it arrives at Dealey Plaza. They make their way to the Houston St. dock entrance and enter the building about 12:25, maybe later (it is interesting that Oswald reports seeing them enter the building as it has him in the Domino room at this time, a time by which the motorcade should have already arrived). They make their way up to the fifth floor and begin opening windows etc. and it is around this point Williams hears them.
If Williams was asked to vacate the 6th floor there is no reason for him to abandon his lunch. I get the impression the arrival of Norman and Jarman is a surprise and it is something Williams has to deal with and that's why he abandons it. That the half eaten chicken piece is initially found on a stack of boxes that forms part of the SN shows he was in this position when he abandoned it. The sniper must have surely been in position by this time with Williams stood right by him. There are a couple of indications that Williams didn't get down to the 5th until the Presidential limo was just turning off Main to Houston. This is about 12:28 to 12:29pm.
If Williams needed to be shifted it would surely have been before this time.
The lies of Norman and Jarman can be seen in the light of covering for Williams, whether this was done through misguided friendship or threat. The first affidavit of Williams is an outright lie. He specifically removes himself from the 6th floor and would have got away with it if it hadn't have been for the abandoned lunch. Later that same day the lunch becomes a major part of the 'cold-blooded assassin' story and Williams is in deep s%&t.
He is called in the very next day to give another statement (why, if he'd already given one), this time acknowledging he was on the 6th then went down to the 5th. In his WC testimony it is this second statement that is treated as his original statement. The first outright lie statement is ignored as if it never existed.
I strongly suspect that if Norman and Jarman had not made a late decision to go up to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade, Williams would have been stood right next to the sniper as he took his shots.
-
It's fascinating that these ace FBI agents haven't got anything to say regarding the contradictory nature of Jarman's statement. It's January and they still haven't got their story straight!
My suspicion of Williams is based on my best reading of the various testimonies which has him up on the 6th floor a lot longer than he ever admits to. The sixth floor crew finish up around 11:45 to 11:50am, Williams washes up, collects his lunch, gets a bottle of soda and heads straight up to the sixth floor. He is probably up there about 11:55 to 12:00pm. He doesn't go down to the fifth floor until he hears Norman and Jarman there.
Norman and Jarman are outside until the motorcade has turned on to Main Street which is minutes before it arrives at Dealey Plaza. They make their way to the Houston St. dock entrance and enter the building about 12:25, maybe later (it is interesting that Oswald reports seeing them enter the building as it has him in the Domino room at this time, a time by which the motorcade should have already arrived). They make their way up to the fifth floor and begin opening windows etc. and it is around this point Williams hears them.
If Williams was asked to vacate the 6th floor there is no reason for him to abandon his lunch. I get the impression the arrival of Norman and Jarman is a surprise and it is something Williams has to deal with and that's why he abandons it. That the half eaten chicken piece is initially found on a stack of boxes that forms part of the SN shows he was in this position when he abandoned it. The sniper must have surely been in position by this time with Williams stood right by him. There are a couple of indications that Williams didn't get down to the 5th until the Presidential limo was just turning off Main to Houston. This is about 12:28 to 12:29pm.
If Williams needed to be shifted it would surely have been before this time.
The lies of Norman and Jarman can be seen in the light of covering for Williams, whether this was done through misguided friendship or threat. The first affidavit of Williams is an outright lie. He specifically removes himself from the 6th floor and would have got away with it if it hadn't have been for the abandoned lunch. Later that same day the lunch becomes a major part of the 'cold-blooded assassin' story and Williams is in deep s%&t.
He is called in the very next day to give another statement (why, if he'd already given one), this time acknowledging he was on the 6th then went down to the 5th. In his WC testimony it is this second statement that is treated as his original statement. The first outright lie statement is ignored as if it never existed.
I strongly suspect that if Norman and Jarman had not made a late decision to go up to the 5th floor to watch the motorcade, Williams would have been stood right next to the sniper as he took his shots.
I had never looked at the January FBI investigation in this light before. All were interviewed on the same day and by the same agents. The contradictions are apparent and corroborations lacking. My understanding was that Jarman and Norman were longtime work buddies. The teenager Williams was a recent employee (September?) and not very familiar with the other two. I think he had been transferred to the main building from the other warehouse to form part of the flooring crew. Note that Jarman and Norman were not part of that team.
Some interesting parts of Williams "story" on this occasion. He ate his lunch at noon on the sixth floor and joined Jarman and Norman about 12.05pm. This time he used the west elevator. If so this would create a huge problem for the lone nut scenario. If he did use the west elevator and shut the gates, it would mean that someone moved the east elevator from the sixth floor. It was located on the fifth floor when Truly and Baker took it to the roof after the shots.
Perhaps the unfinished chicken leg in the SN is indicative of him hearing something and going to investigate and failing to return.
The "sighting" of Jarman and Norman mentioned by Oswald under investigation is indeed intriguing.
-
The "sighting" of Jarman and Norman mentioned by Oswald under investigation is indeed intriguing.
Indeed it is! An attempt was made to put the claim in Mr Oswald's mouth that he had actually eaten lunch with Messrs. Jarman & Norman.
-
Not sure what this means:
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Mr. BALL. How long after you came down from the first floor were you taken over to the Police Department?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I couldn't give you the exact time, but it wasn't long.
Mr. BALL. You can't give me any estimate in minutes?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I would not want to say
We see Williams outside the building 8 to 15 minutes after shots (according to Groden HSCA)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTg7rS9G/martin-hughes.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
How does this fit in with his testimony?
-
Not sure what this means:
Mr. BALL. Did you go out of the building shortly after you came downstairs?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They wouldn't let anybody out of the building.
Mr. BALL. How long after you came down from the first floor were you taken over to the Police Department?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I couldn't give you the exact time, but it wasn't long.
Mr. BALL. You can't give me any estimate in minutes?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I would not want to say
We see Williams outside the building 8 to 15 minutes after shots (according to Groden HSCA)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTg7rS9G/martin-hughes.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
How does this fit in with his testimony?
It means Williams was incorrect.....here is Jarman's version. Was he mistaken about who he ran outside with?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I ran, then we ran to the front door.
Mr. BALL - You ran to the front door?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir; and out on the street.
Mr. BALL - You and who?
Mr. JARMAN - Harold Norman.
Mr. BALL - You and Harold went out there?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see a fellow named Brennan?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Where did you see him first?
Mr. JARMAN - He was talking to a police officer.
Mr. BALL - How was he dressed?
Mr. JARMAN - He was dressed in construction clothes.
Mr. BALL - Anything else, any other way to describe him?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he had on a silverlike helmet.
Mr. BALL - Hard-hat?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay out there very long?
Mr. JARMAN - Just a few minutes.
Mr. BALL - Then where did you go?
Mr. JARMAN - We heard him talking to this officer about that he had heard these shots and he had seen the barrel of the gun sticking out the window, and he said that the shots came from inside the building, and I told the officer that I believed that they came from inside the building also, and then he rushed us back inside.
Mr. BALL - The officer did?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. From the time that you went down on the first floor until you left the building to go home did you leave the building at all?
Mr. NORMAN. No; I didn't.
I believe in the movie from which the stills you posted were extracted that you can see Jarman being ushered inside. Simplest answer is that Jarman and Williams left via the front door and were ushered back inside after a short period that involved Brennan.
-
It means Williams was incorrect.....here is Jarman's version. Was he mistaken about who he ran outside with?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I ran, then we ran to the front door.
Mr. BALL - You ran to the front door?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir; and out on the street.
Mr. BALL - You and who?
Mr. JARMAN - Harold Norman.
Mr. BALL - You and Harold went out there?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see a fellow named Brennan?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Where did you see him first?
Mr. JARMAN - He was talking to a police officer.
Mr. BALL - How was he dressed?
Mr. JARMAN - He was dressed in construction clothes.
Mr. BALL - Anything else, any other way to describe him?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he had on a silverlike helmet.
Mr. BALL - Hard-hat?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay out there very long?
Mr. JARMAN - Just a few minutes.
Mr. BALL - Then where did you go?
Mr. JARMAN - We heard him talking to this officer about that he had heard these shots and he had seen the barrel of the gun sticking out the window, and he said that the shots came from inside the building, and I told the officer that I believed that they came from inside the building also, and then he rushed us back inside.
Mr. BALL - The officer did?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. From the time that you went down on the first floor until you left the building to go home did you leave the building at all?
Mr. NORMAN. No; I didn't.
I believe in the movie from which the stills you posted were extracted that you can see Jarman being ushered inside. Simplest answer is that Jarman and Williams left via the front door and were ushered back inside after a short period that involved Brennan.
Nice one Colin, was wondering about the guy going back inside. Jarman makes sense, Williams probably followed shortly after.
Fits the timeline with the boys coming down between 5 and 10 minutes after shooting.
-
I believe in the movie from which the stills you posted were extracted that you can see Jarman being ushered inside. Simplest answer is that Jarman and Williams left via the front door and were ushered back inside after a short period that involved Brennan.
Martin Film:
(https://i.imgur.com/sREQjB8.gif)
Sidenote!------------Mr Lovelady's appearance here on the steps doesn't tally with any of his pre-HSCA statements.
Thumb1:
-
Eliminating eyewitness testimony and relying on the false medical evidence is not an effective way to find the truth. The medical evidence in this case is totally fraudulent and it has taken researchers decades to get the real story. We don't know who the real killers were with any certainty. However, it wasn't Oswald, unless he manifested a second body to the right front of the president. See Douglas Horne's important research on the medical evidence for some very disturbing research. How do you reconcile the false autopsy photos with the testimony of the vast majority of the witnesses who clearly stated there was a large hole in the back of the head? Not one bit of the medical evidence makes any sense. Look at how the HSCA struggled with the medical evidence. There were several pieces of metal found in the president's body at the autopsy that were reported by a reputable witness with no reason to prevaricate (Dennis David).
If "Lee Hardly" was the assassin, everything would be extremely clear and no cover-up would not be necessary. We would see exit wounds on the front of the body, right? Where are these exit wounds? Instead, the entire case is riddled with jaw dropping inconsistencies, witness intimidation, and several murders of vital witnesses. Just one example: why would LBJ call Parkland Hospital to coerce Dr. Crenshaw into wrestling a death bed confession from the dying Oswald? Also the medical evidence includes the SBT, which is impossible for several reasons, yet lone nutters continue to stubbornly embrace this moronic theory. Arlen Specter deserves a lot of scorn, not only for the monstrous lie of the SBT, but also for threatening and deliberately changing witness testimony that contradicted the false government account of the shooting.
Another thing...some folks seem to believe that since the real assassins weren't caught, they don't exist. In truth, the assassination was a huge success, since a patsy was framed and the real assassins escaped. The obvious political reasons for the assassination were silenced and the world hasn't been the same since.
There is a legend that Crenshaw at one point tried claiming that the person identifying themself as LBJ actually said he wanted Oswald to be killed or left to die, contrary to his well-known position that LBJ wanted a deathbed confession. Gus Russo claimed that Crenshaw said this to him personally. Gary Mack said that Jane Rusconi corroborated this and wrote about it in her notes. I recently had the chance to have a quick chat with Rusconi. I asked her a couple of times if she remembered anything matching what Mack said, and she did not give any positive answer. She said that while she did have many personal papers from her work on the movie, unfortunately they were in storage in another town. This is the only information I was able to receive.
-
There’s the possibility that Oswald ( or other shooter ) could have used the East elevator if he had an accomplice who operated it, to take Oswald past the 4th floor unseen by Dorothy Garner and Oswald could have exited the elevator on the 2nd floor landing as early as 55 secs post shots.
The accomplice then operated the East elevator returning it to the 5th floor by 70-75 secs post shots where it would be then seen by Truly looking up the shaft.
That’s about the only reasonable alternative LN scenario imo, unless it can be determined that Mrs Garner waited at least 70 secs post shots before she came out which would be enough time for Oswald to have used the staircase and be starting down from 6th floor about 45 secs post shots and at a 10sec per floor descent , Oswald have gone down part of the 4th floor staircase and not be in LOS of Garner when she exited the 4th floor office door at 70 sec post shots.
I’ve got the earliest probable time for the SW 6th floor window shooter using the MC rifle found on 6th floor , to start down the staircase not earlier tan approx 45 secs post shots because of the added time required for wiping prints off the rifle while doubletiming across the 180 ft of floor (requires 25 secs of time ) and for the act of slowly withdrawing the rifle after it took several secs for Bob Jackson to spot the rifle, a few more secs to exclaim “there’s a rifle in the window” and a few more seconds fir Macolm Couch to look up and find the window thaf Jackson was pointing at.
The shooter also had to get up from the box he was sitting on and turn around with the rifle and then had squeeze thru a narrow opening ( per Tom Aleyas observation of the original gap that existed in the wall of boxes before it was widened)