JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on August 19, 2020, 10:35:52 PM
-
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway said the first thing he did was to grab the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Goes over to the police car and the first thing he does is grab the radio and report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
Let's say two minutes pass from the time Oswald shoots Tippit to the time Oswald turns the corner from Patton onto Jefferson. This is a little over one block and Oswald was running.
Let's say it takes Callaway one minute when he made the "good hard run" the two-thirds of a block from his location to the patrol car.
If these two time estimates are anywhere close to being correct, then Callaway is at the patrol car roughly three minutes after the shots rang out. Let's add another full minute for error. So we have Callaway at the patrol car using the police radio about four minutes after the shots rang out.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Do the math and work it backwards. At 1:19/1:20, Callaway makes the call. If four minutes have passed (and that's being generous, in my opinion) since the shots rang out, then the shots rang out around 1:15.
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=697.1810
Not this again!
DPD recordings are likely not correct, as per J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;
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.
<>
It is, however, important to remember that
1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
Nowhere does it say that "official" time is the same as real time!
Besides, if the shooting happened at 1.15, the only people who actually used a watch or a clock would have to be wrong. Helen Markham must have needed 9 minutes to walk one block from 9th to 10th street, T.F. Bowley must have been at least 5 minutes late in picking up his daughter from school and never noticed it and the clock used at Methodist Hospital used to declare Tippit D.O.A. at 1.15 must have been wrong by at least four minutes.
-
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Mr. BENAVIDES - And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went.
???
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
I don't know and neither do you.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Here's the thing... you don't actually know that.
-
'Mr. BENAVIDES - And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went'.
...(cont'd) I told him he went down Patton Street toward the office, and come to find out later Ted had already seen him go by there.
Mr. BELIN - Did Ted tell you later he had seen him go by?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes; then we had a colored porter that said he-had seen him go by.
-
If "Ted had already seen him go by there", then why did he ask Domingo "which way he went"?
-
'Mr. BENAVIDES - And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went'.
...(cont'd) I told him he went down Patton Street toward the office, and come to find out later Ted had already seen him go by there.
Mr. BELIN - Did Ted tell you later he had seen him go by?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes; then we had a colored porter that said he-had seen him go by.
I told him he went down Patton Street toward the office, and come to find out later Ted had already seen him go by there.
Except he didn't go by the office at all, but instead, according to Callaway, ran down an alley halfway down Patton, between 10th and Jefferson.
-
If "Ted had already seen him go by there", then why did he ask Domingo "which way he went"?
Shrug... confirmation of some sort.
-
Shrug... confirmation of some sort.
Say what?
-
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway said the first thing he did was to grab the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Goes over to the police car and the first thing he does is grab the radio and report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
Let's say two minutes pass from the time Oswald shoots Tippit to the time Oswald turns the corner from Patton onto Jefferson. This is a little over one block and Oswald was running.
Let's say it takes Callaway one minute when he made the "good hard run" the two-thirds of a half block from his location to the patrol car.
If these two time estimates are anywhere close to being correct, then Callaway is at the patrol car roughly three minutes after the shots rang out. Let's add another full minute for error. So we have Callaway at the patrol car using the police radio about four minutes after the shots rang out.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Do the math and work it backwards. At 1:19/1:20, Callaway makes the call. If four minutes have passed (and that's being generous, in my opinion) since the shots rang out, then the shots rang out around 1:15.
Mr. Brown: what's Ruth Paine's theory on this? :)
( you can't be a fanboy and a researcher)
-
Say what?
Use your self-described 'superior education', come down to earth for once, and search 'why do people ask a question they already know the answer to'.
-
Use your self-described 'superior education', come down to earth for once, and search 'why do people ask a question they already know the answer to'.
Say what?
-
Say what?
Ever notice that Bill Chapman edits practically every post he makes and they are still incomprehensible?
-
Tippit was shot at 1:05.
Was there another shooting somewhere else? At 1:15?
-
Tippit was shot at 1:05.
Was there another shooting somewhere else? At 1:15?
Name the '1:05' shooter.
-
Name the '1:05' shooter.
It seems he forgot to leave his wallet at the scene.
Don't you ever get tired of asking stupid questions?
-
Name the '1:05' shooter.
I have no idea.
And neither do you.
Neither does Bill Brown, the Ruth Paine groupie.
-
I have no idea.
And neither do you.
Neither does Bill Brown, the Ruth Paine groupie.
Nah, I have a pretty good idea. Time trials support a proof-of-concept (feasible) later confrontation
-
It seems he forgot to leave his wallet at the scene.
Don't you ever get tired of asking stupid questions?
Name your earlier shooter
-
Nah, I have a pretty good idea. Time trials support a proof-of-concept (feasible) later confrontation
Except there were no time trials in the Tippit shooting..... Just a contrived narrative based on unreliable times given by DPD dispatchers.
Since we know Oswald was at his roominghouse just after 1 pm, there is no physical way for him to have been at 10th/Patton between 1.06 and 1.10 when - as I believe and a preponderance of evidence shows - Tippit was killed, which makes any witness "identification" questionable at best.
-
Name your earlier shooter
Did I not just ask you to stop asking stupid questions?
-
Did I not just ask you to stop asking stupid questions?
Did I not ask you to provide an earlier shooter?
-
Except there were no time trials in the Tippit shooting..... Just a contrived narrative based on unreliable times given by DPD dispatchers.
Since we know Oswald was at his roominghouse just after 1 pm, there is no physical way for him to have been at 10th/Patton between 1.06 and 1.10 when - as I believe and a preponderance of evidence shows - Tippit was killed, which makes any witness "identification" questionable at best.
You talk the talk: Now walk the walk. Feel free to organize a similar trial using a tester the same age, weight, size and fitness as Oswald. Do you need another 57 years?
-
Did I not ask you to provide an earlier shooter?
Yes you did. Which is why I asked you to stop asking stupid questions.... You didn't understand that?
You talk the talk: Now walk the walk. Feel free to organize a similar trial using a tester the same age, weight, size and fitness as Oswald. Do you need another 57 years?
Have you ever been there? I seriously doubt it, going by the BS you write. I was there. Several times in fact and I did do the walk and all possible variations. It was years ago but things haven't changed since then. The distance between the roominghouse and 10th/Patton is still the same and impossible for anybody to walk in less than 10 minutes.
So, if Oswald was at the roominghouse just after 1 pm and Tippit was shot between 1.05 and 1.10 (which is what the credible corroborative evidence shows), Oswald couldn't have been the shooter and the witnesses were wrong. It's really very simple, but somehow I get the impression that you are struggling to comprehend this.
-
Yes you did. Which is why I asked you to stop asking stupid questions.... You didn't understand that?
Have you ever been there? I seriously doubt it, going by the BS you write. I was there. Several times in fact and I did do the walk and all possible variations. It was years ago but things haven't changed since then. The distance between the roominghouse and 10th/Patton is still the same and impossible for anybody to walk in less than 10 minutes.
So, if Oswald was at the roominghouse just after 1 pm and Tippit was shot between 1.05 and 1.10 (which is what the credible corroborative evidence shows), Oswald couldn't have been the shooter and the witnesses were wrong. It's really very simple, but somehow I get the impression that you are struggling to comprehend this.
You lot rely too much on single-witness reports. Oswald was ID'd as the gunman @Tippit by multiple witnesses.
-
You lot rely too much on single-witness reports. Oswald was ID'd as the gunman @Tippit by multiple witnesses.
You lot rely too much on single-witness reports.
What "single-witness" report would that be? Bowley corroborates Markham and Davenport & Methodist Hospital corroborate Bowley and Markham. Do you really need this to be explained to you?
Oswald was ID'd as the gunman @Tippit by multiple witnesses.
Dumbo... that's exactly the problem. Witness identifications are hardly ever accurate. When you've got 10 people watching an event, you will get 10 different accounts of what happened. That's the daily practice, yet in this case all of a sudden you have a multiple of "identifications". I have two D.A.'s and one judge in my family. They all agree that so many "identifications" would be serious cause for concern about procedures and the way line ups were conducted.
Even more so, when you consider. for example, that Scoggins "identified" Oswald in a line up, but the next day failed to identify him from a photo to the FBI.
You really need to get out more and talk to people who know. They will tell you that witness identifications are highly unreliable. One of my brothers, who is a D.A. recently dismissed the prosecution of a man, who was identified by two witness. The only problem was that he man could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was on the other side of the country when the crime was committed.
The bottom line is a simple one; if it was physically impossible for Oswald to have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed, there is no other conclusion possible than that the witnesses were wrong
-
Incomprehensible Chapman thinks that all he has to do is name “Oswald” and his job is done.
-
You lot rely too much on single-witness reports.
What "single-witness" report would that be? Bowley corroborates Markham and Davenport & Methodist Hospital corroborate Bowley and Markham. Do you really need this to be explained to you?
Oswald was ID'd as the gunman @Tippit by multiple witnesses.
Dumbo... that's exactly the problem. Witness identifications are hardly ever accurate. When you've got 10 people watching an event, you will get 10 different accounts of what happened. That's the daily practice, yet in this case all of a sudden you have a multiple of "identifications". I have two D.A.'s and one judge in my family. They all agree that so many "identifications" would be serious cause for concern about procedures and the way line ups were conducted.
Even more so, when you consider. for example, that Scoggins "identified" Oswald in a line up, but the next day failed to identify him from a photo to the FBI.
You really need to get out more and talk to people who know. They will tell you that witness identifications are highly unreliable. One of my brothers, who is a D.A. recently dismissed the prosecution of a man, who was identified by two witness. The only problem was that he man could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was on the other side of the country when the crime was committed.
The bottom line is a simple one; if it was physically impossible for Oswald to have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed, there is no other conclusion possible than that the witnesses were wrong
Single witness = Earlene Roberts estimated in/out times. You're the one claiming an earlier Tippit snuff time. The Perry/Mack Oak Cliff proof-of-concept time trial has Oswald arriving in time for the 1:15 later confrontation.
Multiple witnesses = No claim from me that they all saw him shoot the officer. They ID'd him as being either at or near the scene. And any one of them not being able to ID him from a photo depends on the angle and distance they saw him from as opposed to the photo they viewed.
And the well-known '10 witnesses/10 versions' is self-explanatory as seen in the @/near Tippit death scene.
-
Incomprehensible Chapman thinks that all he has to do is name “Oswald” and his job is done.
reprehensible_Johnny@deadOswald.com
---------------------------------------------
FYI
WC: 'Probably'
HSCA: 'Likely'
Oswald hit it out of the park. Crushed it.
Slam dunk. Drained it. Nailed the hat trick:
'Boom>Click-Click'
'Boom>Click-Click'
'Boom>Click-Click'
Reality Bill
Hunter of Trolls
-
Single witness = Earlene Roberts estimated in/out times. You're the one claiming an earlier Tippit snuff time. The Perry/Mack Oak Cliff proof-of-concept time trial has Oswald arriving in time for the 1:15 later confrontation.
Multiple witnesses = No claim from me that they all saw him shoot the officer. They ID'd him as being either at or near the scene. And any one of them not being able to ID him from a photo depends on the angle and distance they saw him from as opposed to the photo they viewed.
And the well-known '10 witnesses/10 versions' is self-explanatory as seen in the @/near Tippit death scene.
Single witness = Earlene Roberts estimated in/out times.
Really? So, when she said that when Oswald walked in she was trying to get the television to work to watch the one o'clock news that was about to come on, it really wasn't one o'clock.... Is that what you are saying?
And the Warren Commission's timeline for Oswald to get from the TSBD to the roominghouse really didn't get him there at 1 o'clock? Is that what you are saying?
It is not a matter of me relying on one witness. It is you ignoring the collective timeline established by several witnesses who corroborate eachother. You are the one who is now depending on Earlene Roberts being wrong!
The Perry/Mack Oak Cliff proof-of-concept time trial has Oswald arriving in time for the 1:15 later confrontation.
Yes it did. It was an obvious attempt to try to get Oswald there before 1.14 and they barely made it. They had "Oswald" walking two different routes which they timed and later added them up. The fastest time for the shortest route was 11 minutes, which means that Oswald would to have left the roominghouse at 1.04 pm at the latest.
Btw, notice that Gary Mack also accepted Earlene Roberts' time estimate as being correct. The problem with this "time trial" is that they didn't take in account that "Oswald" didn't get there and killed Tippit instantly. First he was seen walking in two different directions, then Tippit stopped him and the two men talked briefly through the window of the car. Even if all that only took one or two minutes, it already screws up Mack's time line as it requires the departure time at the roominghouse to be pushed back by at least two minutes or so!
The only good thing to come out of this "time trail" is that it demonstrated clearly and beyond doubt that Oswald would have needed at least 11 minutes to walk the distance between the roominghouse to 10th/Patton. Which, in turn proves that Oswald couldn't have killed Tippit if he was shot between 1.06 and 1.10 as a preponderance of evidence shows.
So, let's examine your "reality" for a moment. You claim Oswald could have gotten to 10th/Patton by 1.15 to kill Tippit at that time. Well, Helen Markham took the same bus to work on a daily basis. She estimated the departure time of her regular bus at 1.15. That could be the slightly delayed 1.12 bus or the 1.22. Either way, as far as Markham was concerned she needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson no later than 1.15.
She testified she left her house at 9th street just after 1 pm. She only needed to walk two blocks to get to Jefferson, which would have taken her no more than 5 minutes. She would have walked one block in 2,5 maybe 3 minutes. This would have gotten her to the crossing of 10th/Patton at around 1.06 or 1.07, which fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at that time. If Tippit was shot at 1.14 or 1.15, as you claim, Markham would have been at the bus stop at Jefferson and could not have witnessed Tippit being killed!
How do we know that Markham's estimated time of 1.06 is probably correct? Simple; T.F. Bowley arrived on the scene, just after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Next, Bowley was going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday, so he had every reason to be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and highly plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, just like he said he did in his affidavit. But even if we are kind to the LNs and accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
Bowley corroborates Markham's timeline. So, how do we know Bowley's arrival time of 1.10 pm is likely correct? Ted Callaway provides us with the answer. In his testimony he said, he heard the shots, saw Oswald run towards him, he then ran half a block to the corner of 10th/Patton and saw Tippit lying in the street. In other words, Callaway must have been on the scene within 2 or 3 minutes after the shooting, right? Callaway also testified that by the time he got there, a couple of cars had already stopped. He then saw the ambulance arrive (the distance from the funeral home where the ambulance came from to the crime scene was a bit more than one block) and he helped load Tippit in the ambulance and guess who helped him? T.F. Bowley said in his affidavit that he called the DPD dispatcher on the radio and then helped to place Tippit on a stretcher and into the ambulance. He then saw somebody (Callaway) take Tippit's revolver out of the police car. What does all this mean? It means that Bowley was already on the scene when Callaway, who only had to run half a block, arrived there!
So, for Tippit to be shot at 1.14 or 1.15, Markham would have had to be late by at least 5 minutes (if she was still at 10th/Patton at 1.15) to get to her bus stop, or, alternatively, it must have taken her 10 minutes to walk one block. Bowley's watch must have been wrong by at least 5 minutes (meaning he picked up his daughter too late from school and did not notice it) and, as a consequence, Callaway must have taken at least 8 (3 + 5) minutes or so to run half a block to arrive after Bowley was already there. As if that isn't enough, there is also the matter of the ambulance. DPD officers Davenport and Bardin wrote in their Supplementary Offense Report that they saw the ambulance en route to Methodist Hospital and followed it. They assisted in getting Tippit to the emergency room, where he was declared DOA at 1.15 pm, which is, of course, exactly the time of DOA stated in the authorization for autopsy, issued by Justice of the Peace Joe Brown.
Multiple witnesses = No claim from me that they all saw him shoot the officer. They ID'd him as being either at or near the scene. And any one of them not being able to ID him from a photo depends on the angle and distance they saw him from as opposed to the photo they viewed.
Actually, you did claim;
You lot rely too much on single-witness reports. Oswald was ID'd as the gunman @Tippit by multiple witnesses.
Beyond that, it is not relevant what the witnesses (believe they) saw, when it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed, which is between 1.06 and 1,10 pm as the most compelling evidence shows.
And btw, Scoggings saw the killer running directly toward him. He should have been able to identify Oswald in a photograph but didn't. Perhaps you think the FBI showed him a photo of Oswald's back of his head?
-
Single witness = Earlene Roberts estimated in/out times.
Really? So, when she said that when Oswald walked in she was trying to get the television to work to watch the one o'clock news that was about to come on, it really wasn't one o'clock.... Is that what you are saying?
And the Warren Commission's timeline for Oswald to get from the TSBD to the roominghouse really didn't get him there at 1 o'clock? Is that what you are saying?
It is not a matter of me relying on one witness. It is you ignoring the collective timeline established by several witnesses who corroborate eachother. You are the one who is now depending on Earlene Roberts being wrong!
The Perry/Mack Oak Cliff proof-of-concept time trial has Oswald arriving in time for the 1:15 later confrontation.
Yes it did. It was an obvious attempt to try to get Oswald there before 1.14 and they barely made it. They had "Oswald" walking two different routes which they timed and later added them up. The fastest time for the shortest route was 11 minutes, which means that Oswald would to have left the roominghouse at 1.04 pm at the latest.
Btw, notice that Gary Mack also accepted Earlene Roberts' time estimate as being correct. The problem with this "time trial" is that they didn't take in account that "Oswald" didn't get there and killed Tippit instantly. First he was seen walking in two different directions, then Tippit stopped him and the two men talked briefly through the window of the car. Even if all that only took one or two minutes, it already screws up Mack's time line as it requires the departure time at the roominghouse to be pushed back by at least two minutes or so!
The only good thing to come out of this "time trail" is that it demonstrated clearly and beyond doubt that Oswald would have needed at least 11 minutes to walk the distance between the roominghouse to 10th/Patton. Which, in turn proves that Oswald couldn't have killed Tippit if he was shot between 1.06 and 1.10 as a preponderance of evidence shows.
So, let's examine your "reality" for a moment. You claim Oswald could have gotten to 10th/Patton by 1.15 to kill Tippit at that time. Well, Helen Markham took the same bus to work on a daily basis. She estimated the departure time of her regular bus at 1.15. That could be the slightly delayed 1.12 bus or the 1.22. Either way, as far as Markham was concerned she needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson no later than 1.15.
She testified she left her house at 9th street just after 1 pm. She only needed to walk two blocks to get to Jefferson, which would have taken her no more than 5 minutes. She would have walked one block in 2,5 maybe 3 minutes. This would have gotten her to the crossing of 10th/Patton at around 1.06 or 1.07, which fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at that time. If Tippit was shot at 1.14 or 1.15, as you claim, Markham would have been at the bus stop at Jefferson and could not have witnessed Tippit being killed!
How do we know that Markham's estimated time of 1.06 is probably correct? Simple; T.F. Bowley arrived on the scene, just after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Next, Bowley was going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday, so he had every reason to be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and highly plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, just like he said he did in his affidavit. But even if we are kind to the LNs and accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
Bowley corroborates Markham's timeline. So, how do we know Bowley's arrival time of 1.10 pm is likely correct? Ted Callaway provides us with the answer. In his testimony he said, he heard the shots, saw Oswald run towards him, he then ran half a block to the corner of 10th/Patton and saw Tippit lying in the street. In other words, Callaway must have been on the scene within 2 or 3 minutes after the shooting, right? Callaway also testified that by the time he got there, a couple of cars had already stopped. He then saw the ambulance arrive (the distance from the funeral home where the ambulance came from to the crime scene was a bit more than one block) and he helped load Tippit in the ambulance and guess who helped him? T.F. Bowley said in his affidavit that he called the DPD dispatcher on the radio and then helped to place Tippit on a stretcher and into the ambulance. He then saw somebody (Callaway) take Tippit's revolver out of the police car. What does all this mean? It means that Bowley was already on the scene when Callaway, who only had to run half a block, arrived there!
So, for Tippit to be shot at 1.14 or 1.15, Markham would have had to be late by at least 5 minutes to get to her bus stop, Bowley's watch must have been wrong by at least 5 minutes (meaning he picked up his daughter too late from school and did not notice it) and, as a consequence, Callaway must have taken at least 8 (3 + 5) minutes or so to run half a block to arrive after Bowley was already there. As if that isn't enough, there is also the matter of the ambulance. DPD officers Davenport and Bardin wrote in their Supplementary Offense Report that they saw the ambulance en route to Methodist Hospital and followed it. They assisted in getting Tippit to the emergency room, where he was declared DOA at 1.15 pm, which is, of course, exactly the time of DOA stated in the authorization for autopsy, issued by Justice of the Peace Joe Brown.
Multiple witnesses = No claim from me that they all saw him shoot the officer. They ID'd him as being either at or near the scene. And any one of them not being able to ID him from a photo depends on the angle and distance they saw him from as opposed to the photo they viewed.
Actually, you did claim;
Beyond that, it is not relevant what the witnesses (believe they) saw, when it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed, which is between 1.06 and 1,10 pm as the most compelling evidence shows.
And btw, Scoggings saw the killer running directly toward him. He should have been able to identify Oswald in a photograph but didn't. Perhaps you think the FBI showed him a photo of Oswald's back of his head?
Markham: 'Number two'
-
Markham: 'Number two'
Just as expected. Classic LN behavior. Billy only wants to deal with facts that favor his fairytale story.
But when they don't and things get too complicated for Billy, leaving him unable to muster a serious or credible response, he just throws out a silly one-liner comment, sticks his head in the sand and hopes nobody notices his inability to have a serious discussion about factual critical evidence.
It demonstrates perfectly that I was right when I said earlier that Bill Chapman never says anything of significance or relevance.
Billy, of course, does not understand, nor will he ever accept, that this childish response is akin to waiving the white flag of surrender.
-
Just as expected. Classic LN behavior. Billy only wants to deal with facts that favor his fairytale story.
But when they don't and things get too complicated for Billy, leaving him unable to muster a serious or credible response, he just throws out a silly one-liner comment, sticks his head in the sand and hopes nobody notices his inability to have a serious discussion about factual critical evidence.
It demonstrates perfectly that I was right when I said earlier that Bill Chapman never says anything of significance or relevance.
Billy, of course, does not understand, nor will he ever accept, that this childish response is akin to waiving the white flag of surrender.
CTers resort to word salads when faced with the simple truth.
PS: #2
-
CTers resort to word salads when faced with the simple truth.
PS: #2
Oh poor boy... is this really how pathetic you actually are?
Having trouble reading anything more than 2 lines? Or is anything that presents you with facts you can not dispute "word salad" to you?
But I get it... when a fairytale provides you with the comfort you desperately need, it's easy to simply dismiss the facts to keep your so-called "truth" alive?
In any event, you are behaving like a 6 year old, so get back to me once you grow up and are able to have a normal discussion.
-
Oh poor boy... is this really how pathetic you actually are?
Having trouble reading anything more than 2 lines? Or is anything that presents you with facts you can not dispute "word salad" to you?
But I get it... when a fairytale provides you with the comfort you desperately need, it's easy to simply dismiss the facts to keep your so-called "truth" alive?
In any event, you are behaving like a 6 year old, so get back to me once you grow up and are able to have a normal discussion.
The Divine Ms M: 'Number two'
-
The Divine Ms M: 'Number two'
Adolesence must really be a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'.....
Remember when you said this about me;
Use your self-described 'superior education', come down to earth for once, and search 'why do people ask a question they already know the answer to'.
and
My sample clearly proves what LNers have known all along: You're two-faced. And shallow. But hey, thanks so much for whatever hope you think you are capable of bestowing on others. I really appreciate it. No, really..
You must really be frustrated.... Wouldn't you just love to show me up in front of everybody? Yeah, sure you would.... So, why don't you just do it. Tell us all what's wrong with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley, Callaway and Davenport and show me where I went wrong.... Go on then... have at it. You can do it, can't you?
-
About every three or four months or so, Bill Brown creates another 'Oswald shot the cop' thread.
Was it Einstein who defined insanity as repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
-
Adolesence must really be a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'.....
Remember when you said this about me;
and
You must really be frustrated.... Wouldn't you just love to show me up in front of everybody? Yeah, sure you would.... So, why don't you just do it. Tell us all what's wrong with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley, Callaway and Davenport and show me where I went wrong.... Go on then... have at it. You can do it, can't you?
I have no need to show you contrarians up. I just watch them shoot themselves in the foot as did Oswald.
Btw, poor dumb cop, eh?
-
About every three or four months or so, Bill Brown creates another 'Oswald shot the cop' thread.
Was it Einstein who defined insanity as repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Here, let me add Martin's recent 'contrived' to your 'faked, planted or altered' to compete your mantra as you two lounge around on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
-
I have no need to show you contrarians up. I just watch them shoot themselves in the foot as did Oswald.
Btw, poor dumb cop, eh?
And this guy calls me "shallow"... Go figure!
Here, let me add Martin's recent 'contrived' to your 'faked, planted or altered' to compete your mantra as you two lounge around on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
Just amazing. The idiot can't defend his own position, closes his eyes, ears and mind and keeps on repeating to himself; "no matter what the facts are, I know I am right and the facts are wrong".
Just because a fanatical zealot lunatic calls somebody who does not agree with him a lunatic, doesn't make it true. It only shows just how defenseless and idiotic his own position is.
We've all been there at some point in our life. You know that what you are being told is true, but you just don't want to know, agree or accept it. That's Bill Chapman in a nutshell.
-
Here, let me add Martin's recent 'contrived' to your 'faked, planted or altered' to compete your mantra as you two lounge around on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
Mis-spelled complete. Don't you have spell check?
-
Mis-spelled complete. Don't you have spell check?
Say something important for once.
-
Just as expected. Classic LN behavior. Billy only wants to deal with facts that favor his fairytale story.
But when they don't and things get too complicated for Billy, leaving him unable to muster a serious or credible response, he just throws out a silly one-liner comment, sticks his head in the sand and hopes nobody notices his inability to have a serious discussion about factual critical evidence.
It demonstrates perfectly that I was right when I said earlier that Bill Chapman never says anything of significance or relevance.
Billy, of course, does not understand, nor will he ever accept, that this childish response is akin to waiving the white flag of surrender.
Billy, of course, does not understand, nor will he ever accept, that this childish response is akin to waiving the white flag of surrender.
You're the one who surrenders eventually; cooking up one excuse or another. And not only with me.
-
Billy, of course, does not understand, nor will he ever accept, that this childish response is akin to waiving the white flag of surrender.
You're the one who surrenders eventually; cooking up one excuse or another. And not only with me.
This is so funny. It's like trying to have a conversation with a 6 year old.
Little Billy "knows" that I am wrong, but he can not explain just how I am wrong, so he just throws a few temper tantrums, stamps his feet and throws out one nasty (by his standards) one-liner after another.
My grandfather once asked me how can you tell an idiot that he is an idiot? The answer was: tell him he is sane and wait for him to argue with you and tell you you are wrong :D
-
Single witness = Earlene Roberts estimated in/out times. You're the one claiming an earlier Tippit snuff time. The Perry/Mack Oak Cliff proof-of-concept time trial has Oswald arriving in time for the 1:15 later confrontation.
No it didn't. Yet another Chapman recollection failure.
Multiple witnesses = No claim from me that they all saw him shoot the officer. They ID'd him as being either at or near the scene. And any one of them not being able to ID him from a photo depends on the angle and distance they saw him from as opposed to the photo they viewed.
Unfair and biased lineups and photo showups are unreliable.
-
reprehensible_Johnny@deadOswald.com
---------------------------------------------
FYI
WC: 'Probably'
HSCA: 'Likely'
Oswald hit it out of the park. Crushed it.
Slam dunk. Drained it. Nailed the hat trick:
'Boom>Click-Click'
'Boom>Click-Click'
'Boom>Click-Click'
Reality Bill
Hunter of Trolls
More incomprehensible Chapman gobbledegook.
-
The Perry/Mack Oak Cliff proof-of-concept time trial has Oswald arriving in time for the 1:15 later confrontation.
Yes it did. It was an obvious attempt to try to get Oswald there before 1.14 and they barely made it.
Unfortunately, that optimistic route did not have the shooter walking west on 10th street to the shooting location.
-
Just as expected. Classic LN behavior. Billy only wants to deal with facts that favor his fairytale story.
But when they don't and things get too complicated for Billy, leaving him unable to muster a serious or credible response, he just throws out a silly one-liner comment, sticks his head in the sand and hopes nobody notices his inability to have a serious discussion about factual critical evidence.
It demonstrates perfectly that I was right when I said earlier that Bill Chapman never says anything of significance or relevance.
Billy, of course, does not understand, nor will he ever accept, that this childish response is akin to waiving the white flag of surrender.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Thumbs_Up_Hand_Sign_Emoji_1024x1024.png?v=1571606063)
-
You must really be frustrated.... Wouldn't you just love to show me up in front of everybody? Yeah, sure you would.... So, why don't you just do it. Tell us all what's wrong with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley, Callaway and Davenport and show me where I went wrong.... Go on then... have at it. You can do it, can't you?
Chapman knows nothing about the actual case and evidence. A village somewhere is missing him.
-
More like divine intervention as she didn't have a clue who to pick:
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
-
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
You have disqualified yourself from any serious discussion.
Chapman knows nothing about the actual case and evidence. A village somewhere is missing him.
Indeed....
This is so funny. It's like trying to have a conversation with a 6 year old.
Little Billy "knows" that I am wrong, but he can not explain just how I am wrong, so he just throws a few temper tantrums, stamps his feet and throws out one nasty (by his standards) one-liner after another.
My grandfather once asked me how can you tell an idiot that he is an idiot? The answer was: tell him he is sane and wait for him to argue with you and tell you you are wrong :D
Hey Billy... You are sane........ :D
-
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Said after she was grilled and browbeaten. Why are you so dishonest?
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked. Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
-
And this guy calls me "shallow"... Go figure!
I can't take the blame for your psychological issues
Just amazing. The idiot can't defend his own position, closes his eyes, ears and mind and keeps on repeating to himself; "no matter what the facts are, I know I am right and the facts are wrong".
That looks like a quote. I can't remember saying (or thinking) that. Catch me up.
Just because a fanatical zealot lunatic calls somebody who does not agree with him a lunatic, doesn't make it true. It only shows just how defenseless and idiotic his own position is
You lot seem the zealots hereabouts.
We've all been there at some point in our life. You know that what you are being told is true, but you just don't want to know, agree or accept it. That's Bill Chapman in a nutshell.
Your ZiQ is showing. In abundance.
-
And this guy calls me "shallow"... Go figure!
I can't take the blame for your psychological issues
Just amazing. The idiot can't defend his own position, closes his eyes, ears and mind and keeps on repeating to himself; "no matter what the facts are, I know I am right and the facts are wrong".
That looks like a quote. I can't remember saying (or thinking) that. Catch me up.
Just because a fanatical zealot lunatic calls somebody who does not agree with him a lunatic, doesn't make it true. It only shows just how defenseless and idiotic his own position is
You lot seem the zealots hereabouts.
We've all been there at some point in our life. You know that what you are being told is true, but you just don't want to know, agree or accept it. That's Bill Chapman in a nutshell.
Your ZQ is showing. In abundance.
Got anything of significance to say?
Perhaps you have figured out by now how Tippit could have been killed at 1.15 when in fact at that same moment he was being declared DOA at Methodist Hospital?
-
This is so funny. It's like trying to have a conversation with a 6 year old.
Now don't go insulting 6 year olds :-\
-
Got anything of significance to say?
Perhaps you have figured out by now how Tippit could have been killed at 1.15 when in fact at that same moment he was being declared DOA at Methodist Hospital?
'That's it. It's all over now.' --CT mancrush OH Lee/Alek Hidell/Dirty Harvey
-
'That's it. It's all over now.' --CT mancrush OH Lee/Alek Hidell/Dirty Harvey
So, you have nothing of any significance to say....Got it!
-
So, you have nothing of any significance to say....Got it!
Re 'That's it. It's all over now'
1) Oswald provided the significance
2) He wasn't likely talking about the movie
--------
BONUS
--------
Oswald took a moment to announce that he wasn't resisting arrest... as he was in the process of resisting arrest.
-
Re 'That's it. It's all over now'
1) Oswald provided the significance
2) He wasn't likely talking about the movie
--------
BONUS
--------
Oswald took a moment to announce that he wasn't resisting arrest... as he was in the process of resisting arrest.
Guess what..... He didn't say it at all...
You really need to get off that cherry picking oversimplication trip that you're on......
-
Guess what..... He didn't say it at all..
Cherrypick this: 'That's it/This is it/It's all over now/Well, it is all over now'.
Same sentiment..
You really need to get off that cherry picking oversimplication trip that you're on.....
I'll leave it to you lot to continue to serve up word-smorgasbords for another 57 years.
-
Guess what..... He didn't say it at all..
Cherrypick this: 'That's it/This is it/It's all over now/Well, it is all over now'.
Same sentiment..
You really need to get off that cherry picking oversimplication trip that you're on.....
I'll leave it to you lot to continue to serve up word-smorgasbords for another 57 years.
Cherrypick this: 'That's it/This is it/It's all over now/Well, it is all over now'.
Same sentiment..
And all equally wrong...
I'll leave it to you lot to continue to serve up word-smorgasbords for another 57 years.
Good decision. Anything over 5 words in a row seems to be way too much for you to absorb and comprehend.
-
Perhaps you have figured out by now how Tippit could have been killed at 1.15 when in fact at that same moment he was being declared DOA at Methodist Hospital?
DPD Dispatch
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRhNQNJX/dpd-1-18-Tippit.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx5MznRT/dpd-1-28.png)
-
Cherrypick this: 'That's it/This is it/It's all over now/Well, it is all over now'.
Same sentiment..
And all equally wrong...
I'll leave it to you lot to continue to serve up word-smorgasbords for another 57 years.
Good decision. Anything over 5 words in a row seems to be way too much for you to absorb and comprehend.
You missed the 57 years part
Seems you lot need more time to absorb, let alone comprehend
-
DPD Dispatch
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRhNQNJX/dpd-1-18-Tippit.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sx5MznRT/dpd-1-28.png)
Otto is right. You really suck at this....
The times mentioned in those two dispatcher calls on channel 2 are not the times that Tippit was shot and was declared DOA.
Those calls were made by the dispatcher to document the time of broadcast, but those recordings/transcripts are likely not correct, according to J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;
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.
<>
It is, however, important to remember that
1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
Nowhere does it say that "official" time is the same as real time!
Besides, if the shooting happened at 1.15, the only people who actually used a watch or a clock would have to be wrong. Helen Markham must have needed 9 minutes to walk one block from 9th to 10th street, T.F. Bowley must have been at least 5 minutes late in picking up his daughter from school and never noticed it and the clock used at Methodist Hospital used to declare Tippit D.O.A. at 1.15 must also have been wrong by at least 13 minutes.
One final comment; Tippit's murder was a local matter, not a federal one. Yet, FBI agents were pestering Methodist Hospital and Hughes funeral home about the time that Tippit was declared DOA and the time the ambulance was called/dispatched. On several FBI reports times were subsequently altered. Now, why in the world would they do that? When a Justice of the Peace writes on an official document that Tippit was declared DOA, why would the FBI be so desperate to (1) involve itself in a murder for which it had no jurisdiction and (2) question that time of death?
There is IMO only one answer; they understood early on that the time of 1.15 for Tippit's DOA (and thus being shot between 1.06 and 1.10) did to fit the "Oswald did it" scenario, as he couldn't have been at 10th/Patton any time earlier than 1.14, and so the time of DOA needed to be later than 1.15.
Now, how's that for a circumstantial case based on actual evidence? What, you don't know what a circumstantial case is..... uh, forget I mentioned it.
-
You really suck at this. Evidently false statement as she had not seen #2 before:
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Ball was clearly frustrated with Markham's offbeat way of perceiving & answering questions.
In the end, Oswald was the one of the four who gave her the willies (so-to-speak).
-
Otto is right. You really suck at this....
The times mentioned in those two dispatcher calls on channel 2 are not the times that Tippit was shot and was declared DOA.
Those calls were made by the dispatcher to document the time of broadcast, but those recordings/transcripts are likely not correct, according to J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;
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.
<>
It is, however, important to remember that
1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
Nowhere does it say that "official" time is the same as real time!
Besides, if the shooting happened at 1.15, the only people who actually used a watch or a clock would have to be wrong. Helen Markham must have needed 9 minutes to walk one block from 9th to 10th street, T.F. Bowley must have been at least 5 minutes late in picking up his daughter from school and never noticed it and the clock used at Methodist Hospital used to declare Tippit D.O.A. at 1.15 must also have been wrong by at least 13 minutes.
One final comment; Tippit's murder was a local matter, not a federal one. Yet, FBI agents were pestering Methodist Hospital and Hughes funeral home about the time that Tippit was declared DOA and the time the ambulance was called/dispatched. On several FBI reports times were subsequently altered. Now, why in the world would they do that? When a Justice of the Peace writes on an official document that Tippit was declared DOA, why would the FBI be so desperate to (1) involve itself in a murder for which it had no jurisdiction and (2) question that time of death?
There is IMO only one answer; they understood early on that the time of 1.15 for Tippit's DOA (and thus being shot between 1.06 and 1.10) did to fit the "Oswald did it" scenario, as he couldn't have been at 10th/Patton any time earlier than 1.14, and so the time of DOA needed to be later than 1.15.
Now, how's that for a circumstantial case based on actual evidence? What, you don't know what a circumstantial case is..... uh, forget I mentioned it.
1:15-ish for the snuff job
1:18 for the announce of officer down
And since when did the FBI & DPD ever get along
There are sure plenty of word-salads still bubbling up from Oswald-lovers, lo these 57 years
-
1:15-ish for the snuff job
1:18 for the announce of officer down
And since when did the FBI & DPD ever get along
There are sure plenty of word-salads still bubbling up from Oswald-lovers, lo these 57 years
That's the typical LN zealot for you.... The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time, and Billy ignores it completely as one more thing he does not want to know or consider because his mind is already made up. A fine example of the "quality" of work that is standard for Billy.....
How Chapman is not a Trump lover is completely beyond me.
-
1:15-ish for the snuff job
1:18 for the announce of officer down
And since when did the FBI & DPD ever get along
There are sure plenty of word-salads still bubbling up from Oswald-lovers, lo these 57 years
Don't confuse Chapman with facts and details -- his mind is made up. Trying to explain to him how the dispatcher clocks actually worked makes you an "Oswald lover".
-
That's the typical LN zealot for you.... The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time, and Billy ignores it completely as one more thing he does not want to know or consider because his mind is already made up. A fine example of the "quality" of work that is standard for Billy.....
How Chapman is not a Trump lover is completely beyond me.
'The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time'
'No guarantee'
1) To CTers means times match whatever sinister plot you want them to match.
2) To me means 'can't dismiss'
-
You really suck at this. Evidently false statement as she had not seen #2 before:
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Yep, she didn't know any of those men and hadn't even so much as seen them before the 22nd
-
'The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time'
'No guarantee'
1) To CTers means times match whatever sinister plot you want them to match.
2) To me means 'can't dismiss'
Stupid fool. Try to read (and understand) what Bowles told the HSCA first before you write something idiotic as this.
I used the words "no guarantee", not Bowles. For him it was beyond clear that the times called by the dispatchers were not the real times!
Don't confuse Chapman with facts and details -- his mind is made up. Trying to explain to him how the dispatcher clocks actually worked makes you an "Oswald lover".
When you are right, you're right.... A brick wall is easier to talk to than a zealot like Chapman, who is clearly incapable of any kind of rational thought.
-
Don't confuse Chapman with facts and details -- his mind is made up. Trying to explain to him how the dispatcher clocks actually worked makes you an "Oswald lover".
All y'all make yourselves look like Oswald-lovers.
-
'The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time'
'No guarantee'
1) To CTers means times match whatever sinister plot you want them to match.
2) To me means 'can't dismiss'
Is this your way of admitting that the 1:18 dispatcher time check that you so proudly cut-and-pasted is utterly meaningless?
-
Yep, she didn't know any of those men and hadn't even so much as seen them before the 22nd
Can you please cite where Markham said "before the 22nd"?
-
All y'all make yourselves look like Oswald-lovers.
Sure, because in Chapman-land, you cannot acknowledge any weaknesses and fallacies in the government case without being motivated by a love for Oswald.
-
Can you please cite where Markham said "before the 22nd"?
Show us where I quoted her saying the 22nd. Pretty sure the Tippit kill took place on that date, though. Pretty sure she said she had not seen them before. Before what? The 22nd of course. Are you claiming she really meant before the lineup? Months later? In the face of her offbeat manner-of-response in general?
-
Sure, because in Chapman-land, you cannot acknowledge any weaknesses and fallacies in the government case without being motivated by a love for Oswald.
'Any' weaknesses really means 'everything' at proclamation_johnny@Dead#Oswald.com
-
Is this your way of admitting that the 1:18 dispatcher time check that you so proudly cut-and-pasted is utterly meaningless?
No. Wrong again, contrarian.
-
'Any' weaknesses really means 'everything' at proclamation_johnny@Dead#Oswald.com
Consider Prozac as a medication for your problem....please (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Consider Prozac as a medication for your problem....please (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
In his case... Targin might be the better option
-
Consider Prozac as a medication for your problem....please (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
It hasn't worked for you, obviously, so why would you recommend it?
-
In his case... Targin might be the better option
Why suggest a product that obviously hasn't worked for you?
-
Why suggest a product that obviously hasn't worked for you?
Never used it. Emotionally stable people don't need it....
-
Stupid fool. Try to read (and understand) what Bowles told the HSCA first before you write something idiotic as this.
I used the words "no guarantee", not Bowles. For him it was beyond clear that the times called by the dispatchers were not the real times!
When you are right, you're right.... A brick wall is easier to talk to than a zealot like Chapman, who is clearly incapable of any kind of rational thought.
'The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time'
Whoa. Hold your horses and try to stay within the confines of my point for the moment: No matter who said 'no guarantee', that still means 'cannot dismiss', no matter how great a chance prior results may have favoured DPD time-dispatches.
-
Never used it. Emotionally stable people don't need it....
You lot are the ones with the emotion invested in this assassination.
-
'The man in charge of the DPD dispatchers basically tells the HSCA that there is no guarantee that the times given by the dispatchers reflect the real time'
Whoa. Hold your horses and try to stay within the confines of my point for the moment: No matter who said 'no guarantee', that still means 'cannot dismiss', no matter how great a chance prior results may have favoured DPD time-dispatches.
Just how stupid are you? Read the damned website! Bowles dismissed it to the HSCA....
DPD dispatchers called out times which, at best, were "official time" and "official time" and real time are not the same thing.
Sorry to burst your bubble. The times mentioned on the DPD transcripts are unreliable. A powerful circumstantial case proves them to be wrong. Deal with it!
-
You lot are the ones with the emotion invested in this assassination.
Really? You seem to be the one who is desperately trying (and failing) to keep Oswald in the timeline.
To me, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Either Oswald shot Tippit or he didn't. I couldn't care either way. The guy has been dead for decades. I just look at the facts.... you should try that once!
-
Really? You seem to be the one who is desperately trying (and failing) to keep Oswald in the timeline.
To me, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Either Oswald shot Tippit or he didn't. I couldn't care either way. The guy has been dead for decades. I just look at the facts.... you should try that once!
:D :D :D
Sounds like a bailout to me. Btw, you lot are the ones bent on removing Oswald from the timeline.
-
Nowhere does Markham (or Ball) restrict "never" to before the 22nd.
Continuing the legacy of the WC lying and misrepresenting evidence.
Who do you think you're fooling?
One does not have to fool those who fool themselves. Good luck proving anything at all here.
-
Just how stupid are you? Read the damned website! Bowles dismissed it to the HSCA....
DPD dispatchers called out times which, at best, were "official time" and "official time" and real time are not the same thing.
Sorry to burst your bubble. The times mentioned on the DPD transcripts are unreliable. A powerful circumstantial case proves them to be wrong. Deal with it!
Once again you have leapfrogged over my ask re 'no guarantee' implications in a wider, general sense.
Furthermore, you complain about not having real 'discussions' here, yet when you have the chance you promptly go on the attack. You respond to every LNer in this manner.
-
Nowhere does Markham (or Ball) restrict "never" to before the 22nd.
Continuing the legacy of the WC lying and misrepresenting evidence.
Who do you think you're fooling?
No need. You are fully capable of fooling yourself.
-
King of Edit asleep at the keyboard....will there be a third reply?
King of Edit proofreads his posts.
-
Lookup proofread.
The method of publishing here does not require galleys.
Get a clue, Gutenberg.
analyze
check
correct
cut
delete
edit
rearrange
refine
rephrase
revise
go over
remove errors
If you were to proofread you last post, you would
find that 'lookup' has been misapplied in this context,
as apposed to an 'IP Lookup' context
Try 'look up' here next time.
-
We know your method of publishing.
Missed the <Preview> button?
You're more screwed up than I imagined.
I prefer to publish right away: It punks nitpickers like you and Freeman into showing your pettiness, and at the same time exposing the CTer longstanding love affair with minutia.
-
:D :D :D
Sounds like a bailout to me. Btw, you lot are the ones bent on removing Oswald from the timeline.
Wrong again.... The actual timeline (and not the made up one by the WC) determines if Oswald stays in or out.
Investigation, conducted correctly, is a process of elimination. This is such a simple concept that even you should understand it, but it seems you don't.
Once again you have leapfrogged over my ask re 'no guarantee' implications in a wider, general sense.
Furthermore, you complain about not having real 'discussions' here, yet when you have the chance you promptly go on the attack. You respond to every LNer in this manner.
Once again you have leapfrogged over my ask re 'no guarantee' implications in a wider, general sense.
I did not leapfrog over anything. I already told you that the words "no guarantee" were used by me and not Bowles! There is no need to discuss "implications in a wider, general sense", whatever that means. All you need to do is read the statement Bowles made to the HSCA and you will know exactly just how unreliable the times given by DPD dispatchers are. But, you probably do not want to know any of that and thus try to deflect to a pointless discussion about two words I used.
Furthermore, you complain about not having real 'discussions' here, yet when you have the chance you promptly go on the attack.
More duplicity. You don't want to discuss the actual evidence (either because you can't or for fear that you won't prevail) but instead want to waste my time by discussing two words I used.
You respond to every LNer in this manner.
Ah stop whining. I don't suffer fools gladly. Every LNer who acts like you deserves all he or she gets. Man up for once and try to have a normal rational discussion about the evidence and see what happens.
-
I prefer to publish right away: It punks nitpickers like you and Freeman into showing your pettiness, and at the same time exposing the CTer longstanding love affair with minutia.
CTer longstanding love affair with minutia.
Looking at the exact details of something is a bad thing?
-
Show us where I quoted her saying the 22nd. Pretty sure the Tippit kill took place on that date, though. Pretty sure she said she had not seen them before. Before what? The 22nd of course. Are you claiming she really meant before the lineup?
Yes. She was asked if she recognized anyone in the lineup.
-
'Any' weaknesses really means 'everything' at proclamation_johnny@Dead#Oswald.com
....and it’s back to incomprehensible babble again.
-
No. Wrong again, contrarian.
“Contrarian” is Chapman-speak for “won’t automatically accept my baseless assertions”.
-
I prefer to publish right away: It punks nitpickers like you and Freeman into showing your pettiness, and at the same time exposing the CTer longstanding love affair with minutia.
Translation: “stop pointing out all my errors!” :'(
-
You lot rely too much on single-witness reports.
What "single-witness" report would that be? Bowley corroborates Markham and Davenport & Methodist Hospital corroborate Bowley and Markham. Do you really need this to be explained to you?
Oswald was ID'd as the gunman @Tippit by multiple witnesses.
Dumbo... that's exactly the problem. Witness identifications are hardly ever accurate. When you've got 10 people watching an event, you will get 10 different accounts of what happened. That's the daily practice, yet in this case all of a sudden you have a multiple of "identifications". I have two D.A.'s and one judge in my family. They all agree that so many "identifications" would be serious cause for concern about procedures and the way line ups were conducted.
Even more so, when you consider. for example, that Scoggins "identified" Oswald in a line up, but the next day failed to identify him from a photo to the FBI.
You really need to get out more and talk to people who know. They will tell you that witness identifications are highly unreliable. One of my brothers, who is a D.A. recently dismissed the prosecution of a man, who was identified by two witness. The only problem was that he man could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was on the other side of the country when the crime was committed.
The bottom line is a simple one; if it was physically impossible for Oswald to have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed, there is no other conclusion possible than that the witnesses were wrong
Using the logic of eye witness testimony being terribly unreliable, which I agree with it is then safe to say those who witnessed a huge blow out of the back of JFK’s head were also wrong as the photos and X-rays do not show that. Medical and scientific evidence Trump’s witness testimony every single time.
-
Using the logic of eye witness testimony being terribly unreliable, which I agree with it is then safe to say those who witnessed a huge blow out of the back of JFK’s head were also wrong as the photos and X-rays do not show that.
Yes — if you could trust their authenticity and completeness.
-
From Dale Myers: "The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
-
Using the logic of eye witness testimony being terribly unreliable, which I agree with it is then safe to say those who witnessed a huge blow out of the back of JFK’s head were also wrong as the photos and X-rays do not show that. Medical and scientific evidence Trump’s witness testimony every single time.
Yes — if you could trust their authenticity and completeness.
I agree with John.
-
I prefer to publish right away: It punks nitpickers like you and Freeman into showing your pettiness, and at the same time exposing the CTer longstanding love affair with minutia.
Damned straight I am a 'nitpicker'.
Pick off enough and the lie is exposed :-\
-
BS:
You're exposing nobody but yourself while taking amateur hour to the next level.
Even Bill thread starter left.
Is it season 10 this year?
You lot are so rabid & zealous about defending Oswald that if people disappear for any length of time, or even don't answer your posts within minutes, you claim some sort of victory.
-
From Dale Myers: "The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
Except for the fact that (1) Bowles tells us the DPD dispatcher times are not reliable, (2) there is no "recorded departure time of the ambulance from 10th/Patton", and (3) Bowley looked at his watch when he arrived and it said 1.10. In his affidavit Bowley also said, upon arrival, he first tried to help the officer and when he noticed he was beyond help he made the radio call to the dispatcher. If the radio call happened just prior to 1.18 (when - according to the transcript - Tippit's shooting was announced on channel 2) it means that Bowley must have been some 7 to 8 minutes late in picking up his daughter from school and never noticed it.
It also means that the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley and Callaway pushes back by 7 to 8 minutes, as the sequence of their arrival at the scene is documented in their statements. So a - 1.18 radio call by Bowley would also mean that Markham must have arrived at 10th/Patton between 1.13 and 1.15, which seems highly unlikely as (1) she said she left to house just after 1 and only needed to walk one block (about 3 minutes) to get to 10th street and (2) it does not give her enough time to be at Jefferson at 1.15 to catch her bus.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
This contradicts Myers claim that "the time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one". If Moellenhoff removed a slug from Tippit's body at 1.30, as Davenport said in his supplementary offense report, and if Moellenhoff's 10 minute estimate is correct, the declared time of death can not be 1.24 but must be earlier.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
Nice bit of speculation. I seriously doubt the author of the death certificate would be aware of the time of a radio call only recorded on a DPD dictabelt.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
More speculation.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
No.. all this fuss, because Markham's clock used for her departure also must have been wrong (although that probably meant she would miss her bus every day!) and Bowley's watch must also have been wrong (meaning that he was late to pick up his daughter from school and never noticed it!).
Individually, the excuse of a clock being wrong might work, but in combination with the other known facts it simply makes no sense.
Helen Markham took the same bus to work on a daily basis. She estimated the departure time of her regular bus at 1.15. That could be the slightly delayed 1.12 bus or the 1.22. Either way, as far as Markham was concerned she needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson no later than 1.15.
She testified she left her house at 9th street just after 1 pm. She only needed to walk two blocks to get to Jefferson, which would have taken her no more than 5 to 6 minutes. She would have walked one block in 2,5 maybe 3 minutes. This would have gotten her to the crossing of 10th/Patton at around 1.06 or 1.07, which fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at that time. If Tippit was shot at 1.14 or 1.15, as you claim, Markham would have been at the bus stop at Jefferson and could not have witnessed Tippit being killed!
How do we know that Markham's estimated time of 1.06 is probably correct? Simple; T.F. Bowley arrived on the scene, just after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Next, Bowley was going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday, so he had every reason to be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and highly plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, just like he said he did in his affidavit. But even if we accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
Bowley corroborates Markham's timeline. So, how do we know Bowley's arrival time of 1.10 pm is likely correct? Ted Callaway provides us with the answer. In his testimony he said, he heard the shots, saw Oswald run towards him, he then ran half a block to the corner of 10th/Patton and saw Tippit lying in the street. In other words, Callaway must have been on the scene within 2 or 3 minutes after the shooting, right? Callaway also testified that by the time he got there, a couple of cars had already stopped. He then saw the ambulance arrive (the distance from the funeral home where the ambulance came from to the crime scene was a bit more than one block) and he helped load Tippit in the ambulance and guess who helped him? T.F. Bowley said in his affidavit that he called the DPD dispatcher on the radio and then helped to place Tippit on a stretcher and into the ambulance. He then saw somebody (Callaway) take Tippit's revolver out of the police car. What does all this mean? It means that Bowley was already on the scene when Callaway, who only had to run half a block, arrived there!
So, for Tippit to be shot at 1.14 or 1.15, Markham would have had to be late by at least 5 minutes (if she was still at 10th/Patton at 1.15) to get to her bus stop, or, alternatively, it must have taken her 10 minutes to walk one block. Bowley's watch must have been wrong by at least 5 minutes (meaning he picked up his daughter too late from school and did not notice it) and, as a consequence, Callaway must have taken at least 8 (3 + 5) minutes or so to run half a block to arrive after Bowley was already there. As if that isn't enough, there is also the matter of the ambulance. DPD officers Davenport and Bardin wrote in their Supplementary Offense Report that they saw the ambulance en route to Methodist Hospital and followed it. They assisted in getting Tippit to the emergency room, where he was declared DOA at 1.15 pm, which is, of course, exactly the time of DOA stated in the authorization for autopsy, issued by Justice of the Peace Joe Brown and Tippit's death certificate, issued 29 November 1963.
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
Exactly right. So why did the FBI make such a fuss over the time of death that they pestered staffmembers of Methodist Hospital for days about the exact time of death. If I recall correctly, one nurse is on record saying that she received several calls per day from FBI agents about the time of death. And Tippit's murder wasn't even the FBI's jurisdiction... Go figure!
The bottom line is a simple one; just like the WC before him Myers is merely looking for a way to keep Oswald within a possible time frame for the shooting, in the knowledge that he couldn't have gotten to 10th/Patton until 1.14 at the earliest.
-
You lot are so rabid & zealous about defending Oswald that if people disappear for any length of time, or even don't answer your posts within minutes, you claim some sort of victory.
Said the paranoid clown who actually believes or desperately wants to believe that questioning the veractiy of the Warren Report equals "defending Oswald".... Pathetic!
-
“Contrarian” is Chapman-speak for “won’t automatically accept my baseless assertions”.
Says the admitted Devil's Advocate
(http://[move]https://i.postimg.cc/T34CSFcT/iacoletti-sideways.png[/move])
-
Said the paranoid clown who actually believes or desperately wants to believe that questioning the veractiy of the Warren Report equals "defending Oswald".... Pathetic!
I have quite the effect on you, don't I? Watch out for those gaskets.
Blowed up good, blowed up real good
-
Damned straight I am a 'nitpicker'.
Pick off enough and the lie is exposed :-\
Based on that response, you now seem more of a nose-picker
-
Yes. She was asked if she recognized anyone in the lineup.
She also said 'number two'
-
I have quite the effect on you, don't I? Watch out for those gaskets.
Blowed up good, blowed up real good
Don't flatter yourself. You are nothing but a insignificant troll who knows nothing about this case and can not post a coherend post if it saved your life. The effect you have on me is the same as the effect any idiot I come across has; none!
-
She also said 'number two'. She also said the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm (after earlier saying she left her house just after 1pm) and that she wasn't interested in the time. She also said she was nervous. Now tell us she had all her wits about her during testimony.
Seems it came down to her emotional response, fair lineup or not.
she wasn't interested in the time.
Yeah sure... of course she wasn't interested in time. She only had to catch her regular bus to get to work on time. So, who needs to know the time for that?
Markham's "identification" and her manipulation by the WC laywers would have been destroyed during a cross-examination if there ever had been one.
-
Don't flatter yourself. You are nothing but a insignificant troll who knows nothing about this case and can not post a coherend post if it saved your life. The effect you have on me is the same as the effect any idiot I come across has; none!
I know that you keep blowing yourself up real good.
I know that a nobody shot a somebody.
-
Your constant need to reply to whatever I write demonstrates, that I am the one having an effect on you. Thumb1:
That indicates that you think whatever you say is unassailable. In the meantime, your constant bad-mouth tactics against myself and all LNers require a scolding.
Now go and stand in the corner.
-
That indicates that you think whatever you say is unassailable.
Your constant bad-mouth tactics against myself and all LNers require a scolding. Now go and stand in the corner.
When are you going to start behaving as an adult?
-
When are you going to start behaving as an adult?
You go first
I try to write for you 5yr-olds and yet get the facts of the assassination out to grownups
Check out my Click-click page for confirmation.
-
You go first
I try to write for you 5yr-olds and yet get the facts of the assassination out to grownups
Check out my Click-click page for confirmation.
You have "facts"? Really?.... Let's have them then.....
-
You have "facts"? Really?.... Let's have them then.....
A sample, as opposed to your word salads:
THE LITTLE TWERP THAT COULD
--------------------
The Oswald Porch
--------------------
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
--------------------
The Cuckoo's Nest
--------------------
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
'The Little Engine That Could'
-
A sample, as opposed to your word salads:
THE LITTLE TWERP THAT COULD
--------------------
The Oswald Porch
--------------------
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
--------------------
The Cuckoo's Nest
--------------------
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
'The Little Engine That Could'
The words of a prosecutor in a Mickey Mouse court..... Thumb1:
Who is your investigator? Goofy perhaps?
-
Based on that response, you now seem more of a nose-picker
And it took you half an hour to edit that one :D
Did Mommy help you?
-
And it took you half an hour to edit that one :D
Did Mommy help you?
I can tell you never edit yourself.
-
The words of a prosecutor in a Mickey Mouse court..... Thumb1:
Who is your investigator? Goofy perhaps?
Only when writing for CTer 5-year-olds
-
she wasn't interested in the time.
Yeah sure... of course she wasn't interested in time. She only had to catch her regular bus to get to work on time. So, who needs to know the time for that?
Markham's "identification" and her manipulation by the WC laywers would have been destroyed during a cross-examination if there ever had been one.
What 'manipulation' might that be? You wouldn't happen to be calling Ball's frustration with Markham's quirky manner of response sinister by any chance, now would you..
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.
Mr. BALL. Now, what time of day was it that you saw this man in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I would say it was four, a little after.
Mr. BALL. That was four in the afternoon?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I was so upset I couldn't even tell you the time. In fact, I wasn't interested in the time.
Now go ahead and tell us Markham had all her wits about her that afternoon @Tippit..
-
What 'manipulation' might that be? You wouldn't happen to be calling Ball's frustration with Markham's quirky manner of response sinister by any chance, now would you..
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.
Mr. BALL. Now, what time of day was it that you saw this man in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I would say it was four, a little after.
Mr. BALL. That was four in the afternoon?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I was so upset I couldn't even tell you the time. In fact, I wasn't interested in the time.
Now go ahead and tell us Markham had all her wits about her that afternoon @Tippit..
You clearly don't have any knowledge about how prosecutors can work when they don't get the answer they want from a witness.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
A clear case of leading the witness. Not allowed in court as it is witness manipulation!
It is amazing just how clueless you truly are.
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time;
She also said 'number two'. She also said the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm (after earlier saying she left her house just after 1pm) and that she wasn't interested in the time. She also said she was nervous. Now tell us she had all her wits about her during testimony.
Seems it came down to her emotional response, fair lineup or not.
In this post your have exposed yourself as a liar, as she was actually talking about the line up being at 4pm and it is fully understandable that she wasn't interested in the time, at that moment, having seen a man being shot earlier that day.
Why do you want to be taken seriously, when you misrepresent evidence or refuse to even present any to back up your bogus claims?
-
You clearly don't have any knowledge about how prosecutors can work when they don't get the answer they want from a witness.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
A clear case of leading the witness. Not allowed in court as it is witness manipulation!
It is amazing just how clueless you truly are.
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time;
In this post your have exposed yourself as a liar, as she was actually talking about the line up being at 4pm and it is fully understandable that she wasn't interested in the time, at that moment, having seen a man being shot earlier that day.
Why do you want to be taken seriously, when you misrepresent evidence or refuse to even present any to back up your bogus claims?
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time
I didn't quote her saying that.
-
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time
I didn't quote her saying that.
BS
Regardless if you call it a quote or not, you claimed she said it;
She also said 'number two'. She also said the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm (after earlier saying she left her house just after 1pm) and that she wasn't interested in the time. She also said she was nervous. Now tell us she had all her wits about her during testimony.
Seems it came down to her emotional response, fair lineup or not.
That you altered the post after I quoted it in my reply, doesn't alter anything. You said it!
So, stop lying.
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2664.msg95211.html#msg95211
You clearly don't have any knowledge about how prosecutors can work when they don't get the answer they want from a witness.
I linked to that sort of thing a few weeks ago in 'off-topics'
Don't Talk to the Cops
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2664.msg95211.html#msg95211
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Another example of Ball frustration and witness oddball responses
A clear case of leading the witness. Not allowed in court as it is witness manipulation!
A clear case of Ball frustration with Markham's space-cadet responses.
It is amazing just how clueless you truly are
Its amazing how dependant you seem be on ad-homs.
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time;
My saying 'the Tippit thing' should a clue that I didn't actually quote her.
In this post your have exposed yourself as a liar, as she was actually talking about the line up being at 4pm and it is fully understandable that she wasn't interested in the time, at that moment, having seen a man being shot earlier that day.
In this post I have exposed myself as seeing the line 'what time did you see the man in the lineup' either as:
1) what time did you see the man during the lineup
2) what time did you see the man, in the lineup, at the scene.
Why do you want to be taken seriously, when you misrepresent evidence or refuse to even present any to back up your bogus claims?
I have no need to be taken seriously by you lot.
-
You clearly don't have any knowledge about how prosecutors can work when they don't get the answer they want from a witness.
I linked to that sort of thing a few weeks ago in 'off-topics'
Don't Talk to the Cops
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2664.msg95211.html#msg95211
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Another example of Ball frustration and witness oddball responses
A clear case of leading the witness. Not allowed in court as it is witness manipulation!
A clear case of Ball frustration with Markham's space-cadet responses.
It is amazing just how clueless you truly are
Its amazing how dependant you seem be on ad-homs.
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time;
My saying 'the Tippit thing' should a clue that I didn't actually quote her.
In this post your have exposed yourself as a liar, as she was actually talking about the line up being at 4pm and it is fully understandable that she wasn't interested in the time, at that moment, having seen a man being shot earlier that day.
In this post I have exposed myself as seeing the line 'what time did you see the man in the lineup' either as:
1) what time did you see the man during the lineup
2) what time did you see the man, in the lineup, at the scene.
Why do you want to be taken seriously, when you misrepresent evidence or refuse to even present any to back up your bogus claims?
I have no need to be taken seriously.
Btw, in your previous post (before you edited it again) you falsely claimed about Markham that she said "the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm" and that she wasn't interested in time;
My saying 'the Tippit thing' should a clue that I didn't actually quote her.
I never said you quoted her. You claimed she said it and she didn't. Period!
In this post your have exposed yourself as a liar, as she was actually talking about the line up being at 4pm and it is fully understandable that she wasn't interested in the time, at that moment, having seen a man being shot earlier that day.
In this post I have exposed myself as seeing the line 'what time did you see the man in the lineup' either as:
1) what time did you see the man during the lineup
2) what time did you see the man, in the lineup, at the scene.
So, now you are trying to weasel your way out of this one by claiming ignorance of the facts? :D
I have no need to be taken seriously.
That's the first honest thing I've seen you write on this board
-
I have no need to be taken seriously.
That's the first honest thing I've seen you write on this board
Again with the ad-hom
-
Translation: “stop pointing out all my errors!” Transl :'(
Translation: “stop pointing out all my errors!”
Translation for contrarians: It says I prefer to publish right away: It punks nitpickers like you and Freeman into showing your pettiness, and at the same time exposing the CTer longstanding love affair with minutia.
-
Again with the ad-hom
Telling the truth is not ad-hom, so stop whining. You get what you provoke and deserve, live with it, pussy
If you want to be treated differently try acting differently, more maturely, for once. But I doubt you can or want to....
-
Damned straight I am a 'nitpicker'.
Pick off enough and the lie is exposed :-\
Pick off enough and you'll become a walking-dead zombie. Like you lot for the last 57 years with only pet theories that never quite arrive at the station.
-
Telling the truth is not ad-hom, so stop whining. You get what you provoke and deserve, live with it, pussy
If you want to be treated differently try acting differently, more maturely, for once. But I doubt you can or want to....
Where did I indicate that I deserved anything?
Where did I say I wanted to be treated differently?
People call me young at heart
I'm not acting
Does calling me a p*ssy make you feel like a man, Dick?
-
Where did I indicate that I deserved anything?
Where did I say I wanted to be treated differently.
People call me young at heart
I'm not acting
Does calling me a p*ssy make you feel like a man, Dick?
Where did I say I wanted to be treated differently.
Then stop whining, cry baby
People call me young at heart
Not around here, they don't
Does calling me a p*ssy make you feel like a man, Dick?
No, it just makes you a pussy
-
Pick off enough and you'll become a walking-dead zombie. Like you lot for the last 57 years with only pet theories that never quite arrive at the station.
Pick off enough and you'll become a walking-dead zombie.
I nominate this as the most idiotic comment made in 2020.....
-
Pick off enough and you'll become a walking-dead zombie.
I nominate this as the most idiotic comment made in 2020.....
You just don't understand metaphors, do you professor..
-
You just don't understand metaphors, do you professor..
Yes I do... but there is a difference between metaphors and just plain stupid comments.
-
Where did I say I wanted to be treated differently.
Then stop whining, cry baby
People call me young at heart
Not around here, they don't
Does calling me a p*ssy make you feel like a man, Dick?
No, it just makes you a pussy
Then stop whining, cry baby
Wow, you gave up extra-early on your charge
Not around here, they don't
I'm all shook up
No, it just makes you a pussy
When, oh when are you going to thank me for coming up with the perfect nickname for you, Dick?
-
Then stop whining, cry baby
Wow, you gave up early on your charge
Not around here, they don't
I'm all shook up
No, it just makes you a pussy
When, oh when are you going to thank me for coming up with the perfect nickname for you, Dick?
And you're here on this forum to discuss the JFK murder? Really?
-
Now waiting for "when did I claim I came here to discuss the JFK murder?"
Continue waiting
-
And you're here on this forum to discuss the JFK murder? Really?
What's up with the sudden sidetrack? Sounds like you are fixin' to get the fck out of Dodge. And just when I was having a good deal of fun with The Divine Miss M thing.
And if you can't figure out why I'm here from my general tone hereabouts, then you haven't been paying attention. I truck in proof-of-concept. You lot truck in victimhood, a fascist trope.
-
And if you can't figure out why I'm here from my general tone hereabouts, then you haven't been paying attention. I truck in proof-of-concept. You lot truck in victimhood, a fascist trope.
Thinks he's Shakespeare.
-
Thinks he's Shakespeare.
Nobody should care what he thinks.
-
Thinks he's Shakespeare.
You can just call me William.
-
Nobody should care what he thinks.
And yet here you are. Again.
-
From Dale Myers: "The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
"as it turns out" means that it just didn't agree with what Myers wanted to believe.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
What's also interesting is that Bowles said the same thing about the dispatcher clocks.
-
Says the admitted Devil's Advocate
Wrong again. I never "admitted" such a thing. Chapman recollection failure-du-jour.
-
She also said 'number two'
Your entire published works here are one big "number 2".
-
She also said the Tippit thing happened at around 4pm
When did Markham say that?
-
I try to write for you 5yr-olds and yet get the facts of the assassination out to grownups
The guy who gets every factual detail of the case wrong? :D
-
Pick off enough and you'll become a walking-dead zombie. Like you lot for the last 57 years with only pet theories that never quite arrive at the station.
Says the guy with his own pet theory that never quite arrived at the station.
-
What's up with the sudden sidetrack? Sounds like you are fixin' to get the fck out of Dodge. And just when I was having a good deal of fun with The Divine Miss M thing.
And if you can't figure out why I'm here from my general tone hereabouts, then you haven't been paying attention. I truck in proof-of-concept. You lot truck in victimhood, a fascist trope.
You truck in trolling and incomprehensible gobbledegook.
-
When did Markham say that?
She said 4pm. The fact that I said 'the Tippit thing' should be a clue that I wasn't quoting her.
-
What Tippit thing did she say happened at 4 PM?
-
Wrong again. I never "admitted" such a thing. Chapman recollection failure-du-jour.
Says the guy with the clearly-visible Devil's horns
-
What Tippit thing did she say happened at 4 PM?
When I made a mistake about the lineup thing
-
Says the guy with his own pet theory that never quite arrived at the station.
Only because Oswald went off the rails.
-
Says the guy with the clearly-visible Devil's horns
Jerry Organ's drawing constitutes me "admitting" something?
-
Jerry Organ's drawing constitutes me "admitting" something?
You're the one sporting the horns
-
Just admit you were wrong again before you further embarrass yourself.
-
Just admit you were wrong again before you further embarrass yourself.
You seem to be speaking in tongues.
And stomping your feet.
You're the one who seems embarrassed.
But I do see the horns as being totally appropriate.
Kudos to Jerry Organ: A really fine job.
But a drawing of Oswald-with-halo would better inform
-
So you were wrong about me being an admitted Devil's Advocate then?
-
So you were wrong about me being an admitted Devil's Advocate then?
You seem to be caught on the horns of a dilemma
-
You seem to be caught on the horns of a dilemma
I'll take that as a "yes".
-
I'll take that as a "yes".
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/9976a4eadf6dc9c2ad9f541849097fec/tenor.gif?itemid=10123169)