JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: William Pilgrim on January 30, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
-
Do we have a consensus view on what shirt LHO wore on the morning of the assassination?
What type and color was it?
Was it different from the one he wore when he was arrested at the TT? (As the claim is that he changed shirt when he went back to his rooming house in Oak Cliff)
-
Do we have a consensus view on what shirt LHO wore on the morning of the assassination?
What type and color was it?
Was it different from the one he wore when he was arrested at the TT? (As the claim is that he changed shirt when he went back to his rooming house in Oak Cliff)
Hi William, I don't know about a consensus view of anything pertaining to the coup d e'tat.... Other than the consensus that JFK was murdered in Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 11/22/63.... However The FACTS and evidence, indicate that Lee did in fact go to his rented room at 1026 N. Beckley at 1:00pm that day, and he changed his clothes. A DPD Detective named Potts found the dirty clothes (gray Trousers and reddish brown shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR) in a dresser drawer where Lee put them when he donned his clean clothes.
-
Do we have a consensus view on what shirt LHO wore on the morning of the assassination?
What type and color was it?
Was it different from the one he wore when he was arrested at the TT? (As the claim is that he changed shirt when he went back to his rooming house in Oak Cliff)
Marrion Baker - "...he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."
Charles Givens - "...it was kind of a greenish looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt"
Jeraldean Reid - "... a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers"
Not much in the way of consensus.
-
Marrion Baker - "...he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."
Charles Givens - "...it was kind of a greenish looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt"
Jeraldean Reid - "... a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers"
Not much in the way of consensus.
Marrion Baker - "...he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."
Not pertinent.... Because Baker was thinking of the "DARK haired 165 pound man who he caught walking away from the stairs" and that was NOT Lee Oswald.
Charles Givens - "...it was kind of a greenish looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt"
Irrelevant .... Because Givens described clothing that Lee didn't even own...there are no such items of clothing among Lee's possessions.
Jeraldean Reid - "... a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers"
Sorry, Mrs Reid was mistaken....Because when Lee boarded the city bus all of the people who saw him said that he was wearing an outer shirt.
-
Thanks for that Walt,
In the WC testimonies, the witnesses who claim to have met LHO immediately after his departure from the TSBD are the bus driver, the bus passenger and the taxi driver.
The bus driver was unable to provide a description of how LHO was dressed but the latter two make inconsistent claims regarding his clothing.
Both mention a brown shirt and grey pants though Whaley then muddies the water by describing a blue grey jacket, whereas Blesdoe makes no mention of a jacket as she describes the shirt with the right sleeve whole and no buttons.
Both claim that the shirt LHO wore when arrested is the same shirt he wore on the bus and in the taxi, Whaley positively identifies Exhibit 150 and Blesdoe seems to be describing the shirt after LHO had been arrested in TT and the buttons were torn off in the struggle between him and DPD).
It strikes me that it should not have been difficult for law enforcement to determine what clothes LHO was wearing on that morning as his fellow workers would have been able to provide enough details to enable law enforcement to determine what they should be looking for. Was it possible that these clothes when found could be subject to forensic investigation to determine if they had been in worn by someone who had recently used a firearm?
Did the dirty clothes found by DPD Detective Potts undergo any forensic examination? If they did what was the results? If they did not, then why not?
-
Thanks for that Walt,
In the WC testimonies, the witnesses who claim to have met LHO immediately after his departure from the TSBD are the bus driver, the bus passenger and the taxi driver.
The bus driver was unable to provide a description of how LHO was dressed but the latter two make inconsistent claims regarding his clothing.
Both mention a brown shirt and grey pants though Whaley then muddies the water by describing a blue grey jacket, whereas Blesdoe makes no mention of a jacket as she describes the shirt with the right sleeve whole and no buttons.
Both claim that the shirt LHO wore when arrested is the same shirt he wore on the bus and in the taxi, Whaley positively identifies Exhibit 150 and Blesdoe seems to be describing the shirt after LHO had been arrested in TT and the buttons were torn off in the struggle between him and DPD).
It strikes me that it should not have been difficult for law enforcement to determine what clothes LHO was wearing on that morning as his fellow workers would have been able to provide enough details to enable law enforcement to determine what they should be looking for. Was it possible that these clothes when found could be subject to forensic investigation to determine if they had been in worn by someone who had recently used a firearm?
Did the dirty clothes found by DPD Detective Potts undergo any forensic examination? If they did what was the results? If they did not, then why not?
The police were not interested in providing evidence that would have cleared Lee Oswald....Some of the higher ranking officers knew that Lee was not guilty, and nearly ALL of the cops thought that he had shot and killed one of their fellow officers so they wanted him hanged.
Apparently you failed to notice that the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR that Detective Potts found in Lee's dresser drawer does NOT match the arrest shirt. Lee told the interrogators that the shirt that he wore that morning was a long sleeved reddish brown shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR . He changed his clothes in his room at 1:00 pm, Even a person with poor vision can see that the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was dragged from the theater does NOT have a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR. Clearly the arrest shirt IS NOT the shirt that Lee wore at the TSBD that morning.
-
This is the shirt Mr Oswald wore to work that day (credit: Mr Pat Speer)--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
-
Walt,
Was not trying to state that the LHO arrest shirt was the same as the one you informed me about at the rooming house, was just unsure as to whether the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR that you mentioned was proven to be the one worn on the morning of the assassination, hence my question as to whether it had been forensically tested.
I had read about LHO changing his clothes when he returned to the rooming house but I was unsure as to the 'consensus' (that word again) around his pre and post 1:00 pm attire.
I am happy to accept that he changed his clothes and that the shirt is the one Alan has highlighted above. Are there people who dispute this?
It is important that their is clarity around this as how this is answered impacts other events of that day.
For example,
If LHO changed his working clothes at the rooming house then
The witness statements of the bus passenger Blesdoe and the taxi driver Whaley do not stand up as they both describe him wearing the shirt he was arrested in at the TT.
Some of the debate and analysis around the evidence for LHO being outside the TSBD as the motorcade drives by rely on photographs that compare the shirt worn by the figure in the photograph with the shape and contours of the LHO shirt that he did not wear until 1:00pm.
It just seems to me that we should know the fact of what he was wearing as this ripples through the events of that day and can be used to discount certain testimonies and theories that are at variance to this known fact.
Does the forum know if the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and the grey pants are still held as evidence somewhere and could modern scientific forensics examine them for evidence of firearms?
-
This is the shirt Mr Oswald wore to work that day (credit: Mr Pat Speer)--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
Yes, this shirt does match the description that Lee gave for the shirt that he wore that morning, and it matches the descrition of the shirt that Linnie Mae Randal said she saw Lee wearing, and it matches the shirt that Detective Potts found in Lee's dresser drawer, BUT.. It DOES NOT match the colors of the tuft of fibers that FBI agent Paul Stombaugh found on the butt plate of the carcano.
-
This is the shirt Mr Oswald wore to work that day (credit: Mr Pat Speer)--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
Yes, this shirt does match the description that Lee gave for the shirt that he wore that morning, and it matches the descrition of the shirt that Linnie Mae Randal said she saw Lee wearing, and it matches the shirt that Detective Potts found in Lee's dresser drawer, BUT.. It DOES NOT match the colors of the tuft of fibers that FBI agent Paul Stombaugh found on the butt plate of the carcano.
-
Walt,
Was not trying to state that the LHO arrest shirt was the same as the one you informed me about at the rooming house, was just unsure as to whether the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR that you mentioned was proven to be the one worn on the morning of the assassination, hence my question as to whether it had been forensically tested.
I had read about LHO changing his clothes when he returned to the rooming house but I was unsure as to the 'consensus' (that word again) around his pre and post 1:00 pm attire.
I am happy to accept that he changed his clothes and that the shirt is the one Alan has highlighted above. Are there people who dispute this?
It is important that their is clarity around this as how this is answered impacts other events of that day.
For example,
If LHO changed his working clothes at the rooming house then
The witness statements of the bus passenger Blesdoe and the taxi driver Whaley do not stand up as they both describe him wearing the shirt he was arrested in at the TT.
Some of the debate and analysis around the evidence for LHO being outside the TSBD as the motorcade drives by rely on photographs that compare the shirt worn by the figure in the photograph with the shape and contours of the LHO shirt that he did not wear until 1:00pm.
It just seems to me that we should know the fact of what he was wearing as this ripples through the events of that day and can be used to discount certain testimonies and theories that are at variance to this known fact.
Does the forum know if the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and the grey pants are still held as evidence somewhere and could modern scientific forensics examine them for evidence of firearms?
I had read about LHO changing his clothes when he returned to the rooming house but I was unsure as to the 'consensus' (that word again) around his pre and post 1:00 pm attire.
This isn't a game in which ballots are cast to determine if a piece of evidence is or is not valid. You must evaluate the information and the facts...
It is a fact that the FBI found a tuft of fibers on the butt plate of the rifle, and they swore that those fibers matched the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was dragged from the theater..... They were implying that Lee had the carcano against his shoulder and fired the rifle at JFK...... OK, but they created a huge problem, because the shirt that Lee was wearing at the theater was NOT the shirt that he was wearing at the TSBD at the time JFK was murdered. The ONLY time that the fresh tuff of fibers could have gotten on that carcanp butt plate was when both the arrest shirt and the rifle were in the hands of the Dallas police.
-
The witness statements of the bus passenger Blesdoe and the taxi driver Whaley do not stand up as they both describe him wearing the shirt he was arrested in at the TT.
Indeed! Another issue raised is the bus transfer supposedly found in Mr Oswald's arrest shirt........... oops!
Some of the debate and analysis around the evidence for LHO being outside the TSBD as the motorcade drives by rely on photographs that compare the shirt worn by the figure in the photograph with the shape and contours of the LHO shirt that he did not wear until 1:00pm.
This was a major plank of those who claimed (erroneously) that the 'Man in the Doorway' in Altgens 6 is Mr Oswald. The Prayer Man claim, by contrast, does NOT need to put Mr Oswald in the arrest shirt at the time of the assassination.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/58/a8/mKU6DpH6_o.jpg)
-
I had read about LHO changing his clothes when he returned to the rooming house but I was unsure as to the 'consensus' (that word again) around his pre and post 1:00 pm attire.
This isn't a game in which ballots are cast to determine if a piece of evidence is or is not valid. You must evaluate the information and the facts...
Was using consensus in terms of the collective judgement and knowledge of the forum around this specific matter, knowing that some of the members have a lot more knowledge and insight, was not asking for a vote. In the future I will be more circumspect, will go straight to bed without any supper, thank you.
-
Was using consensus in terms of the collective judgement and knowledge of the forum around this specific matter, knowing that some of the members have a lot more knowledge and insight, was not asking for a vote. In the future I will be more circumspect, will go straight to bed without any supper, thank you.
I was simply trying to make the point that a person must look at the information and evidence available and make their own decisions . I didn't know how much you knew about the shirt issue, so I was attempting to lay out the facts.
If you go to bed without your supper, you may get a better nights sleep, than if you go to bed with a full belly. I've learned a little in my many years...and one of the things I discovered in recent years is:.... If I go to bed too soon after a big meal. I do not sleep well, and I have weird dreams..... like he government admitting that they have been lying to us for six decades about the murder of President Kennedy. Weird, huh?....
-
Do we have a consensus view on what shirt LHO wore on the morning of the assassination?
What type and color was it?
Was it different from the one he wore when he was arrested at the TT? (As the claim is that he changed shirt when he went back to his rooming house in Oak Cliff)
4:45 – 6:30 P.M. Second Interrogation of Oswald, Captain Fritz’s Office
“When I left the Texas School Book Depository, I went to my room, where I changed my trousers, got a pistol, and went to a picture show. . . .
-
4:45 – 6:30 P.M. Second Interrogation of Oswald, Captain Fritz’s Office
“When I left the Texas School Book Depository, I went to my room, where I changed my trousers, got a pistol, and went to a picture show. . . .
Mr Chapman thinks this phoney Mae Brussell 'compilation' is evidence! :D
Meanwhile, back in the real world--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7d/52/r0Cyx6VC_o.jpg)
(Bookhout report #2)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/19/66/lZsFB0pO_o.jpg)
(Kelley report #1)
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
Seems a lot of dirt on the front, as if he were carrying boxes. And the lower shirt hole seam could have been used to wipe down a rifle stock.
Why is the right arm sleeve so dirty compared to the left?
-
Mr Chapman thinks this phoney Mae Brussell 'compilation' is evidence! :D
Meanwhile, back in the real world--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7d/52/r0Cyx6VC_o.jpg)
(Bookhout report #2)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/19/66/lZsFB0pO_o.jpg)
Thank you for posting this, Mr Ford.....
(Kelley report #1)
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
And the lower shirt hole seam could have been used to wipe down a rifle stock.
:D
-
Mr Chapman thinks this phoney Mae Brussell 'compilation' is evidence! :D
Meanwhile, back in the real world--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7d/52/r0Cyx6VC_o.jpg)
(Bookhout report #2)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/19/66/lZsFB0pO_o.jpg)
(Kelley report #1)
He stated that his fare was approximately 85 cents.....
Of course Lee would have known the exact amount of his taxi fare. ( So we can know that someone is lying to cast doubt on the FACT that Lee took a cab that was NOT driven by William Whaley.) Whaley's manifest shows that the man who was wearing BLUE Workman's type clothing, paid a fare of 95 cents.... So not only didn't Whaley's description fit Lee Oswald, The fare that he received from the man was one dollar...$1.00 If Lee had gave the cabbie one dollar he sure as hell wouldn't have sai that his fare was approximately 85 cents.
-
Mr Chapman thinks this phoney Mae Brussell 'compilation' is evidence! :D
Meanwhile, back in the real world--------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7d/52/r0Cyx6VC_o.jpg)
(Bookhout report #2)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/19/66/lZsFB0pO_o.jpg)
(Kelley report #1)
Where did I say I thought it was evidence.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/58/a8/mKU6DpH6_o.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
The Prayer Man photographs show a person with bare arms (i.e. the shirt is either short sleeved or is a long sleeved shirt where the sleeves have been rolled up).
One thing strikes me about the shirt that LHO wore on the morning of the assassination, I cannot see any obvious creases on the sleeves of the shirt to indicate that they had been rolled up.
I would have thought that the shirt sleeves would be creased at various points as the shirt was rolled up from cuff to lower elbow. Is this problematic for the theory that equates LHO with the Prayer Man.
Maybe others can see creases where I cannot or maybe there is a good explanation to explain them away.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/58/a8/mKU6DpH6_o.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
The Prayer Man photographs show a person with bare arms (i.e. the shirt is either short sleeved or is a long sleeved shirt where the sleeves have been rolled up).
One thing strikes me about the shirt that LHO wore on the morning of the assassination, I cannot see any obvious creases on the sleeves of the shirt to indicate that they had been rolled up.
I would have thought that the shirt sleeves would be creased at various points as the shirt was rolled up from cuff to lower elbow. Is this problematic for the theory that equates LHO with the Prayer Man.
Maybe others can see creases where I cannot or maybe there is a good explanation to explain them away.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/07/sQ1sEnUV_o.png)
This is problematic for the theory that equates LHO with the Prayer Man.
The reddish brown shirt with the button down collar is the shirt that Lee Wore at the TSBD that morning....None of the various figures on the steps are wearing a shirt like this. And that's because Lee was on his way to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke at the time Altgen's snapped the shutter to create Altgen's #6
-
One thing strikes me about the shirt that LHO wore on the morning of the assassination, I cannot see any obvious creases on the sleeves of the shirt to indicate that they had been rolled up.
I would have thought that the shirt sleeves would be creased at various points as the shirt was rolled up from cuff to lower elbow. Is this problematic for the theory that equates LHO with the Prayer Man.
Hardly, Mr Pilgrim----------------that color photo shows the shirt as it looks decades after the assassination.
Here's how it looked in '64:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/08/fd/YEvclerg_o.jpg)
-
The reddish brown shirt with the button down collar is the shirt that Lee Wore at the TSBD that morning....None of the various figures on the steps are wearing a shirt like this.
You've seen a COLOR version of the Darnell film, Mr Cakebread? OMG!
-
You've seen a COLOR version of the Darnell film, Mr Cakebread? OMG!
I was referring to Altgen's..... And it's not necessary for the photo to be in color..... The shirt that the doorway man is wearing appears to be PLAID....
-
I was referring to Altgen's..... And it's not necessary for the photo to be in color..... The shirt that the doorway man is wearing appears to be PLAID....
Yes, that shirt in Altgens 6 is Mr Lovelady's plaid shirt.
But your claim was (and I quote) "None of the various figures on the steps are wearing a shirt like this"........... to ignore the Darnell film, which shows so much more of the west side of the doorway than Altgens does, is just plain silly.
No one anymore seriously believes that the doorway man in Altgens is Mr Oswald. Plenty of people seriously believe--------and with very good reason---------that Prayer Man in Darnell is Mr Oswald.
-
Yes, that shirt in Altgens 6 is Mr Lovelady's plaid shirt.
But your claim was (and I quote) "None of the various figures on the steps are wearing a shirt like this"........... to ignore the Darnell film, which shows so much more of the west side of the doorway than Altgens does, is just plain silly.
No one anymore seriously believes that the doorway man in Altgens is Mr Oswald. Plenty of people seriously believe--------and with very good reason---------that Prayer Man in Darnell is Mr Oswald.
No one anymore seriously believes that the doorway man in Altgens is Mr Oswald.
OK I'm satisfied.... And I apologize .....for using misleading verbage. ( "None of the various figures on the steps are wearing a shirt like this") I should have said.... "Doorway man is not wearing a shirt like this.
-
they matched the fibers of The shirt that Oswald Was NOT wearing at time of shooting LOL to fibers “stuck” to the rifle butt, WTF??
when this little detail was pointed out by Walt YARNS ago, one excuse given was that the fibers supposedly “found “ in the alleged “bag” (but not photo in SN) was consistent with BOTH shirts which is even MORE LOL!
-
they matched the fibers of The shirt that Oswald Was NOT wearing at time of shooting LOL to fibers “stuck” to the rifle butt, WTF??
when this little detail was pointed out by Walt YARNS ago, one excuse given was that the fibers supposedly “found “ in the alleged “bag” (but not photo in SN) was consistent with BOTH shirts which is even MORE LOL!
I love your play-on-words, Mr M. ..... And it makes me grin...However the tuft of yarn is no laughing matter.
The lie that the tuft of fibers matched the shirt that Lee was wearing was one of the major lies that tricked us suckers into believing that he had murdered president Kennedy.
-
Walt,
Was not trying to state that the LHO arrest shirt was the same as the one you informed me about at the rooming house, was just unsure as to whether the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR that you mentioned was proven to be the one worn on the morning of the assassination, hence my question as to whether it had been forensically tested.
I had read about LHO changing his clothes when he returned to the rooming house but I was unsure as to the 'consensus' (that word again) around his pre and post 1:00 pm attire.
I am happy to accept that he changed his clothes and that the shirt is the one Alan has highlighted above. Are there people who dispute this?
It is important that their is clarity around this as how this is answered impacts other events of that day.
For example,
If LHO changed his working clothes at the rooming house then
The witness statements of the bus passenger Blesdoe and the taxi driver Whaley do not stand up as they both describe him wearing the shirt he was arrested in at the TT.
Some of the debate and analysis around the evidence for LHO being outside the TSBD as the motorcade drives by rely on photographs that compare the shirt worn by the figure in the photograph with the shape and contours of the LHO shirt that he did not wear until 1:00pm.
It just seems to me that we should know the fact of what he was wearing as this ripples through the events of that day and can be used to discount certain testimonies and theories that are at variance to this known fact.
Does the forum know if the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and the grey pants are still held as evidence somewhere and could modern scientific forensics examine them for evidence of firearms?
William, I contacted the Archives a few years back and asked for its help in determining if the light brown shirt they had in their collection was in fact the "reddish" shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing on the day of the shooting. After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt, which turned out to be reddish. One of these is presented above.
As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
-
As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
This NB! Thumb1:
-
William, I contacted the Archives a few years back and asked for its help in determining if the light brown shirt they had in their collection was in fact the "reddish" shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing on the day of the shooting. After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt, which turned out to be reddish. One of these is presented above.
As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
Thanks for posting that info , Mr. Speer...... Surely you don't believe that Mr John Edgar Hoover (aka; Mr Dazzling All American Hero :o) would have ordered the results of the tests to be kept hidden from the public? I'd hasten to remind you that Mr Golden Boy created the memo that he wanted released to the suckers. The memo that would convince the suckers that Lee Harvey Oswald was the arch villain who had shot the president for no reason, and he had no accomplices.
Don't you know that Mr Golden Boy Hoover had investigated and determined in just 24 hours, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin, and he wanted LBJ to inform the pissants.
-
William, I contacted the Archives a few years back and asked for its help in determining if the light brown shirt they had in their collection was in fact the "reddish" shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing on the day of the shooting. After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt, which turned out to be reddish. One of these is presented above.
As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt,
This is interesting, Pat. Did you get the feeling that they were draggin their feet, and stalling in hope that you'd throw up your hands and quit. You're not the first who has had trouble getting information from the archives.
Do you think that they at the archives are required to notify some agency and receive permission before they can release information to certain people.
-
After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt,
This is interesting, Pat. Did you get the feeling that they were draggin their feet, and stalling in hope that you'd throw up your hands and quit. You're not the first who has had trouble getting information from the archives.
Do you think that they at the archives are required to notify some agency and receive permission before they can release information to certain people.
I got the feeling they considered me a nuisance. I contacted them and asked them if the original evidence photos were in color or black and white, and if I could buy a copy if they'd been in color. They told me they had copies of the original photos that were black and white, and that the JFK Library had the originals. I then contacted the JFK Library and they said the archives was blowing smoke, and that they--the archives--had all the evidence photos. I then re-contacted the archives and said that if they couldn't find the photos they should take color photos of the items of clothing in which I'd expressed an interest, and put them up on their website, as the only released photos were in black and white. This got bumped up to the top. After about two months of back and forth, I finally got an answer--that they'd agreed to take the photos for me--for a price. It then took another month or so for them to agree on a price, and to work out the method of payment. The man in charge--the top guy on the JFK records, as I recall--then took a vacation, and apparently forgot all about our agreement. After about another month, I finally gave in and emailed him to remind him of our deal. A few weeks later I received a CD-rom in the mail with the photos I'd requested, along with an explanation that they were my property, and I could do with them as I wished. Now, this last part is interesting. I'd initially asked them to put the images up on their website--so that people could see whether or not Oswald was telling the truth about his placing a dirty reddish shirt in a drawer--and instead they sent the images to me. I took from this that the powers that be had no interest in adding any images suggestive of Oswald's innocence to the Archives' website.
-
I got the feeling they considered me a nuisance. I contacted them and asked them if the original evidence photos were in color or black and white, and if I could buy a copy if they'd been in color. They told me they had copies of the original photos that were black and white, and that the JFK Library had the originals. I then contacted the JFK Library and they said the archives was blowing smoke, and that they--the archives--had all the evidence photos. I then re-contacted the archives and said that if they couldn't find the photos they should take color photos of the items of clothing in which I'd expressed an interest, and put them up on their website, as the only released photos were in black and white. This got bumped up to the top. After about two months of back and forth, I finally got an answer--that they'd agreed to take the photos for me--for a price. It then took another month or so for them to agree on a price, and to work out the method of payment. The man in charge--the top guy on the JFK records, as I recall--then took a vacation, and apparently forgot all about our agreement. After about another month, I finally gave in and emailed him to remind him of our deal. A few weeks later I received a CD-rom in the mail with the photos I'd requested, along with an explanation that they were my property, and I could do with them as I wished. Now, this last part is interesting. I'd initially asked them to put the images up on their website--so that people could see whether or not Oswald was telling the truth about his placing a dirty reddish shirt in a drawer--and instead they sent the images to me. I took from this that the powers that be had no interest in adding any images suggestive of Oswald's innocence to the Archives' website.
You did a very important thing here, Mr Speer Thumb1:
A simple thought occurs re. the part I've highlighted above: the very last thing a guilty man would do is tell the police exactly where to find the shirt which, being the one he was wearing at the time he fired the rifle, could well contain incriminating forensic evidence.
-
You did a very important thing here, Mr Speer Thumb1:
A simple thought occurs re. the part I've highlighted above: the very last thing a guilty man would do is tell the police exactly where to find the shirt which, being the one he was wearing at the time he fired the rifle, could well contain incriminating forensic evidence.
the very last thing a guilty man would do is tell the police exactly where to find the shirt which, being the one he was wearing at the time he fired the rifle, could well contain incriminating forensic evidence.
Thumb1: Excellent reasoning Mr F... I've never doubted that Lee simply told Fritz the truth about the clothes that he wore at the TSBD that morning. So I never examined the matter as you have here, but I believe that you're right.
The shirt episode has been brushed aside and distorted by the FBI and the DPD. Hoover was embarrassed and furious, when he learned that the FBI had been given the wrong shirt and they had been put in the position of verifing that the tuft of fibers from the butt plate had came from the arrest shirt and that shirt had no connection to the murder of JFK because it was not the shirt that Lee wore at the TSBD that morning. I believe that this discovery was the primary reason that the evidence was returned to the DPD. Hoover told Curry that he'd better get this staightened out or else....
Consequently the DPD dressed an imposter in the arrest shirt and paraded him before cameras while being held by the elbow by a DPD detective .... And it also is the reason they took the arrest shirt out to Mrs Bledsoe so she would say it was the shirt she saw Lee Oswald wearing on the bus.
-
I got the feeling they considered me a nuisance. I contacted them and asked them if the original evidence photos were in color or black and white, and if I could buy a copy if they'd been in color. They told me they had copies of the original photos that were black and white, and that the JFK Library had the originals. I then contacted the JFK Library and they said the archives was blowing smoke, and that they--the archives--had all the evidence photos. I then re-contacted the archives and said that if they couldn't find the photos they should take color photos of the items of clothing in which I'd expressed an interest, and put them up on their website, as the only released photos were in black and white. This got bumped up to the top. After about two months of back and forth, I finally got an answer--that they'd agreed to take the photos for me--for a price. It then took another month or so for them to agree on a price, and to work out the method of payment. The man in charge--the top guy on the JFK records, as I recall--then took a vacation, and apparently forgot all about our agreement. After about another month, I finally gave in and emailed him to remind him of our deal. A few weeks later I received a CD-rom in the mail with the photos I'd requested, along with an explanation that they were my property, and I could do with them as I wished. Now, this last part is interesting. I'd initially asked them to put the images up on their website--so that people could see whether or not Oswald was telling the truth about his placing a dirty reddish shirt in a drawer--and instead they sent the images to me. I took from this that the powers that be had no interest in adding any images suggestive of Oswald's innocence to the Archives' website.
I think Pat's analysis that the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR had been subject to forensic testing (his photograph of the collar with the four initials) is a red flag when considering whether LHO fired a rifle on the morning of the assassination.
Presumably this testing was negative as a positive test would have cemented LHO's guilt and would have been broadcast to the wider public by law enforcement.
Surely this must put doubt in the mind of those who believe in the LN theory?
The only argument that could be used against this is that LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt and then put his shirt back on, however, it doesn't seem logical to do this, particularly if you believe that he had to then wipe down the rifle, hide it amongst the boxes and then rush downstairs within 90 seconds (if you believe the LN theory).
-
I think Pat's analysis that the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR had been subject to forensic testing (his photograph of the collar with the four initials) is a red flag when considering whether LHO fired a rifle on the morning of the assassination.
Presumably this testing was negative as a positive test would have cemented LHO's guilt and would have been broadcast to the wider public by law enforcement.
Had the reddish shirt been found in, say, a trash can near Mr Oswald's rooming house, then that would speak to guilt. Instead we have the very opposite---------a suspect who helpfully points the police to the shirt he was wearing at work that day.
Surely this must put doubt in the mind of those who believe in the LN theory?
The only argument that could be used against this is that LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt and then put his shirt back on, however, it doesn't seem logical to do this, particularly if you believe that he had to then wipe down the rifle, hide it amongst the boxes and then rush downstairs within 90 seconds (if you believe the LN theory).
Same logic applies: why would a guilty man not change tshirts at the rooming house-----------and dispose of the tshirt he'd been wearing when he fired the rifle?
-
Had the reddish shirt been found in, say, a trash can near Mr Oswald's rooming house, then that would speak to guilt. Instead we have the very opposite---------a suspect who helpfully points the police to the shirt he was wearing at work that day.
Same logic applies: why would a guilty man not change tshirts at the rooming house-----------and dispose of the tshirt he'd been wearing when he fired the rifle?
And none of the witnesses who saw someone on the 6th floor describe a reddish shirt
-
And none of the witnesses who saw someone on the 6th floor describe a reddish shirt
Exactly------------a light-colored shirt or sport shirt (i.e. with collar)
-
I think Pat's analysis that the REDDISH BROWN shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR had been subject to forensic testing (his photograph of the collar with the four initials) is a red flag when considering whether LHO fired a rifle on the morning of the assassination.
Presumably this testing was negative as a positive test would have cemented LHO's guilt and would have been broadcast to the wider public by law enforcement.
Surely this must put doubt in the mind of those who believe in the LN theory?
The only argument that could be used against this is that LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt and then put his shirt back on, however, it doesn't seem logical to do this, particularly if you believe that he had to then wipe down the rifle, hide it amongst the boxes and then rush downstairs within 90 seconds (if you believe the LN theory).
that LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt and then put his shirt back on, however, it doesn't seem logical to do this, particularly if you believe that he had to then wipe down the rifle, hide it amongst the boxes and then rush downstairs within 90 seconds (if you believe the LN theory).
LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt
There were several witnesses on the street who saw a man behind a sixth floor window....ALL of them reported the man was wearing a light colored sport shirt with a collar.... NONE of them described a white T shirt.
wipe down the rifle,
The fact that the rifle had been wiped clean of finger prints indicates that Lee wasn't the person who hid it. If Lee had hid the rifle he would have known that the rifle could easily be traced to him so wiping it wouldn't have made sense....In fact he wouldn't have left the rifle where it could be found so easily ( if he had fired the rifle, or knew that JFK was going to be murdered.)
hide it amongst the boxes
The rifle was WELL HIDDEN, ( Boone and Weitzman needed flashlights to see the rifle) and not hastily jammed into a place that was about 13 feet from the North Wall. Two DPD detectives drew maps of the sixth floor "crime scene" and both of their
diagrams placed the rifle ON THE FLOOR--- 15 FEET 4 INCHES from the North wall..... and four feet down at the bottom of a crevasse that had a "lid" of boxes covering the top of the crevasse.
-
Mary Bledsoe had the best view and recollection of Oswald's shirt. She said he wore a long sleeve brown colored shirt that was dirty. She stated there was missing buttons with a torn elbow and the front had a hole in it.
-
Mary Bledsoe had the best view and recollection of Oswald's shirt. She said he wore a long sleeve brown colored shirt that was dirty. She stated there was missing buttons with a torn elbow and the front had a hole in it.
She's describing the arrest shirt shown her by DPD, and is being WAY too helpful..........
-
that LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt and then put his shirt back on, however, it doesn't seem logical to do this, particularly if you believe that he had to then wipe down the rifle, hide it amongst the boxes and then rush downstairs within 90 seconds (if you believe the LN theory).
LHO took off his shirt and fired the rifle while wearing the white T shirt
There were several witnesses on the street who saw a man behind a sixth floor window....ALL of them reported the man was wearing a light colored sport shirt with a collar.... NONE of them described a white T shirt.
wipe down the rifle,
The fact that the rifle had been wiped clean of finger prints indicates that Lee wasn't the person who hid it. If Lee had hid the rifle he would have known that the rifle could easily be traced to him so wiping it wouldn't have made sense....In fact he wouldn't have left the rifle where it could be found so easily ( if he had fired the rifle, or knew that JFK was going to be murdered.)
hide it amongst the boxes
The rifle was WELL HIDDEN, ( Boone and Weitzman needed flashlights to see the rifle) and not hastily jammed into a place that was about 13 feet from the North Wall. Two DPD detectives drew maps of the sixth floor "crime scene" and both of their
diagrams placed the rifle ON THE FLOOR--- 15 FEET 4 INCHES from the North wall..... and four feet down at the bottom of a crevasse that had a "lid" of boxes covering the top of the crevasse.
Assuming this wasn't a crazed loner acting on a whim, let's assume it was a more organised affair.
We can instantly rule out the "toytown" rifle as the weapon of choice. It makes sense that was there to make a trail, no matter how tenuous, back to Oswald.
In this scenario I think it's safe to assume the wiped-down Mannlicher was already tucked away amongst the boxes whilst a big boys rifle was actually used for the assassination.
-
I do not subscribe to the LN theory but have no way of knowing the extent if any of LHO’s involvement in any covert operation run by god knows who, that day in Dallas.
Was he an intelligence asset and to what extent was he aware of the planned covert operation to assassinate JFK?
He could have:
• No knowledge of any covert operation
• Knowledge of a covert operation that did not involve the assassination of JFK (i.e. he had been fed disinformation about what was going to happen)
• Knowledge of a covert operation that planned to assassinate JFK
I have no way of knowing what the answer to that question is.
One thing puzzles me about the framing of LHO for the assassination.
If I am going to set him up as the patsy then I can incriminate him by placing the Mannlicher rifle amongst the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the shells on the floor of the SN. What I must also do is ensure that he does not have an alibi for the time of the shooting.
I do not want him to be around his fellow workers either within the TSBD (e.g. in the lunchroom, on another floor in plain sight) or outside the TSBD watching the presidential parade. The latter scenario is fraught with risk as LHO is liable to be filmed or photographed as the presidential parade passes the entrance to the TSBD.
What if LHO goes outside the front doors and inadvertently step out of the shadow or moves a step to the left or down a step from the position of the Prayer Man.
What if LHO moves to the position taken by Billy Lovelady or heaven forbid crosses the road to stand next to the man with the white cowboy hat, white jacket and white pants.
If any of these things happen then LHO has an alibi and the planted evidence on the 6th floor actually makes a conspiracy more believable.
I acknowledge that the above did not happen on the day but if any of them had then my plan to make LHO the patsy and propagate a LN theory would be in tatters.
Is that a risk I would be willing to take?
-
I do not subscribe to the LN theory but have no way of knowing the extent if any of LHO’s involvement in any covert operation run by god knows who, that day in Dallas.
Was he an intelligence asset and to what extent was he aware of the planned covert operation to assassinate JFK?
He could have:
• No knowledge of any covert operation
• Knowledge of a covert operation that did not involve the assassination of JFK (i.e. he had been fed disinformation about what was going to happen)
• Knowledge of a covert operation that planned to assassinate JFK
I have no way of knowing what the answer to that question is.
One thing puzzles me about the framing of LHO for the assassination.
If I am going to set him up as the patsy then I can incriminate him by placing the Mannlicher rifle amongst the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the shells on the floor of the SN. What I must also do is ensure that he does not have an alibi for the time of the shooting.
I do not want him to be around his fellow workers either within the TSBD (e.g. in the lunchroom, on another floor in plain sight) or outside the TSBD watching the presidential parade. The latter scenario is fraught with risk as LHO is liable to be filmed or photographed as the presidential parade passes the entrance to the TSBD.
What if LHO goes outside the front doors and inadvertently step out of the shadow or moves a step to the left or down a step from the position of the Prayer Man.
What if LHO moves to the position taken by Billy Lovelady or heaven forbid crosses the road to stand next to the man with the white cowboy hat, white jacket and white pants.
If any of these things happen then LHO has an alibi and the planted evidence on the 6th floor actually makes a conspiracy more believable.
I acknowledge that the above did not happen on the day but if any of them had then my plan to make LHO the patsy and propagate a LN theory would be in tatters.
Is that a risk I would be willing to take?
Yes, you point out a major problem for these "non-Oswald involved" conspirators: in order to frame Oswald for the assassination he has to be "frameable." That is, he can't have an alibi. If he has an alibi, if others can vouch that he was with them, or he can show he was outside of the building at the time then he can't be framed.
As you also point out, the framers have to know that he has no alibi. That he was alone. They had to know where he was at the time of the shooting - in order to frame him for it - and they had to know where his co-workers were - so they couldn't say he didn't shoot JFK. If either of those happened then their entire plan collapses.
So how did they - indeed, how could they - know this? How did they know he was even in the building at the time of the shooting? And that he wasn't elsewhere? And how did they know his co-workers couldn't give him an alibi? They planted the rifle (allegedly) BEFORE his co-workers were interviewed. What happens to this act if they say to the media, to others, that he was with them and couldn't have shot JFK? They planted the rifle (and other evidence, e.g., the bag) and now it all falls apart.
These are matters they simply cannot control. And obstacles that I simply cannot see being overcome. There are limits to the ability of these conspirators - whoever you think they were; even powerful groups - to do these things.
-
I do not subscribe to the LN theory but have no way of knowing the extent if any of LHO’s involvement in any covert operation run by god knows who, that day in Dallas.
Was he an intelligence asset and to what extent was he aware of the planned covert operation to assassinate JFK?
He could have:
• No knowledge of any covert operation
• Knowledge of a covert operation that did not involve the assassination of JFK (i.e. he had been fed disinformation about what was going to happen)
• Knowledge of a covert operation that planned to assassinate JFK
I have no way of knowing what the answer to that question is.
One thing puzzles me about the framing of LHO for the assassination.
If I am going to set him up as the patsy then I can incriminate him by placing the Mannlicher rifle amongst the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the shells on the floor of the SN. What I must also do is ensure that he does not have an alibi for the time of the shooting.
I do not want him to be around his fellow workers either within the TSBD (e.g. in the lunchroom, on another floor in plain sight) or outside the TSBD watching the presidential parade. The latter scenario is fraught with risk as LHO is liable to be filmed or photographed as the presidential parade passes the entrance to the TSBD.
What if LHO goes outside the front doors and inadvertently step out of the shadow or moves a step to the left or down a step from the position of the Prayer Man.
What if LHO moves to the position taken by Billy Lovelady or heaven forbid crosses the road to stand next to the man with the white cowboy hat, white jacket and white pants.
If any of these things happen then LHO has an alibi and the planted evidence on the 6th floor actually makes a conspiracy more believable.
I acknowledge that the above did not happen on the day but if any of them had then my plan to make LHO the patsy and propagate a LN theory would be in tatters.
Is that a risk I would be willing to take?
You raise an interesting point. I don't believe that, if there was a conspiracy, Oswald could have been framed without some involvement at some level. Having said that, I have to take issue with the notion that it was vital for Oswald not to have an alibi. IMO it wouldn't really matter if he had an alibi, when the conspirators also control the cover up.
The assumption that people would be willing to come forward and provide an alibi for Oswald ignores the fact that the people were terrified. Brennan said he did not identify Oswald at the line up because he was afraid and feared for his family. Consider the circumstances; most witnesses of a serious crime don't come forward easily and voluntary. And this was the murder of a President! If he could get killed, so can anybody else, right? And then, two days later, Oswald gets killed, which means he no longer needs an alibi....
But even if some witnesses did come forward and provided an alibi for Oswald, just how easy would it be to conclude that those witnesses were simply wrong. Just like they said that Carolyn Arnold mistaken. Even if Oswald had an alibi, it still might not have done him any good.
Just have a look at what happened to Richard Rosario who was convicted of murder and spent 20 in jail for a murder he did not commit and could not have committed because he was in another state when it happened. He had 13 people who provided an alibi for him.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wrongfully-convicted-man-blames-nypd-for-unfair-trial/
And as for Oswald possibly being filmed or photographed, I'd just remind you that video and photo material has in fact disappeared or was "damaged".
So, no, I don't think that Oswald being seen somewhere else would necessarily be a problem if the conspirators also controlled the cover up.
-
You raise an interesting point. I don't believe that, if there was a conspiracy, Oswald could have been framed without some involvement at some level. Having said that, I have to take issue with the notion that it was vital for Oswald not to have an alibi. IMO it wouldn't really matter if he had an alibi, when the conspirators also control the cover up.
The assumption that people would be willing to come forward and provide an alibi for Oswald ignores the fact that the people were terrified. Brennan said he did not identify Oswald at the line up because he was afraid and feared for his family. Consider the circumstances; most witnesses of a serious crime don't come forward easily and voluntary. And this was the murder of a President! If he could get killed, so can anybody else, right? And then, two days later, Oswald gets killed, which means he no longer needs an alibi....
But even if some witnesses did come forward and provided an alibi for Oswald, just how easy would it be to conclude that those witnesses were simply wrong. Just like they said that Carolyn Arnold mistaken. Even if Oswald had an alibi, it still might not have done him any good.
Just have a look at what happened to Richard Rosario who was convicted of murder and spent 20 in jail for a murder he did not commit and could not have committed because he was in another state when it happened. He had 13 people who provided an alibi for him.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wrongfully-convicted-man-blames-nypd-for-unfair-trial/
And as for Oswald possibly being filmed or photographed, I'd just remind you that video and photo material has in fact disappeared or was "damaged".
So, no, I don't think that Oswald being seen somewhere else would necessarily be a problem if the conspirators also controlled the cover up.
I'm not so sure Martin.
The Altgens 6 pic is a good example. This picture, which showed the front steps of the TSBD, appeared on the front page of multiple newspapers (hhttp://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-307.htmlours after the assassination)
There was a moment when many people believed this picture actually showed Oswald on the front steps and, as this pic had been seen by thousands of people, it would have exonerated him if it hadn't been Lovelady instead. "They" (whoever they are) would not have been able to contain it.
If (and it's a big if) Oswald was being manipulated it is hardly a great stretch to imagine he was being told what to do to some extent. A simple order of "stay out of sight" and some bogus excuse should suffice.
It is a very interesting fact that many of Oswald's co-workers tell blatant falsehoods between their various statements - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty (Givens and Jarman to a lesser extent).
If they were just innocent bystanders there would be no need for this "collective" deception. Of course some facts might get mixed up when recounting events, that's human nature, but this goes way beyond a few mix ups.
-
I do not subscribe to the LN theory but have no way of knowing the extent if any of LHO’s involvement in any covert operation run by god knows who, that day in Dallas.
Was he an intelligence asset and to what extent was he aware of the planned covert operation to assassinate JFK?
He could have:
• No knowledge of any covert operation
• Knowledge of a covert operation that did not involve the assassination of JFK (i.e. he had been fed disinformation about what was going to happen)
• Knowledge of a covert operation that planned to assassinate JFK
I have no way of knowing what the answer to that question is.
One thing puzzles me about the framing of LHO for the assassination.
If I am going to set him up as the patsy then I can incriminate him by placing the Mannlicher rifle amongst the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the shells on the floor of the SN. What I must also do is ensure that he does not have an alibi for the time of the shooting.
Mr Pilgrim, I share your agnosticism as to Mr Oswald's ultimate role in the assassination, if any. It is quite possible that Mr Oswald was a knowing confederate in the plot to kill JFK.
As for the issue you raise here, it has a simple enough explanation: Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter. That (absurd) idea only came to life after the assassination, when the entire 'investigation' was geared to that conclusion.
We must treat the assassination conspiracy and the cover-up conspiracy as two distinct (if possibly overlapping) things.
-
Mr Pilgrim, I share your agnosticism as to Mr Oswald's ultimate role in the assassination, if any. It is quite possible that Mr Oswald was a knowing confederate in the plot to kill JFK.
As for the issue you raise here, it has a simple enough explanation: Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter. That (absurd) idea only came to life after the assassination, when the entire 'investigation' was geared to that conclusion.
We must treat the assassination conspiracy and the cover-up conspiracy as two distinct (if possibly overlapping) things.
"Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter."
What was he being set-up as then?
-
"Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter."
What was he being set-up as then?
NoName conspirator #1: Say, why not set up some mental case with a rifle poking out the window behind the limo, then attack from the front.
NoName conspirator #2: Ummmm... not quite sure where you're going with this...
NoName conspirator #1: Hmmmm...
-
"Mr Oswald was not being set up as an actual shooter."
What was he being set-up as then?
I'm actually not 100% sure he was being set up at all by the assassination plotters, but if he was then it would have been as a commie confederate (most obviously via the Carcano).
One thing I'm sure of: he was not being set up as a gunman, let alone as a lone nut one.
-
NoName conspirator #1: Say, why not set up some mental case with a rifle poking out the window behind the limo, then attack from the front.
NoName conspirator #2: Ummmmmmm....not quite sure where you're going with this...
NoName conspirator #1: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
;D
I'm assuming you were cut off just as you were getting going
-
I'm not so sure Martin.
The Altgens 6 pic is a good example. This picture, which showed the front steps of the TSBD, appeared on the front page of multiple newspapers (hhttp://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-307.htmlours after the assassination)
There was a moment when many people believed this picture actually showed Oswald on the front steps and, as this pic had been seen by thousands of people, it would have exonerated him if it hadn't been Lovelady instead. "They" (whoever they are) would not have been able to contain it.
True, they might not have been able to contain it, but, if "they" controlled the cover up, they could have spinned it, by making public that closer examination of the original picture had revealed that it wasn't Oswald after all. Don't forget that it wasn't instantly that people started to believe Oswald could be seen in the picture. That only came up later and when the HSCA actually examined the picture they just claimed it was Lovelady and not Oswald. That was all it took for most people to accept that it wasn't Oswald.
If (and it's a big if) Oswald was being manipulated it is hardly a great stretch to imagine he was being told what to do to some extent. A simple order of "stay out of sight" and some bogus excuse should suffice.
True, although it could be more subtle like "wait by the telephone at 12:30"
It is a very interesting fact that many of Oswald's co-workers tell blatant falsehoods between their various statements - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman and Dougherty (Givens and Jarman to a lesser extent).
If they were just innocent bystanders there would be no need for this "collective" deception. Of course some facts might get mixed up when recounting events, that's human nature, but this goes way beyond a few mix ups.
I'm not so sure that there was any collective deception. It can be very difficult to get the whole and correct information out of people. Take, for example, the statement by Victoria Adams about meeting Lovelady and Shelley after coming down the stairs. I am sure that happened, but not at the bottom of the stairs, as the WC claimed. The reconstruction I did a while back showed that she could only have seen Shelley and Lovelady after she left the building and ran towards the railroad tracks. Victoria was probably 100% correct that they were the first two men she knew that she saw, she just left out to explain exactly where that was. Another example is that I have frequently gone into meetings in past knowing in my mind exactly what I was going to say, only to come out of such a meeting realizing that I had forgotten some of the things I wanted to say. Getting actual factual 100% correct statements from people is nearly impossible.
-
;D
I'm assuming you were cut off just as you were getting going
He's just desperately seeking attention.
-
I'm actually not 100% sure he was being set up at all by the assassination plotters, but if he was then it would have been as a commie confederate (most obviously via the Carcano).
One thing I'm sure of: he was not being set up as a gunman, let alone as a lone nut one.
So the rifle wasn't being used to set him up as a gunman?
It was being used to set him up as a commie confederate?? (What's a commie confederate?)
Let's remember, Oswald was being announced as the assassin of JFK almost as soon as he was arrested.
Not sure what you're saying here Alan.
-
So the rifle wasn't being used to set him up as a gunman?
It was being used to set him up as a commie confederate?? (What's a commie confederate?)
On that scenario: as the supplier of the rifle (or one of the rifles).
Let's remember, Oswald was being announced as the assassin of JFK almost as soon as he was arrested.
Sure, but we're talking about a different phase of the thing here: again, we have to consider the assassination conspiracy as one thing and the cover-up conspiracy as another (albeit possibly overlapping) thing.
Think about it: if the conspirators' big plan was to make the world think Mr Oswald was at the SN window, they did a lousy job of sealing that particular deal. I mean, talk about amateur hour!
-
On that scenario: as the supplier of the rifle (or one of the rifles).
If Oswald was tricked into supplying a dodgy rifle that could easily be tracked back to him, and that rifle was deliberately left at the scene of the shooting, it is safe to conclude he was being set-up as a/the gunman.
Sure, but we're talking about a different phase of the thing here: again, we have to consider the assassination conspiracy as one thing and the cover-up conspiracy as another (albeit possibly overlapping) thing.
They are hardly mutually exclusive things.
They must be co-ordinated to some extent (if at all)
Think about it: if the conspirators' big plan was to make the world think Mr Oswald was at the SN window, they did a lousy job of sealing that particular deal. I mean, talk about amateur hour!
Amateur hour indeed but history is written by the winners and Oswald is still at the SN window taking the shots.
-
If Oswald was tricked into supplying a dodgy rifle
He may not have been tricked into supplying it
that could easily be tracked back to him, and that rifle was deliberately left at the scene of the shooting, it is safe to conclude he was being set-up as a/the gunman.
Why?
They are hardly mutually exclusive things.
They must be co-ordinated to some extent (if at all)
This second statement is not logical.
Amateur hour indeed but history is written by the winners and Oswald is still at the SN window taking the shots.
No, the smart money is now on Mr Oswald's being in the front entranceway hearing the shots. There has been a paradigm shift in our understanding of the assassination.
But even if what you say were true, that would be down to the second conspiracy-----------the cover-up.
-
He may not have been tricked into supplying it
It's you who said Oswald supplied the rifle. If he wasn't tricked into doing it what are you saying?
-
It's you who said Oswald supplied the rifle.
No, I talked about his being set up as the supplier of the rifle. Big difference!
If he wasn't tricked into doing it what are you saying?
On this particular scenario: the rifle is brought to the Depository without his knowledge, e.g. in the 5ft box that Ms Mary Hall saw being delivered to the building that morning from an Honest Joe's truck.
As I have subtly hinted elsewhere, I believe Mr Oswald brought curtain rods to work that morning----------and that these rods were actually found in the Depository at some point after the assassination.
-
No, I talked about his being set up as the supplier of the rifle. Big difference!
I get it. Someone must've slipped in the Hidell ID into his wallet when he wasn't looking.
On this particular scenario: the rifle is brought to the Depository without his knowledge, e.g. in the 5ft box that Ms Mary Hall saw being delivered to the building that morning from an Honest Joe's truck.
As I have subtly hinted elsewhere, I believe Mr Oswald brought curtain rods to work that morning----------and that these rods were actually found in the Depository at some point after the assassination.
A totally innocent bystander. Just bad timing with the large package on the day of the assassination.
And really massively unlucky to be photographed with someone who looks absolutely identical in every respect to Bill Shelley, whilst handing out leaflets in New Orleans
-
I get it. Someone must've slipped in the Hidell ID into his wallet when he wasn't looking.
Your logic eludes me here, Mr O'Meara.
A totally innocent bystander.
I never said that.
Just bad timing with the large package on the day of the assassination.
A package ~27 inches long------------the perfect length to hold the curtain rods.
And really massively unlucky to be photographed with someone who looks absolutely identical in every respect to Bill Shelley, whilst handing out leaflets in New Orleans
Questionable claim!
But again--------I do not rule out the possibility that Mr Oswald had some knowing role in the assassination. Heck, I don't even know for sure what the guy's true political views were.
That he wasn't the shooter or set up as the shooter is all I can state with conviction.
-
Your logic eludes me here, Mr O'Meara.
How can he be set-up as the gun supplier without the Hidell ID?
But again--------I do not rule out the possibility that Mr Oswald had some knowing role in the assassination. Heck, I don't even know for sure what the guy's true political views were.
That he wasn't the shooter or set up as the shooter is all I can state with conviction.
We have very similar views but I still don't get why you're so convinced he definitely wasn't set-up as the shooter even though it appears that is exactly what happened.
-
How can he be set-up as the gun supplier without the Hidell ID?
OK, let's think this through. Suppose no Hidell ID were found on Mr Oswald's person (and there are some serious researchers who believe just that). How might this have played out differently? (I'm not trying to play gotcha here, Mr O'Meara, I'm genuinely interested by your question.)
We have very similar views but I still don't get why you're so convinced he definitely wasn't set-up as the shooter even though it appears that is exactly what happened.
Because he was let roam free, and because no serious attempt was made to impersonate him up at that window (or to plant a single witness who could do what Mr Brennan & co. signally failed to do: offer a decisive, emphatic identification of the man up there as Mr Oswald).
Re. the first point: we agree that Mr Oswald was on the first floor to see Messrs Jarman and Norman come in, right? Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination? He could have been seen by any number of people. If setting him up as the sixth-floor shooter was integral to the big plan, this makes no sense.
-
OK, let's think this through. Suppose no Hidell ID were found on Mr Oswald's person (and there are some serious researchers who believe just that). How might this have played out differently? (I'm not trying to play gotcha here, Mr O'Meara, I'm genuinely interested by your question.)
Because he was let roam free, and because no serious attempt was made to impersonate him up at that window (or to plant a single witness who could do what Mr Brennan & co. signally failed to do: offer a decisive, emphatic identification of the man up there as Mr Oswald).
Re. the first point: we agree that Mr Oswald was on the first floor to see Messrs Jarman and Norman come in, right? Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination? He could have been seen by any number of people. If setting him up as the sixth-floor shooter was integral to the big plan, this makes no sense.
we agree that Mr Oswald was on the first floor to see Messrs Jarman and Norman come in, right? Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination? He could have been seen by any number of people. If setting him up as the sixth-floor shooter was integral to the big plan, this makes no sense.
May I offer an idea?.... I've long thought that Lee was playing the same game that he played at Walker's on April 10.
He thought that he was laying the foundation for an infiltration of Castro's Cuba. ( Just as he had slipped into the USSR back in 1959) He thought that the stage play called for a scenario in which it would appear that he had taken a couple of shots at JFK ( though the playwright had told him that the "shots" that the witnesses heard would actually be nothing more than a couple of fire crackers.)
Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination?
Yes, If they were certain that he wouldn't allow himself to be seen for a few minutes prior to the appearance of the president or for a few minutes after the passing of the president.
And all that was necessary to assure themselves that Lee wouldn't be accounted for during that period was the warning to Lee that if he valued his life he would stay out of sight during the time the president passed by, because if anybody were to step forward and say the had seen Lee Oswald at the time the shots were being fired, ( or a photo surfaced showing him applauding as JFK passed by) and he was in Cuba ( fleeing from the attempted murder of JFK) That information would be his invitation to attend a gathering of Castro's firing squad,
I believe that Lee was in fact in the 1st floor lunchroom while being very careful so that nobody would see him. There was shower right off the Domino room that he was prepared to slip into if anybody approached the area. Thus he could remain out of sight. ( He may have slipped into that shower when Jarmen and Norman passed by)
-
OK, let's think this through. Suppose no Hidell ID were found on Mr Oswald's person (and there are some serious researchers who believe just that). How might this have played out differently? (I'm not trying to play gotcha here, Mr O'Meara, I'm genuinely interested by your question.)
Because he was let roam free, and because no serious attempt was made to impersonate him up at that window (or to plant a single witness who could do what Mr Brennan & co. signally failed to do: offer a decisive, emphatic identification of the man up there as Mr Oswald).
Re. the first point: we agree that Mr Oswald was on the first floor to see Messrs Jarman and Norman come in, right? Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination? He could have been seen by any number of people. If setting him up as the sixth-floor shooter was integral to the big plan, this makes no sense.
You're imagining him as a free man, free to wander where he pleases, oblivious to what's going on.
The thing with the Patsy scenario is that he's under orders. He's being told what to do. He's not free like you imagine him to be.
-
You're imagining him as a free man, free to wander where he pleases, oblivious to what's going on.
The thing with the Patsy scenario is that he's under orders. He's being told what to do. He's not free like you imagine him to be.
The thing with the Patsy scenario is that he's under orders. He's being told what to do.
Under orders.....Definitely not!..... That might cause the sucker to balk or rebel and refuse to perform as desired. The sucker must be duped into believing that it's his idea.....And Lee definitely was a sucker for several schemes that he thought was his idea.....example.... hijacking an airliner, and applying to the Cuban embassy for entry ....
-
we agree that Mr Oswald was on the first floor to see Messrs Jarman and Norman come in, right? Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination? He could have been seen by any number of people. If setting him up as the sixth-floor shooter was integral to the big plan, this makes no sense.
May I offer an idea?.... I've long thought that Lee was playing the same game that he played at Walker's on April 10.
He thought that he was laying the foundation for an infiltration of Castro's Cuba. ( Just as he had slipped into the USSR back in 1959) He thought that the stage play called for a scenario in which it would appear that he had taken a couple of shots at JFK ( though the playwright had told him that the "shots" that the witnesses heard would actually be nothing more than a couple of fire crackers.)
Ask yourself: would people trying to set Mr Oswald up as the sixth-floor shooter really allow him to be downstairs so close to the assassination?
Yes, If they were certain that he wouldn't allow himself to be seen for a few minutes prior to the appearance of the president or for a few minutes after the passing of the president.
And all that was necessary to assure themselves that Lee wouldn't be accounted for during that period was the warning to Lee that if he valued his life he would stay out of sight during the time the president passed by, because if anybody were to step forward and say the had seen Lee Oswald at the time the shots were being fired, ( or a photo surfaced showing him applauding as JFK passed by) and he was in Cuba ( fleeing from the attempted murder of JFK) That information would be his invitation to attend a gathering of Castro's firing squad,
I believe that Lee was in fact in the 1st floor lunchroom while being very careful so that nobody would see him. There was shower right off the Domino room that he was prepared to slip into if anybody approached the area. Thus he could remain out of sight. ( He may have slipped into that shower when Jarmen and Norman passed by)
Why not just get Mr Oswald himself to go up to the sixth floor and pretend to shoot at JFK?
-
You're imagining him as a free man, free to wander where he pleases, oblivious to what's going on.
Kindly desist from putting words in my mouth, Mr O'Meara.
The thing with the Patsy scenario is that he's under orders. He's being told what to do.
Not necessarily.
He's not free like you imagine him to be.
Are we in agreement that Mr Oswald was on the first floor to see Messrs Jarman and Norman come in a few short minutes before the shooting?
-
The little prick killed Tippit, so deconstructing from that point suggests that Oswald remained downstairs as long as possible and made sure someone saw him, in an attempt to cast at least some doubt re making it back upstairs in time to create the ensuing commotion.
-
Why not just get Mr Oswald himself to go up to the sixth floor and pretend to shoot at JFK?
Why not just get Mr Oswald himself to go up to the sixth floor and pretend to shoot at JFK?
That would be very dangerous, Lee knew that the Secret service would probably kill him ( Actually the conspirators would have loved for Lee to have agreed to be at the window.) After the Walker incident Marina had told him that some other party could have shot Walker and it would appear that Lee had been the shooter, so Lee wouldn't have been there on the sixth floor. However, I believe there is a very strong possibility that Lee could have been the person who planted the evidence ( Shells, and rifle) BEFORE the event..
If Lee had been behind the window and had escaped from that site, he would never have left the building , because there were plenty of law officers in the area to have sealed the building immediately.
-
Why not just get Mr Oswald himself to go up to the sixth floor and pretend to shoot at JFK?
That would be very dangerous, Lee knew that the Secret service would probably kill him ( Actually the conspirators would have loved for Lee to have agreed to be at the window.) After the Walker incident Marina had told him that some other party could have shot Walker and it would appear that Lee had been the shooter, so Lee wouldn't have been there on the sixth floor. However, I believe there is a very strong possibility that Lee could have been the person who planted the evidence ( Shells, and rifle) BEFORE the event..
---OK Lee, so we're gonna to do a fake assassination attempt to get you into Castro's good graces.
---Sounds good.
---Fake shots.
---Sounds good.
---You up at the sixth-floor window.
---Sounds good.
---Your Carcano.
---Sounds good.
---Shells left by the window.
---Sounds good.
---Lots of folks down below in the crowd to see you up there.
---Sounds good.
---Might even be some photographs taken.
---Sounds good.
---So it's real important there's no doubt in anyone's mind that it was you done it, otherwise Castro will have you killed.
---Sounds good.
---We gotta get this right.
---Sounds good.
---So we're gonna get someone else to be up at that window pretending to be you.
---Huh?
If Lee had been behind the window and had escaped from that site, he would never have left the building , because there were plenty of law officers in the area to have sealed the building immediately.
---Also, seeing as we need to get you out of the building alive and all, we're gonna make sure the guy impersonating you up there doesn't look a whole lot like you.
-
---OK Lee, so we're gonna to do a fake assassination attempt to get you into Castro's good graces.
---Sounds good.
---Fake shots.
---Sounds good.
---You up at the sixth-floor window.
---Sounds good.
---Your Carcano.
---Sounds good.
---Shells left by the window.
---Sounds good.
---Lots of folks down below in the crowd to see you up there.
---Sounds good.
---Might even be some photographs taken.
---Sounds good.
---So it's real important there's no doubt in anyone's mind that it was you done it, otherwise Castro will have you killed.
---Sounds good.
---We gotta get this right.
---Sounds good.
---So we're gonna get someone else to be up at that window pretending to be you.
---Huh?
---Seeing as we need to get you out of the building alive and all, we're gonna make sure the guy impersonating you up there doesn't look a whole lot like you.
Pssst Mr F. ....There was nobody behind that SE window at the time of the shooting....OPEN YOUR EYES and LOOK at the so called "Sniper's Nest'.....and ask yourself WHERE would a sniper be? Notice the boxes stacked behind the open window...Would they have prevented a sniper from getting up to the open window? How about to the right (west) of stacked boxes? were there boxes stacked there that would have prevented a right handed sniper from firing out of the open window?
PS...I find your itemized list utterly stupid... and overly simplistic. I would have thought that you were above such cheap crap.. Have you been taking lessons from Chappie ?
-
Pssst Mr F. ....There was nobody behind that SE window at the time of the shooting....
---One more thing, Lee: in order to make Castro really believe it was you at the window, we're not going to have anybody at the window. But we're gonna pay a bunch of guys down in the street to say they saw someone at the window but they can't at all be sure it's you.
-
---One more thing, Lee: in order to make Castro really believe it was you at the window, we're not going to have anybody at the window. But we're gonna pay a bunch of guys down in the street to say they saw someone at the window but they can't at all be sure it's you.
Nobody saw anybody behind the SE 6th floor window at the time of the shooting....About six spectators saw a man behind a window on the sixth floor .....Howard Brennan is the ONLY witness who claimed that he saw a man STANDING UP RIGHT behind a sixth floor window. Brennan swore that the man he saw was AIMING a HUNTING rifle out of a window, but he could NOT have been referring to the SE corner window because no man could have been STANDING up right behind that window and aim a rifle down onto Elm street ...and the reason is:..... The bottom horizontal sash of the half open window would have prevented a standing man from aiming a rifle out of that window.
-
Nobody saw anybody behind the SE 6th floor window at the time of the shooting....About six spectators saw a man behind a window on the sixth floor .....Howard Brennan is the ONLY witness who claimed that he saw a man STANDING UP RIGHT behind a sixth floor window. Brennan swore that the man he saw was AIMING a HUNTING rifle out of a window, but he could NOT have been referring to the SE corner window because no man could have been STANDING up right behind that window and aim a rifle down onto Elm street ...and the reason is:..... The bottom horizontal sash of the half open window would have prevented a standing man from aiming a rifle out of that window.
---And the best part, Lee, is that as well as an empty sixth-floor window we're gonna put a guy at a different window on a different floor to the one you're supposed to be on, and tell him not to worry about keeping his face hidden from folks down on the street. That little touch will help keep you extra-safe in Cuba.
-
---And the best part, Lee, is that as well as an empty sixth-floor window we're gonna put a guy at a different window on a different floor to the one you're supposed to be on, and tell him not to worry about keeping his face hidden from folks down on the street. That little touch will help keep you extra-safe in Cuba.
Pathetic , Mr Ford..... Utterly pathetic! Lee's handler would have allowed Lee to believe that it was Lee's scheme, and gently guided Lee along the path.
-
NoName conspirator #1: Say, why not set up some mental case with a rifle poking out the window behind the limo, then attack from the front.
NoName conspirator #2: Ummmm... not quite sure where you're going with this...
NoName conspirator #1: Hmmmm...
But remember, Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work that day. The same day he was told he was going to be involved in the assassination of the President.
Oswald: "Gee, I'm going to be involved in shooting JFK. But I better bring curtain rods with me today because of...well, I might get an apartment or my room needs them. Or something. I don't know why or what for but I'll bring them anyway. Even though I'm going to work with others to kill the president...."
And if Oswald is on the steps or on the street at the time of the shooting and can be seen in the Altgens photo or another one (dozens of people in the plaza had cameras with them) then it's no problem. The conspirators can just squelch/destroy those photos. They had control over the wire services and the photo labs in Dallas. They could just make the photo disappear. And any witnesses? They'll be told to be quiet. And then remain so for the rest of their lives. They would never expose this coverup.
See, it's so easy. That's what these people think.
-
But remember, Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work that day. The same day he was told he was going to be involved in the assassination of the President.
Oswald: "Gee, I'm going to be involved in shooting JFK. But I better bring curtain rods with me today because of...well, I might get an apartment or my room needs them. Or something. I don't know why or what for but I'll bring them anyway. Even though I'm going to work with others to kill the president...."
And if Oswald is on the steps or on the street at the time of the shooting and can be seen in the Altgens photo or another one (dozens of people in the plaza had cameras with them) then it's no problem. The conspirators can just squelch/destroy those photos. They had control over the wire services and the photo labs in Dallas. They could just make the photo disappear. And any witnesses? They'll be told to be quiet. And then remain so for the rest of their lives. They would never expose this coverup.
See, it's so easy. That's what these people think.
Introducing............. Mr Steve M. Galbraith, King of the Strawman Argument!
You may remember him, folks, from such productions as Gee, I Can't For the Life of Me Explain This Document---------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)
-
But remember, Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work that day. The same day he was told he was going to be involved in the assassination of the President.
Oswald: "Gee, I'm going to be involved in shooting JFK. But I better bring curtain rods with me today because of...well, I might get an apartment or my room needs them. Or something. I don't know why or what for but I'll bring them anyway. Even though I'm going to work with others to kill the president...."
And if Oswald is on the steps or on the street at the time of the shooting and can be seen in the Altgens photo or another one (dozens of people in the plaza had cameras with them) then it's no problem. The conspirators can just squelch/destroy those photos. They had control over the wire services and the photo labs in Dallas. They could just make the photo disappear. And any witnesses? They'll be told to be quiet. And then remain so for the rest of their lives. They would never expose this coverup.
See, it's so easy. That's what these people think.
Do you ever think before you write something or does nonsense come naturally to you?
But remember, Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work that day. The same day he was told he was going to be involved in the assassination of the President.
Oswald: "Gee, I'm going to be involved in shooting JFK. But I better bring curtain rods with me today because of...well, I might get an apartment or my room needs them. Or something. I don't know why or what for but I'll bring them anyway. Even though I'm going to work with others to kill the president...."
How can you be sure that Oswald did in fact bring curtain rods and/or that he knew or even understood that he was going to be involved in the assassination?
And if Oswald is on the steps or on the street at the time of the shooting and can be seen in the Altgens photo or another one (dozens of people in the plaza had cameras with them) then it's no problem. The conspirators can just squelch/destroy those photos. They had control over the wire services and the photo labs in Dallas. They could just make the photo disappear. And any witnesses? They'll be told to be quiet. And then remain so for the rest of their lives. They would never expose this coverup.
Remember the photograph of the 6th floor window that came back damaged? And what happened to the Nix film... The original is still missing? And what happend to the photo taken by the real Babushka lady? And as far as witnesses go, General Walker was certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bullet now in evidence is not the one that was taken from his home. He, and his lawyer, informed the HSCA and were completely ignored. O.V. Wright told Josiah Thompson in 1967 that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is not the same bullet he received from Tomlinson.... It was ignored. Outside the miletary no witnesses were ever told to be quiet, but those who have not remained silent were completely ignored and/or ridiculed.
-
In addition to having to know where Oswald was at the time of the assassination, the conspirators who allegedly framed him for shooting Tippit also had to know he had no alibi.
If they framed him for shooting Tippit and he has an alibi - he was back with Marina with the Paine's, he' still on the bus stuck in traffic on Houston Street, he's watching the news with Roberts at his rooming house, he's at the movies - then he can't be framed. He has an alibi.
So how did they know not only that he could be framed for shooting JFK but also for shooting Tippit?
They couldn't. Here's what the evidence shows: Oswald shot JFK. And then he fled from the building. He got his revolver with extra bullets. Then he shot Tippit.
Maybe he had help, we'll never know. But he shot JFK and Tippit because, as he stated numerous times, he hated the US. And he struck back at the symbol - JFK - that represented the system he hated.
-
In addition to having to know where Oswald was at the time of the assassination, the conspirators who allegedly framed him for shooting Tippit also had to know he had no alibi.
If they framed him for shooting Tippit and he has an alibi - he was back with Marina with the Paine's, he' still on the bus stuck in traffic on Houston Street, he's watching the news with Roberts at his rooming house, he's at the movies - then he can't be framed. He has an alibi.
So how did they know not only that he could be framed for shooting JFK but also for shooting Tippit?
They couldn't. Here's what the evidence shows: Oswald shot JFK. And then he fled from the building. He got his revolver with extra bullets. Then he shot Tippit.
Maybe he had help, we'll never know. But he shot JFK and Tippit because, as he stated numerous times, he hated the US. And he struck back at the symbol - JFK - that represented the system he hated.
More BS from the guy who apparently only answers his own questions and not the critical ones asked by others.
In addition to having to know where Oswald was at the time of the assassination, the conspirators who allegedly framed him for shooting Tippit also had to know he had no alibi.
The mere fact that you can't figure out how it was done, doesn't mean that it wasn't or couldn't be done. It just means that you can't figure it out.
Here's what the evidence shows: Oswald shot JFK. And then he fled from the building. He got his revolver with extra bullets. Then he shot Tippit.
Wrong, that's what the WC narrative based on assumptions and speculation (and not so much on actual physical or direct evidence) says.
Maybe he had help, we'll never know. But he shot JFK and Tippit because, as he stated numerous times, he hated the US. And he struck back at the symbol - JFK - that represented the system he hated.
Still have enough koolaid?
-
In addition to having to know where Oswald was at the time of the assassination, the conspirators who allegedly framed him for shooting Tippit also had to know he had no alibi.
If they framed him for shooting Tippit and he has an alibi - he was back with Marina with the Paine's, he' still on the bus stuck in traffic on Houston Street, he's watching the news with Roberts at his rooming house, he's at the movies - then he can't be framed. He has an alibi.
So how did they know not only that he could be framed for shooting JFK but also for shooting Tippit?
They couldn't. Here's what the evidence shows: Oswald shot JFK. And then he fled from the building. He got his revolver with extra bullets. Then he shot Tippit.
Maybe he had help, we'll never know. But he shot JFK and Tippit because, as he stated numerous times, he hated the US. And he struck back at the symbol - JFK - that represented the system he hated.
Sure would help if these brainiacs could name someone, other than [name your shooter here] who knew there was an attempt on Kennedy scheduled that day.
-
Pathetic , Mr Ford..... Utterly pathetic! Lee's handler would have allowed Lee to believe that it was Lee's scheme, and gently guided Lee along the path.
Yeah Walt, you've mentioned something like this before.
Are you saying you believe that Oswald was duped into believing it was his idea to assassinate JFK?
Are you saying he actually took the shots because he believed it was all his idea?
Not really sure what you're saying.
-
Yes, Walt needs to explain his Oswald the misled CIA and or FBI informants patsy theory ONE MORE TIME :)
-
Yeah Walt, you've mentioned something like this before.
Are you saying you believe that Oswald was duped into believing it was his idea to assassinate JFK?
Are you saying he actually took the shots because he believed it was all his idea?
Not really sure what you're saying.
Are you saying you believe that Oswald was duped into believing it was his idea to assassinate JFK?
Thanks for asking, Dan....
I'm saying that Lee thought he was playing the same game "HOAX" that he played at Walker's in April....At Walker's there was a bang heard...There was a bullet hole through Walker's window and a bullet recovered....NOBODY was hurt but the evidence seemed to indicate that someone had tried to kill Walker. Which was utter nonsense....Because it the shooter had tried to kill Walker he could easily have succeeded. Walker simply sat there ( if he actually was in the room) for a minute or so before he got up and STOOD IN FRONT OF THE WINDOW. The Walker incident was a HOAX calculated to get Lee Oswald welcomed into Cuba as an attempted assassin of Castro's enemy...General Walker.
Lee had heard that a militant group would attempt to shhot JFK in Dallas.....And he went to notify FBI agent James Hosty, and Hosty reassured him that the FBI was on top of it and he ( Lee ) could proceed with the HOAX attempt that would make it appear that he and an associate had tried to shoot JFK. Mr Ford laid it all out in simplistic fashion a few days ago, but Alan thinks that a man could be ORDERED to comply with a hoax scheme.....Whereas If the scheme is to work, The PATSY must be allowed to believe that it's his idea....
-
---OK Lee, so we're gonna to do a fake assassination attempt to get you into Castro's good graces.
---Sounds good.
---Fake shots.
---Sounds good.
---You up at the sixth-floor window.
---Sounds good.
---Your Carcano.
---Sounds good.
---Shells left by the window.
---Sounds good.
---Lots of folks down below in the crowd to see you up there.
---Sounds good.
---Might even be some photographs taken.
---Sounds good.
---So it's real important there's no doubt in anyone's mind that it was you done it, otherwise Castro will have you killed.
---Sounds good.
---We gotta get this right.
---Sounds good.
---So we're gonna get someone else to be up at that window pretending to be you.
---Huh?
---Also, seeing as we need to get you out of the building alive and all, we're gonna make sure the guy impersonating you up there doesn't look a whole lot like you.
---OK Lee, so you think that you could pull off a fake assassination attempt to get you into Castro's good graces.
---Sounds good.
---Fake shots.
---Sounds good.
---Set up a stage using spent shells at a sixth-floor window.
---Sounds good.
---Your Carcano.
---Sounds good.
---Lots of folks down below in the crowd to see you up there.
---NOT good, Lee.... Too risky, you could be shot by a Secret Service guard
---Might even be some photographs taken.
--- NOT GOOD , Lee If a photographer could take your photo, He's be taking the photo of a dead man because the Secret Service are trained to respond instantly...far faster than a photographer.
it's real important there's no doubt in anyone's mind that it was you done it, otherwise Castro will have you killed.
---Sounds good.
---We gotta get this right.
---Sounds good.
-
Are you saying you believe that Oswald was duped into believing it was his idea to assassinate JFK?
Thanks for asking, Dan....
I'm saying that Lee thought he was playing the same game "HOAX" that he played at Walker's in April....At Walker's there was a bang heard...There was a bullet hole through Walker's window and a bullet recovered....NOBODY was hurt but the evidence seemed to indicate that someone had tried to kill Walker. Which was utter nonsense....Because it the shooter had tried to kill Walker he could easily have succeeded. Walker simply sat there ( if he actually was in the room) for a minute or so before he got up and STOOD IN FRONT OF THE WINDOW. The Walker incident was a HOAX calculated to get Lee Oswald welcomed into Cuba as an attempted assassin of Castro's enemy...General Walker.
Lee had heard that a militant group would attempt to shhot JFK in Dallas.....And he went to notify FBI agent James Hosty, and Hosty reassured him that the FBI was on top of it and he ( Lee ) could proceed with the HOAX attempt that would make it appear that he and an associate had tried to shoot JFK. Mr Ford laid it all out in simplistic fashion a few days ago, but Alan thinks that a man could be ORDERED to comply with a hoax scheme.....Whereas If the scheme is to work, The PATSY must be allowed to believe that it's his idea....
"he went to notify FBI agent James Hosty, and Hosty reassured him that the FBI was on top of it and he ( Lee ) could proceed with the HOAX attempt that would make it appear that he and an associate had tried to shoot JFK."
Lee was desperately trying to thwart the plot...He wrote a note to Mr. Hunt ( HL Hunt ) on November 8th, and he wrote a Note to FBI agent James Hosty on November 12th... The goofy Telex that was a warning to Warren De Brueys was sent to the FBI in NO ( intended for Lee's handler Warren De Brueys) on November 17th......
-
Are you saying you believe that Oswald was duped into believing it was his idea to assassinate JFK?
Thanks for asking, Dan....
I'm saying that Lee thought he was playing the same game "HOAX" that he played at Walker's in April....At Walker's there was a bang heard...There was a bullet hole through Walker's window and a bullet recovered....NOBODY was hurt but the evidence seemed to indicate that someone had tried to kill Walker. Which was utter nonsense....Because it the shooter had tried to kill Walker he could easily have succeeded. Walker simply sat there ( if he actually was in the room) for a minute or so before he got up and STOOD IN FRONT OF THE WINDOW. The Walker incident was a HOAX calculated to get Lee Oswald welcomed into Cuba as an attempted assassin of Castro's enemy...General Walker.
Lee had heard that a militant group would attempt to shhot JFK in Dallas.....And he went to notify FBI agent James Hosty, and Hosty reassured him that the FBI was on top of it and he ( Lee ) could proceed with the HOAX attempt that would make it appear that he and an associate had tried to shoot JFK. Mr Ford laid it all out in simplistic fashion a few days ago, but Alan thinks that a man could be ORDERED to comply with a hoax scheme.....Whereas If the scheme is to work, The PATSY must be allowed to believe that it's his idea....
So are you saying that LHO could not be the Prayer Man due to his handlers advising him to keep out of sight at the time of the assassination, so he would not have been standing in the TSBD doorway?
-
So are you saying that LHO could not be the Prayer Man due to his handlers advising him to keep out of sight at the time of the assassination, so he would not have been standing in the TSBD doorway?
Yes, that would be correct. AND since this is a thread about "LHO's SHIRT" .... Lee was wearing a reddish brown NON PLAID shirt with a button down collar that morning and he man who many believe is Lee Oswald was wearing a PLAID shirt .....The man can't be Lee.
-
Yes, you point out a major problem for these "non-Oswald involved" conspirators: in order to frame Oswald for the assassination he has to be "frameable." That is, he can't have an alibi. If he has an alibi, if others can vouch that he was with them, or he can show he was outside of the building at the time then he can't be framed.
As you also point out, the framers have to know that he has no alibi. That he was alone. They had to know where he was at the time of the shooting - in order to frame him for it - and they had to know where his co-workers were - so they couldn't say he didn't shoot JFK. If either of those happened then their entire plan collapses.
So how did they - indeed, how could they - know this? How did they know he was even in the building at the time of the shooting? And that he wasn't elsewhere? And how did they know his co-workers couldn't give him an alibi? They planted the rifle (allegedly) BEFORE his co-workers were interviewed. What happens to this act if they say to the media, to others, that he was with them and couldn't have shot JFK? They planted the rifle (and other evidence, e.g., the bag) and now it all falls apart.
These are matters they simply cannot control. And obstacles that I simply cannot see being overcome. There are limits to the ability of these conspirators - whoever you think they were; even powerful groups - to do these things.
The reason why this argument always fails is because it assumes that a plan to frame Oswald necessarily had to be in place prior to the assassination.
-
I get it. Someone must've slipped in the Hidell ID into his wallet when he wasn't looking.
What makes you think the Hidell ID was ever in his wallet?
-
The little prick killed Tippit, so deconstructing from that point suggests that Oswald remained downstairs as long as possible and made sure someone saw him, in an attempt to cast at least some doubt re making it back upstairs in time to create the ensuing commotion.
"your opinions ain't facts".
-
Sure would help if these brainiacs could name someone, other than [name your shooter here] who knew there was an attempt on Kennedy scheduled that day.
How exactly would that "help"?
-
NoName conspirator #1: Say, why not set up some mental case with a rifle poking out the window behind the limo, then attack from the front.
NoName conspirator #2: Ummmm... not quite sure where you're going with this...
NoName conspirator #1: Hmmmm...
This nonsensical crap must be another example of what Chapman likes to tell himself is "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
-
What makes you think the Hidell ID was ever in his wallet?
I forgot that whatever disorder you suffer from means you don't recognise sarcasm.
-
I forgot that whatever disorder you suffer from means you don't recognise sarcasm.
Oh, is that the excuse we're using today? So you don't believe the Hidell ID was in Oswald's wallet then? If this is sarcasm, then you don't understand how sarcasm works either.
-
"your opinions ain't facts".
I've never claimed they were
-
I've never claimed they were
Neither did the people you always make that "clever, cut-to-the-quick" statement to.
-
What makes you think the Hidell ID was ever in his wallet?
You may be onto something, Mr I.... I spent some idle time in a hospital waiting room recently, and I had time to review FBI agent James Hosty's book...Assignment: Oswald Hosty said that the name Hidell was discovered by Warren De Bruey's in New Orleans on Friday night and he relayed that info to headquarters and that's what enabled the FBI to trace the purchase of the Carcano. So apparently the FBI did not know the Hidell name prior to midnight 11/22/63....
-
Yes, and as far as I know this ID was not mentioned in any interview or written report before Saturday.
-
Neither did the people you always make that "clever, cut-to-the-quick" statement to.
Oh, yeah.. the JAQers...
-
Yes, and as far as I know this ID was not mentioned in any interview or written report before Saturday.
as far as I know this ID was not mentioned in any interview or written report before Saturday.
Which raises the question....How and where did Warren De Bruey's come up with the name "Hidell" ??
I believe I know the answer .....
-
as far as I know this ID was not mentioned in any interview or written report before Saturday.
Which raises the question....How and where did Warren De Bruey's come up with the name "Hidell" ??
I believe I know the answer .....
From CE 833
17. QUESTION The De Bruey's report of October 25, 1963 states that on October 7, 1963 a confidential informant advised that P. O. Box 30016 did not exist in the New Orleans area, and on the same date inquiry at the New Orleans Retailers' Credit Bureau failed to turn up an record of an A. J. Hidell. Why do these items not appear in the report of SA Kaack of October 31, 1963?
-
From CE 833
17. QUESTION The De Bruey's report of October 25, 1963 states that on October 7, 1963 a confidential informant advised that P. O. Box 30016 did not exist in the New Orleans area, and on the same date inquiry at the New Orleans Retailers' Credit Bureau failed to turn up an record of an A. J. Hidell. Why do these items not appear in the report of SA Kaack of October 31, 1963?
I believe that Warren De Bruey's was Lee's handler.... Guy Bannister and De Brueys were good friends....Bannister was definitely using Lee Oswald for "something' . And Lee was infatuated with the FBI ....He Knew that De Bruey's was an FBI agent and Lee believed that he was working for the FBI at the same time he was working for RFK. ( That's why Lee left Dallas and went to N.O......He was acting at the request of RFK... (JFK was desperate to find out who was behind the training of the Cuban exiles who had nearly triggered a nuclear war with Russia during the cuban missile crisis by attacking a Russian ship in Havana harbor.) Lee saw no reason to hide his association with RFK from the FBI, because he thought they were on the same side. Lee never knew that De Bruey's hated the Kennedy's and knew that Lee was a "snitch". De Bruey's decided to use the hatred of the Cuban's for JFK and knew they were plotting to kill JFK .
-
as far as I know this ID was not mentioned in any interview or written report before Saturday.
Which raises the question....How and where did Warren De Bruey's come up with the name "Hidell" ??
I believe I know the answer .....
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a0/54/SCY7Im98_o.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/96/d8/bkmNgXap_o.jpg)
-
Yes, that would be correct. AND since this is a thread about "LHO's SHIRT" .... Lee was wearing a reddish brown NON PLAID shirt with a button down collar that morning and he man who many believe is Lee Oswald was wearing a PLAID shirt ....
As usual, Mr Cakebread, you're deeply confused.
Mr Pilgrim asked about Prayer Man. Those who believe the man in the doorway in Altgens is Mr Oswald are despised by those who believe Prayer Man is Mr Oswald. Those who believe Prayer Man is Mr Oswald know that the man in the doorway in Altgens is Mr Lovelady.
But those who believe Prayer Man is Mr Oswald reserve a special contempt for those who try to discredit that claim by conflating Prayer Man with Mr Lovelady in Altgens.
-
He's just desperately seeking attention.
Try to pay attention, hater. Just pointing out to the slow-witted CT crowd the folly of setting up a 'patsy' behind the limo, and then claiming the shots came from the front
-
This nonsensical crap must be another example of what Chapman likes to tell himself is "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
You appear to be permanently gobsmacked:
1) The nonsensical part is setting up the 'patsy' behind the limo and then claiming the shots came from the front, Kneelin' JudgeJohnny.
2) For the clever, cut-to-the-quick insight, see above.
-
You appear to be permanently gobsmacked:
1) The nonsensical part is setting up the 'patsy' behind the limo and then claiming the shots came from the front, Kneelin' JudgeJohnny.
2) For the clever, cut-to-the-quick insight, see above.
It's like these conspirators were playing conspiracy poker.
Powerful conspirator "A": "Let's shoot JFK in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, with hundreds of people watching and with many having cameras."
Powerful conspirator "B": "I see that and raise. Let's shoot him from the front and then change everything to make it look like it was from behind."
Powerful conspirator "C": "I see that and raise again. Let's frame a guy and then force all of the eyewitnesses there to go along with us. Then make them remain silent for the rest of their lives."
Powerful conspirator "D": "I raise and call. Let's then have multiple investigations of the shooting and require all of the people to cover all of this up. Forever."
People, seemingly intelligent human beings, believe this. We've seen people in the past believe in witches and all sorts of strange things like demons and ghosts. We think to ourselves, "Well, we're smarter now, science proves there aren't witches. This type of superstitious belief is no longer believed."
Yes it is.
-
It's like these conspirators were playing conspiracy poker.
Powerful conspirator "A": "Let's shoot JFK in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, with hundreds of people watching and with many having cameras."
Powerful conspirator "B": "I see that and raise. Let's shoot him from the front and then change everything to make it look like it was from behind."
Powerful conspirator "C": "I see that and raise again. Let's frame a guy and then force all of the eyewitnesses there to go along with us. Then make them remain silent for the rest of their lives."
Powerful conspirator "D": "I raise and call. Let's then have multiple investigations of the shooting and require all of the people to cover all of this up. Forever."
People, seemingly intelligent human beings, believe this. We've seen people in the past believe in witches and all sorts of strange things like demons and ghosts. We think to ourselves, "Well, we're smarter now, science proves there aren't witches. This type of superstitious belief is no longer believed."
Yes it is.
Is it possible for LHO to have fired a rifle and leave no forensic trace on his clothes?
-
It's like these conspirators were playing conspiracy poker.
Powerful conspirator "A": "Let's shoot JFK in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, with hundreds of people watching and with many having cameras."
Powerful conspirator "B": "I see that and raise. Let's shoot him from the front and then change everything to make it look like it was from behind."
Powerful conspirator "C": "I see that and raise again. Let's frame a guy and then force all of the eyewitnesses there to go along with us. Then make them remain silent for the rest of their lives."
Powerful conspirator "D": "I raise and call. Let's then have multiple investigations of the shooting and require all of the people to cover all of this up. Forever."
People, seemingly intelligent human beings, believe this. We've seen people in the past believe in witches and all sorts of strange things like demons and ghosts. We think to ourselves, "Well, we're smarter now, science proves there aren't witches. This type of superstitious belief is no longer believed."
Yes it is.
'Mr Strawman, bring me a dream....................'
-
Is it possible for LHO to have fired a rifle and leave no forensic trace on his clothes?
What type/kind of traces should they have found? I'm completely ignorant on such matters.
Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?
In order to prove a negative - something that is difficult to do but not impossible (e.g., I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln) - one has to ask questions like this. How can one prove he wasn't framed? Well, we can ask: "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?" Or "Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?" Remember, he's dead. They can even say he admitted to shooting JFK. But they didn't.
-
What type/kind of traces should they have found? I'm completely ignorant on such matters.
Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?
In order to prove a negative - something that is difficult to do but not impossible (e.g., I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln) - one has to ask questions like this. How can one prove he wasn't framed? Well, we can ask: "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?" Or "Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?" Remember, he's dead. They can even say he admitted to shooting JFK. But they didn't.
Easy to get away from having to answer to all that: Just claim one is not a conspiracy theorist.
And declare that one doesn't care who shot Kennedy. Just as long as it isn't Oswald, of course*.
*Kinda like Henry Ford's 'you can get any colour as long as it's black'
http://collegeofcuriosity.com/2-24-any-color-so-long-as-its-black/
-
Try to pay attention, hater. Just pointing out to the slow-witted CT crowd the folly of setting up a 'patsy' behind the limo, and then claiming the shots came from the front
As per usual, you've got it backwards.
If the plan was multiple shots from different shooters, they still only would have had one patsy. So it would be; shooting Kennedy from different locations and, in the cover up fase, make it look that only one man shot him from behind. If this is what happened, CTs rightly claim there had been a shot from the front.
-
Try to pay attention, hater. Just pointing out to the slow-witted CT crowd the folly of setting up a 'patsy' behind the limo, and then claiming the shots came from the front
Yep, still desperately seeking attention.
-
It's like these conspirators were playing conspiracy poker.
Powerful conspirator "A": "Let's shoot JFK in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, with hundreds of people watching and with many having cameras."
Powerful conspirator "B": "I see that and raise. Let's shoot him from the front and then change everything to make it look like it was from behind."
Powerful conspirator "C": "I see that and raise again. Let's frame a guy and then force all of the eyewitnesses there to go along with us. Then make them remain silent for the rest of their lives."
Powerful conspirator "D": "I raise and call. Let's then have multiple investigations of the shooting and require all of the people to cover all of this up. Forever."
People, seemingly intelligent human beings, believe this. We've seen people in the past believe in witches and all sorts of strange things like demons and ghosts. We think to ourselves, "Well, we're smarter now, science proves there aren't witches. This type of superstitious belief is no longer believed."
Yes it is.
Although you are way more articulate and coherent than Mr. Chapman, it's still the same strawman argument fallacy.
-
Yep, still desperately seeking attention.
Just telling the tell, Big Hoss..
-
Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?
This is a classic WC apologist example of trying to have it both ways. If there was gunpowder residue found then Oswald did it. If there wasn't gunpowder residue, then The Conspirators (tm) would certainly have planted some anyway, therefore Oswald did it.
-
What type/kind of traces should they have found? I'm completely ignorant on such matters.
Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?
In order to prove a negative - something that is difficult to do but not impossible (e.g., I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln) - one has to ask questions like this. How can one prove he wasn't framed? Well, we can ask: "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?" Or "Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?" Remember, he's dead. They can even say he admitted to shooting JFK. But they didn't.
why not falsify the paraffin test?
How would you do that?
"Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?"
Sure...Why not?.....and create possible leaks of the impending coup? A classic example of....Two's company...Three's a crowd
"Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?"
Obviously, this would mean that everybody was part of the conspiracy, and nobody would challenge the assertion...
-
As per usual, you've got it backwards.
If the plan was multiple shots from different shooters, they still only would have had one patsy. So it would be; shooting Kennedy from different locations and, in the cover up fase, make it look that only one man shot him from behind. If this is what happened, CTs rightly claim there had been a shot from the front.
Just make sure that 'the patsy' was a crappy shooter with crappy ammo and a crappy rifle... like you lot have been claiming forever it seems. Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting.
::)
-
Just make sure that 'the patsy' was a crappy shooter with crappy ammo and a crappy rifle... like you lot have been claiming forever it seems. Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting. From the back.
Oh goody, another Chapman "you lot" strawman. Isn't that special?
-
Oh goody, another Chapman "you lot" strawman. Isn't that special?
Ya Know, Chappie is a little like a pesky mosquito ....So we can know that sooner or later the annoying little pest will get his ass slapped.
-
What type/kind of traces should they have found? I'm completely ignorant on such matters.
Counter question: If he was framed then why not plant evidence of this? The paraffin test taken of his cheek showed no evidence of gunpowder residue. Why did they tell us that if he was being framed? If he was framed - the rifle planted, et cetera - then why not falsify the paraffin test?
In order to prove a negative - something that is difficult to do but not impossible (e.g., I can prove I didn't shoot Lincoln) - one has to ask questions like this. How can one prove he wasn't framed? Well, we can ask: "Why didn't they plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to say they say him shoot JFK?" Or "Why didn't they say the paraffin test on his cheek came back positive?" Remember, he's dead. They can even say he admitted to shooting JFK. But they didn't.
Whether I think LHO was framed or not is irrelevant to my original question.
If someone claims that they believe that LHO fired a rifle on the day of the assassination then I would ask for evidence that indicates he did indeed fire the rifle.
If they have the clothes LHO was wearing then I would expect them to forensically examine the clothing to determine if their claim is correct.
If there is no forensic evidence on his clothes then it must raise doubts as to veracity of their claim.
Do you acknowledge that if he did fire the rifle then you would expect that there would be forensic evidence of this on his clothes? If you do then how do you account for the absence of this evidence?
-
Whether I think LHO was framed or not is irrelevant to my original question.
If someone claims that they believe that LHO fired a rifle on the day of the assassination then I would ask for evidence that indicates he did indeed fire the rifle.
If they have the clothes LHO was wearing then I would expect them to forensically examine the clothing to determine if their claim is correct.
If there is no forensic evidence on his clothes then it must raise doubts as to veracity of their claim.
Do you acknowledge that if he did fire the rifle then you would expect that there would be forensic evidence of this on his clothes? If you do then how do you account for the absence of this evidence?
Apparently you missed the post earlier in this thread that shows that the FBI lab DID in fact examine Lee's shirt ( the one that he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, the one with the button down collar) If they had found gun powder residue on that shirt ( as they certainly would have if he had fired a gun) they would have published that information in bold headlines.
Here's Pat Speer's post......
William, I contacted the Archives a few years back and asked for its help in determining if the light brown shirt they had in their collection was in fact the "reddish" shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing on the day of the shooting. After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt, which turned out to be reddish. One of these is presented above.
As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
-
Whether I think LHO was framed or not is irrelevant to my original question.
If someone claims that they believe that LHO fired a rifle on the day of the assassination then I would ask for evidence that indicates he did indeed fire the rifle.
If they have the clothes LHO was wearing then I would expect them to forensically examine the clothing to determine if their claim is correct.
If there is no forensic evidence on his clothes then it must raise doubts as to veracity of their claim.
Do you acknowledge that if he did fire the rifle then you would expect that there would be forensic evidence of this on his clothes? If you do then how do you account for the absence of this evidence?
There isn't even any agreement on what clothes Oswald was wearing when the shooting occurred.
But yeah, you would have expected there to have been a real investigation.
-
There isn't even any agreement on what clothes Oswald was wearing when the shooting occurred.
But yeah, you would have expected there to have been a real investigation.
There isn't even any agreement on what clothes Oswald was wearing when the shooting occurred.
True.....But it is a fact that Lee didn't own any khaki clothes..... And the spectators who saw a man behind the windows on the sixth floor were unanimous .... They said the man was wearing KHAKI.......
-
Just make sure that 'the patsy' was a crappy shooter with crappy ammo and a crappy rifle... like you lot have been claiming forever it seems. Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting.
::)
Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting.
Indeed. That's why there never was a majority of the American people who actually believed the crappy story put out by the WC. It all fits....
-
There isn't even any agreement on what clothes Oswald was wearing when the shooting occurred.
True.....But it is a fact that Lee didn't own any khaki clothes..... And the spectators who saw a man behind the windows on the sixth floor were unanimous .... They said the man was wearing KHAKI.......
Colour perception is subjective... and whatever happened to the CT notion that ppl will just follow along when they hear somebody describe something first..
Oh, wait... that's only valid when JudgeJohnny uses that sort of thing.
-
Yeah, that's the way to impress the entire universe that he did the shooting.
Indeed. That's why there never was a majority of the American people who actually believed the crappy story put out by the WC. It all fits....
You still have to show us the need for a 'patsy' in the first place.
-
You still have to show us the need for a 'patsy' in the first place.
No I don't. I don't have to do anything. This isn't a court of law, remember?
-
Apparently you missed the post earlier in this thread that shows that the FBI lab DID in fact examine Lee's shirt ( the one that he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, the one with the button down collar) If they had found gun powder residue on that shirt ( as they certainly would have if he had fired a gun) they would have published that information in bold headlines.
Here's Pat Speer's post......
William, I contacted the Archives a few years back and asked for its help in determining if the light brown shirt they had in their collection was in fact the "reddish" shirt Oswald claimed he'd been wearing on the day of the shooting. After months of haggling, and working out the financial details (I had to pay them), they sent me some hi-res color photos of the shirt, which turned out to be reddish. One of these is presented above.
As shown on my website, moreover, one of the photos they sent me showed the inner collar of the shirt, and the initials of a multitude of FBI experts. This led me to believe that yessiree the shirt was tested for nitrates among other things and that the results of these tests were kept from the public. (There is no published report discussing any tests performed on this shirt.)
I had read Pat's analysis that the shirt had been tested and had made a point as regards the lack of forensic evidence in a previous post.
My question to SMG was that he needs to explain how LHO can fire a rifle and leave no forensic evidence on his clothes.
He may have a good explanation as to how this can happen and I am sure everyone would be interested in hearing it.
-
No I don't. I don't have to do anything. This isn't a court of law, remember?
Nor did I imply that you needed proof.
-
Nor did I imply that you needed proof.
Good, that's settled then
-
Good, that's settled then
Prove that
;)
-
Colour perception is subjective... and whatever happened to the CT notion that ppl will just follow along when they hear somebody describe something first..
Oh, wait... that's only valid when JudgeJohnny uses that sort of thing.
Lee's shirt was REDDISH BROWN.... Perhaps you should extract your head and READ how the witnesses perceived the color of the shirt........ Khaki, light blue, white, pale yellow,... NONE of them perceived the shirt color as reddish......And THAT is the color of the shirt with the button down collar that Lee was wearing at the TSBD that morning.
-
Lee's shirt was REDDISH BROWN.... Perhaps you should extract your head and READ how the witnesses perceived the color of the shirt........ Khaki, light blue, white, pale yellow,... NONE of them perceived the shirt color as reddish......And THAT is the color of the shirt with the button down collar that Lee was wearing at the TSBD that morning.
'Also: this was key to the masterplan of getting Lee framed as the shooter'
-
Lee's shirt was REDDISH BROWN.... Perhaps you should extract your head and READ how the witnesses perceived the color of the shirt........ Khaki, light blue, white, pale yellow,... NONE of them perceived the shirt color as reddish......And THAT is the color of the shirt with the button down collar that Lee was wearing at the TSBD that morning.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian.
Mr. SPECTER - And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; except that it was dark, probably black.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any characteristic as to quantity of hair?
Mr. ROWLAND - It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut.
Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6c/7e/YIgXsAfa_o.jpg)
-
'Also: this was key to the masterplan of getting Lee framed as the shooter'
Do these masterminds have names, by any chance? And tell us why Oswald would need to be framed. And why he would be set up behind the limo while your multiple shooters (also with no names) congregate in droves in front of the limo.
But not to worry. This is not a court of law and you don't have to prove SFA to the rampaging JudgeJohnny nor anyone else. You can even feel free to name your shooter!
-
Do these masterminds have names, by any chance? And tell us why Oswald would need to be framed. And why he would be set up behind the limo while your multiple shooters (also with no names) congregate in droves in front of the limo.
But not to worry. This is not a court of law and you don't have to prove SFA to the rampaging JudgeJohnny nor anyone else. You can even feel free to name your shooter!
::)
See these, Mr Chapman----------' ' ?
-
Colour perception is subjective... and whatever happened to the CT notion that ppl will just follow along when they hear somebody describe something first..
Oh, wait... that's only valid when JudgeJohnny uses that sort of thing.
As usual, this nonsensical remark probably makes sense somewhere within Chapman's fevered imagination.
-
As usual, this nonsensical remark probably makes sense somewhere within Chapman's fevered imagination.
You and Oswald were the 'fevered' ones.
Oswald while going to a movie* and you while kneeling**
*ablaze, aflutter, aflame, excited, delirious, exhilarated, nuts
**ablaze, aflutter, aflame, excited, delirious, exhilarated, nuts
-
You and Oswald were the 'fevered' ones.
Oswald while going to a movie* and you while kneeling**
*ablaze, aflutter, aflame, excited, delirious, exhilarated, nuts
**ablaze, aflutter, aflame, excited, delirious, exhilarated, nuts
Says the guy who visits his father's grave. Tsk, tsk.
Another nonsensical and useless remark from the forum clown.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-bozo.jpg)
-
Says the guy who visits his father's grave. Tsk, tsk.
Another nonsensical and useless remark from the forum clown.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-bozo.jpg)
'Dirty Harvey'
Dirty Harry:
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
---------------
Dirty Harvey:
Smith, Wesson.. and Lee
Name your Shooter
Apparently crickets abound on the far shores
of the lunatic fringe. What.. too soon, nerds?
'Prime Suspect'
Yep, got that right
'Two-fer'
.. that, too
'Too soon?'
See 'Name your shooter'
'100% sure that he probably did it'
That's right: He probably did. He killed Tippit, after all.
'McAdams says'
Oswald says
Iacoletti says
"Gorillas playing basketball"
Just a minute: When did I ever say gorillas were playing basketball?
I demand an inquiry!
'Hunter of trolls'
Yep, you and your species.
'You lot'
Get a dictionary
'Seems to me'
Yep
'If memory serves'
Yep
'Gaslighter'
Get a dictionary
'Bump'
Go ahead, sport
'JAQ'
Get an urban dictionary
'I'm innocent'
Oswald: I'm innocent
JudgeJohnny: Okay, you can go.
Oswald: [SMIRK].
'Time for your nap, Waldo'
What? Are you two besties again, Austin?
'OMG'
Makes your skin crawl, doesn't it, cowboy
'Lee Harvey-Occam Oswald'
Keep It Simple Sherlock
-
There's nothing quite like following nonsensical, irrelevant remarks with even more nonsensical, irrelevant remarks.
-
There's nothing quite like following nonsensical, irrelevant remarks with even more nonsensical, irrelevant remarks.
Nothing beats seeing an Oswald-lover taking a knee at the little prick's grave.
-
Nothing beats seeing an Oswald-lover taking a knee at the little prick's grave.
Nothing beats seeing a Chapman's-father-lover taking a knee at the little prick's grave.
-
Nothing beats seeing a Chapman's-father-lover taking a knee at the little prick's grave.
:D :D :D
Nothing beats observing yet another crazed Oswald-lover in action.
Nothing beats having the actual image of said Oswald-lover kneeling at said grave.
Nothing beats seeing an Oswald-lover so desperate to defend and explain away his knee-taking at the killer's grave
-
:D :D :D
Nothing beats observing yet another crazed Oswald-lover in action.
Nothing beats having the actual image of said Oswald-lover kneeling at said grave.
Nothing beats seeing an Oswald-lover so desperate to defend and explain away his knee-taking at the killer's grave
Still desperately seeking attention, I see. :D
-
Still desperately seeking attention, I see. :D
Martin, don't waste your time with this distraction ...He's nothing but a clown trying to divert attention.
-
Still desperately seeking attention, I see. :D
No attention-seeking needed: Not my bad if you lot are obsessed with me.
-
Martin, don't waste your time with this distraction ...He's nothing but a clown trying to divert attention.
Not my bad if you can't stop reading my posts, Sparky.
-
Not my bad if you can't stop reading my posts, Sparky.
Don't read em.... When I see that you've posted...I know it's nothing but tripe.
-
Don't read em.... When I see that you've posted...I know it's nothing but tripe.
Back so soon? Moth to the flame, huh..
-
:D :D :D
Nothing beats observing yet another crazed Oswald-lover in action.
Nothing beats having the actual image of said Oswald-lover kneeling at said grave.
Nothing beats seeing an Oswald-lover so desperate to defend and explain away his knee-taking at the killer's grave
Tell that to your Dad, the child molester.
-
Tell that to your Dad, the child molester.
Huh? My dad was a child molester? News to me, cowboy. But hey, thanks so much for your always-useful input, Hoss.
-
Huh? Oswald was a killer? News to me, cowboy.
-
Mary Bledsoe said she saw a hole in the right elbow of the [supposed] shirt when Oswald [supposedly] boarded her bus.
So...where is it? I don't see it.
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1593766485598/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence/Screen%20Shot%202020-07-03%20at%201.52.06%20AM.png)
-
Mary Bledsoe said she saw a hole in the right elbow of the [supposed] shirt when Oswald [supposedly] boarded her bus.
So...where is it? I don't see it.
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1593766485598/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence/Screen%20Shot%202020-07-03%20at%201.52.06%20AM.png)
Bledsoe was suffering from Alzheimers ... She saw the hole in the elbow when the FBI brought the shirt out to her house....She admits that in her testimony.
-
Bledsoe was suffering from Alzheimers ... She saw the hole in the elbow when the FBI brought the shirt out to her house....She admits that in her testimony.
Indeed. Bledsoe did not mention the hole in the elbow until her testimony, which is strange because she said that was the way she could identify the shirt
-
Bledsoe was suffering from Alzheimers ... She saw the hole in the elbow when the FBI brought the shirt out to her house....She admits that in her testimony.
Right...after they tore a hole in the right elbow----
No hole after arrest----
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1501612251608/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/shirtsaultecloseup.png)
Notice hole in right sleeve presented to Bledsoe and to the Warren Commission----
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3a/f2/13/3af2137b72047c1d530ac942e946f6c3.jpg)
-
Indeed. Bledsoe did not mention the hole in the elbow until her testimony, which is strange because she said that was the way she could identify the shirt
It's really a pity that Mary Bledsoes testimony is worthless. Because she simply is unbelievable.
She probably was on a bus after the shooting.... But by her own words it was NOT Cecil Mc Watter's bus.
She said that she saw the barricade tapes at the TSBD when the bus on which she was riding passed through the intersection of Houston & Elm. Those barricade tapes were erected at about 1:00Pm. ...Therefore IF Lee had been on that bus he would have departed around 12:50 and he couldn't have been in Whaley's cab. I firmly believe that Lee was NOT the young man in Whaley's cab, Because he told the interrogators that he paid the cabbie 85 cents ....Whereas Whaley's passenger's fare was 95 cents and that passenger paid ONE DOLLAR... If Lee had paid the cabbie one dollar he definitely would not have said that he paid 85 cents.
-
Here is the earlier topic we did on Oswald's shirt. I couldn't find it using search.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,771.msg16387.html#msg16387
Oswald's Shirt
« on: May 31, 2018, 12:23:03 PM »
Unfortunately some of the picture links are gone.
I found this there...A 12-1 article in the Washington Star by Jerry O'Leary, a writer more than friendly with the FBI's Deke DeLoach, and someone upon whom the FBI regularly relies to get their stories before the public, declares: "PIECE OF OSWALD'S SHIRT FOUND SNAGGED IN RIFLE." It then goes on to claim "A fragment of Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt was snagged in the rifle that killed President John F. Kennedy, the FBI report of the assassination states. Disclosure of this evidence against the 24 year-old Oswald, himself slain two days after Mr. Kennedy's death, is regarded as one of the most solid pieces of evidence of his guilt. Officials said wisps of brown shirt material were caught in metal parts of the 6.5 mm Italian-made carbine found on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building a few minutes after the fatal shots were fired on November 22. When Oswald was arrested two hours later, he was wearing a brown shirt of the same material. Oswald claimed he had changed his shirt in his rooming house after leaving the assassination area, but this proved to be untrue. FBI Crime Lab technicians determined by microscopic and other scientific means that the fragment of shirt material came from the shirt the ex-Marine was wearing."
What it did prove is that Oswald's shirt was really queering the entire scene for the FBI.
Throwing around fake news doesn't work...ultimately.
-
Here is the earlier topic we did on Oswald's shirt. I couldn't find it using search.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,771.msg16387.html#msg16387
Oswald's Shirt
« on: May 31, 2018, 12:23:03 PM »
Unfortunately some of the picture links are gone.
I found this there...What it did prove is that Oswald's shirt was really queering the entire scene for the FBI.
Throwing around fake news doesn't work...ultimately.
Thanks for posting that Jerry.....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,771.msg16387.html#msg16387
Throwing around fake news doesn't work...ultimately.
Jerry this is far more egregious than simply "throwing around fake news" This story presented to the pissant public by the vaunted FBI amounts to criminal liable.
Now nearly 60 years later we are learning the truth, and the reason for that is we trusted and believed the bastards.
-
Right...after they tore a hole in the right elbow----
No hole after arrest----
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1501612251608/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/shirtsaultecloseup.png)
Notice hole in right sleeve presented to Bledsoe and to the Warren Commission----
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3a/f2/13/3af2137b72047c1d530ac942e946f6c3.jpg)
You're right Jerry....There was no hole in the right elbow of the arrest shirt when Lee was brought into the police station..
And the arrest shirt is NOT the shirt that Lee was wearing at the TSBD at the time of the murder of JFK.
-
I found this there...What it did prove is that Oswald's shirt was really queering the entire scene for the FBI.
Yeah, talk about a circular argument. The shirt he was arrested in had similar fibers as ones we found in the rifle, therefore Oswald must have been wearing that shirt!
-
Yeah, talk about a circular argument. The shirt he was arrested in had similar fibers as ones we found in the rifle, therefore Oswald must have been wearing that shirt!
John, You've been dealing with Chapman too much..... That's exactly what our little chappie would say.
-
John, You've been dealing with Chapman too much..... That's exactly what our little chappie would say.
No, Chapman wouldn't even know there was a shirt or that there was fiber analysis done. But he would get everybody's name wrong and then post some "clever" movie clip.
-
I believe those "fibers" were later changed to blanket fibers....[for some reason] ::)
-
Right...after they tore a hole in the right elbow----
No hole after arrest----
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1501612251608/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22/shirtsaultecloseup.png)
Notice hole in right sleeve presented to Bledsoe and to the Warren Commission----
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3a/f2/13/3af2137b72047c1d530ac942e946f6c3.jpg)
Mr. BELIN - I hand you Exhibit No. 150. Have you ever seen a shirt like this before? Does this look familiar to the shirt that the suspect might have been wearing when you saw him, or this man running toward the station wagon?
Mr. CRAIG - It's the same type of shirt.
Mr. BELIN - I believe you used the phrase, "light shirt". Would Exhibit 150 be darker than the shirt he was wearing?
Mr. CRAIG - Uh--it looks darker in here--yes, uh-huh.
-
Thanks for that Walt,
In the WC testimonies, the witnesses who claim to have met LHO immediately after his departure from the TSBD are the bus driver, the bus passenger and the taxi driver.
The bus driver was unable to provide a description of how LHO was dressed but the latter two make inconsistent claims regarding his clothing.
Both mention a brown shirt and grey pants though Whaley then muddies the water by describing a blue grey jacket, whereas Blesdoe makes no mention of a jacket as she describes the shirt with the right sleeve whole and no buttons.
Both claim that the shirt LHO wore when arrested is the same shirt he wore on the bus and in the taxi, Whaley positively identifies Exhibit 150 and Blesdoe seems to be describing the shirt after LHO had been arrested in TT and the buttons were torn off in the struggle between him and DPD).
It strikes me that it should not have been difficult for law enforcement to determine what clothes LHO was wearing on that morning as his fellow workers would have been able to provide enough details to enable law enforcement to determine what they should be looking for. Was it possible that these clothes when found could be subject to forensic investigation to determine if they had been in worn by someone who had recently used a firearm?
Did the dirty clothes found by DPD Detective Potts undergo any forensic examination? If they did what was the results? If they did not, then why not?
Blesdoe seems to be describing the shirt after LHO had been arrested in TT and the buttons were torn off in the struggle between him and DPD).
The arrest shirt is the shirt that Bledsoe saw and it is the shirt she remembered , because the FBI brought that shirt out to her house and showed it to her..... They were desperate to establish that Lee was wearing that arrest shirt at the TSBD and when he left the TSBD and boarded the bus. They had already announced publicly that they had found a tuft of fibers from that arrest shirt on the butt of the TSBD carcano . They had skewered themselves with their own lance ....and they were desperate.
-
Ya Know, Chappie is a little like a pesky mosquito ....So we can know that sooner or later the annoying little pest will get his ass slapped.
Get his ass slapped
LOL. Sorry, not on my bucket list, darling. Maybe try Grinder.
-
Blesdoe seems to be describing the shirt after LHO had been arrested in TT and the buttons were torn off in the struggle between him and DPD).
The arrest shirt is the shirt that Bledsoe saw and it is the shirt she remembered , because the FBI brought that shirt out to her house and showed it to her..... They were desperate to establish that Lee was wearing that arrest shirt at the TSBD and when he left the TSBD and boarded the bus. They had already announced publicly that they had found a tuft of fibers from that arrest shirt on the butt of the TSBD carcano . They had skewered themselves with their own lance ....and they were desperate.
That is a ludicrous narrative. Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt when the best they could with that evidence is say it could have come from his shirt? No one needed to connect Oswald to this shirt on the day of the assassination to convict him for that crime. They had his rifle at the crime scene along with fired bullet casings. His goose was cooked. Combined with his flight, involvement in another murder, resisting arrest, and lie about not owning a rifle there was more than sufficient evidence to convict. Your baseless fantasy with the shirt is unnecessary and ridiculous to convict. And the fibers could always have gotten on the rifle from some contact with the shirt on a prior occasion. Not necessarily on the day of the assassination. It doesn't have to mean he was wearing the shirt that day. It just adds another link between Oswald and this rifle. The evidence links him to the rifle with or without the fiber evidence. And that rifle was used to commit the crime. But perhaps that is more than you can absorb.
-
That is a ludicrous narrative. Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt when the best they could with that evidence is say it could have come from his shirt? No one needed to connect Oswald to this shirt on the day of the assassination to convict him for that crime. They had his rifle at the crime scene along with fired bullet casings. His goose was cooked. Combined with his flight, involvement in another murder, resisting arrest, and lie about not owning a rifle there was more than sufficient evidence to convict.
Speaking of ludicrous narratives...
You have done zero to demonstrate that any of these speculative claims are actually true: “his rifle”, “his flight”, “involvement in another murder”, resisting arrest”, “lie about not owning a rifle”.
Garbage in - garbage out.
-
That is a ludicrous narrative. Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt when the best they could with that evidence is say it could have come from his shirt? No one needed to connect Oswald to this shirt on the day of the assassination to convict him for that crime. They had his rifle at the crime scene along with fired bullet casings. His goose was cooked. Combined with his flight, involvement in another murder, resisting arrest, and lie about not owning a rifle there was more than sufficient evidence to convict. Your baseless fantasy with the shirt is unnecessary and ridiculous to convict. And the fibers could always have gotten on the rifle from some contact with the shirt on a prior occasion. Not necessarily on the day of the assassination. It doesn't have to mean he was wearing the shirt that day. It just adds another link between Oswald and this rifle. The evidence links him to the rifle with or without the fiber evidence. And that rifle was used to commit the crime. But perhaps that is more than you can absorb.
Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt when the best they could with that evidence is say it could have come from his shirt? No one needed to connect Oswald to this shirt on the day of the assassination to convict him for that crime.
Well, they did go to the extreme length of actually taking out the shirt to Bledsoe's house. What possible reason could they have had for influencing a witness in that way?
And the fibers could always have gotten on the rifle from some contact with the shirt on a prior occasion. Not necessarily on the day of the assassination. It doesn't have to mean he was wearing the shirt that day.
But that was the point of the exercise; to support the conclusion that Oswald had been wearing the shirt that day!
It just adds another link between Oswald and this rifle.
No it doesn't actually. Not by using your own "logic", when all they could say is that the fibers could have come from Oswald's shirt and when it is possible for those fibers could have gotten on the rifle "on a prior occassion"
The evidence links him to the rifle with or without the fiber evidence.
I probably won't get a straight answer (again) but I'll ask anyway. What evidence exactly links Oswald to the rifle?
And that rifle was used to commit the crime.
Really? And your evidence for that is... what exactly?
-
And that rifle was used to commit the crime.
Really? And your evidence for that is... what exactly?
It’s just more of that famous “Richard” speculation bus.
-
That is a ludicrous narrative. Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt when the best they could with that evidence is say it could have come from his shirt? No one needed to connect Oswald to this shirt on the day of the assassination to convict him for that crime. They had his rifle at the crime scene along with fired bullet casings. His goose was cooked. Combined with his flight, involvement in another murder, resisting arrest, and lie about not owning a rifle there was more than sufficient evidence to convict. Your baseless fantasy with the shirt is unnecessary and ridiculous to convict. And the fibers could always have gotten on the rifle from some contact with the shirt on a prior occasion. Not necessarily on the day of the assassination. It doesn't have to mean he was wearing the shirt that day. It just adds another link between Oswald and this rifle. The evidence links him to the rifle with or without the fiber evidence. And that rifle was used to commit the crime. But perhaps that is more than you can absorb.
Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt
Because they had skewered themselves on their own foil when Hoover announced that his FBI lab had found a tuft of fibers from the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was arrested. That was a gargantuan lie because Lee was not wearing that shirt at the TSBD that morning. But the FBI had to trick the senile Mrs Bledsoe into confirming that she saw the shirt when Lee was wearing it on the bus just minutes after the murder.
Can you understand it now ??..... If not, maybe someone will dumb it down better so perhaps you can understand, Mr "Smith"
-
Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt
Because they had skewered themselves on their own foil when Hoover announced that his FBI lab had found a tuft of fibers from the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was arrested. That was a gargantuan lie because Lee was not wearing that shirt at the TSBD that morning. But the FBI had to trick the senile Mrs Bledsoe into confirming that she saw the shirt when Lee was wearing it on the bus just minutes after the murder.
Can you understand it now ??..... If not, maybe someone will dumb it down better so perhaps you can understand, Mr "Smith"
HA HA HA. Try to think for once. Assume the fetal position in a dark place if that helps. It is Oswald's rifle. It is Oswald's shirt. Simply because they found a "tuft of fiber from the shirt" on the rifle doesn't meant that fiber had to come from that shirt on the day of the assassination. Maybe it did but it doesn't have too. Can you understand that obvious fact? The fiber could have come from Oswald's shirt on some prior occasion. There is no need to go through the trickery that you have baselessly suggested to fix any problem with the evidence.
-
HA HA HA. Try to think for once. Assume the fetal position in a dark place if that helps. It is Oswald's rifle. It is Oswald's shirt. Simply because they found a "tuft of fiber from the shirt" on the rifle doesn't meant that fiber had to come from that shirt on the day of the assassination. Maybe it did but it doesn't have too. Can you understand that obvious fact? The fiber could have come from Oswald's shirt on some prior occasion. There is no need to go through the trickery that you have baselessly suggested to fix any problem with the evidence.
It is Oswald's rifle.
Really?? ....When and where, was proof of ownership presented ?
It is Oswald's shirt.
Yes but it is NOT the shirt that he wore at the TSBD that morning. How thick is your skull??
Simply because they found a "tuft of fiber from the shirt" on the rifle doesn't meant that fiber had to come from that shirt on the day of the assassination. Maybe it did but it doesn't have too. Can you understand that obvious fact?
Oh boy are you dumb!!.... The FBI said the tuft of fibers were FRESH....
I guess desperation causes stupidity ...... Or are you living proof that there ain't no remedy for stupidity....
-
HA HA HA. Try to think for once. Assume the fetal position in a dark place if that helps. It is Oswald's rifle.
HA HA HA.
-
HA HA HA.
that rifle was used to commit the crime.
Well, By Golly For once you are right.... But it was not the crime of the murder of JFK....It was the crime of framing an innocent patsy by the authorities.
Unfortunately for them, ( and fortunately for us) Tom Alyea's camera captured the scene of the rifle lying on it's left side on the floor. The preceding scene from Alyea's film shows DPD detective Studebaker perched atop boxes of books just after he finished taking the in situ photo of the carcano. Since the next scene on Alyea's film shows the rifle lying on it's left side with the leather sling up as Detective Day reaches out to pick up the rifle we can be absolutely certain that the in situ photo that detective Studebaker had taken showed the rifle lying on it's left side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
What's the point you ask..... The official DPD in Situ Photo depicts an entirely different scene..... The official government approved in situ phot shows the rifle in a location that is closer to the stairs and the rifle is NOT lying on it's side. And Furthermore....Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place had been prepared BEFORE the shooting.
-
It is Oswald's rifle.
Really?? ....When and where, was proof of ownership presented ?
It is Oswald's shirt.
Yes but it is NOT the shirt that he wore at the TSBD that morning. How thick is your skull??
Simply because they found a "tuft of fiber from the shirt" on the rifle doesn't meant that fiber had to come from that shirt on the day of the assassination. Maybe it did but it doesn't have too. Can you understand that obvious fact?
Oh boy are you dumb!!.... The FBI said the tuft of fibers were FRESH....
I guess desperation causes stupidity ...... Or are you living proof that there ain't no remedy for stupidity....
Or are you living proof that there ain't no remedy for stupidity
You're so fickle. You recently bestowed me with that maxim. Now I'm jealous.
-
that rifle was used to commit the crime.
Well, By Golly For once you are right.... But it was not the crime of the murder of JFK....It was the crime of framing an innocent patsy by the authorities.
Unfortunately for them, ( and fortunately for us) Tom Alyea's camera captured the scene of the rifle lying on it's left side on the floor. The preceding scene from Alyea's film shows DPD detective Studebaker perched atop boxes of books just after he finished taking the in situ photo of the carcano. Since the next scene on Alyea's film shows the rifle lying on it's left side with the leather sling up as Detective Day reaches out to pick up the rifle we can be absolutely certain that the in situ photo that detective Studebaker had taken showed the rifle lying on it's left side.
The movie clip shows the scene after Day moved a box to carefully get at the rifle. The rifle may have gently fallen onto its side or Day moved it onto it's side. Then it was lifted up by the sling.
I see why Trump's reality-denial anti-authority conspiracy-theory dogma drew you in.
What's the point you ask..... The official DPD in Situ Photo depicts an entirely different scene..... The official government approved in situ phot shows the rifle in a location that is closer to the stairs and the rifle is NOT lying on it's side. And Furthermore....Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place had been prepared BEFORE the shooting.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
The rifle was about 15' and some from the north wall. It was found to the south of the row of boxes defined above by the lower orange line.
-
The movie clip shows the scene after Day moved a box to carefully get at the rifle. The rifle may have gently fallen onto its side or Day moved it onto it's side. Then it was lifted up by the sling.
I see why Trump's reality-denial anti-authority conspiracy-theory dogma drew you in.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
The rifle was about 15' and some from the north wall. It was found to the south of the row of boxes defined above by the lower orange line.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
The rifle was about 15' and some from the north wall. It was found to the south of the row of boxes defined above by the lower orange line.
South ( closer to camera) of the lower orange line ... That is correct. ( south of the box labeled BOOKS ) 15' 4" from the north wall places the rifle in line with the north edge of the window in the east wall. But the official in situ photo shows the rifle about 14 feet from the north wall.
-
The movie clip shows the scene after Day moved a box to carefully get at the rifle. The rifle may have gently fallen onto its side or Day moved it onto it's side. Then it was lifted up by the sling.
I see why Trump's reality-denial anti-authority conspiracy-theory dogma drew you in.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
The rifle was about 15' and some from the north wall. It was found to the south of the row of boxes defined above by the lower orange line.
Thank you Mr O...For posting....."The movie clip shows the scene after Day moved a box to carefully get at the rifle. The rifle may have gently fallen onto its side or Day moved it onto it's side. Then it was lifted up by the sling."
You clearly have acknowledged that the rifle was lying on it's right side with the sling up when detective Day reached out and picked up the carcano. But you've attempted to explain away that FACT by saying..."The rifle may have gently fallen onto its side or Day moved it onto it's side." I'd like to point out that the rifle could not have fallen ( counterclockwise) on it's right side if it had been standing as seen in the official government approved in situ photo.....Because there is a row of boxes on the left side of the rifle in the official (fake) in situ photo....and if a box had ben moved away from the right side of the rifle it would have fallen to the right (clockwise)
-
Huh? Oswald was a killer? News to me, cowboy.
Poor dumb cop, eh Neil..
-
Poor dumb cop, eh Neil..
Yeah, Krusty, that's some solid evidence you got there. :D
-
Yeah, Krusty, that's some solid evidence you got there. :D
Not me
I'm just reportin' the news
-
That is a ludicrous narrative. Why would the FBI go to these lengths to link Oswald to the shirt when the best they could with that evidence is say it could have come from his shirt?
Why?... is irrelevant. Facts show that they did. The photos that are linked demonstrate that a frame-up was afoot.
-
Not me
I'm just reporting the news
"news". LOL.
-
"news". LOL.
It was to Scoggins
-
It was to Scoggins
Scoggins??.... Are you serious?
-
Scoggins??.... Are you serious?
Walt.... You know who you are asking, right? So, you already know the answer.
-
Yeah, Scoggins:
"The driver, William W. Scoggins, had seen the slaying and was now crouched behind his cab on the street side. As the gunman cut through the shrubbery on the lawn, Scoggins looked up and saw the man approximately 12 feet away. In his hand was a pistol and he muttered words which sounded to Scoggins like "poor dumb cop" or "poor damn cop."
https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wcr/page7.php
-
Why?... is irrelevant. Facts show that they did. The photos that are linked demonstrate that a frame-up was afoot.
Why is not irrelevant since it was suggested that the FBI had a problem with the evidence that they needed to correct (i.e. the claim that Oswald had on a different shirt than the arrest shirt when he assassinated JFK). It's the "why" that sets this conspiracy fantasy in motion about convincing a witness to falsely testify about the shirt. But the FBI had no such problem. Why? LOL. Nothing in the "photos" or films precludes Oswald from having worn the arrest shirt at the time of the assassination. BUT even if he didn't wear that shirt when assassinating JFK, there is nothing to preclude the explanation that fibers from Oswald's shirt could have got on his rifle on some prior occasion. What is so difficult to understand about that? The FBI had no problem with the fiber evidence that needed fixing by falsifying witness testimony.
-
Why is not irrelevant since it was suggested that the FBI had a problem with the evidence that they needed to correct (i.e. the claim that Oswald had on a different shirt than the arrest shirt when he assassinated JFK). It's the "why" that sets this conspiracy fantasy in motion about convincing a witness to falsely testify about the shirt. But the FBI had no such problem. Why? LOL. Nothing in the "photos" or films precludes Oswald from having worn the arrest shirt at the time of the assassination. BUT even if he didn't wear that shirt when assassinating JFK, there is nothing to preclude the explanation that fibers from Oswald's shirt could have got on his rifle on some prior occasion. What is so difficult to understand about that? The FBI had no problem with the fiber evidence that needed fixing by falsifying witness testimony.
BUT even if he didn't wear that shirt when assassinating JFK, there is nothing to preclude the explanation that fibers from Oswald's shirt could have got on his rifle on some prior occasion.
There is no such thing as "fibers from Oswald's shirt".
The FBI expert could only say that the fibers are similar to those of Oswald's shirt, not that they came from his shirt!
-
BUT even if he didn't wear that shirt when assassinating JFK, there is nothing to preclude the explanation that fibers from Oswald's shirt could have got on his rifle on some prior occasion.
There is no such thing as "fibers from Oswald's shirt".
The FBI expert could only say that the fibers are similar to those of Oswald's shirt, not that they came from his shirt!
Good grief.
-
Yeah, Scoggins:
"The driver, William W. Scoggins, had seen the slaying and was now crouched behind his cab on the street side. As the gunman cut through the shrubbery on the lawn, Scoggins looked up and saw the man approximately 12 feet away. In his hand was a pistol and he muttered words which sounded to Scoggins like "poor dumb cop" or "poor damn cop."
https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wcr/page7.php
Scoggins was shown a line up of photos and he was asked to pick out the man that had ran past his cab......
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you know, and then he told me the other one was Oswald.
-
Good grief.
Actual facts destroy your little stories every time.
You are not getting away with misrepresenting the evidence.
-
Scoggins was shown a line up of photos and he was asked to pick out the man that had ran past his cab......
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you know, and then he told me the other one was Oswald.
You've missed my point
-
Actual facts destroy your little stories every time.
You are not getting away with misrepresenting the evidence.
It's not my story. You need to coordinate with your fellow CTer nuts. It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle. If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.
-
It's not my story. You need to coordinate with your fellow CTer nuts. It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle. If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.
It's not my story.
Yes it is... You made out of "fibers that are similar to those of Oswald's (arrest) shirt", which is a rather meaningless observation since most shirts are made from similar fibers, into "fibers from Oswald's shirt", which is simply a lie
It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle.
You mean Bledsoe?.... Name me one other witness in any case where that FBI actually brought a piece of evidence to their home prior to their testimony?
Of course that FBI had a problem. They had only tested Oswald's arrest shirt (and no other) and had claimed that the fibers found on the rifle were similar, only to then find out that Oswald possibly wasn't even wearing the arrest shirt in the morning after all.
If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.
What evidence was faked?
-
It's not my story.
Yes it is... You made out of "fibers that are similar to those of Oswald's (arrest) shirt", which is a rather meaningless observation since most shirts are made from similar fibers, into "fibers from Oswald's shirt", which is simply a lie
It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle.
You mean Bledsoe?.... Name me one other witness in any case where that FBI actually brought a piece of evidence to their home prior to their testimony?
Of course that FBI had a problem. They had only tested Oswald's arrest shirt (and no other) and had claimed that the fibers found on the rifle were similar, only to then find out that Oswald possibly wasn't even wearing the arrest shirt in the morning after all.
If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.
What evidence was faked?
Form a coherent narrative from this contrarian morass. You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt. But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked? Why? Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination. They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion. So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence? You are going around in endless circles.
-
Form a coherent narrative from this contrarian morass. You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt. But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked? Why? Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination. They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion. So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence? You are going around in endless circles.
You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt. But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked? Why?
I'll tell you as soon as you tell me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.
Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination. They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.
True, but that would render the fibers meaningless and the WC clearly didn't want them to be meaningless.
So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence?
It has already been explained to you. I'm sorry you don't understand it, but it's not really my problem.
Now, explain to me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe before her testimony. I bet you won't because it's one of those questions you normally run away from, but I'm asking nevertheless.
-
...for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked? Why? I'll tell you as soon as you tell me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony. Now, explain to me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe before her testimony. I bet you won't because it's one of those questions you normally run away from, but I'm asking nevertheless.
Ask till you're blue in the face....Because it's all...an incoherent narrative from this contrarian morass. Whatever the hell that means. After the assassination, the FBI submitted 25,000 investigative reports. It went so far as to describe the dreams of some of the witnesses.
Superfluous filler [like stuffing in the Thanksgiving turkey] to give the impression of a totally thorough investigation ::)
-
Ask till you're blue in the face....Because it's all...an incoherent narrative from this contrarian morass. Whatever the hell that means.
Superfluous filler [like stuffing in the Thanksgiving turkey] to give the impression of a totally thorough investigation ::)
Ask till you're blue in the face....
Yeah, I know.... the list of questions not answered by the LN crowd is a long one...
-
It's not my story.
Yes it is... You made out of "fibers that are similar to those of Oswald's (arrest) shirt", which is a rather meaningless observation since most shirts are made from similar fibers, into "fibers from Oswald's shirt", which is simply a lie
It is their story that the FBI needed to coerce a witness into confirming that Oswald wore the arrest shirt because of the fibers found on the rifle.
You mean Bledsoe?.... Name me one other witness in any case where that FBI actually brought a piece of evidence to their home prior to their testimony?
Of course that FBI had a problem. They had only tested Oswald's arrest shirt (and no other) and had claimed that the fibers found on the rifle were similar, only to then find out that Oswald possibly wasn't even wearing the arrest shirt in the morning after all.
If those fibers don't have evidentiary value or link Oswald to the shirt, it begs the question why that evidence would need to be faked.
What evidence was faked?
Here's the story that Hoover was propagating.... ( a damned lie )....
A 12-1 article in the Washington Star by Jerry O'Leary, a writer more than friendly with the FBI's Deke DeLoach, and someone upon whom the FBI regularly relies to get their stories before the public, declares: "PIECE OF OSWALD'S SHIRT FOUND SNAGGED IN RIFLE." It then goes on to claim "A fragment of Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt was snagged in the rifle that killed President John F. Kennedy, the FBI report of the assassination states. Disclosure of this evidence against the 24 year-old Oswald, himself slain two days after Mr. Kennedy's death, is regarded as one of the most solid pieces of evidence of his guilt. Officials said wisps of brown shirt material were caught in metal parts of the 6.5 mm Italian-made carbine found on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building a few minutes after the fatal shots were fired on November 22. When Oswald was arrested two hours later, he was wearing a brown shirt of the same material. Oswald claimed he had changed his shirt in his rooming house after leaving the assassination area, but this proved to be untrue. FBI Crime Lab technicians determined by microscopic and other scientific means that the fragment of shirt material came from the shirt the ex-Marine was wearing."
The story presented to the trusting and grieving American public at the time (December 63) said that The FBI had found a tuft of fibers on the butt plate of the TSBD carcano. The FBI said that the carcano belonged to Lee Oswald and it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy. They also said that the tuft of fibers matched the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing at the time of the murder, and that was the same shirt that Lee was wearing at the Texas Theater.
The entire tale is a damned lie.....
-
You suggest the shirt fibers have no evidentiary value because they can't be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt or any specific shirt. But for some inexplicable reason the FBI must coerce a witness to confirm that Oswald was wearing the arrest shirt from which fibers found on the rifle can't be linked? Why?
I'll tell you as soon as you tell me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.
Of course, even if the fibers could be linked to Oswald's arrest shirt, it wouldn't be necessary that they got on the rifle on the day of the assassination. They could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.
True, but that would render the fibers meaningless and the WC clearly didn't want them to be meaningless.
So what problem did the FBI have with this evidence?
It has already been explained to you. I'm sorry you don't understand it, but it's not really my problem.
Now, explain to me why the FBI needed to take the arrest shirt to Bledsoe before her testimony. I bet you won't because it's one of those questions you normally run away from, but I'm asking nevertheless.
You imply that there is something sinister about the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe while contending that the shirt has no evidentiary value. How would I or anyone know why the FBI did this? Maybe it was more convenient for Bledsoe. We know that she was elderly and rode the bus as a form of transportation. Who really cares? Would it have made any difference if they had shown her the shirt at the FBI office? That type of pedantic open ended question about the investigative process implies a lot without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the FBI was up to something. And again, why go through this exercise if, as you claim, the shirt has no evidentiary value? It would be pointless. You are just going around in endless rabbit hole circles to imply there is something afoot when there is no indication whatsoever that taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has any relevance. It's all the more amazing that you constantly make these baseless suggestions about the evidence while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.
-
You imply that there is something sinister about the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe while contending that the shirt has no evidentiary value. How would I or anyone know why the FBI did this? Maybe it was more convenient for Bledsoe. We know that she was elderly and rode the bus as a form of transportation. Who really cares?
Who cares?.. Spoken like a true contrarian
Btw; I don't need you to tell me what I imply or not. All I did was ask a question and it appears, as per usual, that you don't have an answer. It's duly noted.
Would it have made any difference if they had shown her the shirt at the FBI office?
No, the basic question would remain the same. Why show a piece of evidence to a witness prior to her testimony? Bledsoe said she saw Oswald on the bus. She didn't say a word about his shirt until after the FBI visit. Go figure!
That type of pedantic open ended question about the investigative process implies a lot without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the FBI was up to something. And again, why go through this exercise if, as you claim, the shirt has no evidentiary value? It would be pointless.
Well, let's see shall we.... The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed).
So, they need to try to restore the evidentiary value of the shirt. Enter Bledsoe.... do the math
You are just going around in endless rabbit hole circles to imply there is something afoot when there is no indication whatsoever that taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has any relevance. It's all the more amazing that you constantly make these baseless suggestions about the evidence while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.
You're not making any sense. If taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has no relevance, as you claim, then why did they do it? There is nothing baseless about the suggestion that the FBI must have had a good reason for taking the arrest shirt all the way from Washington to Dallas to show to a witness!
while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.
You still haven't understood that there is a difference between somebody who asks questions about the evidence and points out inconsistancies and somebody who presents a theory (which I never have) and argues in defense of that theory (which I also have never done).
But then again, for narrow minded you, anybody who doesn't instantly agree with all the BS you call evidence must be a CT, right? If fits right in with the shallow and naieve nature you display here on a daily basis
-
Who cares?.. Spoken like a true contrarian
Btw; I don't need you to tell me what I imply or not. All I did was ask a question and it appears, as per usual, that you don't have an answer. It's duly noted.
No, the basic question would remain the same. Why show a piece of evidence to a witness prior to her testimony? Bledsoe said she saw Oswald on the bus. She didn't say a word about his shirt until after the FBI visit. Go figure!
Well, let's see shall we.... The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed).
So, they need to try to restore the evidentiary value of the shirt. Enter Bledsoe.... do the math
You're not making any sense. If taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has no relevance, as you claim, then why did they do it? There is nothing baseless about the suggestion that the FBI must have had a good reason for taking the arrest shirt all the way from Washington to Dallas to show to a witness!
while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.
You still haven't understood that there is a difference between somebody who asks questions about the evidence and points out inconsistancies and somebody who presents a theory (which I never have) and argues in defense of that theory (which I also have never done).
But then again, for narrow minded you, anybody who doesn't instantly agree with all the BS you call evidence must be a CT, right? If fits right in with the shallow and naieve nature you display here on a daily basis
You are going round and round in inconsistent circles. Let's focus on just one point since you are having trouble. Here is your explanation: "The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed)."
WHY for f's sake would the FBI need to demonstrate that "Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day"? If the evidentiary value from the FBI's perspective is that the fibers link Oswald's shirt to the rifle, they don't need to prove that Oswald wore the shirt that day. The fibers from that shirt could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion. There is absolutely no need for the FBI to coerce a witness to lie about the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus. I can't simplify it any further. And the hilarious kicker, of course, is that the FBI didn't even suggest that the fibers proved that Oswald was wearing that particular shirt. The entire purpose of this exercise in your conspiracy fantasy.
-
You are going round and round in inconsistent circles. Let's focus on just one point since you are having trouble. Here is your explanation: "The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed)."
WHY for f's sake would the FBI need to demonstrate that "Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day"? If the evidentiary value from the FBI's perspective is that the fibers link Oswald's shirt to the rifle, they don't need to prove that Oswald wore the shirt that day. The fibers from that shirt could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion. There is absolutely no need for the FBI to coerce a witness to lie about the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus. I can't simplify it any further. And the hilarious kicker, of course, is that the FBI didn't even suggest that the fibers proved that Oswald was wearing that particular shirt. The entire purpose of this exercise in your conspiracy fantasy.
WHY for f's sake would the FBI need to demonstrate that "Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day"? If the evidentiary value from the FBI's perspective is that the fibers link Oswald's shirt to the rifle, they don't need to prove that Oswald wore the shirt that day.
Here's what you don't understand. Saying that fibers found on the rifle are similar to those of Oswald's shirt, does not link Oswald's shirt to the rifle. What could have done that is a gunshot residue test on the shirt, but they never did that.
To link Oswald's shirt, in particular, to the rifle they needed something more, like for instance a witness stating that she saw Oswald wear that shirt on Friday morning.
The fibers from that shirt could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.
You keep saying that and it is still just as meaningless as the first time you said it. Nondescript fibers that are merely similar to those of Oswald's arrest shirt (of which there were probably thousands similar shirts) that got on the rifle at some other occasion is proof of absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't put the rifle in Oswald's hands on 11/22/63 at 12:30 PM.
There is absolutely no need for the FBI to coerce a witness to lie about the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus.
Who said anything about coercing a witness? It's easy enough to influence a fragile old lady into believing she saw something she actually didn't see. But regardless, your disbelieve that the FBI would do something like that is belied by the fact that they actually did go to Bledsoe's house and showed her the shirt.
If, as you claim there was no need to do that, then why did they do it?
And the hilarious kicker, of course, is that the FBI didn't even suggest that the fibers proved that Oswald was wearing that particular shirt.
Indeed, they left that conclusion to the WC, after they told them that the fibers found on the rifle were similar to those of the arrest shirt and after Bledsoe, in her completely incoherent testimony, gave them an opportunity to conclude that Oswald had been wearing the same shirt the whole day. In their report they actually said that Oswald had claimed that he had changed his shirt but that witness testimony proved that was not the case.
You clearly do not understand how these kind of games are played!
-
You clearly do not understand how these kind of games are played!
Yes he does. He plays them himself.
-
You imply that there is something sinister about the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe while contending that the shirt has no evidentiary value.
No he didn't. However...I did not just 'imply' that there was something sinister with the FBI taking the shirt out to Bledsoe's-- I stated with absolute conviction that there was. Ball's in your court.
-
You are going round and round in inconsistent circles. Let's focus on just one point since you are having trouble. Here is your explanation: "The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed)."
WHY for f's sake would the FBI need to demonstrate that "Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day"? If the evidentiary value from the FBI's perspective is that the fibers link Oswald's shirt to the rifle, they don't need to prove that Oswald wore the shirt that day. The fibers from that shirt could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion. There is absolutely no need for the FBI to coerce a witness to lie about the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus. I can't simplify it any further. And the hilarious kicker, of course, is that the FBI didn't even suggest that the fibers proved that Oswald was wearing that particular shirt. The entire purpose of this exercise in your conspiracy fantasy.
Here's the story that Hoover was propagating.... ( a damned lie )....
A 12-1 article in the Washington Star by Jerry O'Leary, a writer more than friendly with the FBI's Deke DeLoach, and someone upon whom the FBI regularly relies to get their stories before the public, declares: "PIECE OF OSWALD'S SHIRT FOUND SNAGGED IN RIFLE." It then goes on to claim "A fragment of Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt was snagged in the rifle that killed President John F. Kennedy, the FBI report of the assassination states. Disclosure of this evidence against the 24 year-old Oswald, himself slain two days after Mr. Kennedy's death, is regarded as one of the most solid pieces of evidence of his guilt. Officials said wisps of brown shirt material were caught in metal parts of the 6.5 mm Italian-made carbine found on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building a few minutes after the fatal shots were fired on November 22. When Oswald was arrested two hours later, he was wearing a brown shirt of the same material. Oswald claimed he had changed his shirt in his rooming house after leaving the assassination area, but this proved to be untrue. FBI Crime Lab technicians determined by microscopic and other scientific means that the fragment of shirt material came from the shirt the ex-Marine was wearing."
The story presented to the trusting and grieving American public at the time (December 63) said that The FBI had found a tuft of fibers on the butt plate of the TSBD carcano. The FBI said that the carcano belonged to Lee Oswald and it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy. They also said that the tuft of fibers matched the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing at the time of the murder, and that was the same shirt that Lee was wearing at the Texas Theater.
The entire tale is a damned lie.....
-
WHY for f's sake would the FBI need to demonstrate that "Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day"? If the evidentiary value from the FBI's perspective is that the fibers link Oswald's shirt to the rifle, they don't need to prove that Oswald wore the shirt that day.
Here's what you don't understand. Saying that fibers found on the rifle are similar to those of Oswald's shirt, does not link Oswald's shirt to the rifle. What could have done that is a gunshot residue test on the shirt, but they never did that.
To link Oswald's shirt, in particular, to the rifle they needed something more, like for instance a witness stating that she saw Oswald wear that shirt on Friday morning.
The fibers from that shirt could have gotten on the rifle on some prior occasion.
You keep saying that and it is still just as meaningless as the first time you said it. Nondescript fibers that are merely similar to those of Oswald's arrest shirt (of which there were probably thousands similar shirts) that got on the rifle at some other occasion is proof of absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't put the rifle in Oswald's hands on 11/22/63 at 12:30 PM.
There is absolutely no need for the FBI to coerce a witness to lie about the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus.
Who said anything about coercing a witness? It's easy enough to influence a fragile old lady into believing she saw something she actually didn't see. But regardless, your disbelieve that the FBI would do something like that is belied by the fact that they actually did go to Bledsoe's house and showed her the shirt.
If, as you claim there was no need to do that, then why did they do it?
And the hilarious kicker, of course, is that the FBI didn't even suggest that the fibers proved that Oswald was wearing that particular shirt.
Indeed, they left that conclusion to the WC, after they told them that the fibers found on the rifle were similar to those of the arrest shirt and after Bledsoe, in her completely incoherent testimony, gave them an opportunity to conclude that Oswald had been wearing the same shirt the whole day. In their report they actually said that Oswald had claimed that he had changed his shirt but that witness testimony proved that was not the case.
You clearly do not understand how these kind of games are played!
Hilarious. The FBI has no need for anyone to confirm what shirt Oswald was wearing that day if, as you suggest, the fibers don't have evidentiary value. They already know that the arrest shirt belongs to Oswald because he is wearing it when arrested. They already know that the fibers are found on the rifle. To the extent that the fibers are being used to link Oswald to the rifle, there is no need to have a witness confirm that he wore the shirt that particular day. And if Bledsoe is not being coerced and Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt on the bus, then there is a significant risk that she confirms he was wearing a different shirt. Why would she say otherwise? Again, however, it makes little difference what she says either because there is little value to the fiber evidence or because fibers from Oswald's shirt could have gotten on his rifle on a prior occasion.
-
Hilarious. The FBI has no need for anyone to confirm what shirt Oswald was wearing that day if, as you suggest, the fibers don't have evidentiary value. They already know that the arrest shirt belongs to Oswald because he is wearing it when arrested. They already know that the fibers are found on the rifle. To the extent that the fibers are being used to link Oswald to the rifle, there is no need to have a witness confirm that he wore the shirt that particular day. And if Bledsoe is not being coerced and Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt on the bus, then there is a significant risk that she confirms he was wearing a different shirt. Why would she say otherwise? Again, however, it makes little difference what she says either because there is little value to the fiber evidence or because fibers from Oswald's shirt could have gotten on his rifle on a prior occasion.
Take it up with the FBI. They were the ones who went to Bledsoe. They must have had a reason for it, don't you think? Now, try to think really hard, "Richard", what possible reason could they have had for taking that shirt to Bledsoe?
You know what, I'll give them a call first and let them know that "Richard Smith" doesn't agree with their methods.
Oh, btw, before I forget. Yesterday I was looking through some old documents and found several FD 302's I had forgotten about. They showed that the FBI not only took the arrest shirt to Bledsoe in early December 1963, but also to Truly, Reid and several other people. It seems they were desperate to find confirmation that Oswald had been wearing his arrest shirt all day. None of the other people they showed it to recognized or identified the shirt and they all gave a different description of the shirt they had seen.
All, except one; Mary Bledsoe..... and guess what, that's the one the WC went with to claim that Oswald had worn his arrest shirt in the morning. All the other statements went straight into the archives..... Go figure!
-
Who cares?.. Spoken like a true contrarian
Btw; I don't need you to tell me what I imply or not. All I did was ask a question and it appears, as per usual, that you don't have an answer. It's duly noted.
No, the basic question would remain the same. Why show a piece of evidence to a witness prior to her testimony? Bledsoe said she saw Oswald on the bus. She didn't say a word about his shirt until after the FBI visit. Go figure!
Well, let's see shall we.... The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar. Then they learn that various witnesses gave different descriptions of the shirt they saw Oswald wear on Friday morning, leaving them unable to argue that Oswald was wearing the same shirt all day (which btw is exactly what the WC later claimed).
So, they need to try to restore the evidentiary value of the shirt. Enter Bledsoe.... do the math
You're not making any sense. If taking the arrest shirt to Bledsoe has no relevance, as you claim, then why did they do it? There is nothing baseless about the suggestion that the FBI must have had a good reason for taking the arrest shirt all the way from Washington to Dallas to show to a witness!
while denying that you are a conspiracy theorist.
You still haven't understood that there is a difference between somebody who asks questions about the evidence and points out inconsistancies and somebody who presents a theory (which I never have) and argues in defense of that theory (which I also have never done).
But then again, for narrow minded you, anybody who doesn't instantly agree with all the BS you call evidence must be a CT, right? If fits right in with the shallow and naieve nature you display here on a daily basis
The FBI finds fibers on the rifle, which they compare to the fibers of Oswald's arrest shirt and they find that the fibers are similar.
But that's not the story that Hoover released to the public.....
A December 1st article in the Washington Star by Jerry O'Leary, a writer more than friendly with the FBI's Deke DeLoach, and someone upon whom the FBI regularly relies to get their stories before the public, declares: "PIECE OF OSWALD'S SHIRT FOUND SNAGGED IN RIFLE." It then goes on to claim "A fragment of Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt was snagged in the rifle that killed President John F. Kennedy,
-
Hilarious. The FBI has no need for anyone to confirm what shirt Oswald was wearing that day if, as you suggest, the fibers don't have evidentiary value. They already know that the arrest shirt belongs to Oswald because he is wearing it when arrested. They already know that the fibers are found on the rifle. To the extent that the fibers are being used to link Oswald to the rifle, there is no need to have a witness confirm that he wore the shirt that particular day. And if Bledsoe is not being coerced and Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt on the bus, then there is a significant risk that she confirms he was wearing a different shirt. Why would she say otherwise? Again, however, it makes little difference what she says either because there is little value to the fiber evidence or because fibers from Oswald's shirt could have gotten on his rifle on a prior occasion.
I've been quite sick of late, fellas, but I started looking at the forums again a few days ago and this thread caught my eye. While Richard makes some good points, he is clearly incorrect on one point. He claims the FBI could have dismissed the fiber evidence altogether, because there was no evidence the fibers on the rifle were added to the rifle on the 22nd.
But there was such evidence. The FBI's fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, testified that the fibers were on top of the fingerprint powder. Well this strongly suggests the fibers were added AFTER Lt. Day dusted the rifle, and was unable to find any prints beyond the trigger guard prints, which he would later claimed were too smudged.
So, yeah, on the night of the 22nd, it was imperative that the DPD find some way to link Oswald to the rifle. They then sent the rifle to the FBI, who--by golly--found fibers from the arrest shirt on the rifle. Oh my. Now that's quite the coincidence.
-
I've been quite sick of late, fellas, but I started looking at the forums again a few days ago and this thread caught my eye. While Richard makes some good points, he is clearly incorrect on one point. He claims the FBI could have dismissed the fiber evidence altogether, because there was no evidence the fibers on the rifle were added to the rifle on the 22nd.
But there was such evidence. The FBI's fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, testified that the fibers were on top of the fingerprint powder. Well this strongly suggests the fibers were added AFTER Lt. Day dusted the rifle, and was unable to find any prints beyond the trigger guard prints, which he would later claimed were too smudged.
So, yeah, on the night of the 22nd, it was imperative that the DPD find some way to link Oswald to the rifle. They then sent the rifle to the FBI, who--by golly--found fibers from the arrest shirt on the rifle. Oh my. Now that's quite the coincidence.
Sorry to hear that you are not feeling well. In terms of the fibers, the DPD has a paper trail including a serial number that links Oswald to the rifle. If they are faking all this evidence to frame Oswald, then they just say that they found his fingerprints all over the rifle. They don't go through this complicated and risky charade with the bus ride and coercing witnesses just to conclude that the fibers might come from that shirt.
-
I've been quite sick of late, fellas, but I started looking at the forums again a few days ago and this thread caught my eye. While Richard makes some good points, he is clearly incorrect on one point. He claims the FBI could have dismissed the fiber evidence altogether, because there was no evidence the fibers on the rifle were added to the rifle on the 22nd.
But there was such evidence. The FBI's fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, testified that the fibers were on top of the fingerprint powder. Well this strongly suggests the fibers were added AFTER Lt. Day dusted the rifle, and was unable to find any prints beyond the trigger guard prints, which he would later claimed were too smudged.
So, yeah, on the night of the 22nd, it was imperative that the DPD find some way to link Oswald to the rifle. They then sent the rifle to the FBI, who--by golly--found fibers from the arrest shirt on the rifle. Oh my. Now that's quite the coincidence.
Hi Pat, I'm truly sorry to hear that you been ill.... I hope it's just a passing illness, and you'll be joining us in discussions for many more years. Although I don't agree 100% with you on a few points, by and large, I believe you're about 98% correct in your conclusions. But no matter how well documented you've been about a point there will always be the LNer's who have severe cases of craiialrectalitus and simply cannot see the truth.
Stay well, and keep posting the truth...
-
They didn't have anything that would physically connect Oswald with that rifle. And even after finding those fibers, they still didn't. Because fibers can't be linked to a specific garment.
-
They didn't have anything that would physically connect Oswald with that rifle. And even after finding those fibers, they still didn't. Because fibers can't be linked to a specific garment.
Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/jSVJyNgz/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
JohnM
-
They didn't have anything that would physically connect Oswald with that rifle. And even after finding those fibers, they still didn't. Because fibers can't be linked to a specific garment.
One point that's been brushed aside concerning the theory that Lee Oswald owned or had possession of that particular carcano...
We are told that Lee disassembled the carcano and placed it in a paper bag to conceal it when he transported it to the TSBD....
Logically that doesn't make any sense.... The act of disassembling a model 91/38 short rifle reduces the length of the rifle by a mere 5 1/4 inches. So why bother ??? And the disassembled rifle pieces are awkward to handle and reassemble....
There's not an iota of doubt in my mind that if Lee had disassembled that rifle then his finger prints would have been all over the various piece of the rifle....but the investigators never found a single identifiable print on that gun. ( I doubt that he had the mechanical ability to figger out how to disassemble the rifle)
And what's even more difficult to believe is the idea that any assassin would set out with only three rounds of ammo ....What an absurd idea!!
-
And what's even more difficult to believe is the idea that any assassin would set out with only three rounds of ammo ....What an absurd idea!!
Well you're wrong because Oswald's rifle would have had four rounds of ammo and the fact that Oswald loaded his last four bullets into the rifle proves that that Oswald's actions were last minute and not planned, whereas if Oswald was being set up then as you explain, the conspirators would have loaded the planted rifle to it's perceived maximum, so thanks for your observation in proving Oswald's guilt! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Well you're wrong because Oswald's rifle would have had four rounds of ammo and the fact that Oswald loaded his last four bullets into the rifle proves that that Oswald's actions were last minute and not planned, whereas if Oswald was being set up then as you explain, the conspirators would have loaded the planted rifle to it's perceived maximum, so thanks for your observation in proving Oswald's guilt! Thumb1:
JohnM
"
My dear dumbass Mytoe.... It's good to know that you were one of the culprits. You must have been because you say "the conspirators would have loaded the planted rifle to it's perceived maximum, so thanks for your observation in proving Oswald's guilt! " How else could you know what the bastards would have done?
-
"
My dear dumbass Mytoe.... It's good to know that you were one of the culprits. You must have been because you say "the conspirators would have loaded the planted rifle to it's perceived maximum, so thanks for your observation in proving Oswald's guilt! " How else could you know what the bastards would have done?
Wow, what an excessive overreaction to your mistake and my using your own argument against you.
JohnM
-
Wow, what an excessive overreaction to your mistake and my using your own argument against you.
JohnM
What was the color of Bill Whaley's passenger's clothes....... That's a very simple question Mr Mytoe....
-
What was the color of Bill Whaley's passenger's clothes....... That's a very simple question Mr Mytoe....
Whaley wasn't judging a fashion show and had many passengers every day and had no particular reason to remember any specific customer or colour, but Whaley did specifically remember Oswald's bracelet.
Mr. BALL. Was there anything in particular about him beside his clothing that you could identify such as jewelry, bracelets?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; he had on a bracelet of some type on his left arm. It looked like an identification bracelet. Just shiny, you know, how you see anything shiny, an unusual watchband or something shiny, you notice things like that.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49673/m1/1/med_res/)
Also Oswald admitted to Fritz that he caught a cab, so what exactly are you trying to prove?
Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab. I asked him how much the cabfare was, he said 85 cents.
Btw are you ever going to respond to what was the alternative to Oswald's cab ride??
JohnM
-
but Whaley did specifically remember Oswald's bracelet.
He didn't, another of your lies exposed:
Mr. BALL. You mentioned the fact that the man who sat in the front seat of your cab, which you drove from the Greyhound Station on Lamar Street over to 500 North Beckley, had an identification bracelet on him.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, it looked like an identification bracelet. It looks like this one, sir, it was shiny, I couldn't tell exactly whether that was the bracelet or not.
Thumb1:
Yes my wording should have been clearer, Whaley remembers Oswald wearing a bracelet but obviously since he didn't initial the bracelet he couldn't say it was that exact bracelet.
But what's way more important is that Whaley did identify Oswald in the line-up.
Mr. BALL. Did Whaley say anything to you personally?
Mr. LEAVELLE. To me personally?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. LEAVELLE. Well, of course, I asked him if he---if the man that he remembered or saw there, whatever he was identifying him for there was up there and he said "Yes, the man in the T-shirt." Whether he was doing all the talking or not wouldn't make any difference, he still knew him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvXnFLhY/oswald-line-up.gif)
JohnM
-
I already destroyed Chapman RE the lineup, it's on record, no need to repeat it here.
BTW, he couldn't possibly ID a guy not in the cab.
I understand you're still having trouble with the timeline -- LOL
I already destroyed Chapman RE the lineup, it's on record, no need to repeat it here.
Good for you!
BTW, he couldn't possibly ID a guy not in the cab.
Ok, so you reckon Whaley lied, now what?
I understand you're still having trouble with the timeline -- LOL
Not at all, Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository a little after 12:30 and was at his Rooming House at about one o'clock and how he got there doesn't concern me even in the slightest, explain to me why I should care?
Btw I just created a thread which is devoted to what the possible consequences of Oswald not using publicly available transport
and maybe you'd like to read it and step out side of your comfort zone and make a post?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3071.0.html
JohnM
-
Not at all, Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository a little after 12:30 and was at his Rooming House at about one o'clock and how he got there doesn't concern me even in the slightest, explain to me why I should care?
Because a real investigator would.
Btw I just created a thread which is devoted to what the possible consequences of Oswald not using publicly available transport
and maybe you'd like to read it and step out side of your comfort zone and make a post?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3071.0.html
I did and it looks like the usual mess you're posting.
Because a real investigator would.
That's not an explanation, how does the method that Oswald used to get to the Rooming house affect his guilt?
I did and it looks like the usual mess you're posting.
Then why do you respond to me at all, are you insane?
JohnM
-
Guilt?
Easy now, John.
I'm under no obligation to respond to whatever mess you post.
No point in replying to your latest compounded mess when the essentials have already been addressed in other threads.
Guilt?
Just as I predicted, you have no explanation.
I'm under no obligation to respond to whatever mess you post.
Yet here you are, replying to my posts.
No point in replying to your latest compounded mess when the essentials have already been addressed in other threads.
Hang on, you claim that the thread I linked to represents my "usual mess" but you clearly understood the mess and you even unwittingly go on to say that the essentials that I posted have been answered elsewhere, your definition of what constitutes a mess is seriously messed up!
JohnM
-
You've been posting this crap for a decade (at least) so you should be happy I've responded to at least some of your mess.
Actually, I have debated a variety of subjects for close to a couple of decades and it always ends the same way, whenever an opponent has no answers to my superior arguments and/or knowledge they start attacking either me or my posts and your insults of calling my posts crap or repeatedly calling them a mess is a perfect demonstration of someone who has failed and unconsciously has clearly admitted defeat, so thanks for playing And let me tell you something, the insults from intelligent debaters are much more clever and witty than your poor efforts on display here, but hey, you're just a Noob who lets your emotion destroy any impact that you could have had.
So with that I bid you au revoir and let's hope you learn from your mistakes and perhaps next time you will mount a defence which can actually pose a challenge.
JohnM
-
I already destroyed Chapman RE the lineup, it's on record, no need to repeat it here.
BTW, he couldn't possibly ID a guy not in the cab.
I understand you're still having trouble with the timeline -- LOL
You destroyed yourself by running away from me, punk. Whaley buried you by stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one he hauled from the bus terminal.
Now, get back to biting the dust.
-
You destroyed yourself by running away from me, punk. Whaley buried you by stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one he hauled from the bus terminal.
Now, get back to biting the dust.
Hi Bill, I wouldn't worry about Otto too much, he keeps writing cheques that he can't afford to sign, you just have to look at his contradictory last couple of posts that he responded to me with, he first makes a definitive statement that I have been posting for a decade(at least) clearly demonstrating that he or one of his doppelganger's has been one of my fanboys for the last decade, then in his very next post when he's trying to associate my longevity with a negative connation, his decade(at least) now becomes an "estimate" and what's even funnier he doesn't even realize, you seriously can't make that up, he's comedy gold!
JohnM
-
Whaley wasn't judging a fashion show and had many passengers every day and had no particular reason to remember any specific customer or colour, but Whaley did specifically remember Oswald's bracelet.
Mr. BALL. Was there anything in particular about him beside his clothing that you could identify such as jewelry, bracelets?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; he had on a bracelet of some type on his left arm. It looked like an identification bracelet. Just shiny, you know, how you see anything shiny, an unusual watchband or something shiny, you notice things like that.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49673/m1/1/med_res/)
Also Oswald admitted to Fritz that he caught a cab, so what exactly are you trying to prove?
Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab. I asked him how much the cabfare was, he said 85 cents.
Btw are you ever going to respond to what was the alternative to Oswald's cab ride??
JohnM
Whaley wasn't judging a fashion show and had many passengers every day and had no particular reason to remember any specific customer or colour, but Whaley did specifically remember Oswald's bracelet.
Com'on you craven coward.....Whaley specifically stated the color of his passenger's clothes....What color was the the man's jacket and trousers ?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/59KLk01n/IPAD-WHALEY-CAB-TRIP.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/dDPMVT6t/i-PAD-WHALEY-TSHIRT-BRACELET.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn’t pay much attention to it right then. But it
all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just
ordinary work clothes. It wasn’t khaki pants but they were khaki material,
blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a
brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind
of jacket, I didn’t notice very close hut I think it was a work jacket that
almost matched the pants.
So Whaley's passenger was wearing a BLUE jacket, and BLUE trousers..... Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a JACKET, and his shirt was reddish brown and his trousers were dark gray. And just to add a little salt to your wounds.... Whaley said that his passenger gave him a DOLLAR for the ride... Lee Oswald told the interrogators that he paid 85 cents for the taxi fare.
-
Hi Bill, I wouldn't worry about Otto too much, he keeps writing cheques that he can't afford to sign, you just have to look at his contradictory last couple of posts that he responded to me with, he first makes a definitive statement that I have been posting for a decade(at least) clearly demonstrating that he or one of his doppelganger's has been one of my fanboys for the last decade, then in his very next post when he's trying to associate my longevity with a negative connation, his decade(at least) now becomes an "estimate" and what's even funnier he doesn't even realize, you seriously can't make that up, he's comedy gold!
JohnM
No worries: This is fun.
-
Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn’t pay much attention to it right then. But it
all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just
ordinary work clothes. It wasn’t khaki pants but they were khaki material,
blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a
brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind
of jacket, I didn’t notice very close hut I think it was a work jacket that
almost matched the pants.
So Whaley's passenger was wearing a BLUE jacket, and BLUE trousers..... Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a JACKET, and his shirt was reddish brown and his trousers were dark gray. And just to add a little salt to your wounds.... Whaley said that his passenger gave him a DOLLAR for the ride... Lee Oswald told the interrogators that he paid 85 cents for the taxi fare.
Oswald was the only one complaining in the line up.
Would an innocent man do that? I wouldn't.
-
No worries: This is fun.
What's the term for a person who enjoys being beaten?..... Masochist....
-
that rifle was used to commit the crime.
Well, By Golly For once you are right.... But it was not the crime of the murder of JFK....It was the crime of framing an innocent patsy by the authorities.
Unfortunately for them, ( and fortunately for us) Tom Alyea's camera captured the scene of the rifle lying on it's left side on the floor. The preceding scene from Alyea's film shows DPD detective Studebaker perched atop boxes of books just after he finished taking the in situ photo of the carcano. Since the next scene on Alyea's film shows the rifle lying on it's left side with the leather sling up as Detective Day reaches out to pick up the rifle we can be absolutely certain that the in situ photo that detective Studebaker had taken showed the rifle lying on it's left side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
What's the point you ask..... The official DPD in Situ Photo depicts an entirely different scene..... The official government approved in situ phot shows the rifle in a location that is closer to the stairs and the rifle is NOT lying on it's side. And Furthermore....Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place had been prepared BEFORE the shooting.
Watch closely as detective Day reaches out to pick up the carcano for the first time. Nobody had touched that rifle prior to this moment. How is the rifle positioned?....Is it Jammed between boxes of books or is it lying on the floor and Day has no trouble picking it up by the leather sling .... That leather sling was mounted on the left side of the rifle so it would have been hard for Day to reach if the rifle had been jammed between boxes of books.
-
Watch closely as detective Day reaches out to pick up the carcano for the first time. Nobody had touched that rifle prior to this moment. How is the rifle positioned?....Is it Jammed between boxes of books or is it lying on the floor and Day has no trouble picking it up by the leather sling .... That leather sling was mounted on the left side of the rifle so it would have been hard for Day to reach if the rifle had been jammed between boxes of books.
Problem is the film clip is abbreviated and doesn't show Day preparing to pick up the rifle by shifting slightly the single lone carton on the floor, which enabled the rifle to rest on its side. Thus Lt. Day could control the pick-up without accidentally making prints on the rifle or disturbing any prints left by Oswald.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://theundefeated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ulysha-renee.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Dallas Police Department.)
-
Problem is the film clip is abbreviated and doesn't show Day preparing to pick up the rifle by shifting slightly the single lone carton on the floor, which enabled the rifle to rest on its side. Thus Lt. Day could control the pick-up without accidentally making prints on the rifle or disturbing any prints left by Oswald.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://theundefeated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ulysha-renee.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Dallas Police Department.)
which enabled the rifle to rest on its side.
Really?? Would you explain that?
-
Well if the rifle was originally stuck between in that gap in the 2rows of boxes , which it’s now indeterminate (imo )how close was the Center box they moved , vs 1” approx gap of box left and right side, such that then the rifle fell down AFTER moving that center box, then should not this event have been officially NOTED?
And if the rifle falls from its vertical alignment to sideways alignment, because LT. Day moved another box slightly , and this was just BEFORE Alyea starts his film, then should not this detail also have officially Noted?
Since it appears there is no statement about this specific other than just a general comment that boxes were moved, one has to decide if it’s just another negligent sloppy handling of evidence or if it’s intentional deception.
-
Well you're wrong because Oswald's rifle would have had four rounds of ammo and the fact that Oswald loaded his last four bullets into the rifle proves that that Oswald's actions were last minute and not planned,
That's laughably circular -- even for "Mytton".
-
What's the term for a person who enjoys being beaten?..... Masochist....
The Oswald witnesses in Oak Cliff kick CT butt every time out
Kinda makes you the masochist here, Pops..
-
The Oswald witnesses in Oak Cliff kick CT butt every time out
Kinda makes you the masochist here, Pops..
The Oswald witnesses in Oak Cliff kick CT butt every time out
If that's the way it appears to you....Lil Chappie.....you obviously need the services of a shrink....
-
Watch closely as detective Day reaches out to pick up the carcano for the first time. Nobody had touched that rifle prior to this moment. How is the rifle positioned?....Is it Jammed between boxes of books or is it lying on the floor and Day has no trouble picking it up by the leather sling .... That leather sling was mounted on the left side of the rifle so it would have been hard for Day to reach if the rifle had been jammed between boxes of books.
-
The Oswald witnesses in Oak Cliff kick CT butt every time out
If that's the way it appears to you....Lil Chappie.....you obviously need the services of a shrink....
'If that's the way it appears to you'
Erm.. that's the way it appeared to the witnesses
A small sampling:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5K8cxWN/4-i-Phone-WHALEY-HAULED-OSWALD.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXMy1kFy/08-IPhone-OSWALD-TIPPIT-MARKHAM.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9F1VtBP6/09-i-Phone-OSWALD-OAK-CLIFF.png)
Above:
A view to a kill (Markham)
'Poor dumb cop' (Scoggins)
'Hey man, what the hell is going on?' (Callaway)
-
'If that's the way it appears to you'
Erm.. that's the way it appeared to the witnesses
A small sampling:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5K8cxWN/4-i-Phone-WHALEY-HAULED-OSWALD.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXMy1kFy/08-IPhone-OSWALD-TIPPIT-MARKHAM.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9F1VtBP6/09-i-Phone-OSWALD-OAK-CLIFF.png)
Above:
A view to a kill (Markham)
'Poor dumb cop' (Scoggins)
'Hey man, what the hell is going on?' (Callaway)
Debating with you lil Chappie ( or most LNer's) is like debating with a ten year old......Who believes that Cinderella really traveled to the ball in a coach that was magically made from a pumpkin.
-
We are told that Lee disassembled the carcano and placed it in a paper bag to conceal it when he transported it to the TSBD....
Logically that doesn't make any sense.... The act of disassembling a model 91/38 short rifle reduces the length of the rifle by a mere 5 1/4 inches. So why bother ??? And the disassembled rifle pieces are awkward to handle and reassemble....
There's not an iota of doubt in my mind that if Lee had disassembled that rifle then his finger prints would have been all over the various pieces of the rifle....but the investigators never found a single identifiable print on that gun. ( I doubt that he had the mechanical ability to figger out how to disassemble the rifle)
And what's even more difficult to believe is the idea that any assassin would set out with only three rounds of ammo ....What an absurd idea!!
Well you're wrong because Oswald's rifle would have had four rounds of ammo and the fact that Oswald loaded his last four bullets into the rifle proves that that Oswald's actions were last minute and not planned, whereas if Oswald was being set up then as you explain, the conspirators would have loaded the planted rifle to it's perceived maximum, so thanks for your observation in proving Oswald's guilt! Thumb1:
Dear reader...I don't agree with Walt on everything but his reflection above is spot on and John Mytton is off...just simply off.
Mr Mytton even disagrees with his own Warren Report conclusion that Oswald DID plan the assassination and it would be obvious that such a cold-blooded killer would have taken all the ammo and firepower at his disposal.
loaded his last four bullets
:D And that proves Oswald did it! :D
A preconceived notion= an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence
If you don't have any solid verification of something...just invent some.
-
Bledsoe was suffering from Alzheimers ... She saw the hole in the elbow when the FBI brought the shirt out to her house....She admits that in her testimony.
Does this detailed statement from Mrs. Bledsoe sound like someone who's terribly confused and suffering from Alzheimers? She sounds sharp as a tack. If she had Alzheimers she wouldn't be able to clearly recount what she witnessed. She would be pausing and struggling to remember where, who, or what she even saw. She clearly knew it was Oswald because she knew what he looked like.
"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. Then I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963." - Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe
-
Does this detailed statement from Mrs. Bledsoe sound like someone who's terribly confused and suffering from Alzheimers? She sounds sharp as a tack. If she had Alzheimers she wouldn't be able to clearly recount what she witnessed. She would be pausing and struggling to remember where, who, or what she even saw. She clearly knew it was Oswald because she knew what he looked like.
"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. Then I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963." - Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe
You're overlooking one thing, Rick
An affidavit is not verbatim. You tell the notary what you want to tell him/her and he/she summarizes what he/she feels is important and then offers you a document to sign. The problem is that it does not necessarily reflect what you actually said, yet the document will have a life of it's own. The same applies to statements made to the police. That's why lawyers always tell their clients not to talk to the police and make voluntary statements, regardless of the best intentions you may have to make that statement.
Bledsoe's testimony clearly demonstrates she was no way as concise as the affidavit suggests.
-
JFK assassination artifacts to get first public viewing
Feb. 17, 2013
WASHINGTON — An off-white jacket. A casual long-sleeve shirt. A turquoise- and-orange wool blanket. A wallet that contains a Social Security card and family snapshots.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/02/17/jfk-exhibit-16_9.jpg?width=1320&height=746&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing this shirt, seen in this Nov. 22, 1963 photo, when he was arrested and charged in the death of President John F. Kennedy
While these relics from the early '60s sound like everyday items, they are priceless pieces of history tied to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Beginning April 12, visitors to the Newseum in the nation's capital will have the rare chance to view these never-before-displayed artifacts belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed gunman, as part of an exhibit marking the 50th anniversary of JFK's death. Oswald, who wore the shirt and carried the wallet when he was arrested on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, was himself shot and killed two days later by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, a crime that was caught live on TV.
The jacket was found at a gas station near the Texas Theater, where Oswald was captured. Oswald's rifle, which was kept wrapped in the blanket in a friend's garage, was found at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas shortly after JFK was shot.
"This is a pretty incredible opportunity to work with the National Archives and be able to display these pieces," says Carrie Christoffersen, Newseum curator and director of collections.
Christoffersen says the purpose of "Three Shots Were Fired," an exhibit of more than 100 artifacts, including the first UPI report about the attack on the presidential motorcade, "is to tell the story of how news media responded and how it fulfilled its responsibility to the public. It was a unique time in American and journalism history. The shooting led to unprecedented TV coverage over four days on the networks commercial-free. This was at a time when nightly newscasts had only just expanded from 15 minutes to a half-hour."
A collection of photos, "Creating Camelot: The Kennedy Photography of Jacques Lowe," as well as a Newseum-produced film, A Thousand Days, will bring to life the youthful glamour that the first family brought to the White House, as well as newsworthy moments of JFK's short presidency.
The exhibit, which runs through Jan. 5, 2014, will include an interactive feature that allows visitors of all ages to share the defining "JFK moment'' in their life, whether it was the bombing at Pearl Harbor or memories of 9/11.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/02/17/jfk-assassination-newseum-lee-harvey-oswald/1918279/
-
"Oswald's rifle, which was kept wrapped in the blanket in a friend's garage"
LOL