JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on December 26, 2020, 06:09:56 AM
-
Here's a little walking tour I gave back in March of 2020. We discuss the Tippit shooting, the witnesses and some of the evidence. We begin close to the location where Tippit's patrol car stopped, go all the way down Patton to Jefferson and we end up in the alley behind the former Ballew's Texaco (where the jacket was found).
-
Bill: Are you familiar with or heard of a Elcan Elliott? Gus Russo interviewed him for his book "Live by the Sword." Elliott told Russo that shortly after the assassination that he was out driving in search of his daughter who was away from home. He says he saw a man - acting suspiciously (he saw the man "relieving himself" near a bush) - that he later identified as Oswald before the shooting of Tippit near North Beckley.
It's not very credible to me - the Russo interview was in 1994 - and Elliott apparently never told anyone at the time of the shooting of his experience. It's less than not very; it's not credible at all.
A fuller account is here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2759.msg101861.html#msg101861
-
Here's a little walking tour I gave back in March of 2020. We discuss the Tippit shooting, the witnesses and some of the evidence. We begin close to the location where Tippit's patrol car stopped, go all the way down Patton to Jefferson and we end up in the alley behind the former Ballew's Texaco (where the jacket was found).
Well done Bill. Coincidentally, I recently took a virtual tour of that area using the street view on google maps. And I was a little surprised at how many changes have taken place to the structures there since 1963. We can still get a feel for how it was 57-years ago by looking at photos and visiting and walking it like y’all did. But that area hasn’t been preserved like Dealey Plaza has, so it takes a little more imagination.
-
Here's a little walking tour I gave back in March of 2020. We discuss the Tippit shooting, the witnesses and some of the evidence. We begin close to the location where Tippit's patrol car stopped, go all the way down Patton to Jefferson and we end up in the alley behind the former Ballew's Texaco (where the jacket was found).
Nice walkabout, a real eyeopener re just how close things were to each other.
I wonder how feasible it would be to have a couple of people who would be stand-ins for Oswald and whichever witness was being depicted re distance. That would give the onlooker a better idea of how difficult it might be to ID the killer.
-
Nice walkabout, a real eyeopener re just how close things were to each other.
I wonder how feasible it would be to have a couple of people who would be stand-ins for Oswald and whichever witness was being depicted re distance. That would give the onlooker a better idea of how difficult it might be to ID the killer.
Do you believe that an eye witness couldn't identify the perpetrator when there was a mere forty feet between them?
Domingo Benavides was about forty feet from the killer when they looked at each other face to face. Then the killer turned sidewise to Benavides and started walking away and removing a shell from his revolver. That revolver was NOT a Smith and Wesson....and Dom Benavides said that the killer had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head appear to be flat.
That type of hair cut was called a "Cochise" and was popular back in the day. Lee Oswald's hair was tapered and the back of his head appeared to be conical.... Virtually ALL witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from the revolver said he removed the shells one at a time.... The shells in a S&W revolver are removed all at the same time with one push of the ejector rod..... So obviously the killer was NOT unloading a S&W.
-
Excellent job Bill. Your memory for detail is amazing. Have you ever come across any pictures or maps of the interior of the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest? The balcony report has always been interesting to me since it appears to derived right from the beginning. It seems to come from the fact that no one saw Oswald go through the lobby and the assumption was made that he went straight to the balcony because he wasn't seen by Burroughs. There was some indication that the balcony could be accessed immediately upon entering the lobby and some teenagers had apparently done so on prior occasions to avoid the ticket taker. But I've never seen any confirmation that the balcony could be so accessed. I've been there but the balcony is long gone. It's entirely possible that Oswald just made his way unseen through the lobby, but I also wonder if he might have gone up to the balcony and somehow gone down another set of stairs to access the main level without being seen.
-
(https://harveyandlee.net/Tippit/images/Tex_Theat_Lob.jpg)
-
Excellent picture. Any idea if there was another set of stairs that would have enabled someone to cross the balcony area and exit out of sight of the lobby and enter the main lower seating area where Oswald was found?
-
(https://harveyandlee.net/Tippit/images/Tex_Theat_Lob.jpg)
Excellent, Mr I..... Thanks for posting that photo. It's hard to imagine that Butch Burroughs could fail to see anybody climbing those stairs to the balcony. And Lee wasn't encountered in the balcony.....so he had to have walked across the floor in front of the concession counter, to the doors that opened into the main floor seating area. IOW.... Lee never sneaked into the theater.
-
Excellent, Mr I..... Thanks for posting that photo. It's hard to imagine that Butch Burroughs could fail to see anybody climbing those stairs to the balcony. And Lee wasn't encountered in the balcony.....so he had to have walked across the floor in front of the concession counter, to the doors that opened into the main floor seating area. IOW.... Lee never sneaked into the theater.
What manner of logic is that? And what point you are trying to make? We know Oswald was in the theatre. However he got there he was apparently not seen. Or do you think Burroughs was in on the plot and lying? Postal confirmed that Oswald bought no ticket. Burroughs did not take any ticket from him. Oswald had no movie ticket in his possession. But he is found in the movie theatre.
-
What manner of logic is that? And what point you are trying to make? We know Oswald was in the theatre. However he got there he was apparently not seen. Or do you think Burroughs was in on the plot and lying? Postal confirmed that Oswald bought no ticket. Burroughs did not take any ticket from him. Oswald had no movie ticket in his possession. But he is found in the movie theatre.
Where do you get your information? Anal extraction?
Postal confirmed that Oswald bought no ticket. Huh??.... Postal didn't even know who Johnny Brewer was referring to when he asked Postal if she had sold the man a ticket.
Burroughs did not take any ticket from him. Again You distort....Burroughs didn't recall taking a ticket from Lee...
Oswald had no movie ticket in his possession. Really?? how do you know that?.....Apparently Capt. Fritz didn't know that because he never asked Lee if he'd bought a ticket.
-
What manner of logic is that? And what point you are trying to make? We know Oswald was in the theatre. However he got there he was apparently not seen. Or do you think Burroughs was in on the plot and lying? Postal confirmed that Oswald bought no ticket. Burroughs did not take any ticket from him. Oswald had no movie ticket in his possession. But he is found in the movie theatre.
Postal told bother Brewer and the FBI that she wasn’t sure if she sold him a ticket or not.
-
Postal confirmed that Oswald bought no ticket. Huh??.... Postal didn't even know who Johnny Brewer was referring to when he asked Postal if she had sold the man a ticket.
Exactly right. She said “what man?”
-
Excellent picture. Any idea if there was another set of stairs that would have enabled someone to cross the balcony area and exit out of sight of the lobby and enter the main lower seating area where Oswald was found?
I believe so. If this drawing from Armstrong is accurate, then there was another set of stairs on the north side that came down into the theater area.
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Texas%20Theater%20Int.jpg)
-
I believe so. If this drawing from Armstrong is accurate, then there was another set of stairs on the north side that came down into the theater area.
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Texas%20Theater%20Int.jpg)
Interesting layout. So someone who was familiar with the theater layout would know that sneaking past Postal made it possible to bypass the concession stand by going up the stairs to the balcony first. (No wonder there was a bunch of high school boys playing hooky in the balcony; have one of the group buy a ticket and distract Postal while the others sneak in.) And then by using the northern set of stairs, someone could enter the main floor seating area. LHO had lived in the neighborhood before, and was most likely familiar with the Texas Theater.
-
Interesting layout. So someone who was familiar with the theater layout would know that sneaking past Postal made it possible to bypass the concession stand by going up the stairs to the balcony first. (No wonder there was a bunch of high school boys playing hooky in the balcony; have one of the group buy a ticket and distract Postal while the others sneak in.) And then by using the northern set of stairs, someone could enter the main floor seating area. LHO had lived in the neighborhood before, and was most likely familiar with the Texas Theater.
LHO had lived in the neighborhood before, and was most likely familiar with the Texas Theater.
Why do you constantly make assumptions? I lived near a theater for the better part of 20 years. I was never there and don't know the first thing about the interior. So, what makes you assume that Oswald was familiar with the theater?
-
LHO had lived in the neighborhood before, and was most likely familiar with the Texas Theater.
Why do you constantly make assumptions? I lived near a theater for the better part of 20 years. I was never there and don't know the first thing about the interior. So, what makes you assume that Oswald was familiar with the theater?
LHO liked watching movies. Also, back in 1962-1963, movie theaters were a good place to get out of the summer heat and into an air conditioned building for a while.
I didn’t say that I knew for a fact that he was familiar with the Texas Theater. Just that it was likely. Why do you have a freaking problem with that?
-
LHO liked watching movies. Also, back in 1962-1963, movie theaters were a good place to get out of the summer heat and into an air conditioned building for a while.
I didn’t say that I knew for a fact that he was familiar with the Texas Theater. Just that it was likely. Why do you have a freaking problem with that?
Because whenever you use the world "likely" it's too make you assumption more credible than it really is. You calling something likely is just as much an assumption than the rest. If you don't know something for a fact, you don't know anything at all.
I don't know the first thing about you, other than the ignorance you display on this forum, and I don't know anything for a fact but I consider it likely that you don't get out much into the real world. Now, does me considering it likely make it any more true?
-
Because whenever you use the world "likely" it's too make you assumption more credible than it really is. You calling something likely is just as much an assumption than the rest. If you don't know something for a fact, you don't know anything at all.
I don't know the first thing about you, other than the ignorance you display on this forum, and I don't know anything for a fact but I consider it likely that you don't get out much into the real world. Now, does me considering it likely make it any more true?
Its about as likely as your “timeline” theory and your LHO wasn’t wearing a jacket theory. None of your theories have any chance at all of being correct.
-
Its about as likely as your “timeline” theory and your LHO wasn’t wearing a jacket theory. None of your theories have any chance at all of being correct.
You can claim I'm wrong a thousand more times, but you've already demonstrated that you can't prove it, which makes your opinion, just like all your assumptions, pretty worthless and your decision to dismiss it out of hand the best evidence of your cult like perception of the entire case.
-
LHO liked watching movies. Also, back in 1962-1963, movie theaters were a good place to get out of the summer heat and into an air conditioned building for a while.
I didn’t say that I knew for a fact that he was familiar with the Texas Theater. Just that it was likely. Why do you have a freaking problem with that?
Yes, that is certainly possible. And in the 1960s someone of Oswald's means would have had very limited entertainment options.
-
Where do you get your information? Anal extraction?
Postal confirmed that Oswald bought no ticket. Huh??.... Postal didn't even know who Johnny Brewer was referring to when he asked Postal if she had sold the man a ticket.
Burroughs did not take any ticket from him. Again You distort....Burroughs didn't recall taking a ticket from Lee...
Oswald had no movie ticket in his possession. Really?? how do you know that?.....Apparently Capt. Fritz didn't know that because he never asked Lee if he'd bought a ticket.
I got it from Julia Postal. She clearly says in her affidavit that Brewer asked her if the "man" bought a ticket and she confirms that he did not. Not only that. She says that when she called the police that they specifically asked her if the man had bought a ticket and again she confirmed that he had not. That's on the very telephone call reporting Oswald within minutes of his entry to the theatre. We know the "man" is Oswald because that is the person Brewer confirmed he followed and was asking about when he asked Postal. They obviously didn't know his name at that point but he could be identified as the "man" because Brewer had seen and followed him. There is no confusion on that point except in your muddled brain.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339266/m1/1/
Why would Fritz have to ask Oswald about a ticket for us to know he didn't have one? He didn't buy a ticket according to the only ticket seller. He didn't provide a ticket according to the only ticket taker. And he didn't have a ticket on his person when arrested. It's not listed anywhere. Good grief. But humor us and explain where Oswald would have gotten such a ticket and what he did with it under those circumstances. They didn't have Fandango back in 1963.
-
You can claim I'm wrong a thousand more times, but you've already demonstrated that you can't prove it, which makes your opinion, just like all your assumptions, pretty worthless and your decision to dismiss it out of hand the best evidence of your cult like perception of the entire case.
You asked for my opinion. I gave it to you. Then you proceed to attempt to bash it. I appears clear to me (and most likely most others who frequent this forum) that you are a bitter human being that enjoys agitating others to get a reaction. It is sad, but I have a difficult time feeling sorry for you.
-
Interesting layout. So someone who was familiar with the theater layout would know that sneaking past Postal made it possible to bypass the concession stand by going up the stairs to the balcony first. (No wonder there was a bunch of high school boys playing hooky in the balcony; have one of the group buy a ticket and distract Postal while the others sneak in.) And then by using the northern set of stairs, someone could enter the main floor seating area. LHO had lived in the neighborhood before, and was most likely familiar with the Texas Theater.
Interesting that there are apparently two sets of stairs to the balcony upon entry to the theatre. I believe the picture that was posted is only of those on the left which might have been more visible from the lobby. I wonder how visible those on the right would have been where the diagram indicates the police used. We will never know if Oswald actually used those stairs but it is entirely possible. At the very least it explains the source of the balcony story. Postal and Burroughs knew that folks had used that method in the past to avoid paying for a ticket. When Burroughs doesn't see anyone pass through the lobby they assume that the man who didn't buy a ticket has used the steps to go to the balcony - which may or may not have been true.
-
You asked for my opinion. I gave it to you. Then you proceed to attempt to bash it. I appears clear to me (and most likely most others who frequent this forum) that you are a bitter human being that enjoys agitating others to get a reaction. It is sad, but I have a difficult time feeling sorry for you.
You asked for my opinion.
When did I ask you for your opinion?
I couldn't care less about your opinion. If I asked you anything it would be for you to support whatever you are claiming with evidence. Since you hardly ever do, there wouldn't be much point for me to ask you anything. If I want to hear the kind of fairytale stuff you believe in, I would be better off in joining a Disney forum, but obviously I don't.
I appears clear to me (and most likely most others who frequent this forum) that you are a bitter human being that enjoys agitating others to get a reaction.
So, now you can speak for others on this forum? And ad hom attacks are merely a demonstration of utter weakness and a total lack of credible arguments.
It is sad, but I have a difficult time feeling sorry for you.
Good, keep it that way Thumb1:
And none of this, of course, changes the fact that you can not provide evidence for my time line being wrong. Now that your pathetic attempt to pivot away from that truth has failed, do you care to try again?
-
You asked for my opinion.
When did I ask you for your opinion?
I couldn't care less about your opinion. If I asked you anything it would be for you to support whatever you are claiming with evidence. Since you hardly ever do, there wouldn't be much point for me to ask you anything. If I want to hear the kind of fairytale stuff you believe in, I would be better off in joining a Disney forum, but obviously I don't.
I appears clear to me (and most likely most others who frequent this forum) that you are a bitter human being that enjoys agitating others to get a reaction.
So, now you can speak for others on this forum? And ad hom attacked are merely a demonstration of utter weakness and a total lack of credible arguments.
It is sad, but I have a difficult time feeling sorry for you.
Good, keep it that way Thumb1:
And none of this, of course, changes the fact that you can not provide evidence for my time line being wrong. Now that your pathetic attempt to pivot away from that truth has failed, do you care to try again?
When did I ask you for your opinion?
Because whenever you use the world "likely" it's too make you assumption more credible than it really is. You calling something likely is just as much an assumption than the rest. If you don't know something for a fact, you don't know anything at all.
I don't know the first thing about you, other than the ignorance you display on this forum, and I don't know anything for a fact but I consider it likely that you don't get out much into the real world. Now, does me considering it likely make it any more true?
-
When did I ask you for your opinion?
Aha, I see... To you a rhethorical question is the same as asking for your opinion. Wow!
And btw you didn't answer it. Not really...
All you did was make a silly comment about my timeline theory being just as likely as my opinion that you likely don't get out much into the real world. Since you consider both as likely, you've just confirmed that you do indeed not get out much. You do understand that, don't you? (and yes, that is a question I am asking you).
-
Aha, I see... To you a rhethorical question is the same as asking for your opinion. Wow!
And btw you didn't answer it. Not really...
All you did was make a silly comment about my timeline theory being just as likely as my opinion that you likely don't get out much into the real world. Since you consider both as likely, you've just confirmed that you do indeed not get out much. You do understand that, don't you? (and yes, that is a question I am asking you).
Since you consider both as likely,
Dead wrong. None of your theories has a snowball’s chance in hell of being correct.
-
Since you consider both as likely,
Dead wrong. None of your theories has a snowball’s chance in hell of being correct.
Arrogant, and another example of you stating your opinions as fact.
-
Because whenever you use the world "likely" it's too make you assumption more credible than it really is. You calling something likely is just as much an assumption than the rest. If you don't know something for a fact, you don't know anything at all.
Charles likes to substitute the word “likely” for the word “possible”. It’s a rhetorical trick.
-
Charles likes to substitute the word “likely” for the word “possible”. It’s a rhetorical trick.
No trickery involved. I gave several reasons why I believe that it is likely. Do you have any legitimate reason whatsoever to believe that it is not likely?
-
Since you consider both as likely,
Dead wrong. None of your theories has a snowball’s chance in hell of being correct.
So you keep telling me. Yet, so far, you have not even been able to explain why they are not correct, never mind providing a shred of evidence to support your pathetic opinion.
It is all about belief over facts with you, and your denial of factual information is duly noted.
-
No trickery involved. I gave several reasons why I believe that it is likely. Do you have any legitimate reason whatsoever to believe that it is not likely?
No, you gave reasons for why it was possible, and then arbitrarily decreed it to be “likely”.
-
No, you gave reasons for why it was possible, and then arbitrarily decreed it to be “likely”.
There are three good reasons why I believe it to be likely in my previous posts today.
I didn’t think you had any legitimate reasons for it to be unlikely. You are ust being your usual contrarian self.
-
There are three good reasons why I believe it to be likely in my previous posts today.
I didn’t think you had any legitimate reasons for it to be unlikely. You are ust being your usual contrarian self.
This is so funny. First you arbitrarily decide that the reasons you gave are "good".
And then you declare yourself to be correct simply because John isn't playing your silly game.
How old are you, for heaven's sake?
-
This is so funny. First you arbitrarily decide that the reasons you gave are "good".
And then you declare yourself to be correct simply because John isn't playing your silly game.
How old are you, for heaven's sake?
Neither of you two are using the word arbitrary correctly; even thought we have been through its definition.
If you believe that my reasons for believing the likelihood of LHO being familiar with the Texas Theater are wrong, then argue them.
-
Neither of you two are using the word arbitrary correctly; even thought we have been through its definition.
If you believe that my reasons for believing the likelihood of LHO being familiar with the Texas Theater are wrong, then argue them.
So, now you arbitrarily decide that John and I are using the word incorrectly and by doing so you prove beyond doubt that we are not. Great entertainment... keep it going.
Your "reasons for believing" is not based in fact and thus 100% assumption. You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
There... it's argued!
-
So, now you arbitrarily decide that John and I are using the word incorrectly and by doing so you prove beyond doubt that we are not. Great entertainment... keep it going.
Your "reasons for believing" is not based in fact and thus 100% assumption. You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
There... it's argued!
And there we have it. Inexplicably, you believe you have addressed the reasons. Pure nonsense is your M.O..
-
Reason 1
Interesting layout. So someone who was familiar with the theater layout would know that sneaking past Postal made it possible to bypass the concession stand by going up the stairs to the balcony first. (No wonder there was a bunch of high school boys playing hooky in the balcony; have one of the group buy a ticket and distract Postal while the others sneak in.) And then by using the northern set of stairs, someone could enter the main floor seating area. LHO had lived in the neighborhood before, and was most likely familiar with the Texas Theater.
Reason 2 and 3
LHO liked watching movies. Also, back in 1962-1963, movie theaters were a good place to get out of the summer heat and into an air conditioned building for a while.
I didn’t say that I knew for a fact that he was familiar with the Texas Theater. Just that it was likely. Why do you have a freaking problem with that?
So, you assumed that Oswald knew the Texas Theater because (1) he had lived in the neighborhood before, (2) he liked watching movies and (3) a movie theater gets him out of the summer heat and into an air conditioned building.
My reply;
So, now you arbitrarily decide that John and I are using the word incorrectly and by doing so you prove beyond doubt that we are not. Great entertainment... keep it going.
Your "reasons for believing" is not based in fact and thus 100% assumption. You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
There... it's argued!
Your come back;
And there we have it. Inexplicably, you believe you have addressed the reasons. Pure nonsense is your M.O..
None of the "reasons" you have provided make it even remotely likely (possible, yes) that Oswald knew the Texas Theater. You can only assume he had been to the Texas Theater before but you have not a shred of evidence for it. So, I was correct when I said;
You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
That you don't understand what I was telling you, is not my problem.
And btw, did you forget you agreed with me on page 2
I didn’t say that I knew for a fact that he was familiar with the Texas Theater. Just that it was likely. Why do you have a freaking problem with that?
If you don't know something for a fact, you can not make a determination that something is likely. Even a 5 year old understands that, so why don't you?
-
Reason 1
Reason 2 and 3
So, you assumed that Oswald knew the Texas Theater because (1) he had lived in the neighborhood before, (2) he liked watching movies and (3) a movie theater gets him out of the summer heat and into an air conditioned building.
My reply;
Your come back;
None of the "reasons" you have provided make it even remotely likely (possible, yes) that Oswald knew the Texas Theater. You can only assume he had been to the Texas Theater before but you have not a shred of evidence for it. So, I was correct when I said;
You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
That you don't understand what I was telling you, is not my problem.
And btw, did you forget you agreed with me on page 2
If you don't know something for a fact, you can not make a determination that something is likely. Even a 5 year old understands that, so why don't you?
So, you assumed that Oswald knew the Texas Theater because
Not no, but hell no. I did not assume that LHO knew the TT. I said that it was likely.
None of the "reasons" you have provided make it even remotely likely (possible, yes) that Oswald knew the Texas Theater.
It is freaking possible that I knew the TT in 1963. But it is much less likely because I didn't live in the neighborhood. Even though I didn't live there, but it is possible that I could have been there.
So, I was correct when I said;
You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
No where did I say that I could prove he had been there before. I said that it was likely.
That you don't understand what I was telling you, is not my problem.
I believe that is you who is confused. There is a difference in something being likely and it being fact. If I beleived it for a fact, that could be proven, I would have said so.
If you don't know something for a fact, you can not make a determination that something is likely.
Good grief dude, what kind of crap is that?
-
So, you assumed that Oswald knew the Texas Theater because
Not no, but hell no. I did not assume that LHO knew the TT. I said that it was likely.
Just how dumb are you? When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"
None of the "reasons" you have provided make it even remotely likely (possible, yes) that Oswald knew the Texas Theater.
It is freaking possible that I knew the TT in 1963. But it is much less likely because I didn't live in the neighborhood. Even though I didn't live there, but it is possible that I could have been there.
I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all. You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.
So, I was correct when I said;
You can't even prove he had ever been at the Texas Theater before.
No where did I say that I could prove he had been there before. I said that it was likely.
Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.
That you don't understand what I was telling you, is not my problem.
I believe that is you who is confused. There is a difference in something being likely and it being fact. If I beleived it for a fact, that could be proven, I would have said so.
When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.
If you don't know something for a fact, you can not make a determination that something is likely.
Good grief dude, what kind of crap is that?
It's the kind of stuff you don't seem to understand. I'm sorry I can't dumb it down and get down to your level anymore. You're on your own. I'm beginning to understand why you are a die hard LN though....
-
Just how dumb are you? When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"
I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all. You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.
Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.
When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.
It's the kind of stuff you don't seem to understand. I'm sorry I can't dumb it down and get down to your level anymore. You're on your own. I'm beginning to understand why you are a die hard LN though....
When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"
I said before in another thread that you two have a problem understanding the term "rational assumption." The rational part is the evidence that LHO lived in that neighborhood, that he liked watching movies, and that theaters offered a retreat from the summer heat. These are all perfectly good reasons to believe that it is likely that LHO had visited the TT.
I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all.
The word likely does not mean that it is positively true; just that the chances are good. Chances are good that most of the people who lived near a theater, liked watching movies, and would enjoy a little relief from the summer heat would have visited the theater. You might be an exception, and might not be the only one.
You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.
You are the one who started this ridiculous argument.
Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.
Blatantly false, see the above statement regarding rational assumption.
When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.
It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow. When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.
-
When you have no evidence for what you are saying, you are assuming something. In this case that it was "likely"
I said before in another thread that you two have a problem understanding the term "rational assumption." The rational part is the evidence that LHO lived in that neighborhood, that he liked watching movies, and that theaters offered a retreat from the summer heat. These are all perfectly good reasons to believe that it is likely that LHO had visited the TT.
There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?
I lived near a movie theater for many years. In your "logic" that makes it likely I would know the place, when I fact I never went in there and didn't know it at all.
The word likely does not mean that it is positively true; just that the chances are good. Chances are good that most of the people who lived near a theater, liked watching movies, and would enjoy a little relief from the summer heat would have visited the theater. You might be an exception, and might not be the only one.
Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.
You are, once again, arguing for argument's sake.
You are the one who started this ridiculous argument.
I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.
Which was and still is an assumption not based on any fact.
Blatantly false, see the above statement regarding rational assumption.
Pathetic. See my reply, also above, to that stupid comment
When you wake up one morning and the streets are wet, you assume it rained, so you say it's likely it rained. But since you don't know for sure you just as easily could be wrong because a fire hydrant could have overflown as well. You calling something "likely" is nothing more than an assumption.
It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow. When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.
It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow.
It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflows. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.
When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.
What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....
Eadem ratione consumit
Do you ever think before you write?
-
There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?
Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.
I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.
Pathetic. See my reply, also above, to that stupid comment
It is more likely that the reason the streets are wet because of rain than it is because of a fire hydrant overflowing simply because it rains much more often than fire hydrants overflow.
It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflowes. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.
When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.
What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....
Eadem ratione consumit
Do you ever think before you write?
There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?
No, that's not right. A rational assumption is reasoned. You can argue against the reasons. But to dismiss something because you believe that "there is no such thing as a rational assumption" is ridiculous.
Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.
I stated the reasons that I believe the chances are good. Argue the reasons if you wish.
I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.
You just made the claim that it wasn't likely. Tell all of us exactly why you believe that it wasn't likely. Then we can try to have a reasonable discussion.
It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflowes. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.
If you lived where there was a fire hydrant that was in a position to wet the street in front of your house, the chances of it being the cause are greater than they would be if the fire hydrant was too far away to be the cause.
What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....
No, it means it is probable that I am correct, not definitely correct.
-
There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?
No, that's not right. A rational assumption is reasoned. You can argue against the reasons. But to dismiss something because you believe that "there is no such thing as a rational assumption" is ridiculous.
And yet you dismiss in an instant the timeline for the Tippit killing I am in the process of constructing, based on actual witness testimony and reasoning, which, according to you is a "rational assumption". Go figure...
Who says that the "changes are good"? You do, because you are convinced that you are right and too stubborn to admit that you're not.
I stated the reasons that I believe the chances are good. Argue the reasons if you wish.
Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.
I'm glad you consider it a riduculous argument because it was indeed ridiculous for you to call something likely that wasn't.
You just made the claim that it wasn't likely. Tell all of us exactly why you believe that it wasn't likely. Then we can try to have a reasonable discussion.
Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.
And there is no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you as you have already demonstrated time after time that the last thing you are willing to be is reasonable. I'm only talking to you right now because at the moment I have very little else to do.
It makes no difference. The chances of it raining that particular night are just as big as that a fire hydrant overflowes. To make the point; my house hasn't burned to the ground in the past 40 years, but that still doesn't make it more likely that it won't burn down tomorrow.
If you lived where there was a fire hydrant that was in a position to wet the street in front of your house, the chances of it being the cause are greater than they would be if the fire hydrant was too far away to be the cause.
I just said that you have demonstrated that you are not willing to have a reasonable discussion and here you are proving the point again. When you understand that you've lost the original argument, you just move the goalpost in a pathetic attempt to still be right. Nobody said anything about the position of the fire hydrant.
What kind of word salad is this? "likely" implies that you could be wrong, but because the chances of you being wrong are low (says who?), "likely" somehow means you are correct nevertheless....
No, it means it is probable that I am correct, not definitely correct.
Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.
Here's something to consider; how do you prove a fool is a fool? Tell him he is intelligent and wait for him to argue against it.
-
And yet you dismiss in an instant the timeline for the Tippit killing I am in the process of constructing, based on actual witness testimony and reasoning, which, according to you is a "rational assumption". Go figure...
Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.
Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.
And there is no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you as you have already demonstrated time after time that the last thing you are willing to be is reasonable. I'm only talking to you right now because at the moment I have very little else to do.
I just said that you have demonstrated that you are not willing to have a reasonable discussion and here you are proving the point again. When you understand that you've lost the original argument, you just move the goalpost in a pathetic attempt to still be right. Nobody said anything about the position of the fire hydrant.
Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.
Here's something to consider; how do you prove a fool is a fool? Tell him he is intelligent and wait for him to argue against it.
Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.
All you have explained is that you are confused about the difference between something being likely and something being fact.
Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.
Trying to make sense of this:
First you clearly state: nothing is ever likely or unlikely. Then you clearly state that an assumption is by definition likely or unlikely. ???
Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.
Been arguing with yourself again? :-\
-
Neither of you two are using the word arbitrary correctly; even thought we have been through its definition.
Charles, you continually make “because I said so” arguments. You are no more the authority on the correct usage of the word “arbitrary” as you are the authority on what hypothetical scenario is more “likely” than another hypothetical scenario.
To demonstrate likelihood, you need to have some basis by which to assess it. Is Oswald more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than a theater in Fargo, North Dakota? Yes, because of proximity. Is he more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than not to have visited the Texas Theater? No. You don’t have any evidence either way. “Likely” at the very least means greater than 50%. Is a fair coin flip likely to come up heads? No. Even if you try to “rationally” show that coins can possibly land on heads.
If you believe that my reasons for believing the likelihood of LHO being familiar with the Texas Theater are wrong, then argue them.
Because hypothetical arguments don’t make something more likely than its negation.
-
By way of example, I could use the same flawed logic to argue that Oswald was unlikely to have ever visited the Texas Theater before.
Reason 1: He was a cheapskate
Reason 2: He had no car. Getting to a theater would necessitate a walk outside in the summer heat.
Reason 3: He could stay home and watch movies on TV instead in the air conditioning and for free.
Reason 4: During the heat of the day he was either at work or at the Paine house anyway.
Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct.
-
Your reasons are flawed. It has already been explained to you. I'm not doing it again.
All you have explained is that you are confused about the difference between something being likely and something being fact.
Oh brother... we haven't been talking about a fact at all. You're trying to move the goalposts again. If something is a fact, there is no likely or unlikely. Only in speculation is the word "likely"used, more often than not by the person doing the speculating.
Because nothing is ever likely or unlikely. It is, at best, highly speculative and it all depends on the person who is making the assumption. When you make an assumption, it is by definition that it is likely or unlikely, depending on which side of the speculation you are on. Ergo, when you claim it's likely the counter argument automatically becomes that it is unlikely.
Trying to make sense of this:
First you clearly state: nothing is ever likely or unlikely. Then you clearly state that an assumption is by definition likely or unlikely. ???
I was afraid you wouldn't follow.... and I was right, which is best illustrated by the fact that you (purposely or not) misrepresent what I said.
Thanks for confirming the point I have been making all alone.
Been arguing with yourself again? :-\
Another dumb reply from somebody who is unable to have a normal discussion about anything. You truly are not half as clever as you think you are.
Btw, I noticed you skipped right over this;
There is no such thing as a rational assumption. The assumption is only rational to you because you want it to be. Anybody who makes an assumption always thinks it's rational. Only a fool makes an irrational assumption, right?
No, that's not right. A rational assumption is reasoned. You can argue against the reasons. But to dismiss something because you believe that "there is no such thing as a rational assumption" is ridiculous.
And yet you dismiss in an instant the timeline for the Tippit killing I am in the process of constructing, based on actual witness testimony and reasoning, which, according to you is a "rational assumption". Go figure...
Let's remember what you said in this thread alone;
Its about as likely as your “timeline” theory and your LHO wasn’t wearing a jacket theory. None of your theories have any chance at all of being correct.
Since you consider both as likely,
Dead wrong. None of your theories has a snowball’s chance in hell of being correct.
Care to explain why you did that, or shall I make a guess?
Could it be that in your feeble mind anything that you say is automatically reasonable and likely and what somebody else says isn't?
-
Charles, you continually make “because I said so” arguments. You are no more the authority on the correct usage of the word “arbitrary” as you are the authority on what hypothetical scenario is more “likely” than another hypothetical scenario.
To demonstrate likelihood, you need to have some basis by which to assess it. Is Oswald more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than a theater in Fargo, North Dakota? Yes, because of proximity. Is he more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than not to have visited the Texas Theater? No. You don’t have any evidence either way. “Likely” at the very least means greater than 50%. Is a fair coin flip likely to come up heads? No. Even if you try to “rationally” show that coins can possibly land on heads.
Because hypothetical arguments don’t make something more likely than its negation.
You are no more the authority on the correct usage of the word “arbitrary” as you are the authority on what hypothetical scenario is more “likely” than another hypothetical scenario.
According to you, nobody knows anything at all about anything at all. There are reference books for the proper usage of words. One can consult these. Oh hell, then you would argue that the reference books don’t know anything at all about anything at all. Never mind....
Is Oswald more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than a theater in Fargo, North Dakota? Yes, because of proximity. Is he more likely to have visited the Texas Theater than not to have visited the Texas Theater? No. You don’t have any evidence either way. “Likely” at the very least means greater than 50%.
This shows that you understand the concept. More than I can say about the nonsense coming out of Martin. You state that I have no evidence either way for the second question. What evidence do you believe would be needed?
Because hypothetical arguments don’t make something more likely than its negation.
I asked for argument against the reasons I cited. These reasons are not hypothetical. There is evidence to support them.
-
By way of example, I could use the same flawed logic to argue that Oswald was unlikely to have ever visited the Texas Theater before.
Reason 1: He was a cheapskate
Reason 2: He had no car. Getting to a theater would necessitate a walk outside in the summer heat.
Reason 3: He could stay home and watch movies on TV instead in the air conditioning and for free.
Reason 4: During the heat of the day he was either at work or at the Paine house anyway.
Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct.
Now we are getting somewhere.
1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.
2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.
3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?
4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.
Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct
Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.
-
Oh brother... we haven't been talking about a fact at all. You're trying to move the goalposts again. If something is a fact, there is no likely or unlikely. Only in speculation is the word "likely"used, more often than not by the person doing the speculating.
I was afraid you wouldn't follow.... and I was right, which is best illustrated by the fact that you (purposely or not) misrepresent what I said.
Another dumb reply from somebody who is unable to have a normal discussion about anything. You truly are not half as clever as you think you are.
Btw, I noticed you skipped right over this;
Let's remember what you said in this thread alone;
Care to explain why you did that, or shall I make a guess?
Could it be that in your feeble mind anything that you say is automatically reasonable and likely and what somebody else says isn't?
Still begging for someone to “argue” with you about your “timeline” I see.
-
Still begging for someone to “argue” with you about your “timeline” I see.
No, just pointing out two things;
First of all, your hypocrisy in dismissing out of hand a narrative based on factual witness testimonty while on the other hand insisting that your speculative assumptions can not be dismissed out of hand, because your "reasons" need to be discussed.
And secondly, that wannabe "know alls" like yourself don't have the guts, nor the arguments, to tell me what is wrong about the timeline.
You provide the most idiotic "reasons" why it's so-called "likely" that Oswald knew the Texas Theater and argue ad-nauseam about that, but when you have an opportunity to actually discuss a significant part of the case you chicken out and run....
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even understand that your inability to provide any reason why the timeline is wrong is, by itself, an admission that it isn't wrong at all.
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.
2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.
3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?
4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.
Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct
Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.
Pathetic. The clown who presents "reasons" for which he has not a shred of evidence is asking somebody else for evidence for similar speculative reasons, without even understanding that John destroyed your entire argument simply by showing you that anybody can make assumptions the way you are constantly doing.
But this will go over your head again.... You must be fun to be around at parties....
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.
2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.
3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?
4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.
Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct
Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.
Brewer indicated that he thought Oswald had been in his store before. At the very least, that places him in the immediate vicinity of the TT on a prior occasion. Do I have a time machine to prove Oswald ever went to the TT on a prior occasion? No. Does it matter a whole lot? No. Even if Oswald had never been there before, he could still have taken those stairs to the balcony upon entering. They appear to be fairly conspicuous. Whether he actually did so or not is also not very important as to his guilt. It just explains the early report of the man being in the balcony. Burroughs didn't see him and he and Postal assumed from past experience that someone who hadn't bought a ticket would ascend into the balcony via those stairs. So that is what they thought Oswald had done.
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.
2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.
3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?
4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.
Making a hypothetical reasoned argument doesn’t make that conclusion any more likely to be correct
Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.
About 30 minutes earlier Oswald spent $1 to get a cab to his rooming house. But he didn't want to spend 90 cents for a ticket. His frugality seemed to have, like the Oswald defenders and their opposition to "speculation", waxed and waned.
See how it goes? Every act (proven act and not speculated) by Oswald is isolated and then given, with speculation that is only permissible by his defenders, the most innocent of explanations. The wedding ring, the money left behind, the strange package (his room didn't need curtain rods), his departure from the TSBD shortly after the shooting, his lack of interest in finding out what happened to JFK, the bus ride, the cab ride....on and on and on. There's a long detailed series of actions - proven actions - by Oswald that cannot be explained away.
Unless one is acting like a defense attorney - a modern day Mark Lane - and trying to deconstruct each piece of evidence. Why would one do that? Why would one come here day-after-day week-after-week for years with this same argument? Who really knows? Is the idea to try and muddle through and come to a conclusion as to what happened that November day? Or is the idea to, for again some odd reason, exonerate Oswald? I assume the former since I am not aware of any other historical event that people discuss where a group of people act like this.
-
No, just pointing out two things;
First of all, your hypocrisy in dismissing out of hand a narrative based on factual witness testimonty while on the other hand insisting that your speculative assumptions can not be dismissed out of hand, because your "reasons" need to be discussed.
And secondly, that wannabe "know alls" like yourself don't have the guts, nor the arguments, to tell me what is wrong about the timeline.
You provide the most idiotic "reasons" why it's so-called "likely" that Oswald knew the Texas Theater and argue ad-nauseam about that, but when you have an opportunity to actually discuss a significant part of the case you chicken out and run....
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even understand that your inability to provide any reason why the timeline is wrong is, by itself, an admission that it isn't wrong at all.
In another thread I told you several items that I believe are wrong with your “timeline.” You responded with a “that’s total bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns” dismissal. I gave up. Period. Not interested in engaging with you any further. Period.
-
Brewer indicated that he thought Oswald had been in his store before. At the very least, that places him in the immediate vicinity of the TT on a prior occasion. Do I have a time machine to prove Oswald ever went to the TT on a prior occasion? No. Does it matter a whole lot? No. Even if Oswald had never been there before, he could still have taken those stairs to the balcony upon entering. They appear to be fairly conspicuous. Whether he actually did so or not is also not very important as to his guilt. It just explains the early report of the man being in the balcony. Burroughs didn't see him and he and Postal assumed from past experience that someone who hadn't bought a ticket would ascend into the balcony via those stairs. So that is what they thought Oswald had done.
Yes, if I remember correctly, a pair of shoes LHO owned were the same brand that Brewer’s shoe store sold. So there is speculation that LHO could have bought them from Brewer.
-
In another thread I told you several items that I believe are wrong with your “timeline.” You responded with a “that’s total bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns” dismissal. I gave up. Period. Not interested in engaging with you any further. Period.
That's cheap, even for your level. It's just a pathetic attempt to explain why you ran away from the discussion. If you ended every conversation where somebody told you what you were saying is BS, you wouldn't have anybody left to talk to. You really need to get of that high horse, because you're more wrong than you are right about something.
And you did not give me any items that were wrong with the timeline. All you did was argue ad-nauseam (as you usually do) about Bowles and the open mike business, as if that had some bearing on the Tippit murder, which it didn't, due to a lack of a fixed time event. And you made a silly claim about a time, for his radio call, Scoggins had heard from a supervisor who in turn had heard it from a dispatcher. The claim was stupid, because if you had read Scoggins' testimony better you would have learned that he made his call to the radio dispatcher just after the killer left 10th street, and before Callaway arrived on the scene. In other words less than a minute after the shots.
If you made any other suggestion, why don't you show us the post, because I don't remember it. But as far as I'm concerned you ran away from the discussion after you failed miserably to make a valid point. Hell, apart from trying to make a pathetic attempt to discredit one minor part of the timeline, you couldn't even formulate a coherent argument beyond "I am right, because I said so".
-
BS:
According to you, nobody knows anything at all about anything at all.
Funny, I don’t recall saying that. Or anything remotely similar to that. Perhaps you can provide a citation.
There are reference books for the proper usage of words. One can consult these.
And “one” did. I cited the definition of arbitrary that I was using and you proceeded to argue with it anyway.
This shows that you understand the concept.
Are you disputing that “likely” means greater than 50%?
More than I can say about the nonsense coming out of Martin. You state that I have no evidence either way for the second question. What evidence do you believe would be needed?
Something beyond pure speculation.
I asked for argument against the reasons I cited. These reasons are not hypothetical. There is evidence to support them.
What “evidence” supports any of your speculated “reasons”?
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
You’re completely missing the point. If you can make a “reasoned” hypothetical argument for both a proposition AND its negation, then neither proposition is more “likely” than the other.
1. Yes, he was very frugal, no doubt. However, this could also be used as another reason to believe that he had already figured out the easy way to sneak in to the Texas Theater, before 11/22/63. And perhaps he had even sneaked in before.
You can talk yourself into believing anything. That doesn’t make it “likely”.
2. The Texas Theater was within easy walking distance of where he lived. He also had the bus as an option if the weather was too nasty. The summer heat is ferocious in Dallas, I can say that from personal experience. But it wouldn’t have taken much time to walk the distances involved and tolerating the heat for short periods isn’t out of the question for a healthy man in his early twenties.
Neither is tolerating the heat for longer periods.
3. Do you have any evidence that LHO had a television or air conditioning (not as common in residences in 1962-1963 as it is today) in the places that he lived in Oak Cliff? I know there was a community television in the rooming house. But what about the Neely Street address, etc?
Do you have any evidence that the Texas Theater had air conditioning?
4. We need to include the other times and places LHO lived in Oak Cliff. Also, we do not know his whereabouts for certain during the weekend before the assassination.
Oak Cliff is a big place, and there were a lot of movie theaters there. Even if you could somehow argue with more than speculation that Oswald “likely” went to the movies in Oak Cliff in the “summer heat”, that doesn’t make it “likely” that it was at the Texas Theater.
Perhaps, if the reasons were hypothetical. But they are not in this argument.
They are completely hypothetical! Are we going to have a dictionary argument now on what “hypothetical” means? For all you know, Oswald adored hot weather. He was from New Orleans.
-
Still begging for someone to “argue” with you about your “timeline” I see.
Did you have any specific reasons for declaring that it has no chance at all of being correct, or are you making up arbitrary probabilities again?
-
See how it goes? Every act (proven act and not speculated) by Oswald is isolated and then given, with speculation that is only permissible by his defenders,
Speculate away. Just don’t pretend that it proves anything.
There's a long detailed series of actions - proven actions - by Oswald that cannot be explained away.
Such as?
Unless one is acting like a defense attorney - a modern day Mark Lane - and trying to deconstruct each piece of evidence.
Unless one is acting like a prosecuting attorney - a modern day Vince Bugliosi - and calling things “evidence” or “proven actions” that are just speculation and rhetoric.
Why would one do that? Why would one come here day-after-day week-after-week for years with this same argument?
Why would one come here day-after-day week-after-week for years and rehash the same tired WC conclusions?
Who really knows? Is the idea to try and muddle through and come to a conclusion as to what happened that November day?
Oddly enough, it’s the WC apologists who avoid any detailed examination of the evidence.
Or is the idea to, for again some odd reason, exonerate Oswald? I assume the former since I am not aware of any other historical event that people discuss where a group of people act like this.
No, the idea is to examine the existing evidence and any new evidence that arises and determine if it justifies any specific claimed conclusion. It’s not about insulting people for daring to disagree with your reasoning.
-
You’re completely missing the point. If you can make a “reasoned” hypothetical argument for both a proposition AND its negation, then neither proposition is more “likely” than the other.
You can talk yourself into believing anything. That doesn’t make it “likely”.
Neither is tolerating the heat for longer periods.
Do you have any evidence that the Texas Theater had air conditioning?
Oak Cliff is a big place, and there were a lot of movie theaters there. Even if you could somehow argue with more than speculation that Oswald “likely” went to the movies in Oak Cliff in the “summer heat”, that doesn’t make it “likely” that it was at the Texas Theater.
They are completely hypothetical! Are we going to have a dictionary argument now on what “hypothetical” means? For all you know, Oswald adored hot weather. He was from New Orleans.
Do you have any evidence that the Texas Theater had air conditioning?
In my opinion, no amount of evidence will ever convince you of anything whatsoever.
With that said, here is your chance to say that that isn’t evidence of anything at all:
From Wikipedia:
When first opened, fittingly on the anniversary day of Texas independence in 1931, the Texas Theatre was the largest suburban movie theater in Dallas and was part of a chain of theaters financed by Howard Hughes. It was the first theater in Dallas with air conditioning and featured many state-of-the-art luxuries.[/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Theatre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Theatre)
Also here is a photo of the theater that shows an air-conditioning cooling tower on the high roof of the theater. I spent over 35-years in the commercial air-conditioning world and understand it thoroughly. I can easily recognize the various air-conditioning components.
It is very similar to the cooling tower that existed on the roof of one of the theaters in my home town which was built in the same era as the Texas Theater. I am familiar with it because I once proposed replacing the air-conditioning system for that theater and was on the roof inspecting it up close.
(https://i.vgy.me/2pkKcD.png)
-
The Texas was the first air conditioned theater in Dallas; the original equipment is still in place (long since updated) as of Jun 14, 2012.
Guys....try googling or yahooing first next time.
-
Guys....try googling or yahooing first next time.
Google took me to the Wikipedia article (see my above post). Thanks.
-
You’re completely missing the point. If you can make a “reasoned” hypothetical argument for both a proposition AND its negation, then neither proposition is more “likely” than the other.
You can talk yourself into believing anything. That doesn’t make it “likely”.
Neither is tolerating the heat for longer periods.
Do you have any evidence that the Texas Theater had air conditioning?
Oak Cliff is a big place, and there were a lot of movie theaters there. Even if you could somehow argue with more than speculation that Oswald “likely” went to the movies in Oak Cliff in the “summer heat”, that doesn’t make it “likely” that it was at the Texas Theater.
They are completely hypothetical! Are we going to have a dictionary argument now on what “hypothetical” means? For all you know, Oswald adored hot weather. He was from New Orleans.
If you can make a “reasoned” hypothetical argument for both a proposition AND its negation, then neither proposition is more “likely” than the other.
No, it depends on the relative strength of the reasons.
Neither is tolerating the heat for longer periods.
No one said he couldn’t tolerate the heat. But I can tell you from experience, from when I was a 19-year old in the military and in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area, any relief from the oppressive heat there was welcome.
Oak Cliff is a big place, and there were a lot of movie theaters there.
Do you have any evidence that any theaters were closer or more convenient to the places where LHO lived?
They are completely hypothetical!
Tell us just what you believe is hypothetical about where LHO lived in Oak Cliff.
Tell us exactly what you believe is hypothetical about the evidence that LHO liked watching movies.
Tell us precisely what you believe is hypothetical about the evidence that an air-conditioned theater provides a welcome relief from the summer heat.
For all you know, Oswald adored hot weather. He was from New Orleans.
Marina tells of LHO staying inside and wearing only his underpants in an effort to stay cool in New Orleans. That does not sound a bit like someone who adored hot weather to me.
-
If you can make a “reasoned” hypothetical argument for both a proposition AND its negation, then neither proposition is more “likely” than the other.
No, it depends on the relative strength of the reasons.
Hilarious... and who will decide what the "relative strength of the reasons" is? Let me guess, could it possibly be you?
You're all over the place with nothing but speculation based on things you think you know about Oswald, but without a shred of evidence that Oswald knew the Texas Theater. It's pathetic!
-
Google took me to the Wikipedia article (see my above post). Thanks.
Noted.
-
Hilarious... and who will decide what the "relative strength of the reasons" is? Let me guess, could it possibly be you?
You're all over the place with nothing but speculation based on things you think you know about Oswald, but without a shred of evidence that Oswald knew the Texas Theater. It's pathetic!
It’s a little like the TV advertisement in which the little girl chooses Charles Barkley to be on her basketball team instead of the little boy. Some reasons are obviously better than others. (Although I believe that you wouldn’t get it; and would probably try to argue that it wouldn’t make any difference which one the little girl chose.). ::)
And again the evidence is for the likelihood that LHO knew the TT.
-
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/united-states/texas/dallas/oak-cliff
-
It’s a little like the TV advertisement in which the little girl chooses Charles Barkley to be on her basketball team instead of the little boy. Some reasons are obviously better than others. (Although I believe that you wouldn’t get it; and would probably try to argue that it wouldn’t make any difference which one the little girl chose.). ::)
And again the evidence is for the likelihood that LHO knew the TT.
No. There is no evidence that Oswald knew the Texas Theater. It's just you making up your own little fairytale.
There is however conclusive evidence that you are totally clueless about a great many things and there is nothing "likely" or "arbitrary" about that. Instead it's just a fact.
-
Here's a little walking tour I gave back in March of 2020. We discuss the Tippit shooting, the witnesses and some of the evidence. We begin close to the location where Tippit's patrol car stopped, go all the way down Patton to Jefferson and we end up in the alley behind the former Ballew's Texaco (where the jacket was found).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXGRYpA7I1Y&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1sOmtEl5c9sDEEDUvZlWSGd7JTcqAcXiyxY0ByuFRZ3jHDRXAuYpPBJNE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXGRYpA7I1Y&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1sOmtEl5c9sDEEDUvZlWSGd7JTcqAcXiyxY0ByuFRZ3jHDRXAuYpPBJNE)
Interesting tour. Well done Bill.
-
In my opinion, no amount of evidence will ever convince you of anything whatsoever.
That's what people with no good evidence always say.
With that said, here is your chance to say that that isn’t evidence of anything at all:
The article just says that it was the first theater with air conditioning but doesn't say when that was installed. I'm willing to take your word for the cooling tower, but can you point it out in the photo?
-
Mr. BALL. How is this room furnished that Oswald rented?
Mrs. JOHNSON. A very small room; it had an old fashioned clothes closet that had a place to hang your clothes and drawer space for your underwear, your socks and everything, and then it also had a cabinet space anyone could have stored food or, well I mean bundles of things, you know, and then I had a dresser and a bed and a heater and a little refrigerated unit.
Mr. BALL. A refrigerating unit?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; a window unit.
Mr. BALL. You mean it cooled the room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir;
-
If you can make a “reasoned” hypothetical argument for both a proposition AND its negation, then neither proposition is more “likely” than the other.
No, it depends on the relative strength of the reasons.
This is like pulling teeth. There is no "relative strength" of purely hypothetical arguments.
No one said he couldn’t tolerate the heat. But I can tell you from experience, from when I was a 19-year old in the military and in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area, any relief from the oppressive heat there was welcome.
I've lived in Austin for 36 years.
Do you have any evidence that any theaters were closer or more convenient to the places where LHO lived?
Is this supposed to somehow make your speculative argument more likely?
They are completely hypothetical!
Tell us just what you believe is hypothetical about where LHO lived in Oak Cliff.
I personally don't, but it depends on who you want to believe.
Tell us exactly what you believe is hypothetical about the evidence that LHO liked watching movies.
Nothing. We just don't know how often LHO went to movies in movie theaters.
Tell us precisely what you believe is hypothetical about the evidence that an air-conditioned theater provides a welcome relief from the summer heat.
First of all, you're projecting your dislike of summer heat onto somebody else. Secondly, lots of things provide relief from summer heat. This is like claiming that Oswald likely took swims in the Trinity River as a a welcome relief from the summer heat because he took baths at home.
Marina tells of LHO staying inside and wearing only his underpants in an effort to stay cool in New Orleans. That does not sound a bit like someone who adored hot weather to me.
Cite, please.
-
It’s a little like the TV advertisement in which the little girl chooses Charles Barkley to be on her basketball team instead of the little boy.
No, it's actually nothing like that. ::)
-
This is like pulling teeth. There is no "relative strength" of purely hypothetical arguments.
I've lived in Austin for 36 years.
Is this supposed to somehow make your speculative argument more likely?
I personally don't, but it depends on who you want to believe.
Nothing. We just don't know how often LHO went to movies in movie theaters.
First of all, you're projecting your dislike of summer heat onto somebody else. Secondly, lots of things provide relief from summer heat. This is like claiming that Oswald likely took swims in the Trinity River as a a welcome relief from the summer heat because he took baths at home.
Cite, please.
Is this supposed to somehow make your speculative argument more likely?
You yourself said it was more likely than a theater in Fargo ND because of proximity. Your comparison was a wildly exaggerated one. Proximity differences of just a few miles, or even less, are important when you don’t have an automobile.
-
You yourself said it was more likely than a theater in Fargo ND because of proximity. Your comparison was a wildly exaggerated one. Proximity differences of just a few miles, or even less, are important when you don’t have an automobile.
Sure. Have you established that the Texas Theater was the closest movie theater to his various residences, that his budget allowed him to go to the movies, and that proximity was his primary consideration?
-
Sure. Have you established that the Texas Theater was the closest movie theater to his various residences, that his budget allowed him to go to the movies, and that proximity was his primary consideration?
I am not attempting to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I am stating valid reasons to believe in the likelihood of LHO visiting the TT before 11/22/63. You can disagree if you so desire. But to state that there is no likelihood because everything is hypothetical is ridiculous.
-
That's what people with no good evidence always say.
The article just says that it was the first theater with air conditioning but doesn't say when that was installed. I'm willing to take your word for the cooling tower, but can you point it out in the photo?
The article just says that it was the first theater with air conditioning but doesn't say when that was installed.
This is what Jerry provided in post #64 of this thread (ask him for more exact information about where this is from):
“The Texas was the first air conditioned theater in Dallas; the original equipment is still in place (long since updated) as of Jun 14, 2012.”
Dr Willis Carrier designed the first modern day air conditioning system in 1902. If I remember correctly from the Wikipedia article, the Texas Theater was built in the early thirties. Jerry’s quote implies (to me) that the air conditioning system was the original equipment installed when the theater was built. (If it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be the original equipment.) By the sixties any theater that didn’t have air conditioning in Dallas Texas was way behind the times and most likely (don’t you love that word?) didn’t have many customers.
Edit: The theater in my hometown was built in 1935 with air conditioning included. Dallas, TX was much larger than my hometown back then. These are good reasons to believe that it is likely that the Texas Theater was built with air conditioning included also.
can you point it out in the photo?
Sure, if you look above the right side of the billboard with the little red wagon (more or less above the rear of the wagon), there is a parapet wall that appears to run east and west and hides the lower portion of the cooling tower. The upper portion of the tower is visible above the parapet wall.
-
This is like pulling teeth. There is no "relative strength" of purely hypothetical arguments.
I've lived in Austin for 36 years.
Is this supposed to somehow make your speculative argument more likely?
I personally don't, but it depends on who you want to believe.
Nothing. We just don't know how often LHO went to movies in movie theaters.
First of all, you're projecting your dislike of summer heat onto somebody else. Secondly, lots of things provide relief from summer heat. This is like claiming that Oswald likely took swims in the Trinity River as a a welcome It was fearfully sultry and hot, and their only air-conditioning was an old kitchen fan. Lee went naked around the apartment a good deal of the time and sometimes spent the whole day lying on the sofa on his stomach, without a stitch on, reading a book. relief from the summer heat because he took baths at home.
Cite, please.
Cite, please.
Marina and Lee by Priscilla McMillan Johnson - Chapter 31
It was fearfully sultry and hot, and their only air-conditioning was an old kitchen fan. Lee went naked around the apartment a good deal of the time and sometimes spent the whole day lying on the sofa on his stomach, without a stitch on, reading a book.
-
The article just says that it was the first theater with air conditioning but doesn't say when that was installed. I'm willing to take your word for the cooling tower, but can you point it out in the photo?
AC was installed when the theater was built. #Nearly 60 tons of it!#The Texas’ developers spared no expense and *boasted that the theater was *“fireproof” – constructed entirely of concrete. The theatre was the first in the area built for talking pictures and it featured the second-largest Barton organ in Dallas. However, McHenry was most proud of the cooling and ventilation system which blew 200,000 cubic feet of air per minute through a water-cooled system pumped from a 4,000-gallon tank. The cooling system made “The Texas” the first theater in Dallas with air conditioning. Billionaire film producer and renowned aviator Howard Hughes and his business partner Harold B. Franklin, another Hollywood producer, briefly owned the Robb & Rowley movie theater chain in the early 30′s during construction and opening of the Texas Theatre.
John Brewer, the manager of the shoe store a few doors east of the theatre, had seen him loitering suspiciously outside his store and had noticed he matched the description being broadcast over the radio of the man who had shot local beat officer – and off-duty Texas @Theatre@ security guard – J. D. Tippit.
Another myth that will never subside.
* years later in 1995, it was nearly destroyed by a three-alarm fire
https://thetexastheatre.com/about/
See this link with several pictures for a really good view of the interior---
http://www.unvisiteddallas.com/archives/2217
Tippit did not work security there at the time of his death...I believe he worked security at Oak Cliff's Austin's Bar B Q then.
#The Armadillo World Headquarters [of music] in John's city of Austin blew that much AC way back when.
@People spelled theater ...theatre back then--don't know why.
-
The Texas’ developers spared no expense and *boasted that the theater was *“fireproof” –…
So that is why Oswald’s gun didn’t fire.
-
'Like pulling teeth'
'It ain't the heat, it's the humidity.
Can't stand clichès, myself.
Just not my cup of tea..
;)
-
Bill, a most excellent tour despite Robert Groden’s attempt to disrupt it with all his horn honking.
-
I am not attempting to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I am stating valid reasons to believe in the likelihood of LHO visiting the TT before 11/22/63. You can disagree if you so desire. But to state that there is no likelihood because everything is hypothetical is ridiculous.
No, it’s accurate. You need some basis for decreeing something to be more likely than not — beyond a “could have happened” hypothetical.
-
“The Texas was the first air conditioned theater in Dallas; the original equipment is still in place (long since updated) as of Jun 14, 2012.”
That just says that the originally installed equipment was still there. It doesn’t tell you when the original equipment was first installed.
-
Cite, please.
Marina and Lee by Priscilla McMillan Johnson - Chapter 31
It was fearfully sultry and hot, and their only air-conditioning was an old kitchen fan. Lee went naked around the apartment a good deal of the time and sometimes spent the whole day lying on the sofa on his stomach, without a stitch on, reading a book.
Hearsay. And quote a bit different from your original claim:
“Marina tells of LHO staying inside and wearing only his underpants in an effort to stay cool in New Orleans”
-
That just says that the originally installed equipment was still there. It doesn’t tell you when the original equipment was first installed.
Jerry Freeman’s post (#82) in this thread clarifies that I am correct about the A/C system being part of the original construction in 1931. Thanks Jerry! Like I said earlier in this thread, I don’t believe any amount of evidence will ever convince you of anything at all.
-
No, it’s accurate. You need some basis for decreeing something to be more likely than not — beyond a “could have happened” hypothetical.
You are grossly misusing the word decree. Much like you did the word arbitrary.
-
Hearsay. And quote a bit different from your original claim:
“Marina tells of LHO staying inside and wearing only his underpants in an effort to stay cool in New Orleans”
The underpants episode was a different one. It involved him “training” to be a soldier for Castro. My original statement was “off the top of my head” (from my memory). My memory associated the two episodes incorrectly. That’s part of being human.
The point is (as I stated earlier) that this behavior is not what one would expect from someone who (as you suggested) might adore hot weather.
-
You are grossly misusing the word decree. Much like you did the word arbitrary.
What the f*ck is wrong with you, man?
-
What the f*ck is wrong with you, man?
Other than healing from a cracked rib and banged up knee, I am doing fine. Thanks.
-
Other than healing from a cracked rib and banged up knee, I am doing fine. Thanks.
Delusional too, I see....
What's this obsession of yours to come to a JFK assassination forum to pathetically debate the meaning and use of words?
-
Delusional too, I see....
What's this obsession of yours to come to a JFK assassination forum to pathetically debate the meaning and use of words?
It’s my supercalifragilisticexpialidocious hobby.
-
It’s my supercalifragilisticexpialidocious hobby.
Great. I take it you discuss the JFK case on a spelling forum....
-
Great. I take it you discuss the JFK case on a spelling forum....
You have made three posts this morning in this thread. All of them directed at attacking my character. All of this due to a statement that was in response to someone other than you. Do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the assassination? Or are you going to continue to attack people who you disagree with?
-
You have made three posts this morning in this thread. All of them directed at attacking my character. All of this due to a statement that was in response to someone other than you. Do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the assassination? Or are you going to continue to attack people who you disagree with?
How can I attack something you don't have?
Do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the assassination?
Do you? I've seen you debating air-conditioning, Oswald's underwear, the meaning of words and God knows what else, ......but the assassination? Nah.. not so much
Or are you going to continue to attack people who you disagree with?
Who disagrees with me? In order to disagree about something you first need to talk about it. You just dismiss things you don't like out of hand and run away.... that's not disagreeing. That's being unable to present a coherent and plausible counter argument.
Oh, and btw you really should stop telling people what you think they should do..... that's just being arrogant. When you fill page after page with idiotic discussions about words, you're the last one to tell people to talk about the assassination.
-
Hoe can I attack something you don't have?
Do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the assassination?
Do you? I've seen you debating air-conditioning, Oswald's underwear, the meaning of words and God knows what else, ......but the assassination? Nah.. not so much
Or are you going to continue to attack people who you disagree with?
Who disagrees with me? In order to disagree about something you first need to talk about it. You just dismiss things you don't like out of hand and run away.... that's not disagreeing. That's being unable to present a coherent and plausible counter argument.
Oh, and btw you really should stop telling people what you think they should do..... that's just being arrogant. When you fill page after page with idiotic discussions about words, you're the last one to tell people to talk about the assassination.
Apparently the answer is no to the first question; and yes to the second question.
-
Apparently the answer is no to the first question; and yes to the second question.
Apparently?
-
Apparently?
Apparently: as far as one knows or can see
https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.35i39i362l5...5.6203616j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=apparently (https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.35i39i362l5...5.6203616j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=apparently)
-
Apparently: as far as one knows or can see
https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.35i39i362l5...5.6203616j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=apparently (https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.35i39i362l5...5.6203616j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=apparently)
Except you don't know and can't see....
It's amazing how much you rely on google and a dictionary for "knowledge" :D
-
Except you don't know and can't see....
It's amazing how much you rely on google and a dictionary for "knowledge" :D
The definition was provided for your benefit (since you asked). Verbatim from the reference source; even though this forum isn’t a court of law, hearsay is frowned upon....
-
The definition was provided for your benefit (since you asked). Verbatim from the reference source; even though this forum isn’t a court of law, hearsay is frowned upon....
Oh my, too many fancy words for little old me :D
I don't recall asking for a definition.... Why do you insist in making things up?
Frowned upon hearsay, like Scoggins hearing from his supervisor that the dispatcher told him he used the radio at 1:23, some 9 minutes after the time Dale Myers said Tippit was killed.... that kind of hearsay?
-
Oh my, too many fancy words for little old me :D
I don't recall asking for a definition.... Why do you insist in making things up?
Frowned upon hearsay, like Scoggins hearing from his supervisor that the dispatcher told him he used the radio at 1:23, some 9 minutes after the time Dale Myers said Tippit was killed.... that kind of hearsay?
How soon you forget....
Apparently?
-
How soon you forget....
How quickly you misunderstand....
What made you think I needed a definition of the word? (This btw is a question)
-
How quickly you misunderstand....
What made you think I needed a definition of the word? (This btw is a question)
Your previous problems with definitions of words.
-
Your previous problems with definitions of words.
Jumping to the wrong conclusion... again, I see
So far, all the evidence points to you being the one who has problems with words. You get the meaning wrong, need google and a dictionary to have them explained to you and you misunderstand more often than not.
-
Jerry Freeman’s post (#82) in this thread clarifies that I am correct about the A/C system being part of the original construction in 1931.
Nope. His quote says nothing about the AC being installed when the building was constructed either.
-
You are grossly misusing the word decree. Much like you did the word arbitrary.
:D Here we go again.
-
The underpants episode was a different one. It involved him “training” to be a soldier for Castro. My original statement was “off the top of my head” (from my memory). My memory associated the two episodes incorrectly. That’s part of being human.
Fair enough. That’s why I asked for a cite.
The point is (as I stated earlier) that this behavior is not what one would expect from someone who (as you suggested) might adore hot weather.
Except the quote that you did find does not necessarily contradict that.
-
Nope. His quote says nothing about the AC being installed when the building was constructed either.
Jerry says it and I agree with his statement. Here is some of the text from the article Jerry linked to:
The Texas Theatre was opened at 231 West Jefferson Boulevard with fanfare on San Jacinto Day, April 21, 1931. The Texas Theatre was the novelty of longtime Oak Cliff resident and entrepreneur, C. R. McHenry, better known in the community as “Uncle Mack.” McHenry’s dream was to build a theater with state-of-the-art projection and sound equipment.
McHenry partnered with four Dallas-area businessmen to help him realize this dream: Harold B. Robb, E. H. Rowley, (Robb & Rowley Theatres) W. G. Underwood and David Bernbaum. Together they hired renowned architect W. Scott Dunne to design the Texas. He opted for a “Venetian” style, quite similar to his earlier Texas Theater in San Angelo. The design included opera boxes in the auditorium under a full night sky, fountains, projected clouds on the ceiling, and of course a giant chandelier. The completed theatre was the largest “suburban” movie house and the third-largest theatre in Dallas.
The Texas’ developers spared no expense and boasted that the theater was “fireproof” – constructed entirely of concrete. The theatre was the first in the area built for talking pictures and it featured the second-largest Barton organ in Dallas. However, McHenry was most proud of the cooling and ventilation system which blew 200,000 cubic feet of air per minute through a water-cooled system pumped from a 4,000-gallon tank. The cooling system made “The Texas” the first theater in Dallas with air conditioning. Billionaire film producer and renowned aviator Howard Hughes and his business partner Harold B. Franklin, another Hollywood producer, briefly owned the Robb & Rowley movie theater chain in the early 30′s during construction and opening of the Texas Theatre.
The article clearly indicates that McHenry developed the Texas Theater and opened it in 1931. And that McHenry was most proud of the cooling and ventilation system. This implies that the cooling system was a part of the original construction. Whether you agree or not.
-
Fair enough. That’s why I asked for a cite.
Except the quote that you did find does not necessarily contradict that.
::)
-
Do you? I've seen you debating air-conditioning set, Oswald's underwear, the meaning of words and God knows what else, ......but the assassination? Nah.. not so much
It is truly amazing what mental gymnastics and hoops that Charles will jump through to try to justify his conjecture that Oswald was familiar with the layout of the Texas Theater and completely ignore the bigger picture.
It still isn’t “likely” in any valid sense, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that Oswald definitely was familiar with the layout of the Texas Theater.
So what?
-
even though this forum isn’t a court of law, hearsay is frowned upon....
You mean like Priscilla Johnson McMillan’s dramatized accounts of the Oswalds’ day to day activities, conversations, and thoughts in a book published in 1977?
-
You mean like Priscilla Johnson McMillan’s dramatized accounts of the Oswalds’ day to day activities, conversations, and thoughts in a book published in 1977?
That is what I was cryptically referring to. You said it was hearsay; I said that this forum isn’t a court of law.
Also, we are discussing the likelihood of something. Not proving it. You can disagree. But claiming nonsense like nothing is likely or unlikely is the response one of you spouted instead of saying you disagree and here are the reasons why.
-
It is truly amazing what mental gymnastics and hoops that Charles will jump through to try to justify his conjecture that Oswald was familiar with the layout of the Texas Theater and completely ignore the bigger picture.
It still isn’t “likely” in any valid sense, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that Oswald definitely was familiar with the layout of the Texas Theater.
So what?
Yeah, the “so what question” gets lost in the nonsensical arguments. The reason it was brought up was due to the floor plan layout posted showing the possibility that LHO could have gone up to the balcony to avoid the concession stand ticket taker. And then proceed to the north staircase and go back down to the main level in an effort to blend in with the others there and make it more difficult for anyone to find him (in case he was seen sneaking in). It definitely threw off some of the ones looking for him.
My thoughts are that LHO likely knew ahead of time that he had this circuitous route through the theater available. And that once he got past Postal undetected he had a very good chance of getting into the theater without having to produce a ticket to a ticket taker.
You can disagree with this. But it also provides a possible explanation for those who wonder why LHO would take a chance of sneaking in (and drawing unwanted attention to himself) instead of purchasing a ticket.
-
Elcan Elliott? Gus Russo interviewed him for his book "Live by the Sword." ... acting suspiciously (he saw the man "relieving himself" near a bush) - that he later identified as Oswald before the shooting of Tippit near North Beckley.
A fuller account is here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2759.msg101861.html#msg101861
Where---[The suspect was walking back and forth along 10th a few times]
So that would give the accused 10 minutes to walk from the rooming house...go whizz behind the bushes walk up and down the block...have a confrontation with a cop...and then shoot the cop.
I learned nothing else from that tour that wasn't in Readers Digest years ago.
And yeah...the gospel according to St. Priscilla targeted curious housewives itching to read a soap about the Oswald's. So it had to be juicy...no matter how off the wall it sounded.
-
That is what I was cryptically referring to. You said it was hearsay; I said that this forum isn’t a court of law.
Also, we are discussing the likelihood of something. Not proving it. You can disagree. But claiming nonsense like nothing is likely or unlikely is the response one of you spouted instead of saying you disagree and here are the reasons why.
Also, we are discussing the likelihood of something. Not proving it.
Says the same guy who previously said;
When I say something is likely, it implies that I could be wrong about whatever it is that I believe is likely. But the chances that I am wrong are low compared to the chances that I am correct; that is what likely means.
No, it means it is probable that I am correct, not definitely correct.
You're not arguing that "likely" means "possible", you're agruing that "likely" means you're probably correct which implicitely means you're arguing to "prove it". You're just doing so with a safeguard build in and in the full knowledge that you will never admit to being wrong.
Too bad for you that it's very likely that you're wrong about this one.
Play the music and let's go round again.....
-
Also, we are discussing the likelihood of something. Not proving it.
Says the same guy who previously said;
You're not arguing that "likely" means "possible", you're agruing that "likely" means you're probably correct which implicitely means you're arguing to "prove it". You're just doing so with a safeguard build in and in the full knowledge that you will never admit to being wrong.
Too bad for you that it's very likely that you're wrong about this one.
Play the music and let's go round again.....
Play the music and let's go round again.....
No thanks.
-
That is what I was cryptically referring to. You said it was hearsay; I said that this forum isn’t a court of law.
Also, we are discussing the likelihood of something. Not proving it. You can disagree. But claiming nonsense like nothing is likely or unlikely is the response one of you spouted instead of saying you disagree and here are the reasons why.
I disagreed that it was “likely” because you have provided nothing beyond pure conjecture that would show that it was likely. Possible doesn’t mean likely.
-
Play the music and let's go round again.....
No thanks.
How does it feel to be beaten at your own game?
-
Yeah, the “so what question” gets lost in the nonsensical arguments. The reason it was brought up was due to the floor plan layout posted showing the possibility that LHO could have gone up to the balcony to avoid the concession stand ticket taker.
That why this whole rabbit hole is ridiculous. Sure, it’s possible that LHO could have gone up to the balcony to avoid the concession stand ticket taker. It’s also possible that he couldn’t. Or didn’t. Again, so what?
And then proceed to the north staircase and go back down to the main level in an effort to blend in with the others there and make it more difficult for anyone to find him (in case he was seen sneaking in). It definitely threw off some of the ones looking for him.
Now we’re probably going to get to have an argument over what “definitely” means. There’s nothing definite about it. Nobody knows if Oswald was ever in the balcony or on one of those staircases.
My thoughts are that LHO likely knew ahead of time that he had this circuitous route through the theater available. And that once he got past Postal undetected he had a very good chance of getting into the theater without having to produce a ticket to a ticket taker.
Again, there’s nothing “likely” about it. It’s pure conjecture.
You can disagree with this. But it also provides a possible explanation for those who wonder why LHO would take a chance of sneaking in (and drawing unwanted attention to himself) instead of purchasing a ticket.
Nobody actually saw him enter the theater, so you haven’t even demonstrated that he did “sneak in”, much less why.
-
I disagreed that it was “likely” because you have provided nothing beyond pure conjecture that would show that it was likely. Possible doesn’t mean likely.
I didn’t conjure up the facts that LHO lived in the neighborhood, liked watching movies, and that the theater provided a relief from the heat. These might not be reasons that convince you of the likelihood. (Nothing whatsoever is likely to convince you of anything.) But they most definitely are not “pure conjecture.”
-
How does it feel to be beaten at your own game?
I gave up trying to make sense out of your nonsense. You can go back to arguing with yourself again as far as I am concerned.
-
I didn’t conjure up the facts that LHO lived in the neighborhood, liked watching movies, and that the theater provided a relief from the heat. These might not be reasons that convince you of the likelihood. (Nothing whatsoever is likely to convince you of anything.) But they most definitely are not “pure conjecture.”
Nothing whatsoever is likely to convince you of anything.
Stop whining. Sound arguments based on provable persuasive facts will always convince me and I am sure John feels the same.
But they most definitely are not “pure conjecture.”
What you are doing is the definition of conjecture.
-
I didn’t conjure up the facts that LHO lived in the neighborhood, liked watching movies, and that the theater provided a relief from the heat. These might not be reasons that convince you of the likelihood.
It’s contrived. I gave you an equally valid set of facts that argue against that likelihood. That’s why your methodology for determining likelihood is flawed. It will lead you to whatever conclusion you want.
(Nothing whatsoever is likely to convince you of anything.)
All it takes is evidence. Conjecture isn’t evidence.
But they most definitely are not “pure conjecture.”
The “facts” aren’t, but the conclusion you tried to draw from them certainly are.
Did Oswald “likely” go for swims in the Trinity River?
-
That why this whole rabbit hole is ridiculous. Sure, it’s possible that LHO could have gone up to the balcony to avoid the concession stand ticket taker. It’s also possible that he couldn’t. Or didn’t. Again, so what?
Now we’re probably going to get to have an argument over what “definitely” means. There’s nothing definite about it. Nobody knows if Oswald was ever in the balcony or on one of those staircases.
Again, there’s nothing “likely” about it. It’s pure conjecture.
Nobody actually saw him enter the theater, so you haven’t even demonstrated that he did “sneak in”, much less why.
You go on believing that nobody has demonstrated anything whatsoever happened at all. I give up.
-
You go on believing that nobody has demonstrated anything whatsoever happened at all. I give up.
I’m sure you will go on calling your speculated possibilities “likely”.
If you had just left out the word “likely”, nobody would have argued with you.
-
You go on believing that nobody has demonstrated anything whatsoever happened at all. I give up.
Here, I'll help you; from the Oxford dictionary...
conjecture
/kənˈdʒɛktʃə/
noun
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
"conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
-
If you had just left out the word “likely”, nobody would have argued with you.
That’s highly unlikely.
-
That’s highly unlikely.
And that's another thing you're wrong about....
-
And that's another thing you're wrong about....
You have just proven that I was right. Thank you very much for arguing.
-
You have just proven that I was right. Thank you very much for arguing.
How did I prove you are right when all I did was point out that you are wrong to claim that it would be unlikely John and I would have argued with you if you had left out the word "likely" in you initial post?
John and I know for a fact that we wouldn't have argued with you if you had left the word "likely" out. You on the other hand know nothing and claim nevertheless it's unlikely we wouldn't have argued with you. Are you a (very bad) mind reader now?
-
How did I prove you are right when all I did was point out that you are wrong to claim that it would be unlikely John and I would have argued with you if you had left out the word "likely" in you initial post?
John and I know for a fact that we wouldn't have argued with you if you had left the word "likely" out. You on the other hand know nothing and claim nevertheless it's unlikely we wouldn't have argued with you. Are you a (very bad) mind reader now?
Thank you for continuing to argue. Further evidence of the unlikelihood that you wouldn’t have argued. 8)
-
Thank you for continuing to argue. Further evidence of the unlikelihood that you wouldn’t have argued. 8)
I am not continuing to argue. I asked you a simple question. How the hell do you think you know what John and I would have done if you had left out the word "likely"?
So, stop being so conceited (it means arrogant prick) and answer the question.
-
I am not continuing to argue. I asked you a simple question. How the hell do you think you know what John and I would have done if you had left out the word "likely"?
Again you demonstrate that you don’t understand the difference between (un)likely and fact.
And it is extremely unlikely that you ever will.
-
Again you demonstrate that you don’t understand the difference between (un)likely and fact.
And it is extremely unlikely that you ever will.
Stop being so conceited (it means arrogant prick) and answer the question.
How the hell do you think you know what John and I would have done if you had left out the word "likely"?
And btw we know what the fact is.... We wouldn't have argued with you if you left out the world "likely". That's the fact, jerk!
-
Stop being so conceited (it means arrogant prick) and answer the question.
How the hell do you think you know what John and I would have done if you had left out the word "likely"?
I didn’t say that I think I knew. I said it was unlikely. Why do I think that? Past history.
-
I didn’t say that I think I knew. I said it was unlikely. Why do I think that? Past history.
And once again I say you are wrong.... as per usual... you know, past history!
-
And once again I say you are wrong.... as per usual... you know, past history!
More evidence that I am right. Thank you very much. Thumb1:
-
More evidence that I am right. Thank you very much. Thumb1:
Right about what, exactly?
You said that if you had not used the word "likely" in your initial post, it was unlikely John and I wouldn't have argued against it.
We have told you you were wrong about that and have stopped arguing about that, as you seem to finally understand that we are right.
So, what do you think you are right about now?
-
Right about what, exactly?
Still wanting to argue about any ole arbitrary thing?
-
Still wanting to argue about any ole arbitrary thing?
And were exactly did I argue about that, since the argument shifted to the incorrect use of the word "likely" by you?
Are you really this desperate?
-
And were exactly did I argue about that?
I thought so. Thanks again! Thumb1:
-
I thought so. Thanks again! Thumb1:
Oh boy, you really are like a duck paddling furiously to stay afloat.
Deliberately misrepresenting the question and avoiding to answer it as it was..... Pathetic.
-
Allow me to divert attention from the tit for tat discussion---
Upon summarily being called "probably the most astute criminal detective in the southwest" ...Will Fritz states that Oswald encountered and killed the policeman on the way to watching a movie.
70 seconds long.
-
Oh boy, you really are like a duck paddling furiously to stay afloat.
Deliberately misrepresenting the question and avoiding to answer it as it was..... Pathetic.
I think most of what I am saying is going over your head. And you edited your post and added to it after I had already responded. Shame on you.
-
I think most of what I am saying is going over your head. And you edited your post and added to it after I had already responded. Shame on you.
I think most of what I am saying is going over your head.
Of course you think that. Even an idiot thinks that he's always right about everything. It means nothing.
And you edited your post and added to it after I had already responded. Shame on you.
No, I corrected a minor spelling error while you were answering. Care to answer it again?
-
I think most of what I am saying is going over your head.
Of course you think that. Even an idiot thinks that he's always right about everything. It means nothing.
And you edited your post and added to it after I had already responded. Shame on you.
No, I corrected a minor spelling error while you were answering.
Thanks again for continuing to argue and thereby providing additional evidence that I was correct.
-
Thanks again for continuing to argue and thereby providing additional evidence that I was correct.
Correct about what?
You really are a champion in your own mind, aren't you?
I take it you're not willing to answer the question again?
Btw, we can go on forever, as far as I am concerned. Exposing you as a total fraud is so much fun. I'll keep chasing you all over this forum unless you resolve the matter.
-
That’s highly unlikely.
Unbelievable. Charles not only thinks he knows what Oswald was “likely” to do, he thinks he knows what Martin and I are “likely” to do better than we do.
Perhaps it’s time to look up “egomaniac”.
-
The suggestion that there is any real possibility that Oswald may not have snuck into the TT is weak sauce. Obviously he entered the theatre because he was there when arrested. Postal - the only ticket seller - didn't sell him a ticket. Burroughs - the only ticket taker- didn't see him or take his ticket. Oswald had no ticket in his possession. Postal sees the "man" coming from one direction, she looks toward the street where the police activity is occurring and then is approached by Brewer who asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal looks down the street in the direction the man was heading and doesn't see him. Brewer identifies the man he was following was Oswald. So where does Oswald go if not into the theatre as he passed behind Postal? He is not anywhere to be seen on the street. But we can't conclude from this that Oswald snuck into the TT? Silly.
These contrarians are laughable in trying to establish an impossible standard of proof for any fact they don't like and then suggest there is doubt about an obvious fact. Oswald clearly "snuck" into the theatre. We don't need a time machine to confirm that. By that nutty standard, no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln. They heard a gunshot, looked in the direction of the sound and saw Booth holding a smoking pistol at Lincoln's head. How are we to know that he shot him? There must be doubt as to the matter. HA HA HA. Maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just picked up the gun? Just endless contrarian nonsense.
-
I didn’t say that I think I knew. I said it was unlikely. Why do I think that? Past history.
I only argue when people make fact claims that are incorrect or that they can’t support with evidence.
-
The suggestion that there is any real possibility that Oswald may not have snuck into the TT is weak sauce. Obviously he entered the theatre because he was there when arrested. Postal - the only ticket seller - didn't sell him a ticket. Burroughs - the only ticket taker- didn't see him or take his ticket. Oswald had no ticket in his possession. Postal sees the "man" coming from one direction, she looks toward the street where the police activity is occurring and then is approached by Brewer who asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal looks down the street in the direction the man was heading and doesn't see him. Brewer identifies the man he was following was Oswald. So where does Oswald go if not into the theatre as he passed behind Postal? He is not anywhere to be seen on the street. But we can't conclude from this that Oswald snuck into the TT? Silly.
These contrarians are laughable in trying to establish an impossible standard of proof for any fact they don't like and then suggest there is doubt about an obvious fact. Oswald clearly "snuck" into the theatre. We don't need a time machine to confirm that. By that nutty standard, no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln. They heard a gunshot, looked in the direction of the sound and saw Booth holding a smoking pistol at Lincoln's head. How are we to know that he shot him? There must be doubt as to the matter. HA HA HA. Maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just picked up the gun? Just endless contrarian nonsense.
Nobody argues that Oswald did not snuck into the theater. We know he was there when he was arrested and there is no evidence of him buying a ticket. I'm not sure what your point is, if you have one...
-
The suggestion that there is any real possibility that Oswald may not have snuck into the TT is weak sauce. Obviously he entered the theatre because he was there when arrested.
Ok so far...
Postal - the only ticket seller - didn't sell him a ticket.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/postal-fbi.jpg)
Burroughs - the only ticket taker- didn't see him or take his ticket.
How do you know Burroughs didn’t take his ticket?
Oswald had no ticket in his possession.
How do you know that the Texas Theater gave tickets back or that people always retain their tickets when they do?
Postal sees the "man" coming from one direction, she looks toward the street where the police activity is occurring and then is approached by Brewer who asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal looks down the street in the direction the man was heading and doesn't see him. Brewer identifies the man he was following was Oswald. So where does Oswald go if not into the theatre as he passed behind Postal?
Just because Brewer claimed he saw Oswald doesn’t mean for a fact that he saw Oswald. Burroughs claimed he sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15.
Also Brewer didn’t have his eyes on the man he saw in front of his store the entire time. He went back into the shoe store, talked to the IBM men, and then went down and talked to Postal.
These contrarians are laughable in trying to establish an impossible standard of proof for any fact they don't like and then suggest there is doubt about an obvious fact.
Just because you assume something is true doesn’t turn it into an “obvious fact”.
[nutty false equivalences made to unrelated murder cases deleted as irrelevant]
-
Unbelievable. Charles not only thinks he knows what Oswald was “likely” to do, he thinks he knows what Martin and I are “likely” to do better than we do.
Perhaps it’s time to look up “egomaniac”.
You two would argue with a stop sign, there is absolutely no doubt about it. I was being kind when I said it was unlikely that you wouldn’t have argued.
-
Correct about what?
You really are a champion in your own mind, aren't you?
I take it you're not willing to answer the question again?
Btw, we can go on forever, as far as I am concerned. Exposing you as a total fraud is so much fun. I'll keep chasing you all over this forum unless you resolve the matter.
I take it you're not willing to answer the question again?
Honestly, you need to specify what question. Some of my remarks were rhetorical and designed to make fun of your inability to stop arguing. Sadly, I think this might have gone over your head.
-
I only argue when people make fact claims that are incorrect or that they can’t support with evidence.
What you believe to be a fact claim is apparently that you believe that I am claiming that it is a fact that something is likely or unlikely. Is that what this argument is all about?
You apparently had no qualms stating that (I am condensing and paraphrasing) the Fargo ND theater was less likely than the Texas Theater due to proximity. Is this supposed to be a fact? Or your opinion?
-
The suggestion that there is any real possibility that Oswald may not have snuck into the TT is weak sauce. Obviously he entered the theatre because he was there when arrested. Postal - the only ticket seller - didn't sell him a ticket. Burroughs - the only ticket taker- didn't see him or take his ticket. Oswald had no ticket in his possession. Postal sees the "man" coming from one direction, she looks toward the street where the police activity is occurring and then is approached by Brewer who asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal looks down the street in the direction the man was heading and doesn't see him. Brewer identifies the man he was following was Oswald. So where does Oswald go if not into the theatre as he passed behind Postal? He is not anywhere to be seen on the street. But we can't conclude from this that Oswald snuck into the TT? Silly.
These contrarians are laughable in trying to establish an impossible standard of proof for any fact they don't like and then suggest there is doubt about an obvious fact. Oswald clearly "snuck" into the theatre. We don't need a time machine to confirm that. By that nutty standard, no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln. They heard a gunshot, looked in the direction of the sound and saw Booth holding a smoking pistol at Lincoln's head. How are we to know that he shot him? There must be doubt as to the matter. HA HA HA. Maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just picked up the gun? Just endless contrarian nonsense.
Just endless contrarian nonsense.
Exactly, and then they wonder why they have to beg for someone to engage them in their silly arguments. I’ll tell you why, its a complete waste of time and effort.
-
You two would argue with a stop sign, there is absolutely no doubt about it. I was being kind when I said it was unlikely that you wouldn’t have argued.
I take it you're not willing to answer the question again?
Honestly, you need to specify what question. Some of my remarks were rhetorical and designed to make fun of your inability to stop arguing. Sadly, I think this might have gone over your head.
What you believe to be a fact claim is apparently that you believe that I am claiming that it is a fact that something is likely or unlikely. Is that what this argument is all about?
You apparently had no qualms stating that (I am condensing and paraphrasing) the Fargo ND theater was less likely than the Texas Theater due to proximity. Is this supposed to be a fact? Or your opinion?
All this BS crap from an idiot who, in his delusional state, actually believes he knows better what I would have done than I do.
No more needs to be said....
-
The suggestion that there is any real possibility that Oswald may not have snuck into the TT is weak sauce. Obviously he entered the theatre because he was there when arrested. Postal - the only ticket seller - didn't sell him a ticket. Burroughs - the only ticket taker- didn't see him or take his ticket. Oswald had no ticket in his possession. Postal sees the "man" coming from one direction, she looks toward the street where the police activity is occurring and then is approached by Brewer who asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal looks down the street in the direction the man was heading and doesn't see him. Brewer identifies the man he was following was Oswald. So where does Oswald go if not into the theatre as he passed behind Postal? He is not anywhere to be seen on the street. But we can't conclude from this that Oswald snuck into the TT? Silly.
These contrarians are laughable in trying to establish an impossible standard of proof for any fact they don't like and then suggest there is doubt about an obvious fact. Oswald clearly "snuck" into the theatre. We don't need a time machine to confirm that. By that nutty standard, no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln. They heard a gunshot, looked in the direction of the sound and saw Booth holding a smoking pistol at Lincoln's head. How are we to know that he shot him? There must be doubt as to the matter. HA HA HA. Maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just picked up the gun? Just endless contrarian nonsense.
Oswald snuck slithered into the TT
-
Just endless contrarian nonsense.
Exactly, and then they wonder why they have to beg for someone to engage them in their silly arguments. I’ll tell you why, its a complete waste of time and effort.
Utterly pathetic. You're on a JFK assassination forum, unwilling, or perhaps even unable, to discuss the topic of the forum. If it is indeed a waste of time and effort, what the hell are you doing here?
The real reason why you desperately avoid any discussion is a simple one; you know that you will lose the argument every time because the narrative you are defending has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
-
Utterly pathetic. You're on a JFK assassination forum, unwilling, or perhaps even unable, to discuss the topic of the forum. If it is indeed a waste of time and effort, what the hell are you doing here?
The real reason why you desperately avoid any discussion is a simple one; you know that you will lose the argument every time because the narrative you are defending has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
I have clearly demonstrated your inability to not argue by using my own variation of your “tell a fool he is intelligent and watch him argue against it” joke. Your other addiction is to attack others. I pointed this out to you first thing the other morning, to no avail. This is a sign of a bitter human being. You can dish it out; but you can’t take it (a sign of insecurity).
What am I doing here? I am trying to discuss the assassination. Your “I don’t like that word” tirades only detract from the discussions and waste time and effort.
-
I have clearly demonstrated your inability to not argue by using my own variation of your “tell a fool he is intelligent and watch him argue against it” joke. Your other addiction is to attack others. I pointed this out to you first thing the other morning, to no avail. This is a sign of a bitter human being. You can dish it out; but you can’t take it (a sign of insecurity).
What am I doing here? I am trying to discuss the assassination. Your “I don’t like that word” tirades only detract from the discussions and waste time and effort.
I am trying to discuss the assassination.
Sure you are... that's why you are running from every discussion other than your stupid word games.
All anybody has to do is look at your posting history.
-
I am trying to discuss the assassination.
Sure you are... that's why you are running from every discussion other than your stupid word games.
All anybody has to do is look at your posting history.
Still begging for someone to “discuss” your “timeline”?
-
Still begging for someone to “discuss” your “timeline”?
Just challenging..... And every time I do, you embarrass yourself by running away as fast as you can....
-
Just challenging..... And every time I do, you embarrass yourself by running away as fast as you can....
It is more like: no thanks, been there/done that; no need to repeat. Nothing embarrassing about it.
And in your mind, you are the only one “brave” enough to “discuss” it with you. So, off you go to argue with yourself... again, and again, and again.
-
It is more like: no thanks, been there/done that; no need to repeat. Nothing embarrassing about it.
And in your mind, you are the only one “brave” enough to “discuss” it with you. So, off you go to argue with yourself... again, and again, and again.
So you joined a forum to not discuss things that have already been discussed? Wow!
It is more like: no thanks, been there/done that; no need to repeat.
As just about everything in this case has been discussed over and over again, I suppose you'll be leaving the forum soon, mr "been there/done that"...
And in your mind, you are the only one “brave” enough to “discuss” it with you. So, off you go to argue with yourself.
You're not making any sense. Do you really foolishly believe it's possible to argue with yourself? Really?
Have you been suffering from dual personality long?
-
So you joined a forum to not discuss things that have already been discussed? Wow!
It is more like: no thanks, been there/done that; no need to repeat.
As just about everything in this case has been discussed over and over again, I suppose you'll be leaving the forum soon, mr "been there/done that"...
And in your mind, you are the only one “brave” enough to “discuss” it with you. So, off you go to argue with yourself.
You're not making any sense. Do you really foolishly believe it's possible to argue with yourself? Really?
Have you been suffering from dual personality long?
Do you really foolishly believe it's possible to argue with yourself?
People do it all the time when trying to make decisions. However, you take it to the next level:
And on and on and on he goes.... Trying to "win" an argument by wearing everybody else down.
And now you can spend another 5 posts explaining why you are not trying to wear everybody down....
In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.
In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.
:D
-
Do you really foolishly believe it's possible to argue with yourself?
People do it all the time when trying to make decisions. However, you take it to the next level:
In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.
:D
People do it all the time when trying to make decisions.
So, going through a thought process to you is "arguing with yourself"? Remarkable...
In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.
In the context of your pathetic performance in that "conversation", this was a pefectly understandable and justifiable comment
Face it, you're just not very good in having a normal conversation about anything, but I guess that's what you get when you are a die hard fanatic who is incapable of defending a flawed belief system.
But thank you for showing how your brain malfunctions
-
People do it all the time when trying to make decisions.
So, going through a thought process to you is "arguing with yourself"? Remarkable...
In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.
In the context of your pathetic performance in that "conversation", this was a pefectly understandable and justifiable comment
Face it, you're just not very good in having a normal conversation about anything, but I guess that's what you get when you are a die hard fanatic who is incapable of defending a flawed belief system.
You apparently enjoy trading barbs with people who you disagree with. But I have explained to you that this is not what other readers (who want to learn about the assassination) are looking for. And it makes it frustrating for them to find the information they want. We have been trading barbs for several days now and all it has accomplished is trashing up Bill’s thread. (Perhaps that was your goal.)
I am cutting this off now. You can have the last word.
-
You apparently enjoy trading barbs with people who you disagree with. But I have explained to you that this is not what other readers (who want to learn about the assassination) are looking for. And it makes it frustrating for them to find the information they want. We have been trading barbs for several days now and all it has accomplished is trashing up Bill’s thread. (Perhaps that was your goal.)
I am cutting this off now. You can have the last word.
I have explained to you that this is not what other readers (who want to learn about the assassination) are looking for.
Readers who want to learn about the assassination ( coup d e'tat ) do not want to see the Warren Report regurgitated.....Which is all you're doing Charles. Readers are looking for answers... Because they know that the Warren Report is a damned lie.
-
I have explained to you that this is not what other readers (who want to learn about the assassination) are looking for.
Readers who want to learn about the assassination ( coup d e'tat ) do not want to see the Warren Report regurgitated.....Which is all you're doing Charles. Readers are looking for answers... Because they know that the Warren Report is a damned lie.
So you would prefer a forum for only people who believe that the WC got everything totally wrong?
-
I have explained to you that this is not what other readers (who want to learn about the assassination) are looking for.
Readers who want to learn about the assassination ( coup d e'tat ) do not want to see the Warren Report regurgitated.....Which is all you're doing Charles. Readers are looking for answers... Because they know that the Warren Report is a damned lie.
Absolutely right, Walt.
Why would anybody join a forum, which is after all a place of discussion, just to blindly repeat and defend the Warren Report while being unwilling to enter into a discussion?
What are LNs so afraid of that they do not want to enter into a debate?
-
Absolutely right, Walt.
Why would anybody join a forum, which is after all a place of discussion, just to blindly repeat and defend the Warren Report while being unwilling to enter into a discussion?
What are LNs so afraid of that they do not want to enter into a debate?
Maybe Duncan will create a section for all but LNs for y’all. I promise to stay out if he does.
-
Maybe Duncan will create a section for all but LNs for y’all. I promise to stay out if he does.
He doesn't have to and you don't need to promise.
You're already staying out of every discussion that has any substance or significance.
Here's a suggestion for you; Just post the Warren Report and you'll be done. It will save you a lot of time!
-
You two would argue with a stop sign, there is absolutely no doubt about it. I was being kind when I said it was unlikely that you wouldn’t have argued.
You forgot to add the word “likely” to your latest conjecture.
-
Your “I don’t like that word” tirades only detract from the discussions and waste time and effort.
Wow. Pot-kettle.
-
So you would prefer a forum for only people who believe that the WC got everything totally wrong?
The key word there is regurgitated (well, regurgitated with the word “likely” generously sprinkled in). If you or anyone else could defend the WC conclusions with actual conclusive evidence that would be quite another matter.
-
The key word there is regurgitated (well, regurgitated with the word “likely” generously sprinkled in). If you or anyone else could defend the WC conclusions with actual conclusive evidence that would be quite another matter.
It certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings if a separate section was created. Then y’all could make up your own conclusions and support them with all the evidence that doesn’t exist.
-
Better yet: a separate section where people can quibble over dictionary words and their correct usages to their hearts’ content.
-
It certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings if a separate section was created. Then y’all could make up your own conclusions and support them with all the evidence that doesn’t exist.
No need. You guys have been doing that all along!
-
It certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings if a separate section was created. Then y’all could make up your own conclusions and support them with all the evidence that doesn’t exist.
It certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings if a separate section was created. Then y’all could make up your own conclusions and support them with all the evidence that doesn’t exist. that exist but I like to ignore
There I fixed it for you!
-
It certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings if a separate section was created. Then y’all could make up your own conclusions and support them with all the evidence that doesn’t exist. that exist but I like to ignore
There I fixed it for you!
We’ve been waiting for over 57-years for the Weidmann report with its conclusions and supporting volumes. What seems to be the hold up?
-
We’ve been waiting for over 57-years for the Weidmann report with its conclusions and supporting volumes. What seems to be the hold up?
Whatever gave you the idea that there would be a report? And why would anybody write such a report in the certain knowledge that people like you would dismiss it before they actually read it?
Actually, now that you mention it, I've been looking for the supporting volumes (you know, the ones that actually support the conclusions) to the Warren Report. Any idea where I can find those?
-
Whatever gave you the idea that there would be a report? And why would anybody write such a report in the certain knowledge that people like you would dismiss it before they actually read it?
Actually, now that you mention it, I've been looking for the supporting volumes (you know, the ones that actually support the conclusions) to the Warren Report. Any idea where I can find those?
Online or hard copy?
-
Online or hard copy?
Either one will do
-
Either one will do
https://www.ebay.com/p/23005508348 (https://www.ebay.com/p/23005508348)
-
https://www.ebay.com/p/23005508348 (https://www.ebay.com/p/23005508348)
No, that's the fairytale version for gullible people.
I'm looking for the volumes with evidence that actually supports the conclusions in the report. You know, the ones they forgot to send to the printers....
-
No, that's the fairytale version for gullible people.
I'm looking for the volumes with evidence that actually supports the conclusions in the report. You know, the ones they forgot to send to the printers....
Nonsense is your M.O.. ::)
-
Nonsense is your M.O.. ::)
Ah, there it is again. Instant dismissal of anything that might question the fairytale story you fanatically believe yet can not defend.
Calling something nonsense without actually looking at it is your M.O.
-
Nonsense is your M.O.. ::)
Even if that was true, Charlie.... It is a fact that the WR is a fairy tale for gullible and gutless people. ( People who lack the fortitude to accept FACTS because those facts reveal that their cherished fairy tale is a damned lie)
-
Even if that was true, Charlie.... It is a fact that the WR is a fairy tale for gullible and gutless people. ( People who lack the fortitude to accept FACTS because those facts reveal that their cherished fairy tale is a damned lie)
It appears that your idea of what constitutes a fact is at odds with reality.
-
It appears that your idea of what constitutes a fact is at odds with reality.
Or your idea is.
And btw, how does "it appear"? You're not back to your usual "my opinion is superior to yours" BS again, are you?
-
So, did Tippit really work at the Texas theatre?
-
So, did Tippit really work at the Texas theatre?
Dale Myers account has him working part time as a security guard at the Stevens Park Theater in Oak Cliff but not the Texas Theater. It was his second part time job; he also worked security at a local popular barbecue restaurant. This is from the Myers book.
-
Nonsense is your M.O.. ::)
The chief/main author of the Warren Commission Report was Norman Redlich. Redlich wrote the first six chapters including the description of the shooting. He was also one of the key figures in the single bullet theory; several of the staffers came up with the theory simultaneously. Without Redlich's tireless work - he would spend 18+ hours on the job - the report probably wouldn't haven been produced. He was essential to its creation.
Redlich, pictured below, was a strong liberal/leftist and a fierce critic of Joe McCarthy. He represented several people called before McCarthy's hearings and he denounced McCarthy for the demagogue that he was. Redlich was against the execution of the Rosenbergs (he was a life long opponent of the death penalty). He and Hoover disliked one another. He was the Dean of the NYU law school and lifetime supporter of the rights of the accused. He had a very distinguished career.
Here is Redlich on the assassination: "I think there are simply a great many people who cannot accept what I believe to be the simple truth, that one rather insignificant person was able to assassinate the president of the United States." Yes, that's sadly what happened.
For these conspiracists to claim that he would join up with essentially a right wing coup and coverup what happened is preposterous. If one thinks the WC report was a lie then that's what you have to believe. It's unavoidable.
Here's Redlich's obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/education/11redlich.html
(https://image.isu.pub/111011234436-946c4aa59fce4863ab48d6321beddd49/jpg/page_39.jpg)
-
The chief/main author of the Warren Commission Report was Norman Redlich. Redlich wrote the first six chapters including the description of the shooting. He was also one of the key figures in the single bullet theory; several of the staffers came up with the theory simultaneously. Without Redlich's tireless work - he would spend 18+ hours on the job - the report probably wouldn't haven been produced. He was essential to its creation.
Redlich, pictured below, was a strong liberal/leftist and a fierce critic of Joe McCarthy. He represented several people called before McCarthy's hearings and he denounced McCarthy for the demagogue that he was. Redlich was against the execution of the Rosenbergs (he was a life long opponent of the death penalty). He and Hoover disliked one another. He was the Dean of the NYU law school and lifetime supporter of the rights of the accused. He had a very distinguished career.
Here is Redlich on the assassination: "I think there are simply a great many people who cannot accept what I believe to be the simple truth, that one rather insignificant person was able to assassinate the president of the United States." Yes, that's sadly what happened.
For these conspiracists to claim that he would join up with essentially a right wing coup and coverup what happened is preposterous. If one thinks the WC report was a lie then that's what you have to believe. It's unavoidable.
Here's Redlich's obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/education/11redlich.html
Here is Redlich on the assassination: "I think there are simply a great many people who cannot accept what I believe to be the simple truth, that one rather insignificant person was able to assassinate the president of the United States." Yes, that's sadly what happened.
This is a rather pathetic opinion, designed to lump all sorts of people together into one "disbelievers" group. I have lived long enough and seen too many things to ever believe that it wouldn't be possible for an insignificant person to kill a President. Of course that could happen. But that's not the question. The real question that needs to be answered is; did it happen? And for that, you need proof.
So, show the proof (and not a bunch of speculative assumptions to tie together scant pieces of physical evidence) and I, for one, will have no problem accepting that a nobody killed Kennedy.
For these conspiracists to claim that he would join up with essentially a right wing coup and coverup what happened is preposterous. If one thinks the WC report was a lie then that's what you have to believe. It's unavoidable.
This assumes that Redlich would have had to been involved in a sinister conspiracy, where the main conspirators held regular meeting to plan their next move. There are alternatives. As the saying goes; garbage in, garbage out. Present an honorable man with a set of "facts" supported by manipulated evidence and he will come to the wrong conclusion and defend it as the right one. Things aren't always as black and white as some LNs want to make them out to be.
Let's see if you (want to) understand how something like that could hypothetically work. For instance; a superior officer (who himself is under orders from somebody higher up) tells a subordinate to go to the Secret Service garage and search for bullet fragments in the President's limo. The subordinate doesn't know a team of FBI experts is on it's way to do the same. So, the subordinate disturbs the crime scene, fails to make photographs or document anything, and just removes the bullet fragements from the limo. He then brings them to his superior, who in turn passes them on to a representative of the man above him. No documents are signed and no chain of custody is established. A little later the representative returns and hands back the bullet fragment to the superior officer, who in turn hands them back to his subordinate with the order to deliver them to the FBI experts and tell them they came from the car. The FBI experts have no other real option but to accept the fragments and believe that they came from the limo, and so those fragments end up in the evidence against Oswald because they turn out to be bullets fired from an MC rifle.
It is quite possible, in this scenario, that none of the men involved were part of any kind of conspiracy, at least not knowingly. But it could be they were used. They just followed orders and the secrecy act would ensure that they would not talk to anybody about what happened for a long time. So, now this evidence reaches Redlich, through a report and/or testimony of an FBI expert. Does Redlich have any reason to suspect there could be something wrong with this evidence? The answer is of course; no!
-
The chief/main author of the Warren Commission Report was Norman Redlich. Redlich wrote the first six chapters including the description of the shooting. He was also one of the key figures in the single bullet theory; several of the staffers came up with the theory simultaneously. Without Redlich's tireless work - he would spend 18+ hours on the job - the report probably wouldn't haven been produced. He was essential to its creation.
Redlich, pictured below, was a strong liberal/leftist and a fierce critic of Joe McCarthy. He represented several people called before McCarthy's hearings and he denounced McCarthy for the demagogue that he was. Redlich was against the execution of the Rosenbergs (he was a life long opponent of the death penalty). He and Hoover disliked one another. He was the Dean of the NYU law school and lifetime supporter of the rights of the accused. He had a very distinguished career.
Here is Redlich on the assassination: "I think there are simply a great many people who cannot accept what I believe to be the simple truth, that one rather insignificant person was able to assassinate the president of the United States." Yes, that's sadly what happened.
For these conspiracists to claim that he would join up with essentially a right wing coup and coverup what happened is preposterous. If one thinks the WC report was a lie then that's what you have to believe. It's unavoidable.
Here's Redlich's obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/education/11redlich.html
(https://image.isu.pub/111011234436-946c4aa59fce4863ab48d6321beddd49/jpg/page_39.jpg)
Great post Steve!
Here are a couple of exerpts from the obituary that I found to be of particular interest:
His work for the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, which the F.B.I. considered subversive, later led to efforts to remove him from the Warren Commission; Chief Justice Earl Warren, the chairman, refused.
Edward Redlich said his father’s self-effacing style was often tinged with a sense of humor. People would sometimes tell him how brave he was to defend people’s civil liberties in the 1950s, during the time of the blacklist, when a mere hint of Communist sympathy could cost people their jobs.
“Brave?” he would reply. “I was working in the family business.”
-
Great post Steve!
Here are a couple of exerpts from the obituary that I found to be of particular interest:
His work for the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, which the F.B.I. considered subversive, later led to efforts to remove him from the Warren Commission; Chief Justice Earl Warren, the chairman, refused.
Edward Redlich said his father’s self-effacing style was often tinged with a sense of humor. People would sometimes tell him how brave he was to defend people’s civil liberties in the 1950s, during the time of the blacklist, when a mere hint of Communist sympathy could cost people their jobs.
“Brave?” he would reply. “I was working in the family business.”
He and Hoover disliked one another.
His work for the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, which the F.B.I. considered subversive, later led to efforts to remove him from the Warren Commission; Chief Justice Earl Warren, the chairman, refused.
There's no doubt Hoover would have had a bleckmail file on Redlich ......And that may be the reason that Redlich cooperated with Hoover and LBJ in writing a portion of the WR. However Redlich probably also knew that the truth about the coup d e'tat had the potential to tear the country apart....and therefore helped in pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant and trusting public.
-
He and Hoover disliked one another.
His work for the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, which the F.B.I. considered subversive, later led to efforts to remove him from the Warren Commission; Chief Justice Earl Warren, the chairman, refused.
There's no doubt Hoover would have had a bleckmail file on Redlich ......And that may be the reason that Redlich cooperated with Hoover and LBJ in writing a portion of the WR. However Redlich probably also knew that the truth about the coup d e'tat had the potential to tear the country apart....and therefore helped in pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant and trusting public.
Nothing but conjecture and innuendo, the typical CT M.O.
-
Great post Steve!
Here are a couple of exerpts from the obituary that I found to be of particular interest:
His work for the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, which the F.B.I. considered subversive, later led to efforts to remove him from the Warren Commission; Chief Justice Earl Warren, the chairman, refused.
Edward Redlich said his father’s self-effacing style was often tinged with a sense of humor. People would sometimes tell him how brave he was to defend people’s civil liberties in the 1950s, during the time of the blacklist, when a mere hint of Communist sympathy could cost people their jobs.
“Brave?” he would reply. “I was working in the family business.”
Redlich is seldom mentioned by the conspiracy believers - those who think the WC was a coverup - because it makes no sense that someone with his strong civil libertarian/liberal beliefs would coverup for essentially a rightwing coup of the country. For crissakes, the man took on Joe McCarthy. He's not going to go along with something like a military overthrow of the government.
Hoover wanted him off the Warren Commission because he, Redlich, has worked with leftwing groups in the 1950s and 60s, particularly (as you cited from the obituary) the "National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. In fact, the FBI had a thick file on Redlich that accused him of being associated with "subversives." The FBI viewed the committee as a "communist-front" organization.
Gerald Ford was informed of Redlich's ties to these leftists groups and raised the question of whether it was appropriate to have him on the Commission. Warren defended Redlich and the commission agreed to let him continue his role.
Redlich was in charge of a sort of "clearinghouse" for all of the information that the WC received. It all went through him; he read it all, kept up on it all. He was working 18+ hours a day, even on weekends, and was probably THE most important member of the staff. As I said above, he wrote the first six chapters of the Report, the one detailing the actual assassination.
So again: if someone believes the Warren Commission Report was a lie, a fraud, a coverup of the assassination then it's impossible to believe that Redlich wasn't the key person in pulling off this act. He was in the very center of the investigation. All of it ran through him.
-
Redlich is seldom mentioned by the conspiracy believers - those who think the WC was a coverup - because it makes no sense that someone with his strong civil libertarian/liberal beliefs would coverup for essentially a rightwing coup of the country. For crissakes, the man took on Joe McCarthy. He's not going to go along with something like a military overthrow of the government.
Hoover wanted him off the Warren Commission because he, Redlich, has worked with leftwing groups in the 1950s and 60s, particularly (as you cited from the obituary) the "National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. In fact, the FBI had a thick file on Redlich that accused him of being associated with "subversives." The FBI viewed the committee as a "communist-front" organization.
Gerald Ford was informed of Redlich's ties to these leftists groups and raised the question of whether it was appropriate to have him on the Commission. Warren defended Redlich and the commission agreed to let him continue his role.
Redlich was in charge of a sort of "clearinghouse" for all of the information that the WC received. It all went through him; he read it all, kept up on it all. He was working 18+ hours a day, even on weekends, and was probably THE most important member of the staff. As I said above, he wrote the first six chapters of the Report, the one detailing the actual assassination.
So again: if someone believes the Warren Commission Report was a lie, a fraud, a coverup of the assassination then it's impossible to believe that Redlich wasn't the key person in pulling off this act. He was in the very center of the investigation. All of it ran through him.
For crissakes, the man took on Joe McCarthy.
McCarthyism was a big deal back then, and I have wondered how much it influenced LHO. LHO appeared to have a propensity for doing some of the most outrageous things. Rebelliousness is common for young people. As a teenager, LHO openly embracing Marxism (or whatever one wants to call it) was one of the most outrageous statements of rebellion that he could make. He one-upped that every chance he got. Defecting to Russia, handing out pro-Castro pamphlets, making speeches and debating. It all seems to be for getting someone to pay attention to him. So it seems that when the JFK motorcade route showed up in the paper, and LHO realized he had an opportunity to shoot at JFK, it is not very surprising that he made hasty arrangements to do just that...
-
For crissakes, the man took on Joe McCarthy.
McCarthyism was a big deal back then, and I have wondered how much it influenced LHO. LHO appeared to have a propensity for doing some of the most outrageous things. Rebelliousness is common for young people. As a teenager, LHO openly embracing Marxism (or whatever one wants to call it) was one of the most outrageous statements of rebellion that he could make. He one-upped that every chance he got. Defecting to Russia, handing out pro-Castro pamphlets, making speeches and debating. It all seems to be for getting someone to pay attention to him. So it seems that when the JFK motorcade route showed up in the paper, and LHO realized he had an opportunity to shoot at JFK, it is not very surprising that he made hasty arrangements to do just that...
it makes no sense that someone with his strong civil libertarian/liberal beliefs would coverup for essentially a rightwing coup of the country.
It makes sense if you're smart enough to know that Hoover hated him, and anybody Hoover hated had a file in Hoover's private
files...... Just as Hoover had files on Martin Luther King and The Kennedy's .
-
Nothing but conjecture and innuendo, the typical CT M.O.
Nothing but conjecture and innuendo
Coming from you, that's rich
-
it makes no sense that someone with his strong civil libertarian/liberal beliefs would coverup for essentially a rightwing coup of the country.
It makes sense if you're smart enough to know that Hoover hated him, and anybody Hoover hated had a file in Hoover's private
files...... Just as Hoover had files on Martin Luther King and The Kennedy's .
Whew. If Hoover had the goods on JFK, wouldn't it be a lot easier to force him to resign than stage an elaborate and risky conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States? What an interesting fantasy world you must live in to contemplate this type of fantasy. And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad. So Walt doesn't really believe his own nonsense.
-
Redlich is seldom mentioned by the conspiracy believers - those who think the WC was a coverup - because it makes no sense that someone with his strong civil libertarian/liberal beliefs would coverup for essentially a rightwing coup of the country. For crissakes, the man took on Joe McCarthy. He's not going to go along with something like a military overthrow of the government.
Hoover wanted him off the Warren Commission because he, Redlich, has worked with leftwing groups in the 1950s and 60s, particularly (as you cited from the obituary) the "National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. In fact, the FBI had a thick file on Redlich that accused him of being associated with "subversives." The FBI viewed the committee as a "communist-front" organization.
Gerald Ford was informed of Redlich's ties to these leftists groups and raised the question of whether it was appropriate to have him on the Commission. Warren defended Redlich and the commission agreed to let him continue his role.
Redlich was in charge of a sort of "clearinghouse" for all of the information that the WC received. It all went through him; he read it all, kept up on it all. He was working 18+ hours a day, even on weekends, and was probably THE most important member of the staff. As I said above, he wrote the first six chapters of the Report, the one detailing the actual assassination.
So again: if someone believes the Warren Commission Report was a lie, a fraud, a coverup of the assassination then it's impossible to believe that Redlich wasn't the key person in pulling off this act. He was in the very center of the investigation. All of it ran through him.
Just pasting this in from the other thread, Mr Galbraith, as you evidently missed it Thumb1:
From patspeer.com:
Let's slip back in time to March, 1964. The Warren Commission's staff has been discussing whether or not they should pre-interview witnesses and avoid problematic questions and answers...in order to keep the record "clean." Some, including Norman Redlich, have argued the creation of a "deceptively clean" record would be a disservice to the public. But, after hearing from a few problematic witnesses on 3-10 (e.g. Arnold Rowland, James Worrell) Chief Justice Earl Warren had planted his foot, and said he wanted a "clean record" where the staff "did not pursue in very much detail the various inconsistencies," and that, accordingly, any counsel wanting to pre-interview witnesses off the record should feel free to do so.
-
Bill’s method of walking arse backwards while retracing the supposed route of Oswald, is INGENIUS!! :)
-
Whew. If Hoover had the goods on JFK, wouldn't it be a lot easier to force him to resign than stage an elaborate and risky conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States? What an interesting fantasy world you must live in to contemplate this type of fantasy. And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad. So Walt doesn't really believe his own nonsense.
What world do you live in.....De Nile? It's common knowledge that Hoover knew about JFK and M. Monroe, And Judith Campbell...and had incriminating photos to blackmail....
And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad.
This absurd statement is utterly ridiculous!! Clearly you believe that the FBI has a "death squad" and you are so stupid that you believe they would need to murder a nobody citizen when they have been successfully discrediting us nobody's for five decades...
-
What world do you live in.....De Nile? It's common knowledge that Hoover knew about JFK and M. Monroe, And Judith Campbell...and had incriminating photos to blackmail....
And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad.
This absurd statement is utterly ridiculous!! Clearly you believe that the FBI has a "death squad" and you are so stupid that you believe they would need to murder a nobody citizen when they have been successfully discrediting us nobody's for five decades...
Good grief. You can't even understand the obvious point? Let's try again. If Hoover had the goods to blackmail and/or control JFK as you suggest (and is likely true given JFK's dubious behavior with women and drugs) why would Hoover engage in a high risk conspiracy to assassinate him rather than force him to resign or do whatever it was that Hoover wanted? Can you understand that simple point? You are suggesting that Hoover was involved in the assassination of the President of the United States when he could have coerced him into doing whatever he wanted.
-
There is no evidence presented - none - that Hoover had a "blackmail" file on Redlich. There is no evidence presented that Redlich was blackmailed. There is no evidence presented that he did things that he could be blackmailed for. Where is the evidence? Present it.
Redlich did not write just a "portion" of the report. He wrote the first six chapters, he was the main author for the rest of the report. The information that was compiled by the other staffers and others all went through him (see the Epstein book "Inquest" and the Shenon book "A Cruel and Shocking Act" for details). He was at the center of the report. He was THE main person involved. If you believe the WR was a deliberate, willful lie then you have to believe that Redlich was the main creator of this lie. How can he not be; he was at the very center of the investigation.
Redlich was openly critical of Hoover, of the "Red Scare", of McCarthyism. Why didn't Hoover blackmail him into silence?
There is no evidence for any of these blackmail claims. Redlich died forty years after the assassination. He had numerous opportunities to reveal this so-called coverup, to expose what conspiracy people think happened. There would have been no upheaval since all of the people allegedly involved - LBJ, Hoover - were long dead.
-
Good grief. You can't even understand the obvious point? Let's try again. If Hoover had the goods to blackmail and/or control JFK as you suggest (and is likely true given JFK's dubious behavior with women and drugs) why would Hoover engage in a high risk conspiracy to assassinate him rather than force him to resign or do whatever it was that Hoover wanted? Can you understand that simple point? You are suggesting that Hoover was involved in the assassination of the President of the United States when he could have coerced him into doing whatever he wanted.
And you are suggesting that Hoover wasn't involved in the assassination of the President of the United States because he could have coerced him into doing whatever he wanted.
Both suggestions are pure speculation for which not a shred of evidence exists. Neither Walt, nor you, knows what Hoover had on Kennedy, if he had anything at all, and if it would have been enough to remove his from the Presidency.
This entire argument is a complete waste of time.
-
There is no evidence presented - none - that Hoover had a "blackmail" file on Redlich. There is no evidence presented that Redlich was blackmailed. There is no evidence presented that he did things that he could be blackmailed for. Where is the evidence? Present it.
Redlich did not write just a "portion" of the report. He wrote the first six chapters, he was the main author for the rest of the report. The information that was compiled by the other staffers and others all went through him (see the Epstein book "Inquest" and the Shenon book "A Cruel and Shocking Act" for details). He was at the center of the report. He was THE main person involved. If you believe the WR was a deliberate, willful lie then you have to believe that Redlich was the main creator of this lie. How can he not be; he was at the very center of the investigation.
Redlich was openly critical of Hoover, of the "Red Scare", of McCarthyism. Why didn't Hoover blackmail him into silence?
There is no evidence for any of these blackmail claims. Redlich died forty years after the assassination. He had numerous opportunities to reveal this so-called coverup, to expose what conspiracy people think happened. There would have been no upheaval since all of the people allegedly involved - LBJ, Hoover - were long dead.
There is no evidence presented - none - that Hoover had a "blackmail" file on Redlich. There is no evidence presented that Redlich was blackmailed. There is no evidence presented that he did things that he could be blackmailed for. Where is the evidence? Present it.
And there is no evidence presented (only your speculation) that Hoover, or anybody else, needed to blackmail Redlich.
He was at the center of the report. He was THE main person involved. If you believe the WR was a deliberate, willful lie then you have to believe that Redlich was the main creator of this lie.
BS, he could have been the executor of the lie, without actually knowing it and while acting in good faith. You keep on ignoring the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.
He had numerous opportunities to reveal this so-called coverup
If - and that's a massive "if" - he even knew or understood it had been a coverup,
Let's see if you get this through your skull; every wrongful conviction is based on false, manipulated or misrepresented evidence, yet highly educated people like judges and prosecutors are frequently, and most often unknowingly, fooled by the evidence presented to them to such an extent that they end up sending an innocent person to jail or the chair.
So, don't even try to suggest that something like that couldn't possibly have happened to Redlich.
-
And you are suggesting that Hoover wasn't involved in the assassination of the President of the United States because he could have coerced him into doing whatever he wanted.
Both suggestions are pure speculation for which a shred of evidence exists. Neither Walt, nor you, knows what Hoover had on Kennedy, if he had anything at all, and if it would have been enough to remove his from the Presidency.
This entire argument is a complete waste of time.
It's Walt's claim that Hoover was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States and frame Oswald for the crime. I agree that is baseless. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative that Hoover was an all powerful figure capable of blackmail while suggesting that he had to resort to murder in the case of JFK. There were ample grounds to blackmail JFK based on his extramarital affairs, drug use, and serious medical issues that he lied about while running for president. Those are documented facts and provide the basis for blackmail. On at least one occasion, Hoover did confront JFK with information concerning the mob connections of one of his girlfriends. There is no speculation that Hoover maintained such information on various presidents including JFK. What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.
-
And you are suggesting that Hoover wasn't involved in the assassination of the President of the United States because he could have coerced him into doing whatever he wanted.
Both suggestions are pure speculation for which a shred of evidence exists. Neither Walt, nor you, knows what Hoover had on Kennedy, if he had anything at all, and if it would have been enough to remove his from the Presidency.
This entire argument is a complete waste of time.
Mr "Smith" wrote...."And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad."
This statement reveals that the author is a simpleton...... It's a conflicting dichotomy.....and it reveals the shallow "reasoning" that Mr "Smith" routinely displays. On one hand Smith claims that the Warren Report is the gospel truth...and Hoover never had his "Extra Special " Special agents.... But then he warns that anybody posting derogatory accusations about Hoover should be in "fear of the FBI death squad"
-
Mr "Smith" wrote...."And, of course, if anyone truly believed the FBI was behind the murder of the President, they might be reluctant to say so on a public forum for fear of the FBI death squad."
This statement reveals that the author is a simpleton...... It's a conflicting dichotomy.....and it reveals the shallow "reasoning" that Mr "Smith" routinely displays. On one hand Smith claims that the Warren Report is the gospel truth...and Hoover never had his "Extra Special " Special agents.... But then he warns that anybody posting derogatory accusations about Hoover should be in "fear of the FBI death squad"
Ugh. You cannot be that dense. It's called being satirical to point out the inconsistency of your baseless claims. You are the one suggesting the FBI was involved in the murder of the President. That is a very serious charge and denotes a belief that they are a dangerous organization. If they are so dangerous, however, then why to you feel fine posting such accusations on a public forum?
-
There is no evidence presented - none - that Hoover had a "blackmail" file on Redlich. There is no evidence presented that Redlich was blackmailed. There is no evidence presented that he did things that he could be blackmailed for. Where is the evidence? Present it.
And there is no evidence presented (only your speculation) that Hoover, or anybody else, needed to blackmail Redlich.
He was at the center of the report. He was THE main person involved. If you believe the WR was a deliberate, willful lie then you have to believe that Redlich was the main creator of this lie.
BS, he could have been the executor of the lie, without actually knowing it and while acting in good faith. You keep on ignoring the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.
He had numerous opportunities to reveal this so-called coverup
If - and that's a massive "if" - he even knew or understood it had been a coverup,
Let's see if you get this through your skull; every wrongful conviction is based on false, manipulated or misrepresented evidence, yet highly educated people like judges and prosecutors are frequently, and most often unknowingly, fooled by the evidence presented to them to such an extent that they end up sending an innocent person to jail or the chair.
So, don't even try to suggest that something like that couldn't possibly have happened to Redlich.
Oh, something "possibly" could have happened? This is what your response is? Fantasies? Make believe time? You can't respond to my post so you have to rely on fantasies, on complete speculation about something "possibly" happening.
Yes, let's all make things up. And then claim that those who think Oswald was the assassin are the ones speculating. Neat trick.
You have presented no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. There is no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have presented none, you have none to present, there is none. Period.
I am stating facts: there is no evidence whatsoever to any claims that "something" happened to Redlich that led him to falsifying the Warren Commission Report. To say that "something" could have happened - when there is no evidence for it - is meaningless and can be dismissed out of hand. No serious person, no adult, discusses an event and says "something else" could have happened. Who reasons like this? Where did you learn to think like this?
If you think the Warren Commission was a lie, then you must state that Redlich was the major actor in producing this lie.
When innocent men are framed, the framers know they are producing false information. Redlich was not a judge, not an observer; he was the man who was given this supposed false evidence. He even produced some of this supposed "false" evidence - the single bullet theory - himself. But you suggest he didn't know all of these lies? Really, this is what you are reduced to arguing?
That is like saying that a detective leading an investigation, the detective assembling the evidence, the detective interviewing the witnesses, the detective reviewing the evidence and the detective who produced some of the evidence didn't know all of the evidence was a lie. The detective didn't realize everything was manufactured and false. This is utterly absurd.
I have presented evidence indicating that Redlich was simply not the type of person who would conspire with other to essentially stage a right wing coup of the government. There is nothing in his background to indicate he would. Redlich lived until 2003, about 40 years after the assassination. But he never figured out - according to you - that he was lied to? That "something" happened to him in his investigation?
Here's your problem: you are trapped. You know there is no evidence of his amorality here; so you have to say "something" could have happened. You never heard of Redlich before my post. You didn't know anything about him. But because he simply can't fit into your conspiracy belief that the WC was a lie, you have to make things up in order to keep your conspiracy beliefs from collapsing around you.
It didn't happen. Redlich wasn't a liar. "Something" didn't happen to him. Period.
-
It's Walt's claim that Hoover was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States and frame Oswald for the crime. I agree that is baseless. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative that Hoover was an all powerful figure capable of blackmail while suggesting that he had to resort to murder in the case of JFK. There were ample grounds to blackmail JFK based on his extramarital affairs, drug use, and serious medical issues that he lied about while running for president. Those are documented facts and provide the basis for blackmail. On at least one occasion, Hoover did confront JFK with information concerning the mob connections of one of his girlfriends. There is no speculation that Hoover maintained such information on various presidents including JFK. What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.
I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative
It wasn't a logical fallacy. It was an opinion, just like your counter claim
What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.
What really is a waste of time is you spouting your pretentious opinions as if they mean something or add something to a pointless discussion.
-
Earl Warren lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Normal Redlich lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
John Hart Ely lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Lee Rankin lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Gerald Ford lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
I'll stop at five although I could post two dozen names, three dozen names. On and on and on. Supreme Court Justices, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, solicitor generals, presidents...all men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.
"Something" happened to all of them. Or may have. Or "something something".
Impossible. We're reasoning with people who just make things up. And then they demand we prove their fantasies are wrong.
-
Earl Warren lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Normal Redlich lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
John Hart Ely lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Lee Rankin lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Gerald Ford lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
I'll stop at five although I could post two dozen names, three dozen names. On and on and on. Supreme Court Justices, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, solicitor generals, presidents...all men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.
"Something" happened to all of them. Or may have. Or "something something".
Impossible. We're reasoning with people who just make things up. And then they demand we prove their fantasies are wrong.
men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.
Yes, honorable and venerated intelligent men ........ Who realized that the country could be destroyed if it was disclosed that there was a conspiracy behind the murder....and the murder was simply an old fashioned coup d e'tat, with LBJ standing in the wings to grab the reins of power.
-
Oh, something "possibly" could have happened? This is what your response is? Fantasies? Make believe time? You can't respond to my post so you have to rely on fantasies, on complete speculation about something "possibly" happening.
I am not impressed by your lack of comprehensive reading.
Yes, let's all make things up. And then claim that those who think Oswald was the assassin are the ones speculating. Neat trick.
I made nothing up and of course you are speculating. Making assumptions about a man you do not know is by definition speculation.
You have presented no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. There is no evidence that "something" happened to Redlich. You have presented none, you have none to present, there is none. Period.
This is where your lack of reading comprehension is getting the better of you. I have not claimed that "something" happened to Redlich.
I am stating facts: there is no evidence whatsoever to any claims that "something" happened to Redlich that led him to falsifying the Warren Commission Report. To say that "something" could have happened - when there is no evidence for it - is meaningless and can be dismissed out of hand. No serious person, no adult, discusses an event and says "something else" could have happened. Who reasons like this? Where did you learn to think like this?
No. You are presenting your opinions and are calling them "facts". There is a difference!
I'm not sure why you keep ranting on about "something" happened to Redlich, when I made no such claim to begin with. You really need to try harder and learn to understand what is written, because at the moment you're clearly completely clueless.
If you think the Warren Commission was a lie, then you must state that Redlich was the major actor in producing this lie.
No. That's just the limited capacity of your brain at work. I have already explained it to you. I'm not going to do it again.
When innocent men are framed, the framers know they are producing false information. Redlich was not a judge, not an observer; he was the man who was given this supposed false evidence. He even produced some of this supposed "false" evidence - the single bullet theory - himself. But you suggest he didn't know all of these lies? Really, this is what you are reduced to arguing?
All this does is show conclusively that my point went completely over your head.
That is like saying that a detective leading an investigation, the detective assembling the evidence, the detective interviewing the witnesses, the detective reviewing the evidence and the detective who produced some of the evidence didn't know all of the evidence was a lie. The detective didn't realize everything was manufactured and false. This is utterly absurd.
Really? I recently posted the text below, which you - of course - duly ignored.
Let's see if you (want to) understand how something like that could hypothetically work. For instance; a superior officer (who himself is under orders from somebody higher up) tells a subordinate to go to the Secret Service garage and search for bullet fragments in the President's limo. The subordinate doesn't know a team of FBI experts is on it's way to do the same. So, the subordinate disturbs the crime scene, fails to make photographs or document anything, and just removes the bullet fragements from the limo. He then brings them to his superior, who in turn passes them on to a representative of the man above him. No documents are signed and no chain of custody is established. A little later the representative returns and hands back the bullet fragment to the superior officer, who in turn hands them back to his subordinate with the order to deliver them to the FBI experts and tell them they came from the car. The FBI experts have no other real option but to accept the fragments and believe that they came from the limo, and so those fragments end up in the evidence against Oswald because they turn out to be bullets fired from an MC rifle.
It is quite possible, in this scenario, that none of the men involved were part of any kind of conspiracy, at least not knowingly. But it could be they were used. They just followed orders and the secrecy act would ensure that they would not talk to anybody about what happened for a long time. So, now this evidence reaches Redlich, through a report and/or testimony of an FBI expert. Does Redlich have any reason to suspect there could be something wrong with this evidence? The answer is of course; no!
If I follow your "reasoning" all the people involved in this aspect of the case alone, including Redlich, would have known what was going on and they all kept their mouth shut. Now, that's really utterly absurd
I have presented evidence indicating that Redlich was simply not the type of person who would conspire with other to essentially stage a right wing coup of the government. There is nothing in his background to indicate he would. Redlich lived until 2003, about 40 years after the assassination. But he never figured out - according to you - that he was lied to? That "something" happened to him in his investigation?
Pathetic. First of all you have presented no evidence whatsoever, merely opinions of others. Secondly, you can speculate all you want about what Redlich may or may not have figured out, but it will never be anything more than meaningless speculation.
Here's your problem: you are trapped. You know there is no evidence of his amorality here; so you have to say "something" could have happened. You never heard of Redlich before my post. You didn't know anything about him. But because he simply can't fit into your conspiracy belief that the WC was a lie, you have to make things up in order to keep your conspiracy beliefs from collapsing around you.
It didn't happen. Redlich wasn't a liar. "Something" didn't happen to him. Period.
I have no such problem. It's a pathetic strawman you made up.
You're the one who is desperately trying to argue that because Redlich was such a stand up guy, the WC report could not possibly be a lie. It's naive to the extreme. You really need to get out into the real world more often because real life is often more weird than fiction.
-
JFK conspiracy believers are just like the Trump conspiracy believers, those who say the election was stolen.
"Something" happened to the voting machines, "something" happened to the ballots, "something" happened to Redlich...."something" "something" "something".....
-
Earl Warren lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Normal Redlich lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
John Hart Ely lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Lee Rankin lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
Gerald Ford lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.
I'll stop at five although I could post two dozen names, three dozen names. On and on and on. Supreme Court Justices, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, solicitor generals, presidents...all men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.
"Something" happened to all of them. Or may have. Or "something something".
Impossible. We're reasoning with people who just make things up. And then they demand we prove their fantasies are wrong.
This is getting boring....
I'll give it one more try; the FBI told the Warren Commission that SA Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, in April 1964 and that both men couldn't be sure in the identification of the bullet. That was a complete lie. Odum himself denied that he ever had CE399 or had shown it to anybody and Tomlinson testified that he was only asked to identify the bullet once, and that was a couple of weeks after the murder and by SAC Shanklin.
Conclusion; the FBI lied to the Warren Commission but the Commission had no reason to believe or know it was a lie, so they accepted it as valid.
By your idiotic "reasoning" people like Redlich should have known that it was a lie. Are you beginning to understand just how simplistic your way of thinking is?
-
JFK conspiracy believers are just like the Trump conspiracy believers, those who say the election was stolen.
"Something" happened to the voting machines, "something" happened to the ballots, "something" happened to Redlich...."something" "something" "something".....
Unfortunately for you, I'm 100% against Trump and his BS lies. Have been so from day one.
Kinda destroys your entire line of thinking, doesn't it?
-
The conspiracy explanation for why Redlich did what he did - allowing the lies of the Warren Commission to be produced and released - is that possibly something happened to make him do this or he didn't realize that he was lied to.
This is exactly like trying to talk with a Trump supporter who says the election was stolen because either something happened to the voting machines or the Republican officials didn't realize the votes were being stuffed by Biden people.
To repeat: Redlich was the main author of the report. He was at the center of the investigation. He conducted some of the investigation himself, he received the information and evidence from others: it all went through him.
There is no evidence he lied. There is no evidence that "something possibly happened" to him. There is no evidence that he didn't know he was lied to. This is all made up, it's all fiction.
In order to defend a conspiracy that has no basis in fact the conspiracist has to promote more conspiracies - all based on supposition and fantasies.
More than fifty years later this is where the conspiracists are. Stuck in fantasy land.
-
The conspiracy explanation for why Redlich did what he did - allowing the lies of the Warren Commission to be produced and released - is that possibly something happened to make him do this or he didn't realize that he was lied to.
This is exactly like trying to talk with a Trump supporter who says the election was stolen because either something happened to the voting machines or the Republican officials didn't realize the votes were being stuffed by Biden people.
To repeat: Redlich was the main author of the report. He was at the center of the investigation. He conducted some of the investigation himself, he received the information and evidence from others: it all went through him.
There is no evidence he lied. There is no evidence that "something possibly happened" to him. There is no evidence that he didn't know he was lied to. This is all made up, it's all fiction.
In order to defend a conspiracy that has no basis in fact the conspiracist has to promote more conspiracies - all based on supposition and fantasies.
More than fifty years later this is where the conspiracists are. Stuck in fantasy land.
Is it that you believe that if you repeat the same BS over and over again it somehow becomes true?
You ignore everything that doesn't agree with your opinion and then claim others are "stuck in fantasy land". Now, that's hilarious and pathetically dumb at the same time. It would be nice if you could stop showing off your ignorance, but I suppose that's asking too much, right?
-
Many of you conspiracy people - not all but you know who you are - are no different than the Trump fanatics who say the government is illegitimate and who stormed the Capitol today. You say the people who conducted the investigation into the assassination were liars and crooks and frauds. They covered up for the murder of JFK. They essentially allowed a coup to happen. Indeed, they were part of it.
That what's the Trump supporters say about different people. All crooks who stole the country from Trump. Or in your case, stole it from JFK.
Two different groups of people conspired to hijack democracy. It's the same argument.
You say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a liar and traitor. A future president was a traitor. Heads of distinguished law schools who taught generations of Americans about the law were traitors. On and on and on; a long list of people you say committed treason.
Wallow in these smears of good people. You two sides deserve each other.
Good riddance. I've got to go help - somehow - this country save itself. Repair itself. Come together. Posting here day after day for years (!!) accusing presidents and Chief Justices and others of treason is what you can spend your lives on.
-
Many of you conspiracy people - not all but you know who you are - are no different than the Trump fanatics who say the government is illegitimate and who stormed the Capitol today. You say the people who conducted the investigation into the assassination were liars and crooks and frauds. They covered up for the murder of JFK. They essentially allowed a coup to happen. Indeed, they were part of it.
That what's the Trump supporters say about different people. All crooks who stole the country from Trump. Or in your case, stole it from JFK.
Two different groups of people conspired to hijack democracy. It's the same argument.
You say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a liar and traitor. A future president was a traitor. Heads of distinguished law schools who taught generations of Americans about the law were traitors. On and on and on; a long list of people you say committed treason.
Wallow in these smears of good people. You two sides deserve each other.
Good riddance. I've got to go help - somehow - this country save itself. Repair itself. Come together. Posting here day after day for years (!!) accusing presidents and Chief Justices and others of treason is what you can spend your lives on.
You say the people who conducted the investigation into the assassination were liars and crooks and frauds. They covered up for the murder of JFK. They essentially allowed a coup to happen. Indeed, they were part of it.
Just another strawman, based upon an foolish assumption. The drama queen strikes again...
You say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a liar and traitor. A future president was a traitor. Heads of distinguished law schools who taught generations of Americans about the law were traitors. On and on and on; a long list of people you say committed treason.
And there's the second strawman.
I don't know if there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy or not. There could have been one, but the evidence is lacking. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to make the case that the WC had only one purpose; to satisfy the people that there had been only one shooter and there are plenty of indications (for those willing to see it - which excludes you) that this entire case was wrapped around the already dead Oswald as a tight blanket. regardless if he did it or not.
Good riddance. I've got to go help - somehow - this country save itself. Repair itself.
Wow... Galbraith to the rescue. This is so funny if it wasn't so sad. You try to "help the country save itself" by calling everybody who disagrees with you anything from idiots to liars and God knows what else. As if that will work..... LOL
Time to get of your high horse and get hit in the head with a reality check. You're not even able to have a normal conversation!
You are more like Trump than you think!
-
I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative
It wasn't a logical fallacy. It was an opinion, just like your counter claim
What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.
What really is a waste of time is you spouting your pretentious opinions as if they mean something or add something to a pointless discussion.
Another valuable contribution. What "opinion" do you believe is contained in my post? That Hoover kept files on presidents including JFK? Is that my opinion? That JFK had extramarital affairs, used a laundry list of drugs while president, and lied about his serious medical conditions while running for president. Is that my opinion or documented fact? Could all of those have been used to blackmail him? That seems obvious. So where are these pretentious "opinions"? You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation. Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind. What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing. Amazing.
-
Another valuable contribution. What "opinion" do you believe is contained in my post? That Hoover kept files on presidents including JFK? Is that my opinion? That JFK had extramarital affairs, used a laundry list of drugs while president, and lied about his serious medical conditions while running for president. Is that my opinion or documented fact? Could all of those have been used to blackmail him? That seems obvious. So where are these pretentious "opinions"? You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation. Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind. What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing. Amazing.
You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation. Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind.
What you call a "logical inference" is in fact nothing more than an opinion.
What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing.
You are so full of it. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. The case against Oswald, and thus Oswald's guilt, need to be proven by people like you. It's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty because Richard Smith thinks he is". When you present a weak and unpersuasive narrative based largely on pure speculation, that you can not even back up with conclusive evidence, having doubts about the veracity and validity of that narrative isn't being contrarian.
You seem to call anybody who does not instantly agree with your opinion a contrarian, much like a prosecutor who fails to persuade a jury complains to a judge that the jury is being contrarian. It's pathetic.
Present a better case, based on actual facts rather than your typical strawman arguments and conjecture, and I'll gladly accept Oswald's guilt, but don't try to put blame on me for your own incompetence and failure to present a coherent case.
-
JFK conspiracy believers are just like the Trump conspiracy believers, those who say the election was stolen.
"Something" happened to the voting machines, "something" happened to the ballots, "something" happened to Redlich...."something" "something" "something".....
What a silly analogy. Nobody's arguing that "something" happened to Redlich.
-
Another valuable contribution. What "opinion" do you believe is contained in my post? That Hoover kept files on presidents including JFK? Is that my opinion? That JFK had extramarital affairs, used a laundry list of drugs while president, and lied about his serious medical conditions while running for president. Is that my opinion or documented fact? Could all of those have been used to blackmail him? That seems obvious. So where are these pretentious "opinions"?
Could, could, could.
You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation. Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind.
So you don't consider "inferences" to be "opinions"? That explains a lot.
What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt,
As if you've ever offered up any "fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt" (whatever that means).
-
You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation. Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind.
What you call a "logical inference" is in fact nothing more than an opinion.
What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing.
You are so full of it. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. The case against Oswald, and thus Oswald's guilt, need to be proven by people like you. It's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty because Richard Smith thinks he is". When you present a weak and unpersuasive narrative based largely on pure speculation, that you can not even back up with conclusive evidence, having doubts about the veracity and validity of that narrative isn't being contrarian.
You seem to call anybody who does not instantly agree with your opinion a contrarian, much like a prosecutor who fails to persuade a jury complains to a judge that the jury is being contrarian. It's pathetic.
Present a better case, based on actual facts rather than your typical strawman arguments and conjecture, and I'll gladly accept Oswald's guilt, but don't try to put blame on me for your own incompetence and failure to present a coherent case.
So many contrarian words. And you didn't even address the point. Do you have an example of my using an "opinion" or not? Did Hoover keep records on people including the presidents? Is that an opinion? Did JFK have affairs, use drugs and lie about his medical condition? Opinion? Could those have been used to blackmail him? Opinion?
-
So many contrarian words. And you didn't even address the point. Do you have an example of my using an "opinion" or not? Did Hoover keep records on people including the presidents? Is that an opinion? Did JFK have affairs, use drugs and lie about his medical condition? Opinion? Could those have been used to blackmail him? Opinion?
All of it is opinion, because that's all you can have, unless of course you have first hand knowledge about any of it. There are all sorts of people and publications that make all sorts of claims. You decide which ones you want to believe and they become your opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Have you seen the records Hoover allegedly kept on people, including Presidents? No, of course you haven't
Were you present when JFK had affairs, used drugs and lied about his medical condition? Do you even know first hand what medical condition he had? No, of course not
And what makes you think, whatever it is you believe there was, could have been used to blackmail JFK, except of course your opinion.
So many contrarian words.
You seem to call anybody who does not instantly agree with your opinion a contrarian, much like a prosecutor who fails to persuade a jury complains to a judge that the jury is being contrarian. It's pathetic.
-
All of it is opinion, because that's all you can have, unless of course you have first hand knowledge about any of it. There are all sorts of people and publications that make all sorts of claim. You decide which ones you want to believe and they become your opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Have you seen the records Hoover allegedly kept on people, including Presidents? No, of course you haven't
Were you present what JFK had affairs, used drugs and lied about his medical condition? Do you even know first hand what medical condition he had? No, of course not
And what makes you think, whatever it is you believe there was, could have been used to blackmail JFK, except of course your opinion.
So many contrarian words.
So you are contending that it is my opinion because I wasn't there to witness these events? What better example of the contrarian standard of proof. We actually need a time machine to prove any fact in human history. It is well documented that Hoover kept files on many individuals including presidents, that JFK had affairs and used many drugs for his serious medical conditions and lied about those medical conditions while running for president. There is zero doubt of these fact.
NY Times:
The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described.
As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function.
But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress.
At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his ''tremendous reputation,'' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel.
-
So you are contending that it is my opinion because I wasn't there to witness these events? What better example of the contrarian standard of proof. We actually need a time machine to prove any fact in human history. It is well documented that Hoover kept files on many individuals including presidents, that JFK had affairs and used many drugs for his serious medical conditions and lied about those medical conditions while running for president. There is zero doubt of these fact.
NY Times:
The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described.
As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function.
But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress.
At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his ''tremendous reputation,'' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel.
So you are contending that it is my opinion because I wasn't there to witness these events?
Yes. Absolutely. When you were not there to witness something what else but an opinion can it possibly be? You may rely on sources that you deem to be credible, and match your mind set, but that doesn't elevate your opinion to a fact.
We actually need a time machine to prove any fact in human history.
No we don't. All somebody like you needs to do is accept that your opinion simply isn't automatically a fact.
It is well documented that Hoover kept files on many individuals including presidents, that JFK had affairs and used many drugs for his serious medical conditions and lied about those medical conditions while running for president. There is zero doubt of these fact.
And all that may well be true, but even if it is, you believing it is merely an opinion, regardless of whether you believe there is zero doubt. Your decision to accept something as fact and dismiss something else as false is your decision, which means it's a reflection of your opinion.
NY Times:
The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described.
As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function.
But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress.
At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his ''tremendous reputation,'' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel.
Again, and this may be difficult for you to follow or understand, this may all very well be true, but you decided to believe the publication by the NYT about the opinions of a historian, which makes it your opinion that Dallek was correct and that the NYT reported it correctly.
The hypocrisy is astounding because whenever anybody says anything that does not compute with your opinions about the Kennedy case you instantly dismiss it, based up what exactly........ your opinion, perhaps?
In other words, you have a predetermined mind set and randomly select what you want to believe to be fact based upon your own opinion and nothing else!
This is the main problem you and your ilk have with the Kennedy case. You just believe, for whatever "logical" reasons, that what the WC told you is true and that the evidence is authentic. So, your belief has become your opinion. The biggest problem with that of course is that you lack the ability to defend your opinion when it comes to details of the case. Every time you are challenged, you instantly dismiss everything, start throwing strawman around and insult people. What you never ever do is reply in detail to a challenge. Having an opinion is fine, but presenting it as fact, just because you believe it, is just pathetic.
-
So you are contending that it is my opinion because I wasn't there to witness these events?
Yes. Absolutely. When you were not there to witness something what else but an opinion can it possibly be? You may rely on sources that you deem to be credible, and match your mind set, but that doesn't elevate your opinion to a fact.
Wow. So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented? There are no words. Maybe the single dumbest post in the history of this forum or perhaps the entire Internet. Astounding.
-
Wow. So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented? There are no words. Maybe the single dumbest post in the history of this forum or perhaps the entire Internet. Astounding.
You can not be so stupid, can you? That's not what I said. Your strawman is - as per usual - bogus.
So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?
No, not "no matter how well documented". To accept something as a historical fact, by a person who was not there to witness it, depends exactly on how well it is documented.
World War II is extremenly well documented to the extent that it clearly is a historical fact and future generations will still see it that way. It's one of those events that can not be denied, regardless of anybody's opinion.
The disappearance of the two Princes in the Tower of London in 1483 is, more often than not, attributed to their uncle who, it is claimed, had them killed so he could become King Richard III. Although the disappearance of the boys is well documented and can be regarded to be a historical fact, their alleged murder at the behest of their uncle is not. That's only an opinion for which there is very little to no evidence.
The donation of Constantine is allegedly a 4th century document that was believed to be authentic for nearly a thousand years, until it was exposed as a 8th century forgery in the late 1500's. There never was any evidence for it's authenticity except for the document itself. All the people who believed it to be authentic had the wrong opinion.
The murder of JFK, on 11/22/63, is beyond dispute. The evidence for the event is overwhelming. However, the opinion of a historian about JFK, published in a newspaper, is no way near as well documented and can not be regarded as a historical fact. If you choose to believe him then that belief becomes your opinion.
I hope you get it now, because I can't dumb it down for you any further.
-
You can not be so stupid, can you? That's not what I said. Your strawman is - as per usual - bogus.
So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?
No, not "no matter how well documented". To accept something as a historical fact, by a person who was not there to witness it, depends exactly on how well it is documented.
World War II is extremenly well documented to the extent that it clearly is a historical fact and future generations will still see it that way. It's one of those events that can not be denied, regardless of anybody's opinion.
The disappearance of the two Princes in the Tower of London in 1483 is, more often than not, attributed to their uncle who, it is claimed, had them killed so he could become King Richard III. Although the disappearance of the boys is well documented and can be regarded to be a historical fact, their alleged murder at the behest of their uncle is not. That's only an opinion for which there is very little to no evidence.
The donation of Constantine is allegedly a 4th century document that was believed to be authentic for nearly a thousand years, until it was exposed as a 8th century forgery in the late 1500's. There never was any evidence for it's authenticity except for the document itself. All the people who believed it to be authentic had the wrong opinion.
The murder of JFK, on 11/22/63, is beyond dispute. The evidence for the event is overwhelming. However, the opinion of a historian about JFK, published in a newspaper, is no way near as well documented and can not be regarded as a historical fact. If you choose to believe him then that belief becomes your opinion.
I hope you get it now, because I can't dumb it down for you any further.
You are making Caprio look like a genius. This post is truly bizarre.
-
You are making Caprio look like a genius. This post is truly bizarre.
It seems you can indeed be this stupid. Despite my effort to dumb it down for you as much as I can, it nevertheless all still went straight over your head. I'd have a better opportunity of trying to have a conversation with a chimpanzee. Your silly comment only demonstrates beyond a doubt that you are, more than anything else, absolutely clueless. Instant dismissal, as per usual, and utterly unable to even offer a coherent counter argument, that's you!
As you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.
You just keep believing that your opinions are facts and I'll just keep on believing that you're a brainless idiot
-
It seems you can indeed be this stupid. Despite my effort to dumb it down for you as much as I can, it nevertheless all still went straight over your head. I'd have a better opportunity of trying to have a conversation with a chimpanzee. Your silly comment only demonstrates beyond a doubt that you are, more than anything else, absolutely clueless. Instant dismissal, as per usual, and utterly unable to even offer a coherent counter argument, that's you!
As you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.
You just keep believing that your opinions are facts and I'll just keep on believing that you're a brainless idiot
you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.
Martin, has it occurred to you that Mr Smith may not believe what he posts? I've long ago conclude that Mr "Smith" is simply an agent whose is assigned to support the official government created, and approved tale. And at the same time try to paint all of those who refuse to believe the nonsense of the WR as "Kooks"
-
you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.
Martin, has it occurred to you that Mr Smith may not believe what he posts? I've long ago conclude that Mr "Smith" is simply an agent whose is assigned to support the official government created, and approved tale. And at the same time try to paint all of those who refuse to believe the nonsense of the WR as "Kooks"
I don't believe JFK had serious medical conditions, took numerous drugs for those conditions, and had numerous affairs? All of which are documented facts. And, irony of irony, you are the very person who started this by noting that Hoover kept files on people. Martin is suggesting these are all merely our "opinions" because we were not there in person to witness these events. Do you not believe that Hoover kept files on people including JFK and that is just our "opinion" as Martin had stupidly suggested. Do tell?
-
I don't believe JFK had serious medical conditions, took numerous drugs for those conditions, and had numerous affairs? All of which are documented facts. And, irony of irony, you are the very person who started this by noting that Hoover kept files on people. Martin is suggesting these are all merely our "opinions" because we were not there in person to witness these events. Do you not believe that Hoover kept files on people including JFK and that is just our "opinion" as Martin had stupidly suggested. Do tell?
I don't believe JFK had serious medical conditions, took numerous drugs for those conditions, and had numerous affairs? All of which are documented facts.
Of course you believe that, because that's all you can do. You can only make a judgment call about whether you believe and accept that information, which you - in your opinion - call "documented facts".
Martin is suggesting these are all merely our "opinions" because we were not there in person to witness these events.
More misrepresentation. Martin is suggesting that something may very well be true, but that you personally can not know that first hand for a fact because you were not a witness to it. In other words, you believe it to be true, which is when it becomes your opinion that it is true.
The irony of this is that in your own post you used the word "believe" twice, showing that you do not have first hand knowledge and merely believe something to be true, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
Do you not believe that Hoover kept files on people including JFK and that is just our "opinion" as Martin had stupidly suggested. Do tell?
I never questioned that Hoover kept files on people and he may well have had dirt on JFJK as well, so stop misrepresenting what I said. I actually do believe Hoover kept files on people, but since I wasn't there, that's just my opinion. For you, although you weren't there either it somehow becomes not an opinion but a fact.
This is what I actually asked you;
All of it is opinion, because that's all you can have, unless of course you have first hand knowledge about any of it. There are all sorts of people and publications that make all sorts of claims. You decide which ones you want to believe and they become your opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Have you seen the records Hoover allegedly kept on people, including Presidents? No, of course you haven't
Were you present when JFK had affairs, used drugs and lied about his medical condition? Do you even know first hand what medical condition he had? No, of course not
And what makes you think, whatever it is you believe there was, could have been used to blackmail JFK, except of course your opinion.
-
you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.
Martin, has it occurred to you that Mr Smith may not believe what he posts? I've long ago conclude that Mr "Smith" is simply an agent whose is assigned to support the official government created, and approved tale. And at the same time try to paint all of those who refuse to believe the nonsense of the WR as "Kooks"
You're being to kind on him, Walt, to suggest that he may not believe what he posts. That's giving him way too much credit. I am convinced that he actually believes that whatever his opinion is on something is, in his mind, by definition a fact.
A wiser man would understand that's an untenable position, but not "Richard Smith". The easiest way to demonstrate just how delusional "Richard" is, is that he is completely unable to argue his case and show us why he's right and we're wrong. He never gets beyond outright dismissal, strawman arguments and misrepresentations.
-
Wow. So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented? There are no words. Maybe the single dumbest post in the history of this forum or perhaps the entire Internet. Astounding.
If we quote/cite people who WERE there that's just THEIR opinion too. This is a type of thinking that is from the Dark Ages. Added: Yes, these are eyewitness accounts and they can be wrong; but we corroborate these accounts with additional evidence. An account PLUS additional evidence is all that we have.
In 2002, the historian Robert Dallek was given access by the Kennedy family to JFK's medical records. He discovered the medical regimen that Kennedy went through as president. It was an astonishing array of drugs.
He writes: "[The records] add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison's disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell's prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison's disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines."
Travell was one of JFK's personal physicians when he was President.
Dallek: "The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed."
But he didn't see the drugs given to JFK; he wasn't there. Just because the records indicate they were given to JFK doesn't mean they actually were So all of these records and accounts are just his opinion and speculation. Oy, what a mindset this is.
Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/
-
If we quote/cite people who WERE there that's just THEIR opinion too. This is a type of thinking that is from the Dark Ages.
In 2002, the historian Robert Dallek was given access by the Kennedy family to JFK's medical records. He discovered the medical regimen that Kennedy went through as president. It was an astonishing array of drugs.
He writes: "[The records] add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison's disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell's prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison's disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines."
Travell was one of JFK's personal physicians when he was President.
Dallek: "The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed."
But he didn't see the drugs given to JFK; he wasn't there. Just because the records indicate they were given to JFK doesn't mean they actually were So all of these records and accounts are just his opinion and speculation. Oy, what a mindset this is.
Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/
'I don't necessarily agree with everything I say'
-Marshall McLuhan
;)
-
@CTers:
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Booyah
-
Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.
But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?
-
Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.
But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?
To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless.
Who is dismissing everything as being an opinion?
Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.
Silly dramatics and totally beside the point. History books are there to inform so that people may form their own opinion, in the knowledge that history books are mainly written by the victors and are not always fair and accurate. Whether that opinion is correct or not is another matter, but it is pathetic to call for doing away with source material.
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders.
A completely dishonest generalization and, speaking for myself, absolutely untrue.
What you fail to understand is that another interpretation of the evidence by those who do not blindly accept the official narrative is not the same as "an endless rejection of the evidence". If anybody is rejecting anything, it's the WC defenders who will instantly dismiss everything that does not agree with their opinion. That's why discussion, in most cases, is impossible and very often a waste of time.
Every single piece is dismissed.
I can only speak for myself here, but please show me just one piece of evidence that I have dismissed. Go on then...
-
Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.
But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?
Excuse me, but Oswald-lovers have every right to choose who to live (and kneel) for.
-
Excuse me, but Oswald-lovers have every right to choose who to live (and kneel) for.
Of course, they are free to worship leprechauns if they want. And if their goal is to simply defend "poor Lee" then I surrender: they've accomplished it, I'm convinced.
It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.
-
It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.
And who, pray tell, would that be?
-
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?
You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.
-
Of course, they are free to worship leprechauns if they want. And if their goal is to simply defend "poor Lee" then I surrender: they've accomplished it, I'm convinced.
It is interesting hearing from those who supported suppressing the Hunter Biden story because they were unproven allegations then turn around and come here and make endless unproven allegations about all sorts of people involved, they claim, in a conspiracy behind the assassination. But that's another story for another time.
You missed my sarcasm
-
Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.
But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?
You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell
-
LOL. Russell himself was a fanatic, well at least about the JFK assassination. He sounds pretty sure about himself, despite getting a lot of information wrong. As for me I'm not a fanatic so can clearly see that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy. Booyah.
http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination
-
LOL. Russell himself was a fanatic, well at least about the JFK assassination. He sounds pretty sure about himself, despite getting a lot of information wrong. As for me I'm not a fanatic so can clearly see that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy. Booyah.
http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination
Pathetic, as per usual. In the link you have provided, Russell is asking questions exactly as a wiser man with doubt would do, regardless of your idiotic opinion that he somehow "sounds pretty sure about himself".
You, on the other hand, fit the description of a fool or a fanatic to a tee. You don't ask questions and act like you know it all.
My quote of Russell is 100% correct. Thank you for proving that it is.
-
If we quote/cite people who WERE there that's just THEIR opinion too. This is a type of thinking that is from the Dark Ages. Added: Yes, these are eyewitness accounts and they can be wrong; but we corroborate these accounts with additional evidence. An account PLUS additional evidence is all that we have.
In 2002, the historian Robert Dallek was given access by the Kennedy family to JFK's medical records. He discovered the medical regimen that Kennedy went through as president. It was an astonishing array of drugs.
He writes: "[The records] add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison's disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell's prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison's disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines."
Travell was one of JFK's personal physicians when he was President.
Dallek: "The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed."
But he didn't see the drugs given to JFK; he wasn't there. Just because the records indicate they were given to JFK doesn't mean they actually were So all of these records and accounts are just his opinion and speculation. Oy, what a mindset this is.
Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/
Yes, it is incredible that anyone would even suggest that it is merely an "opinion" that JFK had serious medical issues and took numerous drugs for those issues. Facts that are well documented and that no one disputes. But it provides an insight into the contrarian mind. They can approach any fact that they do not wish to accept with this kind of loony logic. And dismiss it or cast doubt on it for that reason. Then without missing a beat they can imply all manner of facts of that they wish to be true without an iota of evidence. It is breathtaking in its stupidity. Compounded by their long winded lectures and insults trying to justify this bizarre line of "reasoning."
-
Yes, it is incredible that anyone would even suggest that it is merely an "opinion" that JFK had serious medical issues and took numerous drugs for those issues. Facts that are well documented and that no one disputes. But it provides an insight into the contrarian mind. They can approach any fact that they do not wish to accept with this kind of loony logic. And dismiss it or cast doubt on it for that reason. Then without missing a beat they can imply all manner of facts of that they wish to be true without an iota of evidence. It is breathtaking in its stupidity. Compounded by their long winded lectures and insults trying to justify this bizarre line of "reasoning."
And once again is "Richard Smith" misrepresenting my position to make a completely pathetic point.
-
And once again is "Richard Smith" misrepresenting my position to make a completely pathetic point.
That is just your "opinion." LOL.
-
That is just your "opinion." LOL.
At least Martin knows the difference between opinion and fact -- something that "Richard" is unable to grasp.
-
To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless.
Who is dismissing everything as being an opinion?
Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.
Silly dramatics and totally beside the point. History books are there to inform so that people may form their own opinion, in the knowledge that history books are mainly written by the victors and are not always fair and accurate. Whether that opinion is correct or not is another matter, but it is pathetic to call for doing away with source material.
Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders.
A completely dishonest generalization and, speaking for myself, absolutely untrue.
What you fail to understand is that another interpretation of the evidence by those who do not blindly accept the official narrative is not the same as "an endless rejection of the evidence". If anybody is rejecting anything, it's the WC defenders who will instantly dismiss everything that does not agree with their opinion. That's why discussion, in most cases, is impossible and very often a waste of time.
Every single piece is dismissed.
I can only speak for myself here, but please show me just one piece of evidence that I have dismissed. Go on then...
Who the hell has appointed you as the arbiter of what constitutes 'evidence'?
-
You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.
'insufficient or inconclusive evidence'
>> in your opinion
-
Who the hell has appointed you as the arbiter of what constitutes 'evidence'?
The same guy who appointed you
-
At least Martin knows the difference between opinion and fact -- something that "Richard" is unable to grasp.
"Richard" throws the word "contrarian" around as if he understands the meaning of the word.
The irony is that he himself thinks he is right in everything, not willing to listen to, or discuss, dissenting opinions and dismisses everything that doesn't agree with his opinion, making him the true contrarian.
-
That is just your "opinion." LOL.
Yes it is my opinion. Unlike you I don't call my opinion a "fact", even when my opinion is the truth.
-
Yes it is my opinion. Unlike you I don't call my opinion a "fact", even when my opinion is the truth.
It's only your opinion that it is your opinion.
-
It's only your opinion that it is your opinion.
What to do when running out of arguments; start to behave like a 5 year old
-
Pathetic, as per usual. In the link you have provided, Russell is asking questions exactly as a wiser man with doubt would do, regardless of your idiotic opinion that he somehow "sounds pretty sure about himself".
You, on the other hand, fit the description of a fool or a fanatic to a tee. You don't ask questions and act like you know it all.
My quote of Russell is 100% correct. Thank you for proving that it is.
Correction: I don't ask questions of you
-
What to do when running out of arguments; start to behave like a 5 year old
We've seen plenty of that behaviour from you..
-
Correction: I don't ask questions of you
Really?
Who the hell has appointed you as the arbiter of what constitutes 'evidence'?
:D
-
What to do when running out of arguments; start to behave like a 5 year old
Start?
-
The same guy who appointed you
Chapman doesn't even discuss evidence -- he's ignorant of it. His only contribution is to bleat over and over again that Oswald did it.
-
Chapman doesn't even discuss evidence -- he's ignorant of it. His only contribution is to bleat over and over again that Oswald did it.
You have evidence? You have nothing more than an opinion, Tex.
-
Chapman doesn't even discuss evidence -- he's ignorant of it. His only contribution is to bleat over and over again that Oswald did it.
Chapman doesn't even discuss evidence
He can't because he hasn't got any. In fact he's desperately looking for some;
You have evidence?
-
Really?
:D
You're still not clever
-
You're still not clever
Never said I was.
But one thing is for sure, I'm not the idiot who claimed he doesn't ask me questions, just after asking me a question..... :D
-
You have evidence? You have nothing more than an opinion, Tex.
Really, Canuck? What "opinion" do you think I have?
-
Never said I was.
But one thing is for sure, I'm not the idiot who claimed he doesn't ask me questions, just after asking me a question..... :D
You've to learn how to recognize sarcasm
-
Chapman doesn't even discuss evidence
He can't because he hasn't got any. In fact he's desperately looking for some;
Again, you've to got to learn how to recognize sarcasm.
-
Chapman doesn't even discuss evidence -- he's ignorant of it. His only contribution is to bleat over and over again that Oswald did it.
'Bleat' haha
So now I'm sheep, huh. Cool.
Short back & sides, please.
-
Really, Canuck? What "opinion" do you think I have?
Firstly, Austin, I have evidence of you taking a knee at Oswald's grave: That pretty much wraps up your job description around here. Additionally, your claim that any evidence pointing at Oswald is 'weak', is nothing more than your opinion, tailored to fit your role as just other Oswald-lover.
-
You've to learn how to recognize sarcasm
Again, you've to got to learn how to recognize sarcasm.
I'll add "he doesn't understand the meaning of the word sarcasm" to the list Thumb1:
-
I'll add "he doesn't understand the meaning of the word sarcasm" to the list Thumb1:
Keep dodging, professor*
*sarcasm
-
Firstly, Austin, I have evidence of you taking a knee at Oswald's grave:
And for the millionth time, what is wrong with that?
Additionally, your claim that any evidence pointing at Oswald is 'weak', is nothing more than your opinion,
I've never claimed otherwise. And you've never produced anything to dispel it.
tailored to fit your role as just other Oswald-lover.
Another empty vacuous unsupportable claim. That's all you've got.
-
I'll add "he doesn't understand the meaning of the word sarcasm" to the list Thumb1:
Bill understands very little about anything. Ignorant and arrogant. That's quite a combination.
-
Keep dodging, professor*
*sarcasm
Dodging what? You're the one who keeps screwing up....
* Did you want me to notice that you looked up the word 'sarcasm' and now understand it's meaning? Well done Thumb1:
-
And for the millionth time, what is wrong with that?
I've never claimed otherwise. And you've never produced anything to dispel it.
Another empty vacuous unsupportable claim. That's all you've got.
What kind of freak takes a knee at the grave of Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
-
What kind of freak takes a knee at the grave of Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
What kind of freak has such an opinion without the evidence to back it up?
-
What kind of freak takes a knee at the grave of Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
What kind of freak thinks that his unsubstantiated claims should guide anybody else's behavior?
-
Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
What kind of freak has such an opinion without the evidence to back it up?
Ask the ppl who saw Oswald @Tippit and nearby.
Oh, here's one now:
Markham: #2 was the one I saw shoot the officer
And what kind of freak relies on time estimations as a base for his pet theory?
-
What kind of freak thinks that his unsubstantiated claims should guide anybody else's behavior?
Where did I claim a desire to guide anyone's behaviours? In fact, a few posts back I said something like ppl should feel free to love, worship, and take a knee to whomever he wanted.
-
Ask the ppl who saw Oswald @Tippit and nearby.
Correction: people who allegedly identified Oswald in an unfair, biased lineup.
And what kind of freak relies on time estimations as a base for his pet theory?
What kind of freak never provides a basis for his pet truth claims?
-
Where did I claim a desire to guide anyone's behaviours? In fact, a few posts back I said something like ppl should feel free to love, worship, and take a knee to whomever the want.
Belied by your "freak" aspersion.
What if I decided to make a baseless claim that your father was a child molester and denigrate anybody who visited his grave on that basis?
-
Ask the ppl who saw Oswald @Tippit and nearby.
Oh, here's one now:
Markham: #2 was the one I saw shoot the officer
And what kind of freak relies on time estimations as a base for his pet theory?
I wouldn't know. It's probably somebody who couldn't care less about the opinion of an idiot who dismisses out of hand everything he doesn't like, or can't deal with it.
-
What kind of freak takes a knee at the grave of Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald, the killer of Tippit and who probably shot Kennedy.
What kind of obtuse "reasoning" is this?? LBJ's cover up committee tried to peddle the idea that the reason that Lee Oswald murdered JD Tippit was because he was a desperate fleeing murderer who had murdered President Kennedy ..... But Ol Chappie apparently isn't sure that Lee Shot JFK, but he's certain that Lee shot Tippit...????
There is strong evidence from both murders that Lee Oswald was not the murderer ...but the strongest evidence of Lee's innocence is the evidence from the Tippit case. ( Eye witnesses reported that Tippit's killer was NOT using a Smith & Wesson revolver. )
-
Belied by your "freak" aspersion.
What if I decided to make a baseless claim that your father was a child molester and denigrate anybody who visited his grave on that basis?
Belied by your "freak" aspersion.
>> Like Weidmann, you need a Sarcasm 101 intervention
And if my father had been a child molester, I'd piss on his grave.
-
Belied by your "freak" aspersion.
>> Like Weidmann, you need a Sarcasm 101 intervention
No, you need a "forming a coherent sentence" intervention.
And if my father had been a child molester, I'd piss on his grave.
So would you do that if I just called him one?
-
No, you need a "forming a coherent sentence" intervention.
So would you do that if I just called him one?
Go ahead, knock yourself out
I'd like to say 'sticks & stones' but I don't really like using clichès
They aren't really my cup of tea.
-
Go ahead, knock yourself out
I'd like to say 'sticks & stones' but I don't really like using clichès
They aren't really my cup of tea.
Just what kind of "tea" do you consume ?...... Whatever it is ...Perhaps you should stop using it because it's obviously a hallucinogen
-
Just what kind of "tea" do you consume ?...... Whatever it is ...Perhaps you should stop using it because it's obviously a hallucinogen
Hey numbnuts, I'm talking about clichés
-
Go ahead, knock yourself out
The question was, would you still visit his grave?
-
The question was, would you still visit his grave?
If I did, I sure wouldn't take a knee.
-
If I did, I sure wouldn't take a knee.
You mean you don't visit your own father's grave?
-
You mean you don't visit your own father's grave?
What?
-
Do you or do you not ever visit your father's grave?
-
Do you or do you not ever visit your father's grave?
???
-
"The question was, would you still visit his grave?"
"You mean you don't visit your own father's grave?"
"If I did, I sure wouldn't take a knee."
"What?"
"Do you or do you not ever visit your father's grave?"
"???"
Some members here need to grow up. Stop embarrassing themselves and more importantly stop wasting forum space.
-
"The question was, would you still visit his grave?"
"You mean you don't visit your own father's grave?"
"If I did, I sure wouldn't take a knee."
"What?"
"Do you or do you not ever visit your father's grave?"
"???"
Some members here need to grow up. Stop embarrassing themselves and more importantly stop wasting forum space.
:D :D :D
-
It's hilarious watching Chapman avoid the question.
-
Bill: Are you familiar with or heard of a Elcan Elliott? Gus Russo interviewed him for his book "Live by the Sword." Elliott told Russo that shortly after the assassination that he was out driving in search of his daughter who was away from home. He says he saw a man - acting suspiciously (he saw the man "relieving himself" near a bush) - that he later identified as Oswald before the shooting of Tippit near North Beckley.
It's not very credible to me - the Russo interview was in 1994 - and Elliott apparently never told anyone at the time of the shooting of his experience. It's less than not very; it's not credible at all.
A fuller account is here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2759.msg101861.html#msg101861
Hi Steve. I've never heard of Elcan Elliott; never heard that story before.
-
Well done Bill. Coincidentally, I recently took a virtual tour of that area using the street view on google maps. And I was a little surprised at how many changes have taken place to the structures there since 1963. We can still get a feel for how it was 57-years ago by looking at photos and visiting and walking it like y’all did. But that area hasn’t been preserved like Dealey Plaza has, so it takes a little more imagination.
Thanks Charles.
Yep, the area around Tenth and Patton has changed a bit. One can no longer drive Tippit's route (Tenth St. is closed off just west of the intersection with Patton).
Most importantly, you can still walk Oswald's escape route (at least the known route, to the Texaco station).
-
Nice walkabout, a real eyeopener re just how close things were to each other.
I wonder how feasible it would be to have a couple of people who would be stand-ins for Oswald and whichever witness was being depicted re distance. That would give the onlooker a better idea of how difficult it might be to ID the killer.
Thanks Bill (and thanks for bumping this thread).
Yes, a lot like Dealey Plaza, more than one person has said to me that they had no idea that all of the Tippit witnesses were so close in proximity to each other. The killer was seen by at least fifteen people between the shooting site and the Texaco station barely over a block away.
-
Excellent job Bill. Your memory for detail is amazing. Have you ever come across any pictures or maps of the interior of the Texas Theatre at the time of Oswald's arrest? The balcony report has always been interesting to me since it appears to derived right from the beginning. It seems to come from the fact that no one saw Oswald go through the lobby and the assumption was made that he went straight to the balcony because he wasn't seen by Burroughs. There was some indication that the balcony could be accessed immediately upon entering the lobby and some teenagers had apparently done so on prior occasions to avoid the ticket taker. But I've never seen any confirmation that the balcony could be so accessed. I've been there but the balcony is long gone. It's entirely possible that Oswald just made his way unseen through the lobby, but I also wonder if he might have gone up to the balcony and somehow gone down another set of stairs to access the main level without being seen.
Thanks Richard, much appreciated buddy.
I've always believed that Oswald went straight up to the balcony immediately upon entering the theater and this is how he went unnoticed by Burroughs.
Hugh Aynesworth once told me that he (Aynesworth) went up to the balcony when he got to the theater (he arrived at the theater with many of the police officers out front). He said there were some school boys up in the balcony playing hooky from school. If true, Oswald (arriving up in the balcony minutes earlier) could have thought better of staying up there once he saw all of the boys there and simply decided to go down to the main auditorium.
-
Bill, a most excellent tour despite Robert Groden’s attempt to disrupt it with all his horn honking.
:D :D
Thanks Joe.
-
Bill’s method of walking arse backwards while retracing the supposed route of Oswald, is INGENIUS!! :)
LOL Zeon.
-
Excellent video Mr. Brown. People watching can view the actual location and see the house.
-
Excellent video Mr. Brown. People watching can view the actual location and see the house.
Thanks Rick. Thumb1:
-
Here's a little walking tour I gave back in March of 2020. We discuss the Tippit shooting, the witnesses and some of the evidence. We begin close to the location where Tippit's patrol car stopped, go all the way down Patton to Jefferson and we end up in the alley behind the former Ballew's Texaco (where the jacket was found).
Why wouldn't Benavides just gun his engine and get the hell out of there pronto
If it was me I would have mowed the little prick down
And why wouldn't Scroggins peel out of there instead of hiding behind his car and leave it up to Oswald to decide his fate. Ppl, never let your attacker decide your fate no matter what the odds