JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Alan Ford on February 07, 2021, 02:48:35 PM
-
From Agent James Hosty's contemporaneous notes taken during Mr Oswald's first interrogation (which started 3:15pm, 11/22)-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/dvAToWuI)
Like most people, I long assumed Mr Oswald talked merely about a rifle which he had seen (and which, it was later established, belonged to Mr Warren Caster), rather than any particular rifle. However, I was knocked for six when I recently came across this FBI interview report for Mr Roy Truly from 11/22-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
"the rifle"
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
The problem with that scenario is that Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm that evening. It is hard to see how Captain Fritz could have shown Mr Oswald the Carcano during that first interrogation session......
Given that the first Caster rifle mentioned in the Truly interview report above ("a ___________ rifle") was in fact a Mauser, I think it's fair to ask: Was Mr Oswald shown a Mauser rifle during that first interrogation?
Thumb1:
-
From Agent James Hosty's contemporaneous notes taken during Mr Oswald's first interrogation (which started 3:15pm, 11/22)-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/dvAToWuI)
Like most people, I long assumed Mr Oswald talked merely about a rifle which he had seen (and which, it was later established, belonged to Mr Warren Caster), rather than any particular rifle. However, I was knocked for six when I recently came across this FBI interview report for Mr Roy Truly from 11/22-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
"the rifle"
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
The problem with that scenario is that Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm that evening. It is hard to see how Captain Fritz could have shown Mr Oswald the Carcano during that first interrogation session......
Given that the Caster rifle whose type is weirdly elided (no more than an underscore) in the Truly interview report above was a Mauser, I think it's fair to ask: Was Mr Oswald shown a Mauser rifle during that first interrogation?
Thumb1:
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
YES!! ABSOLUTELY!! Stop doubting yourself....
I've been posting that for years....But nobody wants to believe and accept what Fritz and Hosty wrote.
Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm
Lt Day was a gargantuan LIAR!!...And not about this aspect alone..... He lied again and again... I believe that he was a bigger liar than Roger Craig.
-
From Agent James Hosty's contemporaneous notes taken during Mr Oswald's first interrogation (which started 3:15pm, 11/22)-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/dvAToWuI)
Like most people, I long assumed Mr Oswald talked merely about a rifle which he had seen (and which, it was later established, belonged to Mr Warren Caster), rather than any particular rifle. However, I was knocked for six when I recently came across this FBI interview report for Mr Roy Truly from 11/22-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
"the rifle"
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
The problem with that scenario is that Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm that evening. It is hard to see how Captain Fritz could have shown Mr Oswald the Carcano during that first interrogation session......
Given that the first Caster rifle mentioned in the Truly interview report above ("a ___________ rifle") was in fact a Mauser, I think it's fair to ask: Was Mr Oswald shown a Mauser rifle during that first interrogation?
Thumb1:
Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?
No, Fritz did NOT show Lee Oswald a Mauser, but Fritz DID show Seymour Weitzman a Mauser ....
-
Yes, those nutty assassins would obviously bring the rifle they intended to assassinate the president with in a couple days early and show it around to everyone who wanted to see it. HA HA HA. Keep them coming. Caster explained the rifles that were brought in. He wasn't even in the building on the day of the assassination. Weak sauce. Oswald is just deflecting.
-
Yes, those nutty assassins would obviously bring the rifle they intended to assassinate the president with in a couple days early and show it around to everyone who wanted to see it. HA HA HA. Keep them coming. Caster explained the rifles that were brought in. He wasn't even in the building on the day of the assassination. Weak sauce. Oswald is just deflecting.
I've always thought that Truly was hoping to get Lee Oswald to handle the rifle, so his finger prints would be on it. Truly knew that Lee had been in the Marine Corp and probably appealed to Lee's expertise. They weren't worried about Truly's "n-----s" seeing the rifle because as we know they claimed the rifle was some other rifle and not the carcano.
-
Yes, those nutty assassins would obviously bring the rifle they intended to assassinate the president with in a couple days early and show it around to everyone who wanted to see it.
Afraid you've misunderstood the question I'm asking, Mr Smith. Let me help you by repeating the title of the thread: "Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?"
Thumb1:
-
From Agent James Hosty's contemporaneous notes taken during Mr Oswald's first interrogation (which started 3:15pm, 11/22)-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/dvAToWuI)
Like most people, I long assumed Mr Oswald talked merely about a rifle which he had seen (and which, it was later established, belonged to Mr Warren Caster), rather than any particular rifle. However, I was knocked for six when I recently came across this FBI interview report for Mr Roy Truly from 11/22-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
"the rifle"
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
The problem with that scenario is that Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm that evening. It is hard to see how Captain Fritz could have shown Mr Oswald the Carcano during that first interrogation session......
Given that the first Caster rifle mentioned in the Truly interview report above ("a ___________ rifle") was in fact a Mauser, I think it's fair to ask: Was Mr Oswald shown a Mauser rifle during that first interrogation?
Thumb1:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
Oswald had information that he had seen Truly with the rifle. Truly says that a day or two ago a salesman with whom he does business came into his office and he had two rifles that he had recently purchased, a ______ rifle plus a .22 rifle for his son. He showed these rifles to Truly and he sighted down it, and it's possible that Oswald might have seen him with this gun in his hands. Truly does not own a rifle, and that is the only rifle that he has touched in a long time.
Lets parse the note....
Oswald had information that he had seen Truly with the rifle.
The Rifle..... Of course the only rifle in evidence at this point is the CARCANO....And detective Day had just brought the Carcano from the TSBD at about 3:00pm so it was in fact at police headquarters, at 3:15 when Fritz started questioning Lee Oswald. It's SOP for a suspect to be shown the murder weapon and ask if the suspect has ever seen it and observe the suspect's reaction.
"Truly says that a day or two ago a salesman with whom he does business came into his office and he had two rifles that he had recently purchased, a ______ rifle plus a .22 rifle for his son."
What jumps right out is, this statement states that there were only TWO men involved, Mr Truly, and some unnamed salesman.
The liars have always maintained that Hosty's scribbled note (" Truly had rifle and two others") was referring to Truly and two other men being present. But according to this note there was just Roy Truly and the salesman.
As I recall the official version states that one of the men present was Mr Caster, and Caster certainly wasn't a salesman who Truly did business with....So he can't be referring to Mr Caster.
"He showed these rifles to Truly and he sighted down it, and it's possible that Oswald might have seen him with this gun in his hands " Truly admits handling the rifle ....Was that because if his finger prints showed up on the carcano he would have an explanation for his prints being on the rifle???
[i "]that is the only rifle that he has touched in a long time." [/i] "He has touched "...Interesting choice of words....Was Truly a bit worried that his prints might have been on the rifle???
-
As I recall the official version states that one of the men present was Mr Caster, and Caster certainly wasn't a salesman who Truly did business with....So he can't be referring to Mr Caster.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/45/a8/PRmCK66S_o.jpg)
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/45/a8/PRmCK66S_o.jpg)
Thank you...I thought that Warren Caster was the President of one of the book companies that had offices in the TSBD.
But the fact remains.....There were not two other men...There was only Truly and caster.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
Oswald had information that he had seen Truly with the rifle. Truly says that a day or two ago a salesman with whom he does business came into his office and he had two rifles that he had recently purchased, a ______ rifle plus a .22 rifle for his son. He showed these rifles to Truly and he sighted down it, and it's possible that Oswald might have seen him with this gun in his hands. Truly does not own a rifle, and that is the only rifle that he has touched in a long time.
Lets parse the note....
Oswald had information that he had seen Truly with the rifle.
The Rifle..... Of course the only rifle in evidence at this point is the CARCANO....And detective Day had just brought the Carcano from the TSBD at about 3:00pm so it was in fact at police headquarters, at 3:15 when Fritz started questioning Lee Oswald. It's SOP for a suspect to be shown the murder weapon and ask if the suspect has ever seen it and observe the suspect's reaction.
"Truly says that a day or two ago a salesman with whom he does business came into his office and he had two rifles that he had recently purchased, a ______ rifle plus a .22 rifle for his son."
What jumps right out is, this statement states that there were only TWO men involved, Mr Truly, and some unnamed salesman.
The liars have always maintained that Hosty's scribbled note (" Truly had rifle and two others") was referring to Truly and two other men being present. But according to this note there was just Roy Truly and the salesman.
As I recall the official version states that one of the men present was Mr Caster, and Caster certainly wasn't a salesman who Truly did business with....So he can't be referring to Mr Caster.
"He showed these rifles to Truly and he sighted down it, and it's possible that Oswald might have seen him with this gun in his hands " Truly admits handling the rifle ....Was that because if his finger prints showed up on the carcano he would have an explanation for his prints being on the rifle???
[i "]that is the only rifle that he has touched in a long time." [/i] "He has touched "...Interesting choice of words....Was Truly a bit worried that his prints might have been on the rifle???
"Truly says that a day or two ago a salesman with whom he does business came into his office and he had two rifles that he had recently purchased, a ______ rifle plus a .22 rifle for his son."
He had recently purchased a WHAT ? Rifle ........???
-
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Not knowing anything about firearms, I was wondering if "sporterized" meant there was a scope attached.
-
Afraid you've misunderstood the question I'm asking, Mr Smith. Let me help you by repeating the title of the thread: "Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?"
Thumb1:
No, he didn't if you mean the same model of rifle that was used by Oswald to assassinate JFK. "Mauser" is often used in a generic manner.
-
I've always thought that Truly was hoping to get Lee Oswald to handle the rifle, so his finger prints would be on it. Truly knew that Lee had been in the Marine Corp and probably appealed to Lee's expertise. They weren't worried about Truly's "n-----s" seeing the rifle because as we know they claimed the rifle was some other rifle and not the carcano.
So Truly and Caster are involved in the plot? Did they actually get Oswald to put his prints on the rifle?
-
So Truly and Caster are involved in the plot? Did they actually get Oswald to put his prints on the rifle?
They wanted to get Oswald's prints on a Mauser and then they planted a Carcano, a different type of rifle.
Why couldn't they get Truly's "n****s" to implicate Oswald? They could say - or be forced to say - they saw Oswald carrying a large package with him that day. Or say that he expressed hatred of JFK.
The conspiracy believers think the conspirators could do anything. But they couldn't get Oswald's co-workers to implicate him directly in the assassination. Or get Marina to say he hated JFK. Or get Ruth Paine to say she saw him with a package that morning. Or get Michael to say he saw the rifle. Or get DeMohrenschildt to say.....on and and on.
We've raised these matters repeatedly with the conspiracy believers. And they can never answer them. A type of conspiracy cognitive dissonance ensues and they get frustrated. If they truly considered them, their beliefs would crumble completely. This is something they cannot allow.
-
They wanted to get Oswald's prints on a Mauser and then they planted a Carcano, a different type of rifle.
Why couldn't they get Truly's "n****s" to implicate Oswald? They could say - or be forced to say - they saw Oswald carrying a large package with him that day. Or say that he expressed hatred of JFK.
The conspiracy believers think the conspirators could do anything. But they couldn't get Oswald's co-workers to implicate him directly in the assassination. Or get Marina to say he hated JFK. Or get Ruth Paine to say she saw him with a package that morning. Or get Michael to say he saw the rifle. Or get DeMohrenschildt to say.....on and and on.
We've raised these matters repeatedly with the conspiracy believers. And they can never answer them. A type of conspiracy cognitive dissonance ensues and they get frustrated. If they truly considered them, their beliefs would crumble completely. This is something they cannot allow.
Yes, it is amazing. So many logical inconsistencies. They must live in an interesting fantasy world. They often dispute, for example, that Oswald's prints were on the rifle because the authorities had control of the evidence and could make up any findings they wanted. So why go through this bizarre charade with Caster's rifles to actually get Oswald's prints on the rifle? Necessitating the recruitment of at least two random citizens into the plot who have to be kept quiet etc. We are sometimes told Frazier is lying about the long bag to implicate Oswald, but then Frazier can't be convinced to confirm that it was long enough to carry the rifle. The entire purpose of making up the long bag story. We are told the conspirators assassinated JFK as a pretext for war with Cuba, but then all the blame is put on Oswald and the authorities decline to implicate Cuba. Thus undermining the entire basis for the assassination under this theory. And on and on. But logic and narrative consistency are not a necessary pretext for a good conspiracy fantasy.
-
No, he didn't if you mean the same model of rifle that was used by Oswald to assassinate JFK.
No, I didn't mean anything of the sort, lol.
In the light of
a) this document---------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
----------------and
b) the known fact that "a _____________ rifle" refers to a Mauser rifle,
and
c) the fact that Lt Day says he put the Carcano in a locked evidence box from ~2pm to ~7pm,
I asked:
'Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?'
-
They wanted to get Oswald's prints on a Mauser and then they planted a Carcano, a different type of rifle.
Why couldn't they get Truly's "n****s" to implicate Oswald? They could say - or be forced to say - they saw Oswald carrying a large package with him that day. Or say that he expressed hatred of JFK.
The conspiracy believers think the conspirators could do anything. But they couldn't get Oswald's co-workers to implicate him directly in the assassination. Or get Marina to say he hated JFK. Or get Ruth Paine to say she saw him with a package that morning. Or get Michael to say he saw the rifle. Or get DeMohrenschildt to say.....on and and on.
We've raised these matters repeatedly with the conspiracy believers. And they can never answer them. A type of conspiracy cognitive dissonance ensues and they get frustrated. If they truly considered them, their beliefs would crumble completely. This is something they cannot allow.
King of the Strawman Argument strikes again! :D
-
No, I didn't mean anything of the sort, lol.
In the light of
a) this document---------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
----------------and
b) the known fact that "a _____________ rifle" refers to a Mauser rifle,
and
c) the fact that Lt Day says he put the Carcano in a locked evidence box from ~2pm to ~7pm,
I asked:
'Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?'
And! Lest there be any doubt that "the rifle" referred to in the document refers to a rifle found in the Depository, let us look at the paragraph before-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/46/5b/kC1nVxFW_o.jpg)
"THE GUN" = "THE RIFLE"
Mr Oswald is telling Captain Fritz he saw Mr Truly handling a Mauser rifle two days before the assassination, and is evidently relating this rifle to a rifle that has been found at the scene of the crime.
But how does Mr Oswald know to relate a Mauser rifle to a rifle found at the scene of the crime if he is not being shown a Mauser rifle and told it was found at the scene of the crime?
Now if only we had some evidence that a Mauser was found at the scene of the crime...................
-
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Not knowing anything about firearms, I was wondering if "sporterized" meant there was a scope attached.
This testimony means NOTHING.....If you can produce something that Caster said on Friday or Saturday Before they knew that they needed to obfuscate Lee Oswald's statement..... Then it might be believable.
According to the FBI memo...Lee said that he saw TWO rifles....NOT THREE. And there were NOT more than two men present.
-
So...does "sporterized" mean it has a scope or not?
"According to the FBI memo...Lee said that he saw TWO rifles....NOT THREE. And there were NOT more than two men present."
Who mentioned three rifles?
-
So...does "sporterized" mean it has a scope or not?
"According to the FBI memo...Lee said that he saw TWO rifles....NOT THREE. And there were NOT more than two men present."
Who mentioned three rifles?
Typically, it means that someone took an old military bolt action rifle and shortened the barrel and/or forestock. Sometimes the military-style stock was replaced with a commercial rifle stock. A scope was often part of the equation, but not always.
For reference, two m1903 Springfield rifles, first an original then a sporter (these might be a bit big):
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/userimages/17207/997945276/wm_15044020.jpg)
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/userimages/193/988893528/wm_13077312.jpg)
-
Thanks for that Richard.
My line of thought was that the Carcano couldn't be mistaken for a "sporterized" deer hunting rifle.
I'm assuming the stock of the Carcano was 'original' and that it hadn't been modifed.
-
And! Lest there be any doubt that "the rifle" referred to in the document refers to a rifle found in the Depository, let us look at the paragraph before-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/46/5b/kC1nVxFW_o.jpg)
"THE GUN" = "THE RIFLE"
Mr Oswald is telling Captain Fritz he saw Mr Truly handling a Mauser rifle two days before the assassination, and is evidently relating this rifle to a rifle that has been found at the scene of the crime.
But how does Mr Oswald know to relate a Mauser rifle to a rifle found at the scene of the crime if he is not being shown a Mauser rifle and told it was found at the scene of the crime?
Now if only we had some evidence that a Mauser was found at the scene of the crime...................
Mr Oswald is telling Captain Fritz he saw Mr Truly handling a Mauser rifle two days before the assassination, and is evidently relating this rifle to a rifle that has been found at the scene of the crime.
No that's not correct!....
Mr Oswald is telling Captain Fritz he saw Mr Truly handling a CARCANO rifle two days before the assassination, and is evidently relating this rifle to a rifle that has been found at the scene of the crime.[
When Fritz showed Lee the carcano from the sixth floor and asked him if he'd ever seen it before... Lee Replied that he'd seen it and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the TSBD.
I recently learned that Roy Truly was not familiar with guns and didn't know how to handle a rifle. Whereas Lee had been trained in the Marine Corps ..... Whoever left the prints on the Carcano magazine did NOT know how to handle a rifle. You'll notice in the BY photos Lee is holding the carcano at the WOODEN foregrip. I seriously doubt that Lee would have grabbed the rifle at the magazine. Whoever left the prints there ....was an ignoramus who would have been doing extra push ups ....
Any ex GI can tell you that you DO NOT handle a rifle by the metal parts.... ( because sweat can cause rust and corrosion) r
-
So...does "sporterized" mean it has a scope or not?
"According to the FBI memo...Lee said that he saw TWO rifles....NOT THREE. And there were NOT more than two men present."
Who mentioned three rifles?
Sporterized does not mean the converted military rifle would have a scope mounted....Sporterized means primarily that the old military wood of the rifle has been modified or replaced....But usually the wooden stock is replaced with a nicely grained hard wood like Walnut or Hickory, or Maple, and finished with a high gloss finish. And usually the old military sights are replaced with civilian sights, and often a scope is mounted.
-
Thanks for that Richard.
My line of thought was that the Carcano couldn't be mistaken for a "sporterized" deer hunting rifle.
I'm assuming the stock of the Carcano was 'original' and that it hadn't been modifed.
The Carcan does not lend itself to easy conversion to a "sporterized hunting rifle' The Carcano does not have a well designed high quality action that is strong, and smooth with a tight trigger. IMO the major problem is the fact that the bolt cocks on the opening rather than the closure of the bolt. This design makes it impossible to fire the carcano rapidly and accurately.
The opening of the bolt of the carcano, with a spent shell is sticky and it causes the shooter to pull the muzzle waaaay off target ....
-
Thanks for that Richard.
My line of thought was that the Carcano couldn't be mistaken for a "sporterized" deer hunting rifle.
I'm assuming the stock of the Carcano was 'original' and that it hadn't been modifed.
Richard who?
-
Richard who?
;D
Really sorry Mitch
You've got the same avatar as Richard Smith.
My bad
-
Typically, it means that someone took an old military bolt action rifle and shortened the barrel and/or forestock. Sometimes the military-style stock was replaced with a commercial rifle stock. A scope was often part of the equation, but not always.
For reference, two m1903 Springfield rifles, first an original then a sporter (these might be a bit big):
swap these if you want
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5Y330Bg/pink.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJbQhpKZ/beige.png)
-
;D
Really sorry Mitch
You've got the same avatar as Richard Smith.
My bad
Neither of them that good-looking ;)
-
Hi Mitch,
Do you think the Carcano could be mistaken for a 'sporterized' Mauser?
Does the Carcano look 'sporterized' in any way?
-
Hi Mitch,
Do you think the Carcano could be mistaken for a 'sporterized' Mauser?
Does the Carcano look 'sporterized' in any way?
No. The Carcano is a stock military bolt-action rifle, and it looks the part. I can't see how anyone who knows what a sporter is would think the Carcano is a sporter.
-
No. The Carcano is a stock military bolt-action rifle, and it looks the part. I can't see how anyone who knows what a sporter is would think the Carcano is a sporter.
The Carcano is a stock military bolt-action rifle, and it looks the part.
You're right Mitch....Except you forgot that the rifle that was found in the TSBD had a scope mounted. That scope was NOT standard as issued part of the rifle. As a matter of fact, The cheap scope was hastily and sloppily attached to the Carcano's that Klein's sold to enhance the sales appeal. In reality that POS scope was a hindrance to the firing of the rifle ...It DID NOT enhance the accuracy or the utility of the rifle in any way. However that scope was great for duping the gullible public. The police investigators boldly proclaimed that the rifle was a deadly accurate weapon with a telescopic sight.
-
The conspiracy believers think the conspirators could do anything. But they couldn't get Oswald's co-workers to implicate him directly in the assassination. Or get Marina to say he hated JFK. Or get Ruth Paine to say she saw him with a package that morning. Or get Michael to say he saw the rifle. Or get DeMohrenschildt to say.....on and and on.
We've raised these matters repeatedly with the conspiracy believers. And they can never answer them.
No, "these matters" are ridiculous strawman arguments to deflect from your own inability to prove your case. I have never come across a single person ever who tried to claim that "the conspirators could do anything".
-
Yes, it is amazing. So many logical inconsistencies. They must live in an interesting fantasy world. They often dispute, for example, that Oswald's prints were on the rifle because the authorities had control of the evidence and could make up any findings they wanted.
Who are you trying to fool? There were some prints in the trigger guard area that were insufficient for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
-
Who are you trying to fool? There were some prints in the trigger guard area that were insufficient for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
This is not correct.....The so called "palm print was spotted by Lt Day when he was dusting the carcano for prints in the TSBD at about 1:45 that afternoon. Day spotted what he thought was a palm print in the wooden foregrip of the carcano. He knew that the wood would absorb the print rather quickly so he used cellophane tape and lifted the print and placed the lift on a 3 X 5 index card . He the jotted down the info that was pertinent to the lift ...11/22/63 "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle c2766", as Tom Alyea watched. Later that night when the DPD was ordered to release all of the evidence to the FBI ...The index card with the cellophane tape "palm print" was released. It is item number 14 on the evidence list.
-
This is not correct.....The so called "palm print was spotted by Lt Day when he was dusting the carcano for prints in the TSBD at about 1:45 that afternoon. Day spotted what he thought was a palm print in the wooden foregrip of the carcano. He knew that the wood would absorb the print rather quickly so he used cellophane tape and lifted the print and placed the lift on a 3 X 5 index card . He the jotted down the info that was pertinent to the lift ...11/22/63 "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle c2766", as Tom Alyea watched. Later that night when the DPD was ordered to release all of the evidence to the FBI ...The index card with the cellophane tape "palm print" was released. It is item number 14 on the evidence list.
Yes, I'm very familiar with Lt. Day's claim. The lift still appeared a week later on an index card, there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location. And no, your undated evidence list tells you nothing about what was released to the FBI on 11/22. Latona got the lift on the 29th.
-
Yes, I'm very familiar with Lt. Day's claim. The lift still appeared a week later on an index card, there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location. And no, your undated evidence list tells you nothing about what was released to the FBI on 11/22. Latona got the lift on the 29th.
The lift still appeared a week later on an index card, there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location.
Thank you, John.... "there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location."
You're referring to the METAL BARREL about 6 inches back from the muzzle of the rifle....and not only did Latona swear that there was NO INDICATION that there had ever been a print at that site, but he also swore that there wasn't any trace that the area had ever been checked for finger prints. AND Let me point out that there is a bayonet lug that surrounds the metal barrel at the site and that bayonet lug would have prevented anybody from depositing a print on the metal barrel "that extended back beneath the wood of the foregrip" ( as Lt. Day testified)
-
The Carcano is a stock military bolt-action rifle, and it looks the part.
You're right Mitch....Except you forgot that the rifle that was found in the TSBD had a scope mounted. That scope was NOT standard as issued part of the rifle. As a matter of fact, The cheap scope was hastily and sloppily attached to the Carcano's that Klein's sold to enhance the sales appeal. In reality that POS scope was a hindrance to the firing of the rifle ...It DID NOT enhance the accuracy or the utility of the rifle in any way. However that scope was great for duping the gullible public. The police investigators boldly proclaimed that the rifle was a deadly accurate weapon with a telescopic sight.
Didn't forget anything. I'm sure that that everyone knows the Carcano has a scope mounted, enough that I shouldn't have to remind everyone.
I'm also sure that whether the rifle had a scope on it is immaterial to Mr O'Meara's question as to whether the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized.
I'm also sure that someone else here has recently said:
Sporterized does not mean the converted military rifle would have a scope mounted...
That person agrees that the scope is immaterial as to whether the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized, and not really worth mentioning in this context.
-
Didn't forget anything. I'm sure that that everyone knows the Carcano has a scope mounted, enough that I shouldn't have to remind everyone.
I'm also sure that whether the rifle had a scope on it is immaterial to Mr O'Meara's question as to whether the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized.
I'm also sure that someone else here has recently said:
That person agrees that the scope is immaterial as to whether the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized, and not really worth mentioning in this context.
Arnold Rowland is quite specific about the rifle he sees being held by a man on the sixth floor at around 12:15. It's a type of rifle he seems familiar with having used one before:
"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."
Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?
-
Arnold Rowland is quite specific about the rifle he sees being held by a man on the sixth floor at around 12:15. It's a type of rifle he seems familiar with having used one before:
"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."
Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?
Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?
Rowland was definitely describing a sporting rifle ( ie; a hunting rifle) with a LARGE scope ..He was not describing a MILITARY rifle.
There would be no way of knowing if the sporting rifle that Rowland saw was manufactured as a sporting rifle. or if the rifle had been manufactured as a military rifle and then converted by sporterizing, to a hunting rifle.
-
-------------------Mr Warren Caster buys two rifles 11/20: one a present for his son, the other for himself (a Mauser)
-------------------Mr Oswald sees Mr Caster's Mauser in the hands of Mr Truly (again, 11/20)
-------------------A Mauser is found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination
-------------------Mr Oswald in custody is shown this Mauser and asked 'Have you seen this rifle before?'........... He answers (truthfully) "I saw a Mauser just like this in the hands of my boss Mr Truly two days ago"
The above sequence of events does not require Mr Caster to have been anything other than wholly innocent of any involvement in the assassination. The significance of this document-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
-----------lies elsewhere: it offers indirect confirmation that a Mauser rifle really was found on the sixth floor. Deputy Constable Weitzman & Deputy Sheriff Boone did NOT hallucinate it.
-
-------------------Mr Warren Caster buys two rifles 11/20: one a present for his son, the other for himself (a Mauser)
-------------------Mr Oswald sees Mr Caster's Mauser in the hands of Mr Truly (again, 11/20)
-------------------A Mauser is found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination
-------------------Mr Oswald in custody is shown this Mauser and asked 'Have you seen this rifle before?'........... He answers (truthfully) "I saw a Mauser just like this in the hands of my boss Mr Truly two days ago"
The above sequence of events does not require Mr Caster to have been anything other than wholly innocent of any involvement in the assassination. The significance of this document-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
-----------lies elsewhere: it offers indirect confirmation that a Mauser rifle really was found on the sixth floor. Deputy Constable Weitzmann & Deputy Sheriff Boone did NOT hallucinate it.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but the Carcano is seen being removed from the TSBD. This is surely taken to the DPD.
Why would Fritz show Oswald a Mauser and not the Carcano?
-
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but the Carcano is seen being removed from the TSBD. This is surely taken to the DPD.
Why would Fritz show Oswald a Mauser and not the Carcano?
Well, it would depend on where the Mauser was found, and where the Carcano. ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth's claim that the Carcano was NOT found on the sixth floor is mucho intriguing.
-
Well, it would depend on where the Mauser was found, and where the Carcano. ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth's claim that the Carcano was NOT found on the sixth floor is mucho intriguing.
What I mean is - what happened to the Carcano that was taken away from the TSBD.
We know that happens because there is photographic evidence of it.
If it went to the DPD why would Fritz show Oswald a Mauser and not the Carcano that, I assume, was taken to the DPD?
-
-------------------Mr Warren Caster buys two rifles 11/20: one a present for his son, the other for himself (a Mauser)
-------------------Mr Oswald sees Mr Caster's Mauser in the hands of Mr Truly (again, 11/20)
-------------------A Mauser is found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination
-------------------Mr Oswald in custody is shown this Mauser and asked 'Have you seen this rifle before?'........... He answers (truthfully) "I saw a Mauser just like this in the hands of my boss Mr Truly two days ago"
The above sequence of events does not require Mr Caster to have been anything other than wholly innocent of any involvement in the assassination. The significance of this document-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
-----------lies elsewhere: it offers indirect confirmation that a Mauser rifle really was found on the sixth floor. Deputy Constable Weitzman & Deputy Sheriff Boone did NOT hallucinate it.
How exactly would Caster be wholly innocent in this fantasy? He confirms that he took his rifles home and they were never brought back to the TSBD.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the guns after that?
Mr. CASTER. I put them back in the carton and carried them up to my office.
Mr. BALL. And what did you do with them after that?
Mr. CASTER. I left at the end of the working day, oh, around 4 o'clock and took the guns in the cartons and carried them and put them in my car and carried them home.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever have them back in the Texas School Book Depository Building thereafter?
Mr. CASTER. They have never been back to the Texas School Book Depository Building since then.
Mr. BALL. Where were those guns on November 22, 1963?
Mr. CASTER. The guns were in my home, 3338 Merrell Road.
-
What I mean is - what happened to the Carcano that was taken away from the TSBD.
We know that happens because there is photographic evidence of it.
If it went to the DPD why would Fritz show Oswald a Mauser and not the Carcano that, I assume, was taken to the DPD?
Here is the film taken by Tom Alyea, a cameraman for WFAA-TV, showing them finding and retrieving the rifle. This was shown live by the station after they developed it and shortly after the assassination.
Did the "conspirators" plant evidence AND let a newsman film them at the same time? Why wold they allow this to happen if they were staging things? It makes no sense. And they recovered this rifle and then Fritz showed Oswald a Mauser?
All of this discovery was done BEFORE the workers in the building had been interviewed. If they later said that Oswald was with them and couldn't have shot JFK then all of this planting of evidence implicating Oswald would be exposed. This entire alleged plan collapses. Again, this makes no sense at all.
-
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but the Carcano is seen being removed from the TSBD. This is surely taken to the DPD.
Why would Fritz show Oswald a Mauser and not the Carcano?
So...Let me get this straight....The conspirators want to set Lee Up as the scape goat....and they have photos that show Lee holding a MANNLICHER CARCANO...... So they plant a MAUSER that has no connection to Lee Oswald.
Do I have this right?
-
Well, it would depend on where the Mauser was found, and where the Carcano. ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth's claim that the Carcano was NOT found on the sixth floor is mucho intriguing.
Perhaps your vision might improve if you extract your head....
Tom Alyea was right there with his camera when Lt Day picked up the Mannlicher Carcano which was lying on the floor, on it's side, with the leather sling up. The rifle was 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall. The film of Lt. Day picking up the rifle clearly show that the rifle was a MANNLICHER CARCANO.
-
Here is the film taken by Tom Alyea, a cameraman for WFAA-TV, showing them finding and retrieving the rifle. This was shown live by the station after they developed it and shortly after the assassination.
Did the "conspirators" plant evidence AND let a newsman film them at the same time? Why wold they allow this to happen if they were staging things? It makes no sense. And they recovered this rifle and then Fritz showed Oswald a Mauser?
All of this discovery was done BEFORE the workers in the building had been interviewed. If they later said that Oswald was with them and couldn't have shot JFK then all of this planting of evidence implicating Oswald would be exposed. This entire alleged plan collapses. Again, this makes no sense at all.
Steve, your post is so screwed up, that it's not worth trying to straighten out.....
-
What I mean is - what happened to the Carcano that was taken away from the TSBD.
We know that happens because there is photographic evidence of it.
If it went to the DPD why would Fritz show Oswald a Mauser and not the Carcano that, I assume, was taken to the DPD?
Well, according to Lt. Day, the Carcano was locked away in the evidence box before Mr Oswald's interrogation had started--and not extracted until ~7pm that evening.
-
How exactly would Caster be wholly innocent in this fantasy? He confirms that he took his rifles home and they were never brought back to the TSBD.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the guns after that?
Mr. CASTER. I put them back in the carton and carried them up to my office.
Mr. BALL. And what did you do with them after that?
Mr. CASTER. I left at the end of the working day, oh, around 4 o'clock and took the guns in the cartons and carried them and put them in my car and carried them home.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever have them back in the Texas School Book Depository Building thereafter?
Mr. CASTER. They have never been back to the Texas School Book Depository Building since then.
Mr. BALL. Where were those guns on November 22, 1963?
Mr. CASTER. The guns were in my home, 3338 Merrell Road.
Exactly---------------his Mauser had nothing to do with the assassination
-
Here is the film taken by Tom Alyea, a cameraman for WFAA-TV, showing them finding and retrieving the rifle. This was shown live by the station after they developed it and shortly after the assassination.
'Shown live', lol
-
So...Let me get this straight....The conspirators want to set Lee Up as the scape goat....and they have photos that show Lee holding a MANNLICHER CARCANO...... So they plant a MAUSER that has no connection to Lee Oswald.
Do I have this right?
As usual----------no, you don't
-
Perhaps your vision might improve if you extract your head....
Tom Alyea was right there with his camera when Lt Day picked up the Mannlicher Carcano which was lying on the floor, on it's side, with the leather sling up. The rifle was 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall. The film of Lt. Day picking up the rifle clearly show that the rifle was a MANNLICHER CARCANO.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/26/crH4nipJ_o.jpg)
-
'Shown live', lol
The Alyea film was dropped out of the building by him and taken to the WFAA-TV studio where it was immediately developed. It was then shown live on WFAA-TV and narrated by Jay Watson and Bert Shipp.
If you watch the video you can hear Schipp narrate the film as it's shown LIVE on television. Below is Watson on the left and Shipp on the right, shown as the film began to play. All of this is in the video.
My mistake; wrong link. The film with their narration is here (go to the 3:28 mark):
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XNRMXWxIJnXPEE_sIjtKbN8adA3JFvb3DfqBR563KtLIGYRWRK45_ziFVCHJSxESNpH8c7_IgbrfT7o7_LjUca1D21-a8o0GqSkIcl5MMVI5XmEsiFCHlR2pKVrcKchOfFXYd8bm3C5zak7WK2TcesZ7CibzphsFmFbB9oDdBRyxJUkAl8qjXd4mSK2aJmfqBZGhKtjDjxpL1xNYbC7REUpFGnK3VwuJBVe5r_eVfSKBIdPNtgvP4vmFFsuglUa0uS0q2tmnFUhuVCj7gfhxXU7oTk81g3Ii1UwhnBkQxrPhWtarFpPynxT5xtT7L3dw4v6hnzfPY4pb2IXpVb2Dcqq3yaydvLNo8e_iK_a896VuHfU1Y03yR4ks5K_RQPIQq8PQwekVO-MweAraNp5THRglTgTypOqAJ4AmlcidH52lEq-XIUD13QGK1W0tcfwnqb-s_1TKlN1S8L01MJWB3L5WpKAaO4QCXZZN6NbpHyQYPSR4iR8m30WhlaKte2Qub-P64CGSwiSIUOuqDDLaaH_mb4ioL8BXUPShfOYV2RHR0A9QbUZatMI7iJoa9LJPEWBx1TiWVJH_CT2yFGNMWYKxHButEoaxcddo-W6aC4QFw3TP7-BM83OeWGjUjG6ILMj1105Pob9crqfyuKznPpuKYZVJ7pdWRs-MBhusEkZEqQcmezkWPNKs8hPY2g=w788-h549-no?authuser=0)
-
As usual----------no, you don't
Well Ok.... You tell me where I went wrong. And start with any photo ( just one) that shows a 7.65 Mauser anywhere near the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63 .
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/26/crH4nipJ_o.jpg)
Ford....Get off this race track.... you're a model T .... and you're no match for even a Yugo....
-
So...Let me get this straight....The conspirators want to set Lee Up as the scape goat....and they have photos that show Lee holding a MANNLICHER CARCANO...... So they plant a MAUSER that has no connection to Lee Oswald.
If a Mauser was found in the TSBD as Boone, Wietzman, and Craig reported then why does that have to mean that it was "planted"? Maybe it was actually used.
-
If a Mauser was found in the TSBD as Boone, Wietzman, and Craig reported then why does that have to mean that it was "planted"? Maybe it was actually used.
The rifle that was found on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher Carcano...WHEN would Boone, Weitzman, and Craig have seen a Mauser?? And why wouldn't any other lawman have reported seeing a Mauser?
-
The rifle that was found on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher Carcano...WHEN would Boone, Weitzman, and Craig have seen a Mauser?? And why wouldn't any other lawman have reported seeing a Mauser?
They were all lawmen.
How many do you need?
-
They were all lawmen.
How many do you need?
99% of the men on the sixth floor were Lawmen.....I believe that Tom Alyea was the only man who was not a lawman.
start with any photo ( just one) that shows a 7.65 Mauser anywhere near the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63 .
-
99% of the men on the sixth floor were Lawmen.....I believe that Tom Alyea was the only man who was not a lawman.
start with any photo ( just one) that shows a 7.65 Mauser anywhere near the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63 .
If there's not a photo then it didn't happen?
-
99% of the men on the sixth floor were Lawmen.....I believe that Tom Alyea was the only man who was not a lawman.
start with any photo ( just one) that shows a 7.65 Mauser anywhere near the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63 .
This whole thing could've been resolved decades ago.
Just start with any photo of Oswald taking the shot.
;)
-
If there's not a photo then it didn't happen?
While I don't know the exact number of photos that that show the rifle to be a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano, I'd guess there are at least two dozen.....But there isn't a single photo that shows a 7.65 Mauser at the TSBD that afternoon.
-
This whole thing could've been resolved decades ago.
Just start with any photo of Oswald taking the shot.
;)
Really?? Walk me through that scenario...
-
If there's not a photo then it didn't happen?
Didn't you claim that all three of the deputies said that the rifle they saw was a 7.65 Mauser? Where were all three together, and saw a Mauser?
-
While I don't know the exact number of photos that that show the rifle to be a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano, I'd guess there are at least two dozen.....But there isn't a single photo that shows a 7.65 Mauser at the TSBD that afternoon.
The rifle? Why would you assume there was exactly one?
-
The rifle? Why would you assume there was exactly one?
I base that on the scribbled notes ( which indicate the interrogation occurred at 3:15 ) I know that it's SOP to display the weapon to the suspect and observe the suspects reaction to being faced with the weapon. And one of the first things Fritz asked Lee ( after the preliminaries was Have you ever seen this rifle? And Hosty jotted down Lee's reply.... " I saw this rifle the day before yesterday. Mr Truly and another guy, had it outside of Mr Truly's office on the first floor.
-
Well, that would be Walt Fabrication #3, wouldn't it?
-
Well, that would be Walt Fabrication #3, wouldn't it?
I'm sorry that you lack the ability to read Hosty's scribbled notes ( and the typed report that the Ford posted) and your inability to put the pieces in place that allow any average 12 year old to see what was being written.
-
Arnold Rowland is quite specific about the rifle he sees being held by a man on the sixth floor at around 12:15. It's a type of rifle he seems familiar with having used one before:
"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."
Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?
IIRC, he described it as being "a deer rifle," which could imply a sporterized rifle, assuming that the rifle wasn't an actual hunting rifle rather than a conversion. Then again, he was about 300 feet from it. How well could he see it to describe it.
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his statements. He places the guy holding the gun 15 feet inside the window. However, if you look at photos of the TSBD exterior, you can see the boxes stacked up in the southeast corner the sixth floor windows. Those are not more than two feet from the wall. On the west side of the sixth floor, there are man-high stacks of boxes, but all you see in the photos is darkness behind the windows. Those stacks are several feet inside the building, too far in to be lit by the high afternoon sun. Someone standing 15 feet inside the windows isn't exactly what I'd expect to see in that situation, especially at 100 yards.
And Rowland's background, as described in his and his wife's WC testimony doesn't exactly lend the ring of truth to the story.
-
IIRC, he described it as being "a deer rifle," which could imply a sporterized rifle, assuming that the rifle wasn't an actual hunting rifle rather than a conversion. Then again, he was about 300 feet from it. How well could he see it to describe it.
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his statements. He places the guy holding the gun 15 feet inside the window. However, if you look at photos of the TSBD exterior, you can see the boxes stacked up in the southeast corner the sixth floor windows. Those are not more than two feet from the wall. On the west side of the sixth floor, there are man-high stacks of boxes, but all you see in the photos is darkness behind the windows. Those stacks are several feet inside the building, too far in to be lit by the high afternoon sun. Someone standing 15 feet inside the windows isn't exactly what I'd expect to see in that situation, especially at 100 yards.
And Rowland's background, as described in his and his wife's WC testimony doesn't exactly lend the ring of truth to the story.
Trouble with that is that Arnold said he was talking about the window at the South West of the building not the South East. So the info about the boxes is irrelevant.
-
IIRC, he described it as being "a deer rifle," which could imply a sporterized rifle, assuming that the rifle wasn't an actual hunting rifle rather than a conversion. Then again, he was about 300 feet from it. How well could he see it to describe it.
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his statements. He places the guy holding the gun 15 feet inside the window. However, if you look at photos of the TSBD exterior, you can see the boxes stacked up in the southeast corner the sixth floor windows. Those are not more than two feet from the wall. On the west side of the sixth floor, there are man-high stacks of boxes, but all you see in the photos is darkness behind the windows. Those stacks are several feet inside the building, too far in to be lit by the high afternoon sun. Someone standing 15 feet inside the windows isn't exactly what I'd expect to see in that situation, especially at 100 yards.
And Rowland's background, as described in his and his wife's WC testimony doesn't exactly lend the ring of truth to the story.
Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:
Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.
In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
-
Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:
Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.
In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
You seriously need to reread his testimony. Nothing could be further from the truth. Start with being able to know anything about the rifle from 150 feet away. A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist. Specter realized Arnold was making it all up and repeatedly questions him about these observations that are false.
-
Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:
Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.
In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
I agree, Mr, O..... And I would hope that Mr. M would understand that once a military rifle has been converted ( sporterized) it is fundamentally the same as a rifle that was designed and manufactured as a hunting rifle. And depending on the degree of "sporterizing" a converted military rifle may be virtually the same as a rifle that was manufactured as a hunting rifle.
He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
Yes, indeed he did!...... and he clearly did NOT described the carcano, that is ALLEGEDLY the murder weapon......
-
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
You seriously need to reread his testimony. Nothing could be further from the truth. Start with being able to know anything about the rifle from 150 feet away. A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist. Specter realized Arnold was making it all up and repeatedly questions him about these observations that are false.
A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist.
What a dumb and weak attempt at a rebuttal!....
30.06 refers to the CARTRIDGE..... Not a rifle.... It is the CALIBER of a rifle. However it is very common to use thirty aught six to identify a rifle, when referring to a rifle that is designed to fire the 30.06 CARTRIDGE
A 30.06 rifle ( aka: thirty aught six ) does exist....In fact there are thousand's of them.... And most folks refer to the rifles that are chambered to fire the 30.06 CARTRIDGE as a thirty aught six ...HOWEVER ...Some ignorant neophytes erroneously call any big game hunting rifle.... a "thirty aught six". Even though the rifle they are referring to might actually be designed to fire the 7.65 Belgian Mauser cartridge....( I believe that young Arnold Rowland fell into this category)
Some southerners, in their southern drawl, pronounce 30.06 as thurty odd six ....
More to the point.....Arnold Rowland, was about 150 feet away from the man with the HUNTING rifle with a large scope, so he nor any mortal man, could know the CALIBER of the rifle that the khaki clad man was holding.....
-
He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
Yes, indeed he did!...... and he clearly did NOT described the carcano, that is ALLEGEDLY the murder weapon......
This is kind of what I was driving at.
He describes the scope as follows:
"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."
Could the Carcano be said to have a " fairly large or powerful scope" in proportion to the rifle?
-
This is kind of what I was driving at.
He describes the scope as follows:
"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."
Could the Carcano be said to have a " fairly large or powerful scope" in proportion to the rifle?
Look at photos of the carcano with the scope, and compare with a photo of a high powered hunting rifle with a large scopeand you be the judge....
IMO....the answer to your question..."Could the Carcano be said to have a " fairly large or powerful scope" in proportion to the rifle?" is an emphatic NO....
-
Trouble with that is that Arnold said he was talking about the window at the South West of the building not the South East. So the info about the boxes is irrelevant.
I know where Rowland's said his "rifleman" was. That fact goes towards what I was arguing.
-
Just a few corrections to your post Mitch:
Rowland stated in his testimony that he was about 150 feet away. from the man he saw holding the rifle. It is an incredibly accurate estimation. Not sure where you're getting 300 ft from.
300 feet comes from Google Maps. The Rowlands are very specific as to their location. Google maps says that their position is about 280 feet from the column of windows in the SW corner of the TSBD; while the 6th floor window sill is about 65' above ground. Not sure how that Pythagoruses out, but the result should round to about 300 feet.
Rowland is unequivocal that he had an excellent view of the rifle and recognised it as a type he had previously used.
"Deer rifle" is pretty generic. Most deer hunters I know seem to prefer lever guns for the task, but 'deer rifle' is a pretty generic term for a bolt action rifle. ".30-06" is a cartridge, rather than a type of rifle.
In his WC statement Rowland states that he doesn't remember saying the man with the rifle was stood 15 ft inside the building and seems confused as to why that's in the affidavit. He clarifies his observation in his WC testimony:
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Not 15ft in the building. 3-5 ft, and Rowland also states the sun was shining on the rifle making it easier to see. The comment about his wife's testimony seems strange.
He signed the affidavit as being "true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
A few days later, he executed another statement to the FBI wherein he said that the man with the rifle was 12-15 feet inside the window.
I think Rowland is the most impressive Dealey Plaza witness of all those who testified regarding the assassination. His memory and attention to detail are quite mind blowing. He saw the rifle clearly and described it clearly.
Sometimes, highly detailed memories are red flags, and ought to be treated with some skepticism.
As I said, read his testimony --and his wife's-- as to his background, and you'll come up with a different impression of the guy. If nothing else, count up how many jobs he's held in the year leading up to Mrs Rowland's WC deposition. I get:
West Foods (Salem Oregon)
Exchange Lumber (Salem)
Myron Frank (Salem)
Pizza Inn (Dallas)
Sanger Harris (Dallas)
Civic Reading Club (Dallas)
P.F. Collier (Dallas)
Life Circulation (Dallas)
The Rowlands were married May 16,1963. The next day they moved to Oregon, where they stayed until September. In their Nov 22, 1963 DCSD affidavits, the list 3026 Hammerly in Dallas. In their Mar 10, 1964 WC depositions, they said that they lived at 1131 Phinney, also in Dallas. Then there's the Feb 19, 1964 DCSD Det. Rose report regarding trying to find the Rowlands' whereabouts. Rose finds out that that the Rowlands no longer live at the Hammerly address (which belonged to Barbara's mother). Rowland's in-laws don't know where the young couple moved to. He checks with Adamson high school, where the Rowlands attended high school in the fall of '63. School records indicate that the Arnold and Barbara live at 809 S Marsalis, which turns out to be a "fictitious address,'" as Detective Rose notes. He's able to get a PO box from the Rowland in-laws, and finds that Rowland lists an address at 4114 Lakehurst Ct. However, the Rowlands only lived on Lakehurst from September 11, 1963 to November 14, 1963. Interestingly, that particular PO box was rented to the Rowlands on November 21, 1963, a week after the Rowlands vacated the Lakehurst address used to rent the box.
These aren't people with particularly stable lives. There's usually a reason for that. It's often not a good one.
Or, you can figure out if he's actually graduated from high school --there seems to be some question about that.
Mr. SPECTER - When did you graduate from high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - June 1963.
However....
Mr. BELIN. Is your husband a high school graduate or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No.
[...]
Mr. BELIN. Do you know how far your husband got through school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, his credits are all mixed up. I think he lacks one or two semesters.
Mr. BELIN. Of completing high school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
And there's some differences about grades:
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, what was the quality of your grades in high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - Well, up until my senior year they were 4.0 straight A's, in my senior year I got a couple of B's.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what his grades were?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Varied.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He made A's and B's in some subjects, and he made C's and D's, I think, in other subjects.
Mr. BELIN. Was this before .you were married?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He says he has an A average, but I don't believe him.
Mr. BELIN. Why? Did he tell you that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He told me that, because I saw a few of his report cards.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw a few of his report cards and they weren't all A's.
Not to beat on him too hard, we have this exchange:
Mr. SPECTER - Was the sound of the fire different from the first and second sounds you described?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, that is just it. It did not sound as though there was any return fire in that sense.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by return fire?
Mr. ROWLAND - That anyone fired back. You know, anyone in the procession such as our detectives or Secret Service men fired back at anything else. It gave the report of a rifle which most of the Secret Service men don't carry in a holster although I am sure they had some in the cars but the following two shots were the same report being of the same intensity, I state, because from a different position I know that the same rifle is not going to make the same sound in two different positions especially in a position such as it was, because of the ricocheting of sound and echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your basis for saying that, Mr. Rowland, that the rifle would not make the same sound in two different positions?
Mr. ROWLAND - This is due to a long study of sound and study of echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - When had you conducted that study?
Mr. ROWLAND - In physics in the past 3 years.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you read any special books on that subject?
Mr. ROWLAND - Quite a few.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect any of the titles and authors?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I do not.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you take any special courses which would give you insight into that subject matter?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was more or less on my own initiative. The instructor gave me help and aided me when I requested this during my off periods of class.
Mr. SPECTER - What instructor was that?
Mr. ROWLAND - His name was Foster.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall his first name?
Mr. ROWLAND - Sam.
[...]
Senator COOPER - You said earlier that you had been much interested in and pursued studies in sounds, I believe?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have studied quite a bit of electronics, sound. Math and science is what I like.
Senator COOPER - You said you had read books on this subject. Did you ever conduct any experiments yourself?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in the form of--there is a theory that sound is a basis of a transmitter and a receiver, that you have to have a receiver to have sound. There is a theory that if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there is nobody around where they can hear it, there is no sound.
Well, I have conducted experiments on this, and I--it is very interesting, very fascinating, but you can't prove it or you can't disprove it because if you have got a microphone there you have got a receiver.
Senator COOPER - Did you ever conduct any experiments with rifles, firing a rifle in relation to sound?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in a firing range.
Senator COOPER - Beg pardon?
Mr. ROWLAND - Firing range.
Senator COOPER - Yes.
Mr. ROWLAND - I did conduct a few experiments. One of them was firing a bullet over water; you know, we were using a set of wood blocks to fire into, so we had a big vat of water that we were firing over, and we had several different articles and composition floating on the water, trying to measure the effect of the sound wave upon that. Such as this we did conduct.
Senator COOPER - I think you did say that when you heard the first report that you considered it to be a rifle shot?
And, finally, this:
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
-
300 feet comes from Google Maps. The Rowlands are very specific as to their location. Google maps says that their position is about 280 feet from the column of windows in the SW corner of the TSBD; while the 6th floor window sill is about 65' above ground. Not sure how that Pythagoruses out, but the result should round to about 300 feet.
"Deer rifle" is pretty generic. Most deer hunters I know seem to prefer lever guns for the task, but 'deer rifle' is a pretty generic term for a bolt action rifle. ".30-06" is a cartridge, rather than a type of rifle.
He signed the affidavit as being "true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
A few days later, he executed another statement to the FBI wherein he said that the man with the rifle was 12-15 feet inside the window.
Sometimes, highly detailed memories are red flags, and ought to be treated with some skepticism.
As I said, read his testimony --and his wife's-- as to his background, and you'll come up with a different impression of the guy. If nothing else, count up how many jobs he's held in the year leading up to Mrs Rowland's WC deposition. I get:
West Foods (Salem Oregon)
Exchange Lumber (Salem)
Myron Frank (Salem)
Pizza Inn (Dallas)
Sanger Harris (Dallas)
Civic Reading Club (Dallas)
P.F. Collier (Dallas)
Life Circulation (Dallas)
The Rowlands were married May 16,1963. The next day they moved to Oregon, where they stayed until September. In their Nov 22, 1963 DCSD affidavits, the list 3026 Hammerly in Dallas. In their Mar 10, 1964 WC depositions, they said that they lived at 1131 Phinney, also in Dallas. Then there's the Feb 19, 1964 DCSD Det. Rose report regarding trying to find the Rowlands' whereabouts. Rose finds out that that the Rowlands no longer live at the Hammerly address (which belonged to Barbara's mother). Rowland's in-laws don't know where the young couple moved to. He checks with Adamson high school, where the Rowlands attended high school in the fall of '63. School records indicate that the Arnold and Barbara live at 809 S Marsalis, which turns out to be a "fictitious address,'" as Detective Rose notes. He's able to get a PO box from the Rowland in-laws, and finds that Rowland lists an address at 4114 Lakehurst Ct. However, the Rowlands only lived on Lakehurst from September 11, 1963 to November 14, 1963. Interestingly, that particular PO box was rented to the Rowlands on November 21, 1963, a week after the Rowlands vacated the Lakehurst address used to rent the box.
These aren't people with particularly stable lives. There's usually a reason for that. It's often not a good one.
Or, you can figure out if he's actually graduated from high school --there seems to be some question about that.
Mr. SPECTER - When did you graduate from high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - June 1963.
However....
Mr. BELIN. Is your husband a high school graduate or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No.
[...]
Mr. BELIN. Do you know how far your husband got through school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, his credits are all mixed up. I think he lacks one or two semesters.
Mr. BELIN. Of completing high school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
And there's some differences about grades:
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, what was the quality of your grades in high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - Well, up until my senior year they were 4.0 straight A's, in my senior year I got a couple of B's.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what his grades were?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Varied.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He made A's and B's in some subjects, and he made C's and D's, I think, in other subjects.
Mr. BELIN. Was this before .you were married?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He says he has an A average, but I don't believe him.
Mr. BELIN. Why? Did he tell you that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He told me that, because I saw a few of his report cards.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw a few of his report cards and they weren't all A's.
Not to beat on him too hard, we have this exchange:
Mr. SPECTER - Was the sound of the fire different from the first and second sounds you described?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, that is just it. It did not sound as though there was any return fire in that sense.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by return fire?
Mr. ROWLAND - That anyone fired back. You know, anyone in the procession such as our detectives or Secret Service men fired back at anything else. It gave the report of a rifle which most of the Secret Service men don't carry in a holster although I am sure they had some in the cars but the following two shots were the same report being of the same intensity, I state, because from a different position I know that the same rifle is not going to make the same sound in two different positions especially in a position such as it was, because of the ricocheting of sound and echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your basis for saying that, Mr. Rowland, that the rifle would not make the same sound in two different positions?
Mr. ROWLAND - This is due to a long study of sound and study of echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - When had you conducted that study?
Mr. ROWLAND - In physics in the past 3 years.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you read any special books on that subject?
Mr. ROWLAND - Quite a few.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect any of the titles and authors?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I do not.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you take any special courses which would give you insight into that subject matter?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was more or less on my own initiative. The instructor gave me help and aided me when I requested this during my off periods of class.
Mr. SPECTER - What instructor was that?
Mr. ROWLAND - His name was Foster.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall his first name?
Mr. ROWLAND - Sam.
[...]
Senator COOPER - You said earlier that you had been much interested in and pursued studies in sounds, I believe?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have studied quite a bit of electronics, sound. Math and science is what I like.
Senator COOPER - You said you had read books on this subject. Did you ever conduct any experiments yourself?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in the form of--there is a theory that sound is a basis of a transmitter and a receiver, that you have to have a receiver to have sound. There is a theory that if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there is nobody around where they can hear it, there is no sound.
Well, I have conducted experiments on this, and I--it is very interesting, very fascinating, but you can't prove it or you can't disprove it because if you have got a microphone there you have got a receiver.
Senator COOPER - Did you ever conduct any experiments with rifles, firing a rifle in relation to sound?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in a firing range.
Senator COOPER - Beg pardon?
Mr. ROWLAND - Firing range.
Senator COOPER - Yes.
Mr. ROWLAND - I did conduct a few experiments. One of them was firing a bullet over water; you know, we were using a set of wood blocks to fire into, so we had a big vat of water that we were firing over, and we had several different articles and composition floating on the water, trying to measure the effect of the sound wave upon that. Such as this we did conduct.
Senator COOPER - I think you did say that when you heard the first report that you considered it to be a rifle shot?
And, finally, this:
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
Mr Rowland was an unusually gifted young man.
-
Mr Rowland was an unusually gifted young man.
Hmmmm...Why are you so desperate to discredit Arnold Rowland? I suspect it could be the same reason that LBJ'c Special Select blue ribbon committee were desperate to discredit Mr Rowland....
-
Hmmmm...Why are you so desperate to discredit Arnold Rowland? I suspect it could be the same reason that LBJ'c Special Select blue ribbon committee were desperate to discredit Mr Rowland....
Are you trying to be stupid, Mr Cakebread? I am pointing out a simple fact: Mr Rowland was an unusually gifted young man. People like him often have more difficulty getting settled in life. Thankfully, he found his metier in the end and has done brilliantly.
His testimony was/is devastating to the official story.
-
Are you trying to be stupid, Mr Cakebread? I am pointing out a simple fact: Mr Rowland was an unusually gifted young man. People like him often have more difficulty getting settled in life. Thankfully, he found his metier in the end and has done brilliantly.
His testimony was/is devastating to the official story.
Are you trying to be stupid, Mr Cakebread?
Do I owe you an apology ?...I thought you were being sarcastic ....When you said..."Mr Rowland was an unusually gifted young man."
-
Mr Rowland was an unusually gifted young man.
I didn't realize how gifted until I read the background investigation that the WC did on him. Three dozen or so pages, all here:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7461052 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7461052)
At least, it's entertaining reading.
-
I didn't realize how gifted until I read the background investigation that the WC did on him. Three dozen or so pages, all here:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7461052 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7461052)
At least, it's entertaining reading.
I didn't realize how gifted until I read the background investigation that the WC did on him.
Would you care to guess WHY....the WC dug into Arnold Rowland's background?
-
300 feet comes from Google Maps. The Rowlands are very specific as to their location. Google maps says that their position is about 280 feet from the column of windows in the SW corner of the TSBD; while the 6th floor window sill is about 65' above ground. Not sure how that Pythagoruses out, but the result should round to about 300 feet.
"Deer rifle" is pretty generic. Most deer hunters I know seem to prefer lever guns for the task, but 'deer rifle' is a pretty generic term for a bolt action rifle. ".30-06" is a cartridge, rather than a type of rifle.
He signed the affidavit as being "true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
A few days later, he executed another statement to the FBI wherein he said that the man with the rifle was 12-15 feet inside the window.
Sometimes, highly detailed memories are red flags, and ought to be treated with some skepticism.
As I said, read his testimony --and his wife's-- as to his background, and you'll come up with a different impression of the guy. If nothing else, count up how many jobs he's held in the year leading up to Mrs Rowland's WC deposition. I get:
West Foods (Salem Oregon)
Exchange Lumber (Salem)
Myron Frank (Salem)
Pizza Inn (Dallas)
Sanger Harris (Dallas)
Civic Reading Club (Dallas)
P.F. Collier (Dallas)
Life Circulation (Dallas)
The Rowlands were married May 16,1963. The next day they moved to Oregon, where they stayed until September. In their Nov 22, 1963 DCSD affidavits, the list 3026 Hammerly in Dallas. In their Mar 10, 1964 WC depositions, they said that they lived at 1131 Phinney, also in Dallas. Then there's the Feb 19, 1964 DCSD Det. Rose report regarding trying to find the Rowlands' whereabouts. Rose finds out that that the Rowlands no longer live at the Hammerly address (which belonged to Barbara's mother). Rowland's in-laws don't know where the young couple moved to. He checks with Adamson high school, where the Rowlands attended high school in the fall of '63. School records indicate that the Arnold and Barbara live at 809 S Marsalis, which turns out to be a "fictitious address,'" as Detective Rose notes. He's able to get a PO box from the Rowland in-laws, and finds that Rowland lists an address at 4114 Lakehurst Ct. However, the Rowlands only lived on Lakehurst from September 11, 1963 to November 14, 1963. Interestingly, that particular PO box was rented to the Rowlands on November 21, 1963, a week after the Rowlands vacated the Lakehurst address used to rent the box.
These aren't people with particularly stable lives. There's usually a reason for that. It's often not a good one.
Or, you can figure out if he's actually graduated from high school --there seems to be some question about that.
Mr. SPECTER - When did you graduate from high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - June 1963.
However....
Mr. BELIN. Is your husband a high school graduate or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No.
[...]
Mr. BELIN. Do you know how far your husband got through school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, his credits are all mixed up. I think he lacks one or two semesters.
Mr. BELIN. Of completing high school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
And there's some differences about grades:
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, what was the quality of your grades in high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - Well, up until my senior year they were 4.0 straight A's, in my senior year I got a couple of B's.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what his grades were?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Varied.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He made A's and B's in some subjects, and he made C's and D's, I think, in other subjects.
Mr. BELIN. Was this before .you were married?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He says he has an A average, but I don't believe him.
Mr. BELIN. Why? Did he tell you that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He told me that, because I saw a few of his report cards.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw a few of his report cards and they weren't all A's.
Not to beat on him too hard, we have this exchange:
Mr. SPECTER - Was the sound of the fire different from the first and second sounds you described?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, that is just it. It did not sound as though there was any return fire in that sense.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by return fire?
Mr. ROWLAND - That anyone fired back. You know, anyone in the procession such as our detectives or Secret Service men fired back at anything else. It gave the report of a rifle which most of the Secret Service men don't carry in a holster although I am sure they had some in the cars but the following two shots were the same report being of the same intensity, I state, because from a different position I know that the same rifle is not going to make the same sound in two different positions especially in a position such as it was, because of the ricocheting of sound and echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your basis for saying that, Mr. Rowland, that the rifle would not make the same sound in two different positions?
Mr. ROWLAND - This is due to a long study of sound and study of echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - When had you conducted that study?
Mr. ROWLAND - In physics in the past 3 years.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you read any special books on that subject?
Mr. ROWLAND - Quite a few.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect any of the titles and authors?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I do not.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you take any special courses which would give you insight into that subject matter?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was more or less on my own initiative. The instructor gave me help and aided me when I requested this during my off periods of class.
Mr. SPECTER - What instructor was that?
Mr. ROWLAND - His name was Foster.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall his first name?
Mr. ROWLAND - Sam.
[...]
Senator COOPER - You said earlier that you had been much interested in and pursued studies in sounds, I believe?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have studied quite a bit of electronics, sound. Math and science is what I like.
Senator COOPER - You said you had read books on this subject. Did you ever conduct any experiments yourself?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in the form of--there is a theory that sound is a basis of a transmitter and a receiver, that you have to have a receiver to have sound. There is a theory that if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there is nobody around where they can hear it, there is no sound.
Well, I have conducted experiments on this, and I--it is very interesting, very fascinating, but you can't prove it or you can't disprove it because if you have got a microphone there you have got a receiver.
Senator COOPER - Did you ever conduct any experiments with rifles, firing a rifle in relation to sound?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in a firing range.
Senator COOPER - Beg pardon?
Mr. ROWLAND - Firing range.
Senator COOPER - Yes.
Mr. ROWLAND - I did conduct a few experiments. One of them was firing a bullet over water; you know, we were using a set of wood blocks to fire into, so we had a big vat of water that we were firing over, and we had several different articles and composition floating on the water, trying to measure the effect of the sound wave upon that. Such as this we did conduct.
Senator COOPER - I think you did say that when you heard the first report that you considered it to be a rifle shot?
And, finally, this:
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
This is just the tip of the iceberg with Rowland's statement. Little wonder he ends up bawling at the end.
Everything stated by Arnold could not withstand close scrutiny. Not only only did he reference a thirty odd size six rifle that doesn't exist. He represents himself as being knowledgeable about guns, but then makes up his own caliber and makes the statement it is an import and he knows the caliber "30 odd size 6" from 200 feet away. There is no such rifle as a “30 odd size 6”. A 30-06 is not an import rifle it was the standard cartridge of the US Military through two world wars and the Korean conflict. Everything about Rowlands statement indicates he was making it up as he went.
He gave three different answers to the question of did he look at the window after h heard the shots. He replied yes, no and maybe.
..-------------
Representative FORD - You never again, after the motorcade once came into your view, looked back at the School Depository Building?
Mr. ROWLAND - I did after the shots were fired.
.------------------
MAYBE ANSWER:
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any impression or reaction as to the point of origin when you heard the first noise?
Mr. ROWLAND - Well, I began looking, I didn't look at the building mainly, and as practically any of' the police officers that were there then will tell you, the echo effect was such that it sounded like it came from the railroad yards. That is where I looked, that is where all the policemen, everyone, converged on the railroads.
--------
NO ANSWER:
Mr. SPECTER - After the shots occurred, did you ever look back at the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I did not. In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself.
He also could not properly describe how a person would look framed in the window. Arnold did not know the window was installed 14 inches off the floor and ended up describing some person who at the most would have been 3.5 to 4 feet tall. Every time Specter would catch him in these obvious fairy tales he would repeatedly ask him question him about it, just to make the point Arnold was making the story up.
-
A :thirty odd size six"rifle does not exist.
What a dumb and weak attempt at a rebuttal!....
30.06 refers to the CARTRIDGE..... Not a rifle.... It is the CALIBER of a rifle. However it is very common to use thirty aught six to identify a rifle, when referring to a rifle that is designed to fire the 30.06 CARTRIDGE
A 30.06 rifle ( aka: thirty aught six ) does exist....In fact there are thousand's of them.... And most folks refer to the rifles that are chambered to fire the 30.06 CARTRIDGE as a thirty aught six ...HOWEVER ...Some ignorant neophytes erroneously call any big game hunting rifle.... a "thirty aught six". Even though the rifle they are referring to might actually be designed to fire the 7.65 Belgian Mauser cartridge....( I believe that young Arnold Rowland fell into this category)
Some southerners, in their southern drawl, pronounce 30.06 as thurty odd six ....
More to the point.....Arnold Rowland, was about 150 feet away from the man with the HUNTING rifle with a large scope, so he nor any mortal man, could know the CALIBER of the rifle that the khaki clad man was holding.....
Nice and entertaining too, before the end of this post you completely contradicted yourself. The only part you get right was what I posted years ago. The only takeaway from this post is you obviously know very little about firearms. Maybe only post on subjects you know a little about.
-
Nice and entertaining too, before the end of this post you completely contradicted yourself. The only part you get right was what I posted years ago. The only takeaway from this post is you obviously know very little about firearms. Maybe only post on subjects you know a little about.
The only takeaway from this post is you obviously know very little about firearms.
Well my friends who have been in my house and have seen my gun cabinets might disagree with you.
you completely contradicted yourself.
Please enlighten me .....
-
For the same reason I started looking for a backgrounder after I sat down and read his full testimony. He comes off being full of BS.
-
The only takeaway from this post is you obviously know very little about firearms.
Well my friends who have been in my house and have seen my gun cabinets might disagree with you.
you completely contradicted yourself.
Please enlighten me .....
What's the difference between "30 odd six" and "30 odd size six"? I mean, other than quality control [rimshot].
The first is how many people pronounce ".30-06," as you've noted. The second is what Rowland said.
-
For the same reason I started looking for a backgrounder after I sat down and read his full testimony. He comes off being full of BS.
I disagree.... Rowland appears to be intelligent but uneducated kid.... and ignorant when it comes to guns.
However he was a definite threat to the official tale ( That Lee Oswald had fired that old MILITARY style rifle and murdered JFK)
Rowland KNEW that he had seen a man who DID NOT fit the description of Lee Oswald, who was holding a rifle hat did not fit the description of a Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland's story had to be destroyed....
-
300 feet comes from Google Maps. The Rowlands are very specific as to their location. Google maps says that their position is about 280 feet from the column of windows in the SW corner of the TSBD; while the 6th floor window sill is about 65' above ground. Not sure how that Pythagoruses out, but the result should round to about 300 feet.
"Deer rifle" is pretty generic. Most deer hunters I know seem to prefer lever guns for the task, but 'deer rifle' is a pretty generic term for a bolt action rifle. ".30-06" is a cartridge, rather than a type of rifle.
He signed the affidavit as being "true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
A few days later, he executed another statement to the FBI wherein he said that the man with the rifle was 12-15 feet inside the window.
Sometimes, highly detailed memories are red flags, and ought to be treated with some skepticism.
As I said, read his testimony --and his wife's-- as to his background, and you'll come up with a different impression of the guy. If nothing else, count up how many jobs he's held in the year leading up to Mrs Rowland's WC deposition. I get:
West Foods (Salem Oregon)
Exchange Lumber (Salem)
Myron Frank (Salem)
Pizza Inn (Dallas)
Sanger Harris (Dallas)
Civic Reading Club (Dallas)
P.F. Collier (Dallas)
Life Circulation (Dallas)
The Rowlands were married May 16,1963. The next day they moved to Oregon, where they stayed until September. In their Nov 22, 1963 DCSD affidavits, the list 3026 Hammerly in Dallas. In their Mar 10, 1964 WC depositions, they said that they lived at 1131 Phinney, also in Dallas. Then there's the Feb 19, 1964 DCSD Det. Rose report regarding trying to find the Rowlands' whereabouts. Rose finds out that that the Rowlands no longer live at the Hammerly address (which belonged to Barbara's mother). Rowland's in-laws don't know where the young couple moved to. He checks with Adamson high school, where the Rowlands attended high school in the fall of '63. School records indicate that the Arnold and Barbara live at 809 S Marsalis, which turns out to be a "fictitious address,'" as Detective Rose notes. He's able to get a PO box from the Rowland in-laws, and finds that Rowland lists an address at 4114 Lakehurst Ct. However, the Rowlands only lived on Lakehurst from September 11, 1963 to November 14, 1963. Interestingly, that particular PO box was rented to the Rowlands on November 21, 1963, a week after the Rowlands vacated the Lakehurst address used to rent the box.
These aren't people with particularly stable lives. There's usually a reason for that. It's often not a good one.
Or, you can figure out if he's actually graduated from high school --there seems to be some question about that.
Mr. SPECTER - When did you graduate from high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - June 1963.
However....
Mr. BELIN. Is your husband a high school graduate or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No.
[...]
Mr. BELIN. Do you know how far your husband got through school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, his credits are all mixed up. I think he lacks one or two semesters.
Mr. BELIN. Of completing high school?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
And there's some differences about grades:
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Rowland, what was the quality of your grades in high school?
Mr. ROWLAND - Well, up until my senior year they were 4.0 straight A's, in my senior year I got a couple of B's.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know about what his grades were?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Varied.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He made A's and B's in some subjects, and he made C's and D's, I think, in other subjects.
Mr. BELIN. Was this before .you were married?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He says he has an A average, but I don't believe him.
Mr. BELIN. Why? Did he tell you that?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes. He told me that, because I saw a few of his report cards.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw a few of his report cards and they weren't all A's.
Not to beat on him too hard, we have this exchange:
Mr. SPECTER - Was the sound of the fire different from the first and second sounds you described?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, that is just it. It did not sound as though there was any return fire in that sense.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by return fire?
Mr. ROWLAND - That anyone fired back. You know, anyone in the procession such as our detectives or Secret Service men fired back at anything else. It gave the report of a rifle which most of the Secret Service men don't carry in a holster although I am sure they had some in the cars but the following two shots were the same report being of the same intensity, I state, because from a different position I know that the same rifle is not going to make the same sound in two different positions especially in a position such as it was, because of the ricocheting of sound and echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your basis for saying that, Mr. Rowland, that the rifle would not make the same sound in two different positions?
Mr. ROWLAND - This is due to a long study of sound and study of echo effects.
Mr. SPECTER - When had you conducted that study?
Mr. ROWLAND - In physics in the past 3 years.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you read any special books on that subject?
Mr. ROWLAND - Quite a few.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect any of the titles and authors?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I do not.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you take any special courses which would give you insight into that subject matter?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was more or less on my own initiative. The instructor gave me help and aided me when I requested this during my off periods of class.
Mr. SPECTER - What instructor was that?
Mr. ROWLAND - His name was Foster.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall his first name?
Mr. ROWLAND - Sam.
[...]
Senator COOPER - You said earlier that you had been much interested in and pursued studies in sounds, I believe?
Mr. ROWLAND - I have studied quite a bit of electronics, sound. Math and science is what I like.
Senator COOPER - You said you had read books on this subject. Did you ever conduct any experiments yourself?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in the form of--there is a theory that sound is a basis of a transmitter and a receiver, that you have to have a receiver to have sound. There is a theory that if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest and there is nobody around where they can hear it, there is no sound.
Well, I have conducted experiments on this, and I--it is very interesting, very fascinating, but you can't prove it or you can't disprove it because if you have got a microphone there you have got a receiver.
Senator COOPER - Did you ever conduct any experiments with rifles, firing a rifle in relation to sound?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; in a firing range.
Senator COOPER - Beg pardon?
Mr. ROWLAND - Firing range.
Senator COOPER - Yes.
Mr. ROWLAND - I did conduct a few experiments. One of them was firing a bullet over water; you know, we were using a set of wood blocks to fire into, so we had a big vat of water that we were firing over, and we had several different articles and composition floating on the water, trying to measure the effect of the sound wave upon that. Such as this we did conduct.
Senator COOPER - I think you did say that when you heard the first report that you considered it to be a rifle shot?
And, finally, this:
Mrs. ROWLAND. At times my husband is prone to exaggerate. Does that answer it?
Mr. BELIN. I think it does.
Is there anything else you want to add to that, or not?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Usually his exaggerations are not concerned with anything other than himself. They are usually to boast his ego. They usually say that he is really smarter than he is, or he is a better salesman than he is, something like that.
The important thing about Barbara Rowland's isn't whether or not she thinks her husband is a bit of a dick, it's that she independently confirms everything about his observation of the man with the rifle. It's one thing Arnold Rowland making a statement that may or may not be considered unreliable, it's a totally different thing when it is independently corroborated by someone who was with him at the time.
She confirms they were talking about Adlai Stevenson and security measures:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him."
She confirms which window the man was at:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window."
She confirms the man had a rifle:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade."
And she confirms Arnold's general description of the man he saw:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Apparently he could see at least from the waist up, because he said that the man was wearing a light shirt, and that he was holding the rifle at a port arms position.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he thought he was white.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said a young man
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he was either tall or thin I mean, if he was tall, he could have been well built, but if he was not very tall, then he was thin.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything else about the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Not that I remember, except that he was wearing a light colored shirt or jacket.
It appears Belin even tries to catch her out with a trick question but she doesn't bite:
"Mr. BELIN. Did he say whether or not the man had on a hat?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't think he said whether he did or not. But if he had seen a hat, I think he would have said so."
She confirms what time it happened:
"Mr. BELIN. About how many minutes was this before the motorcade came by that he saw this?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About 15 minutes."
She even confirms the little detail about people laughing after the first shot:
"...I didn't recognize it as being a shot. I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker.
And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots, and they were closer than the first and second, and that is all."
It's easy to undermine a lone voice, but not when there is independent corroboration of that voice.
-
The important thing about Barbara Rowland's isn't whether or not she thinks her husband is a bit of a dick, it's that she independently confirms everything about his observation of the man with the rifle. It's one thing Arnold Rowland making a statement that may or may not be considered unreliable, it's a totally different thing when it is independently corroborated by someone who was with him at the time.
She confirms they were talking about Adlai Stevenson and security measures:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him."
She confirms which window the man was at:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window."
She confirms the man had a rifle:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade."
And she confirms Arnold's general description of the man he saw:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Apparently he could see at least from the waist up, because he said that the man was wearing a light shirt, and that he was holding the rifle at a port arms position.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he thought he was white.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said a young man
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he was either tall or thin I mean, if he was tall, he could have been well built, but if he was not very tall, then he was thin.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything else about the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Not that I remember, except that he was wearing a light colored shirt or jacket.
It appears Belin even tries to catch her out with a trick question but she doesn't bite:
"Mr. BELIN. Did he say whether or not the man had on a hat?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't think he said whether he did or not. But if he had seen a hat, I think he would have said so."
She confirms what time it happened:
"Mr. BELIN. About how many minutes was this before the motorcade came by that he saw this?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About 15 minutes."
She even confirms the little detail about people laughing after the first shot:
"...I didn't recognize it as being a shot. I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker.
And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots, and they were closer than the first and second, and that is all."
It's easy to undermine a lone voice, but not when there is independent corroboration of that voice.
She didn't confirm the one thing that you need her to. You need confirmation that there was a man with a rifle in the SW corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD, but there is no one to answer the call. Not even Arnold's wife. You wasted the miserable lives of countless electrons just to try and talk your way around the problem.
I'm thinking that Rowland's mention of the man being "12-15 feet" inside the building has dissuaded you from continuing to press the idea that the 15 foot estimate was some fluke in Rawland's DCSD affidavit?
-
The important thing about Barbara Rowland's isn't whether or not she thinks her husband is a bit of a dick, it's that she independently confirms everything about his observation of the man with the rifle. It's one thing Arnold Rowland making a statement that may or may not be considered unreliable, it's a totally different thing when it is independently corroborated by someone who was with him at the time.
She confirms they were talking about Adlai Stevenson and security measures:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him."
She confirms which window the man was at:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window."
She confirms the man had a rifle:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade."
And she confirms Arnold's general description of the man he saw:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Apparently he could see at least from the waist up, because he said that the man was wearing a light shirt, and that he was holding the rifle at a port arms position.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he thought he was white.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said a young man
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he was either tall or thin I mean, if he was tall, he could have been well built, but if he was not very tall, then he was thin.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything else about the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Not that I remember, except that he was wearing a light colored shirt or jacket.
It appears Belin even tries to catch her out with a trick question but she doesn't bite:
"Mr. BELIN. Did he say whether or not the man had on a hat?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't think he said whether he did or not. But if he had seen a hat, I think he would have said so."
She confirms what time it happened:
"Mr. BELIN. About how many minutes was this before the motorcade came by that he saw this?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About 15 minutes."
She even confirms the little detail about people laughing after the first shot:
"...I didn't recognize it as being a shot. I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker.
And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots, and they were closer than the first and second, and that is all."
It's easy to undermine a lone voice, but not when there is independent corroboration of that voice.
So she said he said. But did she see what he said he saw regarding the man he said he saw in a window? It doesn't sound like it.
-
So she said he said. But did she see what he said he saw regarding the man he said he saw in a window? It doesn't sound like it.
;D
Brilliant analysis Bill.
Barbara Rowland is not testifying to seeing the man with the rifle.
She is testifying that all the details regarding Arnold's claims are true. He did see this man at the time he says he did and described him at that time - unless, of course, Arnold made it all up on the spot and told Barbara a pack of lies which he then went on to tell the WC.
I know what my money is on.
-
The important thing about Barbara Rowland's isn't whether or not she thinks her husband is a bit of a dick, it's that she independently confirms everything about his observation of the man with the rifle. It's one thing Arnold Rowland making a statement that may or may not be considered unreliable, it's a totally different thing when it is independently corroborated by someone who was with him at the time.
She confirms they were talking about Adlai Stevenson and security measures:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him."
She confirms which window the man was at:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window."
She confirms the man had a rifle:
"Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade."
And she confirms Arnold's general description of the man he saw:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Apparently he could see at least from the waist up, because he said that the man was wearing a light shirt, and that he was holding the rifle at a port arms position.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he thought he was white.
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said a young man
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he was either tall or thin I mean, if he was tall, he could have been well built, but if he was not very tall, then he was thin.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything else about the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Not that I remember, except that he was wearing a light colored shirt or jacket.
It appears Belin even tries to catch her out with a trick question but she doesn't bite:
"Mr. BELIN. Did he say whether or not the man had on a hat?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I don't think he said whether he did or not. But if he had seen a hat, I think he would have said so."
She confirms what time it happened:
"Mr. BELIN. About how many minutes was this before the motorcade came by that he saw this?
Mrs. ROWLAND. About 15 minutes."
She even confirms the little detail about people laughing after the first shot:
"...I didn't recognize it as being a shot. I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker.
And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots, and they were closer than the first and second, and that is all."
It's easy to undermine a lone voice, but not when there is independent corroboration of that voice.
A top-notch post!
-
Based on Arnold's description of the man in the window, his impossible description of the rifle and supposed estimation of the caliber of rifle with a scope from a distance of 150 feet, his wife's assessment of his honesty, and his inability to tell the same story twice it can only be concluded he fabricated the whole story based on the conversation about Adlai Stevenson. Unbeknownst to Arnold there really was a gunman on the 6th floor.
Mr. SPECTER - You say you only saw a small portion of what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Of his pants from his waist down.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - The barrel of the rifle?
Time and time again Arnold shows he doesn't have the correct description of how the person should have appeared in the window no matter were the gunman was standing in the room. He is both describing the person as if he is standing next to the window and also far back into the room. At no point in time is Rowland properly describing what the gunman would have appeared to look like in the window with a 30 inch opening. That is what the Specter and the WC discovered in the course of his interview. Rowland was repeatedly shown to be fabricating his story and had absolutely no credibility as a witness.
Sorrels even believed him right up to the point of his estimation of the man standing 15 feet back from the window. Either near to the window or far from the window Arnold's description of the gunman does not prove to be true.
Mr. STERN - Did you look towards the window that Roland had pointed out from the spot at which he said he was standing, to see whether it was possible to observe from there someone standing several feet back from the window? Did you have occasion to check that?
Mr. SORRELS - Well, no, not specifically.
Later on I heard that he had--I believe in his statement that he wrote up down there at the sheriff's office, something about 15 feet back. And I thought to myself, well, I don't think you could see anybody that far back.
Mr. STERN - But he didn't tell you that?
Mr. SORRELS - No, he just said he was standing back of the window there, just kind of looking around there. He said after he saw him there, he didn't pay any more attention, because he just thought it was a Secret Service man.
-
Sorrels even believed him right up to the point of his estimation of the man standing 15 feet back from the window. Either near to the window or far from the window Arnold's description of the gunman does not prove to be true.
Mr. STERN - Did you look towards the window that Roland had pointed out from the spot at which he said he was standing, to see whether it was possible to observe from there someone standing several feet back from the window? Did you have occasion to check that?
Mr. SORRELS - Well, no, not specifically.
Later on I heard that he had--I believe in his statement that he wrote up down there at the sheriff's office, something about 15 feet back. And I thought to myself, well, I don't think you could see anybody that far back.
Mr. STERN - But he didn't tell you that?
Mr. SORRELS - No, he just said he was standing back of the window there, just kind of looking around there. He said after he saw him there, he didn't pay any more attention, because he just thought it was a Secret Service man.
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
-
Based on Arnold's description of the man in the window, his impossible description of the rifle and supposed estimation of the caliber of rifle with a scope from a distance of 150 feet, his wife's assessment of his honesty, and his inability to tell the same story twice it can only be concluded he fabricated the whole story based on the conversation about Adlai Stevenson. Unbeknownst to Arnold there really was a gunman on the 6th floor.
Mr. SPECTER - You say you only saw a small portion of what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Of his pants from his waist down.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - The barrel of the rifle?
Time and time again Arnold shows he doesn't have the correct description of how the person should have appeared in the window no matter were the gunman was standing in the room. He is both describing the person as if he is standing next to the window and also far back into the room. At no point in time is Rowland properly describing what the gunman would have appeared to look like in the window with a 30 inch opening. That is what the Specter and the WC discovered in the course of his interview. Rowland was repeatedly shown to be fabricating his story and had absolutely no credibility as a witness.
Not quite sure what you're saying here Jack. In the testimony you provide Rowland is absolutely consistent - he could see the man from just below his waist to the top of his head and the rifle was in full view. I'm not seeing the contradictions you appear to be seeing.
Sorrels even believed him right up to the point of his estimation of the man standing 15 feet back from the window. Either near to the window or far from the window Arnold's description of the gunman does not prove to be true.
Mr. STERN - Did you look towards the window that Roland had pointed out from the spot at which he said he was standing, to see whether it was possible to observe from there someone standing several feet back from the window? Did you have occasion to check that?
Mr. SORRELS - Well, no, not specifically.
Later on I heard that he had--I believe in his statement that he wrote up down there at the sheriff's office, something about 15 feet back. And I thought to myself, well, I don't think you could see anybody that far back.
Mr. STERN - But he didn't tell you that?
Mr. SORRELS - No, he just said he was standing back of the window there, just kind of looking around there. He said after he saw him there, he didn't pay any more attention, because he just thought it was a Secret Service man.
This is the only real problem with the part of the testimony you've presented. Rowland found it difficult to accurately judge how far in the building the man with the rifle was stood which, in my opinion would be quite a difficult thing to estimate. Rowland says as much himself -
" Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part."
This minor detail seems to be jumped on by those wishing to undermine his testimony.
The point is this - Barbara Rowland independently confirms Arnold gave this description of the man with the rifle 15 minutes before the motorcade had arrived in Dealey Plaza.
It's not a question of him making it up for the WC, Rowland was saying exactly the same thing on the day of the assassination.
This is confirmed by Barbara Rowland's testimony.
-
Have always found this bit of testimony from Mayor Cabell's wife interesting but don't know what to make of it:
"Mr. HUBERT. When was that relative to the shots? I mean how soon after?
Mr. CABELL. I cannot say for sure, because as I told you, the motorcade was stopped. And somewhere in there, Congressman Roberts said, "That is a .30-06." I didn't know what a .30-06 was."
-
Have always found this bit of testimony from Mayor Cabell's wife interesting but don't know what to make of it:
"Mr. HUBERT. When was that relative to the shots? I mean how soon after?
Mr. CABELL. I cannot say for sure, because as I told you, the motorcade was stopped. And somewhere in there, Congressman Roberts said, "That is a .30-06." I didn't know what a .30-06 was."
Doesn't mean anything.....If Mrs Cabell was saying that Congressman Roberts was judging by the SOUND of the shots. I seriously doubt that there is any human who can identify the rifle being fired by the sound of the shots.
-
Doesn't mean anything.....If Mrs Cabell was saying that Congressman Roberts was judging by the SOUND of the shots. I seriously doubt that there is any human who can identify the rifle being fired by the sound of the shots.
Not so quick Walt.
Mrs Cabell is talking about looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots and seeing something stuck out of a window that may well have been a rifle. She is NOT saying Roberts was judging anything by the sound of the shots, She is saying it was something she overheard Roberts saying just after the shots. If it is impossible to judge such a thing by the sound it indicates Roberts saw the rifle.
-
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Rowland was one of many earwitness and nothing more. As far a an eyewitness, believing his testimony is just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Specter and Rowland's own wife showed his testimony be completely unreliable.
-
Rowland was one of many earwitness and nothing more. As far a an eyewitness, believing his testimony is just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Specter and Rowland's own wife showed his testimony be completely unreliable.
As I've demonstrated just a few posts ago, Barbara Rowland confirms everything Arnold was saying on the day of the assassination.
Far from showing his testimony is unreliable, Barbara confirms the accuracy of Arnold's testimony.
-
Not quite sure what you're saying here Jack. In the testimony you provide Rowland is absolutely consistent - he could see the man from just below his waist to the top of his head and the rifle was in full view. I'm not seeing the contradictions you appear to be seeing.
This is the only real problem with the part of the testimony you've presented. Rowland found it difficult to accurately judge how far in the building the man with the rifle was stood which, in my opinion would be quite a difficult thing to estimate. Rowland says as much himself -
" Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part."
This minor detail seems to be jumped on by those wishing to undermine his testimony.
The point is this - Barbara Rowland independently confirms Arnold gave this description of the man with the rifle 15 minutes before the motorcade had arrived in Dealey Plaza.
It's not a question of him making it up for the WC, Rowland was saying exactly the same thing on the day of the assassination.
This is confirmed by Barbara Rowland's testimony.
http://jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/ce1312.jpg
If he was standing at the window there would not be 36" of space between his head and the top of the open window. The window starts at 14" above the floor and the open area of the window is only 30". There would not be any open space between his head and the open window unless he was 3 feet tall.
Mr. SPECTER - You say you only saw a small portion of what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Of his pants from his waist down.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Specter knew the window started 14" above the floor but Arnold obviously did not. owland describes a person whose waist is 20" above the floor.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0116a.htm
The rifle he is claiming to know so much about is going to be at spproximately 40 inches long. The window opening is only 30 inches and Arnold claims to see it all of the rifle plus a space above his head.
Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - The barrel of the rifle?
Specter knew what he was asking Arnold and repeatedly Rowland gave a visual description that was impossible for him to have seen.
-
http://jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/ce1312.jpg
If he was standing at the window there would not be 36" of space between his head and the top of the open window. The window starts at 14" above the floor and the open area of the window is only 30". There would not be any open space between his head and the open window unless he was 3 feet tall.
You're misunderstanding Rowland's response to this question:
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
The first point is that Rowland is insistent the man with the rifle is not stood next to the window:
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
When Specter asks him to estimate the "space between the top of his head and the open window", Rowland isn't talking about the vertical distance from the top of the man's head to the top of the open window, he is trying to estimate the distance between the man's head and the window - approximately 3ft
Mr. SPECTER - You say you only saw a small portion of what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Of his pants from his waist down.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Specter knew the window started 14" above the floor but Arnold obviously did not. owland describes a person whose waist is 20" above the floor.
Again you're assuming Rowland is talking about someone stood next to the window which, as you correctly point out, would make the man extremely short. He's describing a taller man stood further in the building.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. [/b]
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0116a.htm
The rifle he is claiming to know so much about is going to be at spproximately 40 inches long. The window opening is only 30 inches and Arnold claims to see it all of the rifle plus a space above his head.
The rifle is being held diagonally across the man and the 36" gap above his head is a misunderstanding
Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. ROWLAND - All of it.
Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - The barrel of the rifle?
Specter knew what he was asking Arnold and repeatedly Rowland gave a visual description that was impossible for him to have seen.
You're mistaken about what Arnold is describing. He is talking about a normal sized man stood away from the window. He is clearly not describing a 36" gap above the head of a man being seen through a 30" gap.
He can see a man from just below the waist up who is holding a rifle diagonally across his body. The man is stood far enough away from the window to allow this view to be possible.
-
Rowland was one of many earwitness and nothing more. As far a an eyewitness, believing his testimony is just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Specter and Rowland's own wife showed his testimony be completely unreliable.
Not what I asked, Mr Nessan.
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
-
Not what I asked, Mr Nessan.
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Do us all a favour Alan, if you've got a point to make just make it out in full so we can have a look at it properly and critique it rather than this "death by a thousand teasing questions". Just say whatever it is you have to say and let's move on from there - pretty please.
-
Not so quick Walt.
Mrs Cabell is talking about looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots and seeing something stuck out of a window that may well have been a rifle. She is NOT saying Roberts was judging anything by the sound of the shots, She is saying it was something she overheard Roberts saying just after the shots. If it is impossible to judge such a thing by the sound it indicates Roberts saw the rifle.
She is saying it was something she overheard Roberts saying just after the shots.
So you believe that Congressman Robert's also saw this "something" being stuck out of a window, And Robert's was able to identify that "something" as a rifle...and amazingly, Robert's could even identify the CALIBER of the rifle in that fleeting glimpse. Do I have it right now?
-
As I've demonstrated just a few posts ago, Barbara Rowland confirms everything Arnold was saying on the day of the assassination.
Far from showing his testimony is unreliable, Barbara confirms the accuracy of Arnold's testimony. BRW could see from his location on the 6th floor all the way to the west wall and nobody was standing at the window.
Barbara did not confirm there was a person in the 6th floor SW corner she only stated Arnold told her this story for whatever his reason but basically based on the conversation about Mr Stevenson"s visit. What Barbara confirmed, which is what Specter suspicioned during the WC testimony and eventually confirmed by BRW's WC statement, was there was no person there and never was a person in the window.
------------------
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson's visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn't see the man, because I didn't know exactly what window he was talking about at first.
And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped back, because I didn't see him.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean "generally agree"? Did you see the man?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I didn't see the man but I said I guess that was what it was.
-------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
-
Not what I asked, Mr Nessan.
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Mr. BELIN. Do you figure if the motorcade came by at around 12:30, you figure you got down to the spot at 12 or 12:05?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
-
Mr. BELIN. Do you figure if the motorcade came by at around 12:30, you figure you got down to the spot at 12 or 12:05?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
You still haven't answered the question, Mr Nessan, and there are no prizes for guessing why!
Here it is again:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
-
You're misunderstanding Rowland's response to this question:
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
The first point is that Rowland is insistent the man with the rifle is not stood next to the window:
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
When Specter asks him to estimate the "space between the top of his head and the open window", Rowland isn't talking about the vertical distance from the top of the man's head to the top of the open window, he is trying to estimate the distance between the man's head and the window - approximately 3ft
Again you're assuming Rowland is talking about someone stood next to the window which, as you correctly point out, would make the man extremely short. He's describing a taller man stood further in the building.
The rifle is being held diagonally across the man and the 36" gap above his head is a misunderstanding
You're mistaken about what Arnold is describing. He is talking about a normal sized man stood away from the window. He is clearly not describing a 36" gap above the head of a man being seen through a 30" gap.
He can see a man from just below the waist up who is holding a rifle diagonally across his body. The man is stood far enough away from the window to allow this view to be possible.
Specter is talking about the open lower half of the window not the whole window. Rowland understands this by telling Specter it was the lower half of the window that was open. Rowland alternates about 3 to 5 feet from the window and 15 feet back from the window depending on which conversation is being discussed. Sorrels references that distinction in his testimony. Sorrel's also states his skepticism that a person 15 feet into the room could have even been seen by Rowland.
It does not matter where you place him inside the building. The opening of the window is still 30 inches high and that is all will be framed in the window. If he could see 3 feet of wall above and behind this person then you would not see his head at all. Through it all the window is still only 14 " above the floor. Arnold's testimony is completely shown to be fabricated based on this information alone. Arnold states he could not see his knees and only 6 " below his waist. In th end Specter has completely shown the information stated by Rowland is not even possible.
-
You still haven't answered the question, Mr Nessan, and there are no prizes for guessing why!
Here it is again:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Barbara and Arnold agree they arrived downtown at approximately 5 after 12. If this doesn't satisfy you maybe it is time to make whatever point you feel you need to make.
Mr. SPECTER - What time were you positioned?
Mr. ROWLAND - We got there about 5 after 12.
-
Specter is talking about the open lower half of the window not the whole window. Rowland understands this by telling Specter it was the lower half of the window that was open. Rowland alternates about 3 to 5 feet from the window and 15 feet back from the window depending on which conversation is being discussed. Sorrels references that distinction in his testimony. Sorrel's also states his skepticism that a person 15 feet into the room could have even been seen by Rowland.
Rowland is trying to estimate how far in the building the man is stood, which is quite a tricky thing to estimate as he states himself.
His early estimation is 12-15ft but on reflection he changes this to 3-5ft. It is this single detail that is leapt upon to try to undermine his testimony. Otherwise he is perfectly consistent with what he tells his wife at the time and the subsequent statements he makes concerning the description of the man with the rifle. He gives a detailed description of the man and to argue that he couldn't have seen the man if he was stood 15ft inside the building doesn't mean he was describing a man he couldn't see - it means his estimation of how far the man was stood away from the window is wrong.
His wife confirms the description he gave on the day and his incorrect estimate of how far the man was stood in the building.
It does not matter where you place him inside the building. The opening of the window is still 30 inches high and that is all will be framed in the window. If he could see 3 feet of wall above and behind this person then you would not see his head at all. Through it all the window is still only 14 " above the floor. Arnold's testimony is completely shown to be fabricated based on this information alone. Arnold states he could not see his knees and only 6 " below his waist. In th end Specter has completely shown the information stated by Rowland is not even possible.
You're still misunderstanding Rowland's response to that question. He wasn't saying there was three feet of space above the head of the man with the rifle, he is estimating that his head is three feet away from the window. Consistent with his revised estimation of the man being stood 3-5ft inside the building.
He is not saying he could see a 3ft space vertically above the head of the man!
If the arguments you are trying to make were taken at face value, Rowland would be describing a man whose head was below his waist.
Apart from a revised estimation of how far the man with the rifle was stood in the building, Rowland's description of him is consistent and confirmed by the testimony of his wife who confirms he made the same description before the motorcade had even arrived!
-
Barbara and Arnold agree they arrived downtown at approximately 5 after 12.
Incorrect!
If this doesn't satisfy you maybe it is time to make whatever point you feel you need to make.
Mr. SPECTER - What time were you positioned?
Mr. ROWLAND - We got there about 5 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - Now are there any other points where the affidavit is at variance from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - The time that it states here, we arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10. Actually we arrived before 12 but we took the position that we have, approximately 12:10, that position "V" on this other Exhibit 354.
Now, Mr Nessan, let me phrase this question carefully:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Thumb1:
-
Incorrect!
Mr. SPECTER - Now are there any other points where the affidavit is at variance from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - The time that it states here, we arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10. Actually we arrived before 12 but we took the position that we have, approximately 12:10, that position "V" on this other Exhibit 354.
Now, Mr Nessan, let me phrase this question carefully:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Thumb1:
You can rephrase it all you want. Arnold can not even get this part straight. Once again he is all over the board about simply arriving by bus then moving to several different locations. Because you seem unwilling to make your point I can only assume your point must be that based on his eradicate memory of moving all up and down the street that you cannot believe a word Arnold states.
Mr. SPECTER - What time did you arrive in town?
Mr. ROWLAND - We rode a bus from the school. We got to town approximately a quarter to 12.
Mr. SPECTER - What time were you positioned?
Mr. ROWLAND - We got there about 5 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - Where were you standing at the time the President's motorcade passed by you?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that position. (Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - The position you have marked with a "V," inverted "V."
Will you mark with the letter "A" the point to which you had moved when you described it as being at Commerce which you corrected to Elm and Houston.
Mr. ROWLAND - It was this corner. (Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately what time did you move to the position you have marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 10 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - How long did you stay at position "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Momentarily, just long enough to look, maybe a minute.
Mr. SPECTER - To look at what?
Mr. ROWLAND - To look at the position itself. There was too much of a crowd in that area. When the President would come by they would be pushing or rushing in that area and it would be too crowded for us.
Mr. SPECTER - At that point you did what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Then we went back to where we were.
Mr. SPECTER - To position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, and we stayed there for a minute or so, walked to the corner of Main and Houston.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark Main and Houston with the letter "B," if you would, where you moved next.
(Witness marking.)
>Mr. ROWLAND - Stayed there momentarily, less than a minute. There was quite a crowd there and we went back to where we were, our original position.
Mr. SPECTER - To position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - What time would you say you got back to your position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - We got back there 14 after, I noticed the time on my watch, and the Hertz time clock I noticed was about a minute later.
Mr. SPECTER - Where was the Hertz time clock located?
Mr. ROWLAND - That was on top of the school depository building.
Mr. SPECTER - Was your watch synchronized with the Hertz up on top.
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. When we returned to position "V" we stayed there, we began looking around. My wife and I were discussing the security precautions that were taken in view of the event when Mr. Stevenson was there.
Mr. SPECTER - Before you go on, let me ask you at which time was this on your return to position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was 12:15.
Mr. SPECTER - All right; proceed to tell us what you saw and heard at about that time?
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately what time did you move to the position you have marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 10 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - Now are there any other points where the affidavit is at variance from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - The time that it states here, we arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10.
Actually we arrived before 12 but we took the position that we have, approximately 12:10, that position "V" on this other Exhibit 354.
-
Incorrect!
Mr. SPECTER - Now are there any other points where the affidavit is at variance from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - The time that it states here, we arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10. Actually we arrived before 12 but we took the position that we have, approximately 12:10, that position "V" on this other Exhibit 354.
Now, Mr Nessan, let me phrase this question carefully:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Thumb1:
From Arnold's affidavit:
"At approximately 12:10 PM today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas..."
He continues to say they took up their position from where he saw the man in the Texas Book Suppository building (that's gotta sting!)
-
You can rephrase it all you want. Arnold can not even get this part straight. Once again he is all over the board about simply arriving by bus then moving to several different locations. Because you seem unwilling to make your point I can only assume your point must be that based on his eradicate memory of moving all up and down the street that you cannot believe a word Arnold states.
Mr. SPECTER - What time did you arrive in town?
Mr. ROWLAND - We rode a bus from the school. We got to town approximately a quarter to 12.
Mr. SPECTER - What time were you positioned?
Mr. ROWLAND - We got there about 5 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - Where were you standing at the time the President's motorcade passed by you?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that position. (Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - The position you have marked with a "V," inverted "V."
Will you mark with the letter "A" the point to which you had moved when you described it as being at Commerce which you corrected to Elm and Houston.
Mr. ROWLAND - It was this corner. (Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately what time did you move to the position you have marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 10 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - How long did you stay at position "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Momentarily, just long enough to look, maybe a minute.
Mr. SPECTER - To look at what?
Mr. ROWLAND - To look at the position itself. There was too much of a crowd in that area. When the President would come by they would be pushing or rushing in that area and it would be too crowded for us.
Mr. SPECTER - At that point you did what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Then we went back to where we were.
Mr. SPECTER - To position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, and we stayed there for a minute or so, walked to the corner of Main and Houston.
Mr. SPECTER - Mark Main and Houston with the letter "B," if you would, where you moved next.
(Witness marking.)
>Mr. ROWLAND - Stayed there momentarily, less than a minute. There was quite a crowd there and we went back to where we were, our original position.
Mr. SPECTER - To position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - What time would you say you got back to your position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - We got back there 14 after, I noticed the time on my watch, and the Hertz time clock I noticed was about a minute later.
Mr. SPECTER - Where was the Hertz time clock located?
Mr. ROWLAND - That was on top of the school depository building.
Mr. SPECTER - Was your watch synchronized with the Hertz up on top.
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. When we returned to position "V" we stayed there, we began looking around. My wife and I were discussing the security precautions that were taken in view of the event when Mr. Stevenson was there.
Mr. SPECTER - Before you go on, let me ask you at which time was this on your return to position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was 12:15.
Mr. SPECTER - All right; proceed to tell us what you saw and heard at about that time?
Mr. SPECTER - Approximately what time did you move to the position you have marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 10 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - Now are there any other points where the affidavit is at variance from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - The time that it states here, we arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10.
Actually we arrived before 12 but we took the position that we have, approximately 12:10, that position "V" on this other Exhibit 354.
:D
Your evident discomfort over answering a simple question is extremely entertaining, Mr Nessan. So............. I'm going to ask it again:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
-
:D
Your evident discomfort over answering a simple question is extremely entertaining, Mr Nessan. So............. I'm going to ask it again:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
Alan,
will you stop with "death by a thousand tantalising questions" and just say what's on your mind.
-
:D
Your evident discomfort over answering a simple question is extremely entertaining, Mr Nessan. So............. I'm going to ask it again:
Do you believe that Mr Rowland claimed, while giving his affidavit statement, that he and his wife arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10 PM?
What discomfort? The affidavit states the exact same thing as their WC testimony. They are standing at position "V"at 12:10. What do you think they are stating? Do you not believe them and think they are lying about standing on the street at 12:10? They say the went to Dealey Plaza and positioned themselves at 12:10.
A Rowland: "At approximately 12:10 PM today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas and took position to see the President's motorcade."
A Rowland WC:
SPECTER - Where were you standing at the time the President's motorcade passed by you?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that position. (Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - The position you have marked with a "V," inverted "V."...........
....Mr. ROWLAND - About 10 after 12.
Mr. SPECTER - How long did you stay at position "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Momentarily, just long enough to look, maybe a minute....
...........Mr. ROWLAND - Stayed there momentarily, less than a minute. There was quite a crowd there and we went back to where we were, our original position.
Mr. SPECTER - To position "V"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
In the affidavit you think they should have gone into a great but useless detail about how they went to Dealey Plaza wandered around and ended up where they started? This is the bizarre point you think is worth discussing?
-
Just for reference, here's Jarman/Norman/Williams standing in from of the 5th floor corner window from which they watched the motorcade go by. Notice how low the lower half is. that's the only part of the window that opens. It appears to be little more than 4' from the floor.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0116a.jpg)
I plugged this into some basic trigonometry using the following numbers:
Distance from Rowland to the SW column of windows in the TSBD: 280' (gained from Google Maps and the Rowland's descriptions of their location)
Height of open window: 66' (ref: Canning/HSCA, who put 6th floor sill height at 63' AGL)
Height of alleged rifleman (ranging from 5'-0" to 6'-2", which would include every sniper not in either the Lollipop Guild Special Forces or the dreaded NBA Suicide Squad.
Apparent gap between top of "rifleman" head to top of window opening (30" and 36" per A. Rowland WC testimony)
Given these, the closest the rifleman can be to the window is 13.4'....and that's for a 5'-0" tall guy with a 30" apparent gap between the top of his head and the bottom of the window sash. If the "rifleman" is 6'-2" with a 36" apparent gap between his head and the sash, then he would be standing 20'-6" inside the building.
-
Rowland is trying to estimate how far in the building the man is stood, which is quite a tricky thing to estimate as he states himself.
His early estimation is 12-15ft but on reflection he changes this to 3-5ft. It is this single detail that is leapt upon to try to undermine his testimony. Otherwise he is perfectly consistent with what he tells his wife at the time and the subsequent statements he makes concerning the description of the man with the rifle. He gives a detailed description of the man and to argue that he couldn't have seen the man if he was stood 15ft inside the building doesn't mean he was describing a man he couldn't see - it means his estimation of how far the man was stood away from the window is wrong.
His wife confirms the description he gave on the day and his incorrect estimate of how far the man was stood in the building.
You're still misunderstanding Rowland's response to that question. He wasn't saying there was three feet of space above the head of the man with the rifle, he is estimating that his head is three feet away from the window. Consistent with his revised estimation of the man being stood 3-5ft inside the building.
He is not saying he could see a 3ft space vertically above the head of the man!
If the arguments you are trying to make were taken at face value, Rowland would be describing a man whose head was below his waist.
Apart from a revised estimation of how far the man with the rifle was stood in the building, Rowland's description of him is consistent and confirmed by the testimony of his wife who confirms he made the same description before the motorcade had even arrived!
It does not matter what Arnold tells his wife. His whole testimony on many different subjects was shown to be false. It was a BS story to her and then he tried to tell the same BS story to Specter and the WC and his description of the person in the window is not possible with a window opening of 2.5 feet and the window installed 14" above the floor and Specter knew it.
He is not estimating anything but the distance above the persons head as seen through the open window. Nothing about his description is possible given the window opening being 14" from the floor.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
"If the arguments you are trying to make were taken at face value, Rowland would be describing a man whose head was below his waist."
That is exactly the point.
Specter knew from the beginning that Rowland had no idea about the install of the windows placing them 14" off the floor. He asked him early in the interview if he had been in the building.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you familiar with that building prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I have been in there on occasion.
Mr. SPECTER - You have been in the building?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, to purchase books.
Mr. SPECTER - When were you in the building most recently prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Within the first week of November. This was to buy a physics notebook.
Mr. SPECTER - What part of the building were you in at that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - Just inside the door of the main lobby.
Mr. SPECTER - On the first floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you ever had occasion at any time to be on any floor other than the first floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
In the end it does not matter about Rowland's made up story. It ultimately has no impact on the understanding of the asassination. It turns out there really was a sniper on the 6th floor but Arnold never saw him.
-
What discomfort? The affidavit states the exact same thing as their WC testimony.
:D
Incorrect!
They are standing at position "V"at 12:10. What do you think they are stating? Do you not believe them and think they are lying about standing on the street at 12:10? They say the went to Dealey Plaza and positioned themselves at 12:10.
A Rowland: "At approximately 12:10 PM today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas and took position to see the President's motorcade."
Do you believe that Mr Rowland, while giving his affidavit statement, timestamped his and his wife's arrival in downtown Dallas at 12.10 PM? Yes or no?
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/11/80/9rVxdIO0_o.jpg)
-
:D
Incorrect!
Do you believe that Mr Rowland, while giving his affidavit statement, timestamped his and his wife's arrival in downtown Dallas at 12.10 PM? Yes or no?
The affidavit states the exact same thing as their WC testimony.
A Rowland: "At approximately 12:10 PM today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas and took position to see the President's motorcade."
"and took position " ---- Yes or No? Same as WC testimony Position "V"--- Yes or No?
-
Just for reference, here's Jarman/Norman/Williams standing in from of the 5th floor corner window from which they watched the motorcade go by. Notice how low the lower half is. that's the only part of the window that opens. It appears to be little more than 4' from the floor.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0116a.jpg)
I plugged this into some basic trigonometry using the following numbers:
Distance from Rowland to the SW column of windows in the TSBD: 280' (gained from Google Maps and the Rowland's descriptions of their location)
Height of open window: 66' (ref: Canning/HSCA, who put 6th floor sill height at 63' AGL)
Height of alleged rifleman (ranging from 5'-0" to 6'-2", which would include every sniper not in either the Lollipop Guild Special Forces or the dreaded NBA Suicide Squad.
Apparent gap between top of "rifleman" head to top of window opening (30" and 36" per A. Rowland WC testimony)
Given these, the closest the rifleman can be to the window is 13.4'....and that's for a 5'-0" tall guy with a 30" apparent gap between the top of his head and the bottom of the window sash. If the "rifleman" is 6'-2" with a 36" apparent gap between his head and the sash, then he would be standing 20'-6" inside the building.
Psssst...... This photo was taken with the three stooges standing behind the WEST window on the 5th floor ...( notice the cars in the parking are behind the north pergola )
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0116a.jpg)
-
The affidavit states the exact same thing as their WC testimony.
A Rowland: "At approximately 12:10 PM today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas and took position to see the President's motorcade."
:D
Mr. ROWLAND - The time that it states here, we arrived in downtown Dallas at approximately 12:10. Actually we arrived before 12 but we took the position that we have, approximately 12:10, that position "V" on this other Exhibit 354.
Is it your position, Mr Nessan, that Mr Rowland, while giving his affidavit statement, actually said that the bus dropped him and his wife off in downtown Dallas at 12:10?
Such a simple question........ such a comedy that you don't want to give it a straight answer.
-
It does not matter what Arnold tells his wife. His whole testimony on many different subjects was shown to be false. It was a BS story to her and then he tried to tell the same BS story to Specter and the WC and his description of the person in the window is not possible with a window opening of 2.5 feet and the window installed 14" above the floor and Specter knew it.
He is not estimating anything but the distance above the persons head as seen through the open window. Nothing about his description is possible given the window opening being 14" from the floor.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
"If the arguments you are trying to make were taken at face value, Rowland would be describing a man whose head was below his waist."
That is exactly the point.
Specter knew from the beginning that Rowland had no idea about the install of the windows placing them 14" off the floor. He asked him early in the interview if he had been in the building.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you familiar with that building prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I have been in there on occasion.
Mr. SPECTER - You have been in the building?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, to purchase books.
Mr. SPECTER - When were you in the building most recently prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. ROWLAND - Within the first week of November. This was to buy a physics notebook.
Mr. SPECTER - What part of the building were you in at that time?
Mr. ROWLAND - Just inside the door of the main lobby.
Mr. SPECTER - On the first floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you ever had occasion at any time to be on any floor other than the first floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
In the end it does not matter about Rowland's made up story. It ultimately has no impact on the understanding of the asassination. It turns out there really was a sniper on the 6th floor but Arnold never saw him.
Fair enough Jack.
You're satisfied that Rowland tells his wife about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 15 minutes before the shooting but you believe he was just making it up and that it is just a miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and a further miracle that his description of the man tallies with other sightings of the shooter.
It's a totally reasonable stance to take and I respect that.
-
Fair enough Jack.
You're satisfied that Rowland tells his wife about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 15 minutes before the shooting but you believe he was just making it up and that it is just a miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and a further miracle that his description of the man tallies with other sightings of the shooter.
It's a totally reasonable stance to take and I respect that.
:D ROTFLMAO !
-
Psssst...... This photo was taken with the three stooges standing behind the WEST window on the 5th floor ...( notice the cars in the parking are behind the north pergola )
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0116a.jpg)
I stand corrected, at least as far as CE489. CE488 shows the South-facing window at the very West side of the 5th floor; it is the window directly under the one Rowland is supposed to have seen his "rifleman." CE486 is the photo of the South facing window on the East side of the building directly underneath the snipers nest.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0115a.jpg)
That being taken care of, how does any of that change the height of the windows, or the analysis comparing the height of the open window against what Rowland claimed to have seen?
-
I stand corrected, at least as far as CE489. CE488 shows the South-facing window at the very West side of the 5th floor; it is the window directly under the one Rowland is supposed to have seen his "rifleman." CE486 is the photo of the South facing window on the East side of the building directly underneath the snipers nest.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0115a.jpg)
That being taken care of, how does any of that change the height of the windows, or the analysis comparing the height of the open window against what Rowland claimed to have seen?
Referring to CE 486....It's obvious that the west window would have allowed plenty of sunlight to enter the room and if the man was standing just a few feet back from the south window he would have been illuminated by the sun shining through the west window, and thus he would have been clearly visible to Arnold Rowland.
-
That being taken care of, how does any of that change the height of the windows, or the analysis comparing the height of the open window against what Rowland claimed to have seen?
From your previous post:
"Apparent gap between top of "rifleman" head to top of window opening (30" and 36" per A. Rowland WC testimony)"
This is an erroneous parameter. Rowland misunderstands the question about the space between the rifleman's head and the top of the window as meaning the distance of his head away from the top of the window. The answer he gives is consistent with his estimation of how far in the building the rifleman is stood.
He is hardly describing the top half of the man's body plus another 36" seen through a 30" inch gap of the open window. Below is a very rough graphic meant to illustrate a basic principle. The gap between sill and the centre of the full window is represented by a red line. The same redline is overlaid on the middle of the trio to give a very basic idea of what someone looking through the window should see.
Obviously the further away from the window the man is stood the more of him would be visible as the angle of LoS from Rowland is a lot more shallow than that shown in the image.
It's basic and meant to convey a basic idea.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wM0sy0cg/TSBD-window-measurement.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Fair enough Jack.
You're satisfied that Rowland tells his wife about a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 15 minutes before the shooting but you believe he was just making it up and that it is just a miraculous coincidence that there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and a further miracle that his description of the man tallies with other sightings of the shooter.
It's a totally reasonable stance to take and I respect that.
I agree he is just blowing smoke up his wife's ass. The circumstances that occur later have nothing to do with that what he states before the motorcade arrives. When he tries the same story with the WC he is shown to be repeatedly making the whole story up.
He does not describe anyone. He describes this person as a heavy 200 lb slender man that weighs approximately 140 lbs end he is either tall or maybe not. He describes an individual standing with his left hand on the upper rifle stock with both his left hand and elbow at shoulder height. He then goes on to describe the rifle as pointing to the wall. Which is impossible because the wall is to his right not left.
-
From your previous post:
"Apparent gap between top of "rifleman" head to top of window opening (30" and 36" per A. Rowland WC testimony)"
This is an erroneous parameter. Rowland misunderstands the question about the space between the rifleman's head and the top of the window as meaning the distance of his head away from the top of the window. The answer he gives is consistent with his estimation of how far in the building the rifleman is stood.
He is hardly describing the top half of the man's body plus another 36" seen through a 30" inch gap of the open window. Below is a very rough graphic meant to illustrate a basic principle. The gap between sill and the centre of the full window is represented by a red line. The same redline is overlaid on the middle of the trio to give a very basic idea of what someone looking through the window should see.
Obviously the further away from the window the man is stood the more of him would be visible as the angle of LoS from Rowland is a lot more shallow than that shown in the image.
It's basic and meant to convey a basic idea.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wM0sy0cg/TSBD-window-measurement.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
No and you have the wrong picture. The window is only 14 " high. Specter knew that and let Arnold prattle on.
-
I agree he is just blowing smoke up his wife's ass.
Does she have to pay extra for that?
The circumstances that occur later have nothing to do with that what he states before the motorcade arrives. When he tries the same story with the WC he is shown to be repeatedly making the whole story up.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The basic description of the rifleman he gives to his wife is the same as the one he gives in his affidavit is the same one he gives to the WC.
He does not describe anyone. He describes this person as a heavy 200 lb slender man that weighs approximately 140 lbs end he is either tall or maybe not. He describes an individual standing with his left hand on the upper rifle stock with both his left hand and elbow at shoulder height. He then goes on to describe the rifle as pointing to the wall. Which is impossible because the wall is to his right not left.
Don't forget, you also think his head is lower than his waist. ;)
-
No and you have the wrong picture. The window is only 14 " high. Specter knew that and let Arnold prattle on.
??
How high do you think the window in the picture is?
-
From Agent James Hosty's contemporaneous notes taken during Mr Oswald's first interrogation (which started 3:15pm, 11/22)-------------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/dvAToWuI)
Like most people, I long assumed Mr Oswald talked merely about a rifle which he had seen (and which, it was later established, belonged to Mr Warren Caster), rather than any particular rifle. However, I was knocked for six when I recently came across this FBI interview report for Mr Roy Truly from 11/22-----------
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
"the rifle"
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
The problem with that scenario is that Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm that evening. It is hard to see how Captain Fritz could have shown Mr Oswald the Carcano during that first interrogation session......
Given that the first Caster rifle mentioned in the Truly interview report above ("a ___________ rifle") was in fact a Mauser, I think it's fair to ask: Was Mr Oswald shown a Mauser rifle during that first interrogation?
Thumb1:
So!
------------Mr Oswald is shown the rifle and says he saw Mr Truly holding it (or one just like it) two days ago
------------Mr Truly confirms that he held a deer hunting "_________________ rifle" belonging to Mr Warren Caster
------------Mr Caster confirms the story and fills in the missing part: "a .30-06 sporterized Mauser"
------------Mr Arnold Rowland sees a rifle in the hands of a man on the sixth floor some 15 minutes before the assassination and says it looks like "a 30-odd (aught) size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope"
------------For the first hours after the assassination, all DPD tell the world about is a Mauser rifle found at the scene of the crime
Interesting!
-
So!
------------Mr Oswald is shown the rifle and says he saw Mr Truly holding it (or one just like it) two days ago
------------Mr Truly confirms that he held a deer hunting "_________________ rifle" belonging to Mr Warren Caster
------------Mr Caster confirms the story and fills in the missing part: "a .30-06 sporterized Mauser"
------------Mr Arnold Rowland sees a rifle in the hands of a man on the sixth floor some 15 minutes before the assassination and says it looks like "a 30-odd (aught) size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope"
------------For the first hours after the assassination, all DPD tell the world about is a Mauser rifle found at the scene of the crime
Interesting!
Add to that Congressman Roberts' exclamation at the time of the shooting - " "That is a .30-06."
-
Add to that Congressman Roberts' exclamation at the time of the shooting - " "That is a .30-06."
Indeedy! Thumb1:
-
Friendly reminder! Those who wish to say that Mr Oswald must have been shown the Carcano must explain away Lt. Day's statement that the Carcano at this time was locked away in the evidence box, and not brought out again until ~7pm that evening
-
Friendly reminder! Those who wish to say that Mr Oswald must have been shown the Carcano must explain away Lt. Day's statement that the Carcano at this time was locked away in the evidence box, and not brought out again until ~7pm that evening
Oh really..??? What is the time shown on the clock in the famous photo of Day with the rifle held above his head?
-
Oh really..??? What is the time shown on the clock in the famous photo of Day with the rifle held above his head?
It says 6.15, meaning Lt. Day's 7pm estimate was a bit off. But 6.15pm is still WAY later than Mr Oswald's first interrogation session. And yet he's shown THE rifle.
-
It says 6.15, meaning Lt. Day's 7pm estimate was a bit off. But 6.15pm is still WAY later than Mr Oswald's first interrogation session. And yet he's shown THE rifle.
No, Mr. F.... The clock is proof that Lt Day was a liar..... And Lee's reply during the interrogation of..."I saw this rifle and two other's the day before yesterday", is accurate.....
-
Referring to CE 486....It's obvious that the west window would have allowed plenty of sunlight to enter the room and if the man was standing just a few feet back from the south window he would have been illuminated by the sun shining through the west window, and thus he would have been clearly visible to Arnold Rowland.
Robert Harris always has this thing where he prefaces a baseless assertion by leading off with the work "'obvious[ly]" in a vain attempt to avoid having to support is Shinola. Apparently, he's been rubbing off on you.
How is it obvious? The primary source of light in those photos is the photographers rig, whether it be due to speed lights or a flash bulb. Anyway, the sun at 12:15 is almost directly from due South. While the TSBD isn't oriented exactly N-S-E-W, it's fairly close, and what little sliver of direct light through the west windows would be cast towards the North side of the building.
The link below contains a photo taken later on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, from a perspective fairly close to what Rowland would have seen from his position. Since it's later on in the afternoon, the sun is shining from a much more Westerly direction than it would have a few minutes after noon. There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows than at 12:15. So where is all that glorious, rifleman-bathing natural light seen through SW corner window? And where in his testimony, affidavits, and interviews does Rowland describe the influence of such light?
http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229 (http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229)
-
The link below contains a photo taken later on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, from a perspective fairly close to what Rowland would have seen from his position. Since it's later on in the afternoon, the sun is shining from a much more Westerly direction than it would have a few minutes after noon. There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows than at 12:15. So where is all that glorious, rifleman-bathing natural light seen through SW corner window? And where in his testimony, affidavits, and interviews does Rowland describe the influence of such light?
http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229 (http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229)
Now try
a) putting a person standing a few feet back from the window at 12.15pm, so the sunlight has something to hit
b) understanding that Mr Arnold saw the scene not in a black and white photograph but in full-color real life.
This image should help get you on your way
(https://images2.imgbox.com/11/80/9rVxdIO0_o.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
Robert Harris always has this thing where he prefaces a baseless assertion by leading off with the work "'obvious[ly]" in a vain attempt to avoid having to support is Shinola. Apparently, he's been rubbing off on you.
How is it obvious? The primary source of light in those photos is the photographers rig, whether it be due to speed lights or a flash bulb. Anyway, the sun at 12:15 is almost directly from due South. While the TSBD isn't oriented exactly N-S-E-W, it's fairly close, and what little sliver of direct light through the west windows would be cast towards the North side of the building.
The link below contains a photo taken later on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, from a perspective fairly close to what Rowland would have seen from his position. Since it's later on in the afternoon, the sun is shining from a much more Westerly direction than it would have a few minutes after noon. There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows than at 12:15. So where is all that glorious, rifleman-bathing natural light seen through SW corner window? And where in his testimony, affidavits, and interviews does Rowland describe the influence of such light?
http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229 (http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229)
There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows than at 12:15
True...But the fact remains the west window was also illuminating the area where Arnold Rowland saw the light clothing clad ma with the HUNTING rifle was standing.
-
No, Mr. F.... The clock is proof that Lt Day was a liar..... And Lee's reply during the interrogation of..."I saw this rifle and two other's the day before yesterday", is accurate.....
Where had Lt Day been with that Carcano?.... Isn't it true that he had just taken the rifle to display to Marina Oswald?.....And didn't he ask her if she'd ever seen the rifle ...... So doesn't it make sense that he would also have taken the rifle to be displayed to Lee?
-
Where had Lt Day been with that Carcano?.... Isn't it true that he had just taken the rifle to display to Marina Oswald?.....And didn't he ask her if she'd ever seen the rifle ...... So doesn't it make sense that he would also have taken the rifle to be displayed to Lee?
At 3:15pm?
-
Does she have to pay extra for that?
You couldn't be more wrong.
The basic description of the rifleman he gives to his wife is the same as the one he gives in his affidavit is the same one he gives to the WC.
Don't forget, you also think his head is lower than his waist. ;)
A slender heavy 200lb man that weighs 140lbs:
Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the weight of the man in addition to the line of proportion which you have already described?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say about 140 to 150 pounds
-----------------------------------------------------
That picture was of the window facing the west parking lot. It is the only time Walt Cakebread has ever been right. You have to give it to him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
---------------
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
----------------------------
LHO had the rifle slightly tipped in the wrong direction to his right but almost verticle ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
------------
His head was always below his waist. Every time they asked him a question he proved it. Today it would be called a lifestyle. Describing a rifle as a "thirty odd size six" would be a good example of his head being below his waist. If he really was attempting to reference a 30-06, calling it an import rifle would also be a good example of his head being below his waist.
-
At 3:15pm?
Yes ...Day had just came from the TSBD and brought the carcano into police headquarters.......
-
From your previous post:
"Apparent gap between top of "rifleman" head to top of window opening (30" and 36" per A. Rowland WC testimony)"
This is an erroneous parameter. Rowland misunderstands the question about the space between the rifleman's head and the top of the window as meaning the distance of his head away from the top of the window. The answer he gives is consistent with his estimation of how far in the building the rifleman is stood.
He is hardly describing the top half of the man's body plus another 36" seen through a 30" inch gap of the open window. Below is a very rough graphic meant to illustrate a basic principle. The gap between sill and the centre of the full window is represented by a red line. The same redline is overlaid on the middle of the trio to give a very basic idea of what someone looking through the window should see.
Obviously the further away from the window the man is stood the more of him would be visible as the angle of LoS from Rowland is a lot more shallow than that shown in the image.
It's basic and meant to convey a basic idea.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wM0sy0cg/TSBD-window-measurement.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Let's go back to what Rowland said:
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Specter asks how far up Rowland can see the man in the TSBD. Rowland says not only that he can see the top of the man's head, but also that there was empty space above the man's head through which he could see the wall behind the man. That space would necessarily be bordered by the top of the man's head and the raised window sash. Specter immediately follows up, asking Rowland how much space there was between the "top of his head" (the exact phrase Rowland used) and the "open window." Given that Rowland had just brought the subject up, and repeats Rowland's phrasing, there's no reason to claim Rowland was confused about the nature of the question.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that Rowland was confused and simply told Specter the distance between the top of the man's head and the wall in front of him, it's still highly problematic. He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet. Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense.
-
Let's go back to what Rowland said:
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Specter asks how far up Rowland can see the man in the TSBD. Rowland says not only that he can see the top of the man's head, but also that there was empty space above the man's head through which he could see the wall behind the man. That space would necessarily be bordered by the top of the man's head and the raised window sash. Specter immediately follows up, asking Rowland how much space there was between the "top of his head" (the exact phrase Rowland used) and the "open window." Given that Rowland had just brought the subject up, and repeats Rowland's phrasing, there's no reason to claim Rowland was confused about the nature of the question.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that Rowland was confused and simply told Specter the distance between the top of the man's head and the wall in front of him, it's still highly problematic. He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet. Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense.
~Grin~
We all know that if Mr Rowland had said
a) the man at the window was Mr Oswald
b) he was holding a rifle that looked like the Carcano
c) he was the only man he saw on that floor
the WC would have given him a laudation and you & Mr Nessan wouldn't now be working up a McAdamsite sweat to find pseudo-problems with his testimony.
-
Let's go back to what Rowland said:
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Specter asks how far up Rowland can see the man in the TSBD. Rowland says not only that he can see the top of the man's head, but also that there was empty space above the man's head through which he could see the wall behind the man. That space would necessarily be bordered by the top of the man's head and the raised window sash. Specter immediately follows up, asking Rowland how much space there was between the "top of his head" (the exact phrase Rowland used) and the "open window." Given that Rowland had just brought the subject up, and repeats Rowland's phrasing, there's no reason to claim Rowland was confused about the nature of the question.
Yeah Mitch, it's a really simple misunderstanding. It doesn't make Rowland stupid or confused. And it's easy to see how he could make such a simple mistake - what's the space between the top of his head and the window? It's really not that big of a deal. Unless, of course, you have an interest in undermining Rowland's testimony. His estimation of how far the rifleman is stood in the building is the only aspect of his description he has a problem with and it's no surprise, at a distance it would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.
Obviously, because it is a misunderstanding, you can simply insist that it's not a misunderstanding at all and that he was looking through a 30" gap describing a 36" space to the top of the rifleman's head. That's fair enough.
I view Rowland's description of the rifleman as reliable and consistent - the description he gives his wife before the assassination is consistent with the description he gives in his affidavit is consistent with the description he gives in his WC testimony. The notion that he just made this description up for his wife, then tracked down a police officer and made it up for him then went to the DPD and made it up for his affidavit etc. is, in my opinion, nonsense.
Going back to the pic I posted, although it is a very rough presentation of a basic principle, once it is understood Rowland was not referring to a 3ft space above the rifleman's head, it becomes clear that he was accurately describing what we would expect someone to see looking through the window.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that Rowland was confused and simply told Specter the distance between the top of the man's head and the wall in front of him, it's still highly problematic. He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet. Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense.
"He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet."
This is not exactly a mind-bending difference is it. Note that 3ft is in both distances. Not really something I would describe as being "highly problematic". Certainly not a deal-breaker.
"Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense."
So, you've assumed, for argument's sake, Rowland has made a simple misunderstanding and is talking about the distance the rifleman is stood away from the window. You've described this situation as still being "highly problematic". The single example you give to highlight how problematic it is actually demonstrates a consistency with what Rowland has already stated.
Rowland is grilled endlessly on the tiniest detail of what he witnessed and is impressively accurate throughout but because of this single, perfectly understandable misunderstanding he is a "confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition".
Let's really assume Rowland has misunderstood the question and answered as honestly as he could - we then find him describing being able to see the rifleman from just below the waist to just above his head. When we look at the pic I posted it is clear this description is perfectly plausible.
-
A slender heavy 200lb man that weighs 140lbs:
Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the weight of the man in addition to the line of proportion which you have already described?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say about 140 to 150 pounds
-----------------------------------------------------
That picture was of the window facing the west parking lot. It is the only time Walt Cakebread has ever been right. You have to give it to him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half?
Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half.
Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
---------------
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.
----------------------------
LHO had the rifle slightly tipped in the wrong direction to his right but almost verticle ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.
Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
------------
His head was always below his waist. Every time they asked him a question he proved it. Today it would be called a lifestyle. Describing a rifle as a "thirty odd size six" would be a good example of his head being below his waist. If he really was attempting to reference a 30-06, calling it an import rifle would also be a good example of his head being below his waist.
It is the only time Walt Cakebread has ever been right. You have to give it to him.
Cheap shot, eh Jack.... Of course if you were to extract your head more often, then you'd know that your dead wrong in your smart ass remark.
-
Yes ...Day had just came from the TSBD and brought the carcano into police headquarters.......
What time did Ms Oswald arrive at police headquarters?
-
What time did Ms Oswald arrive at police headquarters?
I donno....Why don't you tell me....
-
I donno....Why don't you tell me....
OK, just before 6PM--------------------------WAAAAAAAAAAY after Mr Oswald's first interrogation ended.
So the answer to your question "Isn't it true that he had just taken the rifle to display to Marina Oswald?" is: no.
-
OK, just before 6PM--------------------------WAAAAAAAAAAY after Mr Oswald's first interrogation ended.
So the answer to your question "Isn't it true that he had just taken the rifle to display to Marina Oswald?" is: no.
Huh?? So you believe that Lee couldn't have been shown "the murder weapon" at around 3:15 pm, and Marina shown " Lee Oswald's rifle at around 6:00 pm?
-
Huh?? So you believe that Lee couldn't have been shown "the murder weapon" at around 3:15 pm, and Marina shown " Lee Oswald's rifle at around 6:00 pm?
So you've completely changed your claim, and that's my problem?
-
So!
1. DPD are telling the press all about Mr Oswald's having had a front-door encounter with a cop just after the assassination............. Mr Oswald, totally unaware of the dispatches being given to the press, tells Captain Fritz about having had a front-door encounter with a cop just after the assassination
2. DPD are telling the press all about the finding of a Mauser rifle on the sixth floor............. Mr Oswald, totally unaware of the dispatches being given to the press, tells Captain Fritz about having seen a Mauser in the Depository a couple of days earlier
My, my, such freak coincidences in Mr Oswald's favor! :D
-
So you've completely changed your claim, and that's my problem?
Not sure what you're talkin about....You apparently have grossly misconstrued something I've posted.
-
Not sure what you're talkin about....You apparently have grossly misconstrued something I've posted.
I've wondered why you tucked your tail and slinked away... Is it because you don't want to admit that Lt Day was a damned liar?
-
There should be a great deal more light coming through the West windows than at 12:15
True...But the fact remains the west window was also illuminating the area where Arnold Rowland saw the light clothing clad ma with the HUNTING rifle was standing.
Walt, repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make Wopner time come any faster. And it doesn't prove anything, either.
again, look at the photo:
http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229
If you were right about the light coming in from the West side windows the lower half of the SW corner windows would not be two rectangles of inky darkness.
-
Walt, repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make Wopner time come any faster. And it doesn't prove anything, either.
again, look at the photo:
http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/11/john-f-kennedy-anniversary-a-look-at-images-from-his-lifetime/president-kennedy-gallery-9/#PhotoSwipe1613588479229
If you were right about the light coming in from the West side windows the lower half of the SW corner windows would not be two rectangles of inky darkness.
Simply because the sun wasn't shining directly into the west window does not mean that area was dark as night....
-
Simply because the sun wasn't shining directly into the west window does not mean that area was dark as night....
Doesn't have to be like midnight. It just has to be dark enough compared to the bright noontime sunshine that the interior appears to be dark once the outside observer's pupils constrict to adjust for the sunny day. Just like the photo shows.
-
Doesn't have to be like midnight. It just has to be dark enough compared to the bright noontime sunshine that the interior appears to be dark once the outside observer's pupils constrict to adjust for the sunny day. Just like the photo shows.
No, the human eye is superior to a camera lens..... The eye can see into an area that is slightly darker than the outside...
You may recall that several witnesses said they saw a man moving around behind the sixth floor windows before the motorcade arrived. That man wasn't standing in the bright sunshine.
-
No, the human eye is superior to a camera lens..... The eye can see into an area that is slightly darker than the outside...
You may recall that several witnesses said they saw a man moving around behind the sixth floor windows before the motorcade arrived. That man wasn't standing in the bright sunshine.
The guy that Edwards, Fischer, Euins, and Brennan saw was indeed in the sunshine. He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep. Even at noon, the sun shone a few feet into the building in late November. Just not enough to light up anything more than a couple off feet from the window where anyone on the ground could see. And not enough for Rowland's descriptions in his signed DCSD affidavit and his handwritten statement to the FBI.
-
The guy that Edwards, Fischer, Euins, and Brennan saw was indeed in the sunshine. He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep. Even at noon, the sun shone a few feet into the building in late November. Just not enough to light up anything more than a couple off feet from the window where anyone on the ground could see. And not enough for Rowland's descriptions in his signed DCSD affidavit and his handwritten statement to the FBI.
Don't forget the description he gave to his wife before the motorcade had even arrived.
-
The guy that Edwards, Fischer, Euins, and Brennan saw was indeed in the sunshine. He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep. Even at noon, the sun shone a few feet into the building in late November. Just not enough to light up anything more than a couple off feet from the window where anyone on the ground could see. And not enough for Rowland's descriptions in his signed DCSD affidavit and his handwritten statement to the FBI.
He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep.
Great!!... Thank you.... You've pointed out that the So called "Sniper's Nest" was very small and allowed nobody to stand up next to the window in the sunlight....
-
Don't forget the description he gave to his wife before the motorcade had even arrived.
Great description: Tall or maybe not tall, Well built or maybe slender
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he was either tall or thin I mean, if he was tall, he could have been well built, but if he was not very tall, then he was thin.
Now the whole goofy Port of Arms thing:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Apparently he could see at least from the waist up, because he said that the man was wearing a light shirt, and that he was holding the rifle at a port arms position.
And last he is so far back in the room he can't be seen:
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I saw the window plainly, and I saw some people hanging, looking out of some other windows, but he said that the man was standing in the background.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say about how far back?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I think he said about 12 feet, I don't know exactly.
-
Great description: Tall or maybe not tall, Well built or maybe slender
Mrs. ROWLAND. He said he was either tall or thin I mean, if he was tall, he could have been well built, but if he was not very tall, then he was thin.
You've mentioned this before and I thought you were pretending not to understand what was being said just to score a point.
But I've just realised, you don't actually understand.
Rowland is describing someone who is "slender in proportion to his size".
The key phrase here is "in proportion"
The point Rowland is making is that he can't give an accurate estimation of the rifleman's height which, given the distance and the fact he can't see all of the rifleman's body, is hardly surprising. All he can do is give a description of his general body shape.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be
The man could be over 6 ft and weigh 200lbs or much shorter and weigh 150lbs. He can't tell, all he can really say is that the rifleman was slender in proportion to his size (height).
What you have unwittingly revealed using the quote from Barbara Arnold is the accuracy with which she recalls her husband's description of the rifleman as he makes exactly the same point in his WC testimony. A detailed description he gave her before the motorcade had even arrived and a description he consistently gave in his various official statements.
Now the whole goofy Port of Arms thing:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Apparently he could see at least from the waist up, because he said that the man was wearing a light shirt, and that he was holding the rifle at a port arms position.
Again, you've confirmed the accuracy of the description Rowland gave to his wife and her excellent recollection of that description. In one of his early statements the phrase "a parade rest sort of position" is used. When this is mentioned in his WC testimony he seems surprised - "It does appear in there? - and then corrects this statement:
Mr. SPECTER - Just one detail on that statement: There is a reference here to the man holding the rifle being in a position which you describe as "a parade-rest sort of position." That appears--
Mr. ROWLAND - It does appear in there?
Mr. SPECTER - Eighteen lines down.
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I see it. It wasn't a parade-rest position. It was a port-arms position
"It was a port-arms position", exactly as Barbara recalled.
And last he is so far back in the room he can't be seen:
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I saw the window plainly, and I saw some people hanging, looking out of some other windows, but he said that the man was standing in the background.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say about how far back?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I think he said about 12 feet, I don't know exactly.
:D
Once again you confirm the accuracy of the description Rowland gave to his wife on the day of the assassination and her excellent recall of that description. Rowland's estimation of how far the rifleman was stood in the building has already been dealt with if you remember. Rowland is clear that it is a difficult thing to estimate and his first guess is that the rifleman is stood 12-15ft inside the building, consistent with Barbara's memory of it, confirming that was what he thought at the time of the assassination.
By the time of his WC testimony Rowland has revised this first estimate to a second estimation of 3-5 ft. As has already been pointed out to you Jack:
"Rowland is trying to estimate how far in the building the man is stood, which is quite a tricky thing to estimate as he states himself.
His early estimation is 12-15ft but on reflection he changes this to 3-5ft. It is this single detail that is leapt upon to try to undermine his testimony. Otherwise he is perfectly consistent with what he tells his wife at the time and the subsequent statements he makes concerning the description of the man with the rifle. He gives a detailed description of the man and to argue that he couldn't have seen the man if he was stood 15ft inside the building doesn't mean he was describing a man he couldn't see - it means his estimation of how far the man was stood away from the window is wrong.
His wife confirms the description he gave on the day and his incorrect estimate of how far the man was stood in the building."
It turns out your devastating critique of Barbara Rowland's testimony has done nothing more than confirm the accuracy of her husband's description of the rifleman of the day of the assassination and her excellent recollection of his description.
Don't worry though, just wait for a few days and pretend you've never read this post, it might work next time 8)
-
Yeah Mitch, it's a really simple misunderstanding. It doesn't make Rowland stupid or confused. And it's easy to see how he could make such a simple mistake - what's the space between the top of his head and the window? It's really not that big of a deal. Unless, of course, you have an interest in undermining Rowland's testimony. His estimation of how far the rifleman is stood in the building is the only aspect of his description he has a problem with and it's no surprise, at a distance it would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.
Obviously, because it is a misunderstanding, you can simply insist that it's not a misunderstanding at all and that he was looking through a 30" gap describing a 36" space to the top of the rifleman's head. That's fair enough.
This is a summary of how the kerfluffle surrounding this particular point has progressed:
Dan O': "Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle in the SW corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD"
Jack N: "Rowland claimed there was a 30-36 inch gap above the top of the guy's head and below the open window sash. The open window is only about 30" wide, yet Rowland saw most of the man plus the 30-36 inch gap though that 30 inch window opening. No way that can happen"
Dan O': "That's because Rowland misunderstood the question Specter was asking him. Rowland really meant the horizontal distance between the top of the man's head and the window."
Mitch T: "Given the specific question that Specter asks and the context of the exchange leading up to it, there's no real room to allow Arnold to be confused about exactly what he's being asked."
Dan O': "No, it has to be the horizontal distance between the top of the rifleman's head and not the vertical."
Mitch T: "Why?"
Dan O': "Because if it was the vertical distance, then it would have been impossible for Rowland to have seen what he said he saw"
You're begging the question here, assuming that Rowland actually saw the man with the rifle, and bending his testimony around that assumption, when Rowland's story is the point of contention.
I view Rowland's description of the rifleman as reliable and consistent - the description he gives his wife before the assassination is consistent with the description he gives in his affidavit is consistent with the description he gives in his WC testimony. The notion that he just made this description up for his wife, then tracked down a police officer and made it up for him then went to the DPD and made it up for his affidavit etc. is, in my opinion, nonsense.
Going back to the pic I posted, although it is a very rough presentation of a basic principle, once it is understood Rowland was not referring to a 3ft space above the rifleman's head, it becomes clear that he was accurately describing what we would expect someone to see looking through the window.
"He's already put the distance at 3 to 5 feet; you'd have us believe that he then decided it was really 2.5 to 3 feet."
This is not exactly a mind-bending difference is it. Note that 3ft is in both distances. Not really something I would describe as being "highly problematic". Certainly not a deal-breaker.
It doesn't have to be a "mind-bending" change, just a significant one, and he makes that significant change in a very short period of time. In your interpretation, a couple of minutes after he already made an issue of the man being 3'-5' inside the window, he's almost halving that distance with no explanation behind the change. You'd have a better point if he made it a 30"-36" distance months or years after putting 3'-5' between rifleman and window. Assuming that the change is a shift in Rowland's estimate of the distance between man and window and not his estimate of the vertical apparent distance between the top of the man's head and the top of the window opening, going from 3'-5' to 30"-36" in a couple of minutes is very hard to accept without a better-supported explanation.
"Assuming your contention makes an Arnold Rowland an easily confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition. If that's the best you can do, you need to stop trying before he gets the chair under your defense."
So, you've assumed, for argument's sake, Rowland has made a simple misunderstanding and is talking about the distance the rifleman is stood away from the window. You've described this situation as still being "highly problematic". The single example you give to highlight how problematic it is actually demonstrates a consistency with what Rowland has already stated.
Rowland is grilled endlessly on the tiniest detail of what he witnessed and is impressively accurate throughout but because of this single, perfectly understandable misunderstanding he is a "confused boy too dumb to properly answer what should be a straightforward question and unable to keep his own story straight through the deposition".
Let's really assume Rowland has misunderstood the question and answered as honestly as he could - we then find him describing being able to see the rifleman from just below the waist to just above his head. When we look at the pic I posted it is clear this description is perfectly plausible.
The single example that Jack N brought up (and we are continuing with here) is evidence that we are arguing about a single example, and nothing more. It doesn't prove or imply that it is the only example of an issue with Rowland or his testimony. Another example that has been brought up are how he changed to location of the man he saw from the time of his first affidavit to the WC testimony several months later. His 11/22 Sheriff's Department affidavit puts the man 15 feet behind he window. The next day, he told the FBI that the man was 10-15 feet behind the window. The next day, he wrote out a statement to the FBI placing the man 12-15 feet behind the window. Mr Nessan has pointed out that Rowland's wife testified to the Commission that Rowland had told her that the man was "about 12 feet" inside the window (thank you, Jack). Although she was admittedly equivocal about the exact distance, twelve feet jives nicely with Rowland's early statements. Then we come to Rowland's Commission testimony, where he now says that the man in the TSBD is 3-5 feet from the window. That's quite a change. He also adds a second man on the sixth floor who doesn't appear in any of his earlier statements. Mrs Rowland also didn't recall him ever claiming there was a second man on the 6th floor.
I suspect that the second man was added at some point after Rowland learned about Bonnie Ray Williams' presence on the sixth floor at the same time Rowland claimed to see his rifleman. Rowland still gets the window wrong. Williams was not in the sniper's nest on the east side, but a couple of windows over. Williams becomes a real problem for the Rowland story: Williams would easily have been able to see anyone standing where Rowland placed his rifleman. Of course, Williams never reported anything like that.
You're making a big deal that Rowland's description of the gunman's appearance remains consistent. If true, how much does that really mean? Any fiction can be easily repeated. The Grimm Brothers noted that the storytellers from which the Grimms gathered their collection of fairy tales could repeat the stories endlessly, never changing so much as a single word in each telling. That consistency doesn't make Hansel and Gretel a true crime story. And the consistency-of-appearance argument ignores the glaring inconsistencies in position, or the addition of a second man on six. Or that the real "second man" should have seen the rifleman, but didn't.
I've already posted the dossier that the WC gathered on Rowland. It's located in the National Archives, here:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7461052
You should read the whole thing. You probably don't want to; it's not a very flattering picture of Mr Rowland. But it will give you some insight into the person behind the testimony. And shed light on the credibility thereof.
-
He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep.
Great!!... Thank you.... You've pointed out that the So called "Sniper's Nest" was very small and allowed nobody to stand up next to the window in the sunlight....
So you're going to try to change the subject after realizing that you've been caught out --far,far out.
:D
-
You've mentioned this before and I thought you were pretending not to understand what was being said just to score a point.
But I've just realised, you don't actually understand.
Rowland is describing someone who is "slender in proportion to his size".
The key phrase here is "in proportion"
The point Rowland is making is that he can't give an accurate estimation of the rifleman's height which, given the distance and the fact he can't see all of the rifleman's body, is hardly surprising. All he can do is give a description of his general body shape.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be
The man could be over 6 ft and weigh 200lbs or much shorter and weigh 150lbs. He can't tell, all he can really say is that the rifleman was slender in proportion to his size (height).
What you have unwittingly revealed using the quote from Barbara Arnold is the accuracy with which she recalls her husband's description of the rifleman as he makes exactly the same point in his WC testimony. A detailed description he gave her before the motorcade had even arrived and a description he consistently gave in his various official statements.
Again, you've confirmed the accuracy of the description Rowland gave to his wife and her excellent recollection of that description. In one of his early statements the phrase "a parade rest sort of position" is used. When this is mentioned in his WC testimony he seems surprised - "It does appear in there? - and then corrects this statement:
Mr. SPECTER - Just one detail on that statement: There is a reference here to the man holding the rifle being in a position which you describe as "a parade-rest sort of position." That appears--
Mr. ROWLAND - It does appear in there?
Mr. SPECTER - Eighteen lines down.
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; I see it. It wasn't a parade-rest position. It was a port-arms position
"It was a port-arms position", exactly as Barbara recalled.
:D
Once again you confirm the accuracy of the description Rowland gave to his wife on the day of the assassination and her excellent recall of that description. Rowland's estimation of how far the rifleman was stood in the building has already been dealt with if you remember. Rowland is clear that it is a difficult thing to estimate and his first guess is that the rifleman is stood 12-15ft inside the building, consistent with Barbara's memory of it, confirming that was what he thought at the time of the assassination.
By the time of his WC testimony Rowland has revised this first estimate to a second estimation of 3-5 ft. As has already been pointed out to you Jack:
"Rowland is trying to estimate how far in the building the man is stood, which is quite a tricky thing to estimate as he states himself.
His early estimation is 12-15ft but on reflection he changes this to 3-5ft. It is this single detail that is leapt upon to try to undermine his testimony. Otherwise he is perfectly consistent with what he tells his wife at the time and the subsequent statements he makes concerning the description of the man with the rifle. He gives a detailed description of the man and to argue that he couldn't have seen the man if he was stood 15ft inside the building doesn't mean he was describing a man he couldn't see - it means his estimation of how far the man was stood away from the window is wrong.
His wife confirms the description he gave on the day and his incorrect estimate of how far the man was stood in the building."
It turns out your devastating critique of Barbara Rowland's testimony has done nothing more than confirm the accuracy of her husband's description of the rifleman of the day of the assassination and her excellent recollection of his description.
Don't worry though, just wait for a few days and pretend you've never read this post, it might work next time 8)
Barbara's statement only confirms he made it up and it in no way validates Arnold's testimony.
12 feet is not the same as 3 to 5 feet and the description of the person in the window does not work for either. Nothing is going to change that.
Nice try, tall and well built is not even remotely similar to short and slender and cannot be construed to be the same description. Height has nothing to do with either being well built or slender.
Port of Arms is described as standing with his left hand and elbow at shoulder height and he then describes the rifle positioned across his body and pointing in the opposite direction at the ceiling and wall.
-
This is a summary of how the kerfluffle surrounding this particular point has progressed:
Dan O': "Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle in the SW corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD"
Jack N: "Rowland claimed there was a 30-36 inch gap above the top of the guy's head and below the open window sash. The open window is only about 30" wide, yet Rowland saw most of the man plus the 30-36 inch gap though that 30 inch window opening. No way that can happen"
Dan O': "That's because Rowland misunderstood the question Specter was asking him. Rowland really meant the horizontal distance between the top of the man's head and the window."
Mitch T: "Given the specific question that Specter asks and the context of the exchange leading up to it, there's no real room to allow Arnold to be confused about exactly what he's being asked."
Dan O': "No, it has to be the horizontal distance between the top of the rifleman's head and not the vertical."
Mitch T: "Why?"
Dan O': "Because if it was the vertical distance, then it would have been impossible for Rowland to have seen what he said he saw"
That's a lovely little story. The irony of your comparison of Rowland to the Brothers Grimm is not lost on me.
You're begging the question here, assuming that Rowland actually saw the man with the rifle, and bending his testimony around that assumption, when Rowland's story is the point of contention.
I'm guessing that Rowland witnessing the man with the rifle somehow goes against how you view the assassination.
So you have to discredit his testimony and you do this by assuming he didn't see the man with the rifle and you bend his testimony around that assumption.
The problem both you and Jack have is that you are positing an almost miraculous coincidence - that Rowland described a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and it just so happened, by a million-to-one shot, there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD. This alone makes a mockery of the position you are forced to take on this matter.
And not any old rifle, oh no...a rifle with a scope! And guess what...?
Do you not feel silly having trapped yourself in this position?
And, would you believe it, the description he gives of the man tallies incredibly well with the handful of other witnesses who saw the shooter! What are the chances?
Seriously....what...are...the...chances?
It doesn't have to be a "mind-bending" change, just a significant one, and he makes that significant change in a very short period of time. In your interpretation, a couple of minutes after he already made an issue of the man being 3'-5' inside the window, he's almost halving that distance with no explanation behind the change. You'd have a better point if he made it a 30"-36" distance months or years after putting 3'-5' between rifleman and window. Assuming that the change is a shift in Rowland's estimate of the distance between man and window and not his estimate of the vertical apparent distance between the top of the man's head and the top of the window opening, going from 3'-5' to 30"-36" in a couple of minutes is very hard to accept without a better-supported explanation.
The single example that Jack N brought up (and we are continuing with here) is evidence that we are arguing about a single example, and nothing more. It doesn't prove or imply that it is the only example of an issue with Rowland or his testimony. Another example that has been brought up are how he changed to location of the man he saw from the time of his first affidavit to the WC testimony several months later. His 11/22 Sheriff's Department affidavit puts the man 15 feet behind he window. The next day, he told the FBI that the man was 10-15 feet behind the window. The next day, he wrote out a statement to the FBI placing the man 12-15 feet behind the window. Mr Nessan has pointed out that Rowland's wife testified to the Commission that Rowland had told her that the man was "about 12 feet" inside the window (thank you, Jack). Although she was admittedly equivocal about the exact distance, twelve feet jives nicely with Rowland's early statements. Then we come to Rowland's Commission testimony, where he now says that the man in the TSBD is 3-5 feet from the window. That's quite a change.
So what are the compelling arguments you cling on to, to support this "Tale of Coincidence" the Brothers Grimm would've found too outlandish to include in any fairy-tale.
1) He changes his estimation of how far the man is stood in the building.
2) He misunderstands one of the questions.
Have a little think about the magnitude of the miracle you are proposing and then have a look at what you've got to back it up with.
He also adds a second man on the sixth floor who doesn't appear in any of his earlier statements. Mrs Rowland also didn't recall him ever claiming there was a second man on the 6th floor.
I suspect that the second man was added at some point after Rowland learned about Bonnie Ray Williams' presence on the sixth floor at the same time Rowland claimed to see his rifleman. Rowland still gets the window wrong. Williams was not in the sniper's nest on the east side, but a couple of windows over.
As you well know, Rowland only mentioned this second man after he became aware of the importance of that window.
There were lots of people looking out of lots of windows but only one had a rifle.
Why would he have mentioned this second man in his early statements?
Mr. SPECTER - Shortly after the assassination and before these interviews that you described were completed, Mr. Rowland, had you learned or heard that the shots were supposed to have come out of the window which we have marked with the "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, sir. I did not know that, in fact until Saturday when I read the paper.
Mr. SPECTER - Which Saturday is that?
Mr. ROWLAND - The following Saturday.
Mr. SPECTER - Would that be the second day, the day after the assassination?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, knowing that, at that time, did you attach any particular significance to the presence of the Negro gentleman, whom you have described, that you saw in window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; that is why I brought it to the attention of the FBI agents who interviewed me that day. This was as an afterthought because I did not think of it firsthand. But I did bring it to their attention before they left,
-
Based on Arnold's description of the man in the window, his impossible description of the rifle and supposed estimation of the caliber of rifle with a scope from a distance of 150 feet, his wife's assessment of his honesty, and his inability to tell the same story twice it can only be concluded he fabricated the whole story based on the conversation about Adlai Stevenson. Unbeknownst to Arnold there really was a gunman on the 6th floor.
Isn't it interesting though that Howard Brennan's background and ever-evolving story never seems to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Why is that?
-
Isn't it interesting though that Howard Brennan's background and ever-evolving story never seems to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Why is that?
I'd suggest that Howard Brennan's story be separated into two divisions... What he swore too prior to going to the police station on the evening of the coup d e'tat ..... and what he said AFTER being subjected to a grilling which hinted at his family being in danger if he didn't keep his mouth shut.
-
The guy that Edwards, Fischer, Euins, and Brennan saw was indeed in the sunshine. He was in the sniper's nest which was only two feet deep. Even at noon, the sun shone a few feet into the building in late November. Just not enough to light up anything more than a couple off feet from the window where anyone on the ground could see. And not enough for Rowland's descriptions in his signed DCSD affidavit and his handwritten statement to the FBI.
There was a light hanging from the ceiling near the south west window.
-
I suspect that the second man was added at some point after Rowland learned about Bonnie Ray Williams' presence on the sixth floor at the same time Rowland claimed to see his rifleman.
How could Rowland have possibly learned about that?
-
That's a lovely little story. The irony of your comparison of Rowland to the Brothers Grimm is not lost on me.
No irony needed. That really is how the argument has progressed. You're at the point where you've been arguing that Rowland had to have misunderstood Specter's question. Otherwise, accepting the alternative leads directly to the self-destruction of Rowland's testimony.
I'm guessing that Rowland witnessing the man with the rifle somehow goes against how you view the assassination.
So you have to discredit his testimony and you do this by assuming he didn't see the man with the rifle and you bend his testimony around that assumption.
I used to take Rowland's story at face value. As you've pointed out, it does make for quite a coincidence, at least at first glance. Over time, though, I soured on the tale for the following reasons:
1.) I couldn't square the Rowland story with Bonnie Ray Williams' lack of corroboration, though Williams should absolutely be expected to do so.
2.) For that matter, no other witness puts a man with a rifle on the west end of the TSBD. In contrast, Fisher and Edwards see a man in the SN window immediately before the shooting. Euins and Brennan see a man shooting from the same location. Jackson and Couch reported seeing a rifle in the SN window during the shooting.
3.) First rule of fight club is don't talk about fight club: There's plenty of downside and no upside to a wannabe assassin exposing himself and his weapon to a thousand bystanders 10-15 minutes before the act. Who would do so in this situation?
4.) Rowland makes a number of suspiciously extravagant claims about himself during his WC testimony. He says he has a 147 IQ, has an "A'" average, "much better" than 20/20 eyesight, has performed extensive special research in echoes and acoustics, has been accepted to relatively prestigious colleges, etc.
5.) He also seems to hop jobs a lot. From his and his wife's testimony, he's held at least eight separate jobs from between May '63 and April '64. That's rarely a good sign.
6.) His wife pretty much calls him out as a liar in her WC testimony. It's usually bad when one spouse testifies against another. At least outside of a divorce case, where it's expected.
7.) His belated addition of an "elderly negro" on the sixth floor in his WC testimony that is curiously absent from his earlier statements
8.) Moving the man with the rifle from a position 10-15 feet within the building to 3-5 feet from the window between his earlier statements and his WC deposition.
9.) After the shooting started, Rowland didn't look back to see if he could see the rifleman. Given the situation, that's a curious omission. Unless Rowland knew that the rifleman didn't actually exist in the first place.
10.) The WC was curious about those extravagant claims and checked his actual background. He didn't have an "A" average by any means, nor had he completed high school. He hadn't performed any special studies in acoustics or echoes. He hadn't been a patient of the optometrists he claimed to have been examined by. He hadn't been accepted by SMU, and likely not by TAMU or Rice, either. His IQ tested out as 106, not 147. From reading the various reports, the one impression he seems to have consistently made on people was a notable lack of credibility.
11.) The 30-36 inch gap issue is icing on the cake at this point.
The problem both you and Jack have is that you are positing an almost miraculous coincidence - that Rowland described a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD and it just so happened, by a million-to-one shot, there was indeed a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD. This alone makes a mockery of the position you are forced to take on this matter.
And not any old rifle, oh no...a rifle with a scope! And guess what...?
Do you not feel silly having trapped yourself in this position?
And, would you believe it, the description he gives of the man tallies incredibly well with the handful of other witnesses who saw the shooter! What are the chances?
Seriously....what...are...the...chances?
Greater than you might think. Let's say I'm in Rowland's position in Dealey Plaza and I'm telling my wife about the extra-special security procedures in place for the President's visit. Let's say I want to conjure up a security agent to "point out" to my wife as an example of these special preparations. To do this plausibly, I need to:
1.) Come up with a role for the guy that demonstrates "special security precautions" appropriate to a Presidential motorcade. That is, beyond and above what would normally be done for your usual run-of-the-mill parade.
2.) Put this guy in a place that would inherently imply "special security precaution"
3.) Put him in circumstances where his non-presence could easily be explained away when your wife looked that direction and found herself unable to see the guy.
Making him a sharpshooter in one of the upper windows of a building facing Dealey Plaza fulfills all 3 requirements. Nothing says "important public occasion with VIPs" like a protective sniper overlooking the area. Of course, such a person would be placed up high to get the best line of sight/fire and to be able to survey the largest area. Putting him behind a window makes it easy to say that he stepped behind a column or fell back into the shadows when the Significant Other could see him.
The question that follows is, "which building?" The Rowlands are on the East side of Houston facing West. The Sheriff's Department building is behind them and so is ruled out. They can't see into the narrow windows on the County records building that face Houston St, so it gets ruled out. The South side of the DalTex building has no south-facing windows visible from the Rowlands' position and they can't see into the ones on the West side because of the angle. It gets ruled out. The Old Red courthouse is to the left, but still kinda behind them. They wouldn't be looking in it's direction anyway. There are only two buildings in front of them: the TSBD on the right and the Terminal Annex Building on the left. The TSBD is slightly closer; more importantly, it's directly on the parade route and thus would be the likely first choice.
From there, let's pick a window. From the photos taken of the TSBD that afternoon, only floors five and six had open windows. This is important for two reasons. First, A sniper probably wouldn't want to shoot through a window. Second, the upper-floor windows of the TSBD were fairly dirty, as evidenced in the various photos of the TSBD taken inside and out. Carolyn Walther said in her affidavit that she couldn't see in through the windows because they were too dirty. The Rowlands would have an even harder time of it as they were further away than Walther.
As for the gun used, a sharpshooter would have a high-powered rifle, and most likely a scope. Because, sharpshooter. A trim man implies action more than a scrawny one or a fat one. And an open necked shirt implies and action sort of guy more than a button up collar, unless you believe in Action Accountant. In 1963, turtlenecks were owned by bongo-snapping hipsters. And light colored shirts were fairly common. For example in this photo:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184809/m1/1/
To be honest, I don't think it had to have happened exactly like what I just described. My point is, once someone decides to generate a fictitious "secret service man" to impress someone else, he's going to have to operate under constraints imposed by existing circumstances. The result isn't the result of some random process, and the "million to one odds" idea you have is therefore erroneous.
As for coincidences, consider something assassination-related that I ran across recently in the Dictabelt recording. On that recording, there is a famous stretch where the microphone on a DPD motorcycle gets stuck in the "transmit" position for several minutes. It first appears just after 12:28 PM is announced and continues until a bit after the 12:34 PM announcement. Interestingly, the open mic episode starts at the end of a transmission by the officer whose call number is 75, and ends at the tail of a transmission by the same officer. When I first realized that, I wanted to think 'hey, I found the source of the open mic!.' Still, I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth, started to look more closely into the matter, and soon was able to rule out '75' as the source of the open mic. '75' was a car far to the northeast of Dealey Plaza, Parkland, the Trade Mart, or Oak Cliff. The coincidence is highly unlikely, but it turned out to be nothing more than a coincidence.
So what are the compelling arguments you cling on to, to support this "Tale of Coincidence" the Brothers Grimm would've found too outlandish to include in any fairy-tale.
1) He changes his estimation of how far the man is stood in the building.
2) He misunderstands one of the questions.
Have a little think about the magnitude of the miracle you are proposing and then have a look at what you've got to back it up with.
I've sprinkled this thread with more reasons than those two. You just haven't paid attention, or aren't thinking. In case you missed anything, I just listed all of my reasons for distrusting Arnold Rowland's account. By the way, I included a link to the important persons file the WC gathered on Rowland in my last reply. The one that shows him in a less-than-favorable light. It seems to have been omitted in your last post on the matter.
As you well know, Rowland only mentioned this second man after he became aware of the importance of that window.
There were lots of people looking out of lots of windows but only one had a rifle.
Why would he have mentioned this second man in his early statements?
Mr. SPECTER - Shortly after the assassination and before these interviews that you described were completed, Mr. Rowland, had you learned or heard that the shots were supposed to have come out of the window which we have marked with the "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - No, sir. I did not know that, in fact until Saturday when I read the paper.
Mr. SPECTER - Which Saturday is that?
Mr. ROWLAND - The following Saturday.
Mr. SPECTER - Would that be the second day, the day after the assassination?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, knowing that, at that time, did you attach any particular significance to the presence of the Negro gentleman, whom you have described, that you saw in window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; that is why I brought it to the attention of the FBI agents who interviewed me that day. This was as an afterthought because I did not think of it firsthand. But I did bring it to their attention before they left,
And the source for this is Rowland. The statement that Rowland wrote out for the FBI was made on Sunday. By his own statements to the WC, he knew that the man in the SN was significant before then. But Rowland neglected to put that in his statement. He can't blame that omission on the FBI; he wrote the statement out himself.
-
It's not even a little bit of a far-fetched concept that the person sticking the rifle or "pipe-thing" out of the SE corner window at the time of the assassination was over by the SW window 15 minutes earlier.
It's also not even a little bit of a far-fetched concept that the "elderly negro" was Bonnie Ray Williams, who was known to have been on the sixth floor at the time.
-
It's not even a little bit of a far-fetched concept that the person sticking the rifle or "pipe-thing" out of the SE corner window at the time of the assassination was over by the SW window 15 minutes earlier.
It's also not even a little bit of a far-fetched concept that the "elderly negro" was Bonnie Ray Williams, who was known to have been on the sixth floor at the time.
I believe that Amos Euins saw the "pipe like thing" at the SW corner...... There is a video of Euins pointing to the place whee he saw the "pipe like thing"....and although it's difficult to see exactly where he's pointing ...it appears that he is pointing to the SW corner. The video was taken just minutes after the shooting and the camera is in the parking lot behind the North pergola.
We know that nobody could get up to the SE window because there were boxes in the way.....
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg)
I thought I showed how to fix a posted image where it isn't so very wide.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/92/68/dvAToWuI_o.jpg)
I thought I showed how to fix a posted image where it isn't so very wide.
"Mr Truly had rifle and 2 others"
-
Bookhout report:
"Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. Truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at."
-
Bookhout report:
"Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. Truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at."
I'm well aware of how Hosty's truncated note appears in Bookhout's report ....
But That's not what Hosty jotted down...Hosty wrote:..... Mr Truly had rifle and two others.....
I hasten to remind you that Hosty had already found Lee Oswald guilty of murder before he ever went into that first interrogation at 3:15 pm 11 / 22 / 63. About 20 minutes prior to the first interrogation at 2:50 pm, Hosty told DPD detective Jack Revill that Oswald was guilty of killing JFK, and The FBI knew that he Lee was capable of killing JFK, but they didn't believe that he actually do it.
I find it very interesting that Guy Bannister allegedly said nearly the same words ( according to Jack Martin) as Hosty.
Jack Martin was with Guy Bannister on the evening of 11/22/63 when Bannister blurted out something very similar to Hosty's remark to Jack Revill.
-
Hosty and Bookhout were present at the same interrogation, therefore it’s way more likely that you are misinterpreting Hosty’s notes.
-
How could Rowland have possibly learned about that?
John, Do you think that it was mere co-incidence that the movie "Suddenly" was broadcast on TV just before the coup D etat?
I can't remember much about that movie....except there was a plot afoot to shoot a President from a high building.
Is it possible that someone was setting the stage ???
I wonder if Rowland had see the movie "Suddenly" and that had sharpened his awareness.....
-
Did Captain Fritz confront Mr Oswald with the Carcano, and did Mr Oswald claim he had seen Mr Truly with it two days ago?
YES!! ABSOLUTELY!! Stop doubting yourself....
I've been posting that for years....But nobody wants to believe and accept what Fritz and Hosty wrote.
Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository around 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm
Lt Day was a gargantuan LIAR!!...And not about this aspect alone..... He lied again and again... I believe that he was a bigger liar than Roger Craig.
Lt Carl Day said he locked the Carcano away in an evidence box in the Identification Bureau at around 2pm, returned to the Depository aro][und 2:45pm, and didn't unlock the evidence box again until around 7pm
Lt Day was lying....The clock on the wall proves it....See the photo of Day with the Carcano held high above his head.
-
John, Do you think that it was mere co-incidence that the movie "Suddenly" was broadcast on TV just before the coup D etat?
I can't remember much about that movie....except there was a plot afoot to shoot a President from a high building.
Is it possible that someone was setting the stage ???
I wonder if Rowland had see the movie "Suddenly" and that had sharpened his awareness.....
Do you think this movie might have "sharpened" Oswald's awareness since we know he saw the film? His "pipe like" object went "bang" and was found at the crime scene.
-
Interesting information concerning Captain Fritz provided beneath.. ???
Quote: ”In the late section of 1975, a social gathering in a fashionable section of far North Dallas produced a startling revelation. One guest impressed the group with his close association with members of the Dallas law-enforcement agencies. Of particular interest, was his friendship with Captain Will Fritz, former head of the Homicide Division of the Dallas Police Department. Fritz became virtually a recluse following retirement, and has persistently refused to grant interviews ever since.
The “impressive guest” informed the gathering that he frequently has lunch with Captain Fritz, and related a conversation with Fritz that took place in March of 1975.
The day following the first television showing of the Zapruder film a group of Dallas businessmen lunched with Captain Fritz. The luncheon conversation turned to the Zapruder film, televised for the first time the previous night. Captain Fritz said he did not watch the film on television; he had seen the film years ago, and did not stay up to see it on “Goodnight America.” Then Fritz volunteered some very revealing information.
Captain Fritz said that he received two or three phone calls, between Lee Harvey Oswald´s Friday afternoon arrest and Saturday afternoon, November 23rd, urging him to stop the investigation because, “You have your man”. Fritz was not satisfied that the investigation was completed, and was convinced, in his own mind, that Oswald “was about to ‘break’ and confess.” Fritz believed that, if others were involved, Oswald would implicate them. He said he “held out” and pursued the investigation. After a significant pause and a glance over his shoulder, Fritz added, “But, when the President of the United States called me and ORDERED the investigation stopped, what could I do?” - End quote.
/Penn Jones Jr. - Author, journalist, and editor of the Midlothian Mirror.
-
Do you think this movie might have "sharpened" Oswald's awareness since we know he saw the film? His "pipe like" object went "bang" and was found at the crime scene.
There was a carcano like the rifle seen in the BY photo, found buried beneath boxes of books in the TSBD.....But that rifle could not have been the murder weapon, because it was hidden beneath those boxes of books BEFORE the shooting.
-
There was a carcano like the rifle seen in the BY photo, found buried beneath boxes of books in the TSBD.....But that rifle could not have been the murder weapon, because it was hidden beneath those boxes of books BEFORE the shooting.
The location of the rifle in no way precludes it from having been used to commit this crime. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. So there is no doubt that rifle was used. Oswald likely had a hiding place selected for his rifle before he even arrived that morning. The last thing he does before retrieving the rifle is to put down his clipboard which he is using to appear busy in case he is encountered lingering on the 6th floor before the assassination. That was found in proximity to where his rifle is found. So it is just a matter of seconds to put the rifle back there as he exits the floor. It's likely the same spot where he hid it that morning. I'm not sure why you believe it would have taken him more than 5 seconds to place the rifle there.
-
The location of the rifle in no way precludes it from having been used to commit this crime. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. So there is no doubt that rifle was used. Oswald likely had a hiding place selected for his rifle before he even arrived that morning. The last thing he does before retrieving the rifle is to put down his clipboard which he is using to appear busy in case he is encountered lingering on the 6th floor before the assassination. That was found in proximity to where his rifle is found. So it is just a matter of seconds to put the rifle back there as he exits the floor. It's likely the same spot where he hid it that morning. I'm not sure why you believe it would have taken him more than 5 seconds to place the rifle there.
The location of the rifle in no way precludes it from having been used to commit this crime
So you're saying that if a carcano with the serial # C 2766 was found behind some boxes on the 1st floor that wouldn't preclude it from having been fired from the sixth floor window by Lee Oswald? Great!! ....Please explain .....
If you say that if the rifle had been found on the first floor....and therefore it couldn't have been fired from the sixth flor window at the time of the murder.....Then the same reasoning applies to the carcano having been found buried beneath boxes of books that were too far away from the stairs to allow Lee Oswald to have hid that rifle there AFTER the shooting.....
Both scenarios preclude the possibility .....Because Marrion Baker saw Lee In the second floor lunchroom about 90 seconds after the first explosion.....and there would not have been enough time for Lee to have traveled from the imaginary "Sniper's Nest" to the first floor and hid the rifle and then returned to the second floor lunchroom to be encountered there by Baker.... You might as well say the carcano was found in El Paso.....Impossible is impossible....and it would have been impossible for Lee to have hid the rifle at the bottom of that chasm of boxes of books that was about five feet away from the "escape" aisle at the top of the stairs.
-
Researcher David Josephs explains and provides evidence how the DPD, Secret Service, and FBI dealt with the rifle evidence they gathered, as they gathered it, and how Hoover’s FBI, with the help of the US Postal Service, steered this evidence toward Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CbHeZjHZ8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CbHeZjHZ8&feature=youtu.be) Thumb1:
Additional information available here: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor)
-
The location of the rifle in no way precludes it from having been used to commit this crime. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. So there is no doubt that rifle was used. Oswald likely had a hiding place selected for his rifle before he even arrived that morning. The last thing he does before retrieving the rifle is to put down his clipboard which he is using to appear busy in case he is encountered lingering on the 6th floor before the assassination. That was found in proximity to where his rifle is found. So it is just a matter of seconds to put the rifle back there as he exits the floor. It's likely the same spot where he hid it that morning. I'm not sure why you believe it would have taken him more than 5 seconds to place the rifle there.
The location of the rifle in no way precludes it from having been used to commit this crime.
True, but there is no evidence that this particular rifle was fired at all on 11/22/63
Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. So there is no doubt that rifle was used.
True, but the problem is when it was used.
Oswald likely had a hiding place selected for his rifle before he even arrived that morning.
Likely? Speculating again?
-
True, but there is no evidence that this particular rifle was fired at all on 11/22/63
There is no evidence that some other rifle was fired in Dealey on 11/22/63
-
True, but there is no evidence that this particular rifle was fired at all on 11/22/63
There is no evidence that some other rifle was fired in Dealey on 11/22/63
True. With no evidence what rifle was fired, are you just going to assume that it was the MC that was fired?
-
The location of the rifle in no way precludes it from having been used to commit this crime.
True, but there is no evidence that this particular rifle was fired at all on 11/22/63
Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. So there is no doubt that rifle was used.
True, but the problem is when it was used.
Oswald likely had a hiding place selected for his rifle before he even arrived that morning.
Likely? Speculating again?
When it was "used"? How about when it went bang, bang, bang and shot JFK? Good grief. Witnesses saw a rifle in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. A rifle is found on that floor with fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window and you are suggesting there is doubt about whether this rifle fired the shots. Hilarious.
-
When it was "used"? How about when it went bang, bang, bang and shot JFK? Good grief. Witnesses saw a rifle in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. A rifle is found on that floor with fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window and you are suggesting there is doubt about whether this rifle fired the shots. Hilarious.
No, I am suggesting that you favor jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
When it was "used"? How about when it went bang, bang, bang and shot JFK? Good grief.
Really... You are certain that happened?
A rifle seen in the 6th floor window and a rifle found on the 6th floor....And superficial as you are, you think it's as easy as 1 + 1 = 2, right?
A rifle is found on that floor with fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window and you are suggesting there is doubt about whether this rifle fired the shots.
No, Sherlock, I am suggesting that if the rifle was planted the shells were likely also, don't ya think?
Which leaves us with two possibilities; (1) the MC rifle was used and the shells were fired on that day or (2) the rifle and the shells were planted on a staged crime scene.
Investigation is a process of elemination, which means that until you can eleminate the second option, you can't make any kind of claim about option 1.
So, what justifies the question? The rust in the barrel of the MC rifle, that would have been gone after the first shot, was still there. But I'm sure you can explain how this particular rifle was fired without the rust being removed, right?
-
No, I am suggesting that you favor jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
When it was "used"? How about when it went bang, bang, bang and shot JFK? Good grief.
Really... You are certain that happened?
A rifle seen in the 6th floor window and a rifle found on the 6th floor....And superficial as you are, you think it's as easy as 1 + 1 = 2, right?
A rifle is found on that floor with fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window and you are suggesting there is doubt about whether this rifle fired the shots.
No, Sherlock, I am suggesting that if the rifle was planted the shells were likely also, don't ya think?
Which leaves us with two possibilities; (1) the MC rifle was used and the shells were fired on that day or (2) the rifle and the shells were planted on a staged crime scene.
Investigation is a process of elemination, which means that until you can eleminate the second option, you can't make any kind of claim about option 1.
So, what justifies the question? The rust in the barrel of the MC rifle, that would have been gone after the first shot, was still there. But I'm sure you can explain how this particular rifle was fired without the rust being removed, right?
Excellent Martin..... I hope I can also add that the FBI reported that the bore of the TSBD carcano was dirty and corroded ( rusty) and the lands were worn.... IOW....The bore was in poor condition..... Which is odd...because CE399 ( the magic bullet) looks like it was fired through a rifle whose barrel was in good condition.....
-
True. With no evidence what rifle was fired, are you just going to assume that it was the MC that was fired?
'Dealey' in my post includes downrange. Again, no evidence of another rifle being fired.
My point stands.
-
No, I am suggesting that you favor jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
When it was "used"? How about when it went bang, bang, bang and shot JFK? Good grief.
Really... You are certain that happened?
A rifle seen in the 6th floor window and a rifle found on the 6th floor....And superficial as you are, you think it's as easy as 1 + 1 = 2, right?
A rifle is found on that floor with fired bullet casings from that rifle by the window and you are suggesting there is doubt about whether this rifle fired the shots.
No, Sherlock, I am suggesting that if the rifle was planted the shells were likely also, don't ya think?
Which leaves us with two possibilities; (1) the MC rifle was used and the shells were fired on that day or (2) the rifle and the shells were planted on a staged crime scene.
Investigation is a process of elemination, which means that until you can eleminate the second option, you can't make any kind of claim about option 1.
So, what justifies the question? The rust in the barrel of the MC rifle, that would have been gone after the first shot, was still there. But I'm sure you can explain how this particular rifle was fired without the rust being removed, right?
or (2) the rifle and the shells were planted on a staged crime scene.
There is no evidence that anything was planted.
-
'Dealey' in my post includes downrange. Again, no evidence of another rifle being fired.
My point stands.
My point stands.
As does my question. Your usual gibberish isn't much of an answer
And again, no evidence that the MC rifle was fired on 11/22/63! Just the usual assumptions....
or (2) the rifle and the shells were planted on a staged crime scene.
There is no evidence that anything was planted.
By your own "logic"; neither is there evidence that it wasn't planted.
And btw, what did you expect, a neon sign pointing downwards saying "here's some planted evidence"?
-
or (2) the rifle and the shells were planted on a staged crime scene.
There is no evidence that anything was planted.
There is no evidence that anything was planted.
On the contrary..... There is PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF that the rifle was planted BEFORE the shooting. You simply have to extract your head to see it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
At the time the rifle ( carcano) was discovered nobody knew that there was going to be a problem with the location and the manner the rifle was found. It looked like the killer had fired from the SE window and then ran to the stairs in he NW corner and hid the rifle before fleeing from the building ...Case closed.
But that was before Lee Oswald was named as a suspect .....and before Marrion Baker reported that he and Roy Truly had seen Lee Oswald in the second floor lunch room. As it turned out that sighting of Lee in the lunchroom, less than two minutes after the first shot was fired created a huge conundrum in proving that Lee Oswald was the assassin. The reason being... It was obvious that the site where the rifle was found had been carefully constructed and even a non detective ( Tom Alyea) recognized that it had to have been built prior to the shooting. And when the detectives started measuring distances they discovered that the site at the bottom of a "well" that was about four feet deep and about 5 feet away from the escape path , they realized that the rifle could not have been hastily dumped just seconds after the shooting. Houston....We have a problem!
The problem.....Marrion Baker and Roy Truly and Lee Oswald all agreed that Lee was in the second floor lunchroom drinking a Coke about 90 seconds after the first shot was heard. And since that was true....then Lee Oswald couldn't have been shooting that Carcano from the imaginary "Sniper's Nest" at the time that John Kenndy was murdered.
Houston:....Ok Space cadets.... We have a solution to your problem... We will reconstruct the site where the rifle was found, We will place the rifle closer to the stairs and position it in a manner in which the little commie rat could have deposited that carcano..... and then we will destroy the original photos that we took of the rifle in situ, and create new photos of the site with the rifle standing in a manner that would make it possible for the commie rat, cop killer, to have accomplished the deed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Case closed..... Well not quite..... We still have a big conundrum Space Cadets.......If that little commie rat, cop killer, has his day in court, he can obviously destroy our fabrication.....
-
My point stands.
As does my question. Your usual gibberish isn't much of an answer
And again, no evidence that the MC rifle was fired on 11/22/63! Just the usual assumptions....
By your own "logic"; neither is there evidence that it wasn't planted.
And btw, what did you expect, a neon sign pointing downwards saying "here's some planted evidence"?
No gibberish required, Bubba: Keep yours to yourself and use neon signs or whatever it takes to point out that which you claim was planted.
-
My point stands.
As does my question. Your usual gibberish isn't much of an answer
And again, no evidence that the MC rifle was fired on 11/22/63! Just the usual assumptions....
By your own "logic"; neither is there evidence that it wasn't planted.
And btw, what did you expect, a neon sign pointing downwards saying "here's some planted evidence"?
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the "possibility" that the rifle and shells were planted. Just because you can dream up a completely baseless alternative explanation doesn't result in doubt. No one would ever be convicted of a crime if doubt were created by the mere possibility that evidence was planted. There has to be some credible basis to support that claim. And keep in mind you refuse to admit that you are a CTer. So how would Oswald's rifle and fired bullet casings from that rifle materialize if there was no pre-planned conspiracy?
Can you also tell us what would constitute "evidence" that Oswald's rifle was fired on 11.22.63 that is lacking from the record? It is found on the floor from which shots were fired that day. Shell casings are found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment the shots were fired. There is no plausible explanation from Oswald as to why his rifle is found there. It's silly to suggest that wasn't the rifle used that day. Even in your fantasy conspiracy scenario to frame Oswald, the conspirators would obviously have used the same rifle to commit the assassination that they were going to leave at the scene to frame him. Why would they use a different rifle with all the complications that would entail including having to smuggle another rifle out of the building undetected? It defies basic common sense that they would kill JFK with one rifle but leave a different rifle at the scene to frame Oswald for the crime.
-
No gibberish required, Bubba: Keep yours to yourself and use neon signs or whatever it takes to point out that which you claim was planted.
Where did I claim that something was planted?
-
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the "possibility" that the rifle and shells were planted. Just because you can dream up a completely baseless alternative explanation doesn't result in doubt. No one would ever be convicted of a crime if doubt were created by the mere possibility that evidence was planted. There has to be some credible basis to support that claim. And keep in mind you refuse to admit that you are a CTer. So how would Oswald's rifle and fired bullet casings from that rifle materialize if there was no pre-planned conspiracy?
Can you also tell us what would constitute "evidence" that Oswald's rifle was fired on 11.22.63 that is lacking from the record? It is found on the floor from which shots were fired that day. Shell casings are found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment the shots were fired. There is no plausible explanation from Oswald as to why his rifle is found there. It's silly to suggest that wasn't the rifle used that day. Even in your fantasy conspiracy scenario to frame Oswald, the conspirators would obviously have used the same rifle to commit the assassination that they were going to leave at the scene to frame him. Why would they use a different rifle with all the complications that would entail including having to smuggle another rifle out of the building undetected? It defies basic common sense that they would kill JFK with one rifle but leave a different rifle at the scene to frame Oswald for the crime.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the "possibility" that the rifle and shells were planted.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the MC rifle was fired on 11/22/63. All you have is the assumption that it was!
Just because you can dream up a completely baseless alternative explanation doesn't result in doubt. No one would ever be convicted of a crime if doubt were created by the mere possibility that evidence was planted.
First of all, this isn't a court of law and secondly, based on the evidence we know, I am convinced that Oswald would likely have been convicted. However, that does not automatically mean that he did it. It just means that the evidence presented points in that direction.
So how would Oswald's rifle and fired bullet casings from that rifle materialize if there was no pre-planned conspiracy?
True, but considering all possibilities doesn't make me a CT. Jumping to conclusions, as you do, does make you a LN.
Can you also tell us what would constitute "evidence" that Oswald's rifle was fired on 11.22.63 that is lacking from the record?
Again, there is no evidence in the record that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was fired on 11/22/63. There is, however, in the record the fact that the barrel of the MC was not cleared of rust, which is what it should have been had a shot been fired. For some reason you seem to ignore that fact. One can only wonder why...
It is found on the floor from which shots were fired that day. Shell casings are found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment the shots were fired. There is no plausible explanation from Oswald as to why his rifle is found there. It's silly to suggest that wasn't the rifle used that day.
It might be silly to your limited brain, but that doesn't make it a fact. If the rifle was planted, the shell casings were also planted which means they do not provide proof that the rifle was fired. And there is no plausible explanation from Oswald, other than his denial of ownership, because he was killed before he could provide any explanation.
Even in your fantasy conspiracy scenario to frame Oswald, the conspirators would obviously have used the same rifle to commit the assassination that they were going to leave at the scene to frame him.
Why is that obvious?
Why would they use a different rifle with all the complications that would entail including having to smuggle another rifle out of the building undetected? It defies basic common sense that they would kill JFK with one rifle but leave a different rifle at the scene to frame Oswald for the crime.
It is not my problem that your lack of imagination prevents you from answering that question yourself.
-
It is not my problem that your lack of imagination prevents you from answering that question yourself
Nice dodge. And you also cannot explain why conspirators would place the shooter behind the limo and yet claim shots from in front of the limo.
-
It is not my problem that your lack of imagination prevents you from answering that question yourself
Nice dodge. And you also cannot explain why conspirators would place the shooter behind the limo and yet claim shots from in front of the limo.
And you also cannot explain why conspirators would place the shooter behind the limo and yet claim shots from in front of the limo.
Because if there was a conspiracy and a subsequent cover up it wouldn't matter. There is no consensus among the witnesses about how many shots were fired and where the shots came from. More than three shots could be explained away as echoes and shots from other locations could be explained by saying that Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber.
From that point it's easy; one rifle (planted or not) found at the TSBD = one shooter from the TSBD and people who heard shots from other locations were simply "mistaken".
-
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the "possibility" that the rifle and shells were planted.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the MC rifle was fired on 11/22/63. All you have is the assumption that it was!
Just because you can dream up a completely baseless alternative explanation doesn't result in doubt. No one would ever be convicted of a crime if doubt were created by the mere possibility that evidence was planted.
First of all, this isn't a court of law and secondly, based on the evidence we know, I am convinced that Oswald would likely have been convicted. However, that does not automatically mean that he did it. It just means that the evidence presented points in that direction.
So how would Oswald's rifle and fired bullet casings from that rifle materialize if there was no pre-planned conspiracy?
True, but considering all possibilities doesn't make me a CT. Jumping to conclusions, as you do, does make you a LN.
Can you also tell us what would constitute "evidence" that Oswald's rifle was fired on 11.22.63 that is lacking from the record?
Again, there is no evidence in the record that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was fired on 11/22/63. There is, however, in the record the fact that the barrel of the MC was not cleared of rust, which is what it should have been had a shot been fired. For some reason you seem to ignore that fact. One can only wonder why...
It is found on the floor from which shots were fired that day. Shell casings are found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle at the moment the shots were fired. There is no plausible explanation from Oswald as to why his rifle is found there. It's silly to suggest that wasn't the rifle used that day.
It might be silly to your limited brain, but that doesn't make it a fact. If the rifle was planted, the shell casings were also planted which means they do not provide proof that the rifle was fired. And there is no plausible explanation from Oswald, other than his denial of ownership, because he was killed before he could provide any explanation.
Even in your fantasy conspiracy scenario to frame Oswald, the conspirators would obviously have used the same rifle to commit the assassination that they were going to leave at the scene to frame him.
Why is that obvious?
Why would they use a different rifle with all the complications that would entail including having to smuggle another rifle out of the building undetected? It defies basic common sense that they would kill JFK with one rifle but leave a different rifle at the scene to frame Oswald for the crime.
It is not my problem that your lack of imagination prevents you from answering that question yourself.
So you have no explanation whatsoever for why your fantasy conspirators would use one rifle to kill JFK but then plant an entirely different rifle to frame Oswald for that crime. Got it. And you are not suggesting there was a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was possibly planted. And you have no evidence that happened. It's just possible. Wow. And how do bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle end up in JFK's car if it wasn't fired that day? Let me guess. You don't have to explain because they "could" be planted. But you are not applying an impossible standard of proof or suggesting a conspiracy. That's classic rabbit hole nonsense.
WC:
"The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons."
-
So you have no explanation whatsoever for why your fantasy conspirators would use one rifle to kill JFK but then plant an entirely different rifle to frame Oswald for that crime. Got it. And you are not suggesting there was a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was possibly planted. And you have no evidence that happened. It's just possible. Wow. And how do bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle end up in JFK's car if it wasn't fired that day? Let me guess. You don't have to explain because they "could" be planted. But you are not applying an impossible standard of proof or suggesting a conspiracy. That's classic rabbit hole nonsense.
WC:
"The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons."
WC:
"The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons."
WHEN??? were the cartridges fired in the rifle??
-
So you have no explanation whatsoever for why your fantasy conspirators would use one rifle to kill JFK but then plant an entirely different rifle to frame Oswald for that crime. Got it. And you are not suggesting there was a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was possibly planted. And you have no evidence that happened. It's just possible. Wow. And how do bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle end up in JFK's car if it wasn't fired that day? Let me guess. You don't have to explain because they "could" be planted. But you are not applying an impossible standard of proof or suggesting a conspiracy. That's classic rabbit hole nonsense.
WC:
"The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons."
So you have no explanation whatsoever for why your fantasy conspirators would use one rifle to kill JFK but then plant an entirely different rifle to frame Oswald for that crime. Got it.
If there were conspirators, who says they only used one rifle to kill JFK?
And you are not suggesting there was a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was possibly planted.
Indeed. I am not suggesting there was a conspiracy, because I simply do not know. And neither do you. The difference between us is that I am willing to consider the possibility and rule nothing out and you aren't.
And how do bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle end up in JFK's car if it wasn't fired that day?
What bullet fragments were recovered from the limo by Frazier and his team?
-
If the photo of some type of rifle on the floor is accurate, then its questionable how Boone and Weitzman looking down into the 1” gap between 2 parallel rows of stacked boxes could have determined the rifle was a Mauser
Why they each decided to go ahead anyway and file an official document declaring in some detail that this was a Mauser rifle BEFORE the rifle is actually IN FULL VIEW , ie before it’s actually LIFTED and being examined by Lt. Day, is a question that will live in In infamy like The Pearl Harbor Dec 7th and How Schumer Gets Away With BS.
-
So you have no explanation whatsoever for why your fantasy conspirators would use one rifle to kill JFK but then plant an entirely different rifle to frame Oswald for that crime. Got it. And you are not suggesting there was a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was possibly planted. And you have no evidence that happened. It's just possible. Wow. And how do bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle end up in JFK's car if it wasn't fired that day?
So you have no evidence that the rifle allegedly found on the sixth floor was fired that day. Or that it was “Oswald’s rifle”. Or that the nearly whole bullet or the fragments or the shells had anything to do with the assassination. Or that Oswald ever fired them. It’s just possible. Wow.
-
And you also cannot explain why conspirators would place the shooter behind the limo and yet claim shots from in front of the limo.
Because if there was a conspiracy and a subsequent cover up it wouldn't matter. There is no consensus among the witnesses about how many shots were fired and where the shots came from. More than three shots could be explained away as echoes and shots from other locations could be explained by saying that Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber.
From that point it's easy; one rifle (planted or not) found at the TSBD = one shooter from the TSBD and people who heard shots from other locations were simply "mistaken".
That wasn't even a good try. Lose the smoke & mirrors and explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed. The fact is that your species has attempted to expand Oswald's statement (that he was brought in because he had lived in the Soviet Union) into something wider. That notion has long since come to an abrupt, screeching halt, with nowhere left to go but the nearest dumpster fire.
-
If the photo of some type of rifle on the floor is accurate, then its questionable how Boone and Weitzman looking down into the 1” gap between 2 parallel rows of stacked boxes could have determined the rifle was a Mauser
Why they each decided to go ahead anyway and file an official document declaring in some detail that this was a Mauser rifle BEFORE the rifle is actually IN FULL VIEW , ie before it’s actually LIFTED and being examined by Lt. Day, is a question that will live in In infamy like The Pearl Harbor Dec 7th and How Schumer Gets Away With BS.
looking down into the 1” gap between 2 parallel rows of stacked boxes could have determined the rifle was a Mauser
It's a pity that you are obviously are being influenced by a fake photo. You clearly are describing the fake in situ photo that was created by the DPD. Thus it is nothing but GIGO..... (Your brain has been given garbage in the form of the fake photo)
And only you can correct the problem.....
Some old timers referred to any high powered bolt action rifle as a "Mauser"..... I don't know if Seymour Weitzman, or Boone fit into that category but "someone" there at the scene, sure as hell thought that the rifle laying on the floor under the boxes" looked like a mauser" ( and the carcano does in fact resemble a 7.65 mauser. ) Knowing that Roger Craig was a blowhard, and he was there at the scene it's entirely possible that Craig may have been the person who first offered the idea that the rifle " looks like a mauser" ( he certainly tried very hard to convince others that a mauser had been found .)
I find it interesting that in his first written note after the rifle was discovered,.... Lt J.C.Day referred to the rifle as a 6.5mm LEVER ACTION. Which of course is totally wrong. BUT..... It does fit with the first police radio alert from the scene that reported that the suspect is armed with a 30-30 Winchester ....which is a LEVER ACTION rifle ...Merely co-incidence ???
-
That wasn't even a good try. Lose the smoke & mirrors and explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed. The fact is that your species has attempted to expand Oswald's statement (that he was brought in because he had lived in the Soviet Union) into something wider. That notion has long since come to an abrupt, screeching halt, with nowhere left to go but the nearest dumpster fire.
Poor little attention-seeking clown-boy. Why should Martin "explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed", when he never made that argument?
-
Poor little attention-seeking clown-boy. Why should Martin "explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed", when he never made that argument?
"explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed",
The answer to this question is easily attained..... I'd be embarrassed to display my lack of knowledge if I were you Lil Chappie.
But Ill give you a hint .... You may recall that on Friday afternoon all thoughts were that the murder was the result of multiple gunmen. ( Oswald and his commie accomplices)
-
WC:
"The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons."
WHEN??? were the cartridges fired in the rifle??
When? How about at the moment JFK was assassinated? Good grief. A rifle is seen in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. Cartridge cases from that rifle are found by that window. Bullet fragments from that rifle are found that were fired from that rifle to the "exclusion of all other weapons." It's a slam dunk.
-
"Oswald's rifle". LOL.
"are found". LOL.
You think all of your assumptions are "slam dunk"s.
-
When? How about at the moment JFK was assassinated? Good grief. A rifle is seen in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. Cartridge cases from that rifle are found by that window. Bullet fragments from that rifle are found that were fired from that rifle to the "exclusion of all other weapons." It's a slam dunk.
Your complete failure to answer any of my questions is extremely telling! Could it possibly be that you are afraid to answer them, as it might result in the realisation that the narrative you believe is actually a house of cards build on a shaky foundation?
Tell us, "Richard", how could the MC rifle have been fired on 11/22/63 when the rust in the barrel, which should have been removed by the first shot, was still there when they found the rifle?
And tell us also, what bullet fragments were recovered from the limo by Frazier and his team?
-
When? How about at the moment JFK was assassinated? Good grief. A rifle is seen in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. Cartridge cases from that rifle are found by that window. Bullet fragments from that rifle are found that were fired from that rifle to the "exclusion of all other weapons." It's a slam dunk.
So that's they only time the cartridges could have been fired from the carcano?? How do you explain the dirt and rust in the barrel, when three rounds would definitely have scoured any rust from the barrel.....
-
Poor little attention-seeking clown-boy. Why should Martin "explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed", when he never made that argument?
Weidmann has not complained.
-
"explain why a 'patsy' would have been placed behind the limo and yet frontal shots claimed",
The answer to this question is easily attained..... I'd be embarrassed to display my lack of knowledge if I were you Lil Chappie.
But Ill give you a hint .... You may recall that on Friday afternoon all thoughts were that the murder was the result of multiple gunmen. ( Oswald and his commie accomplices)
Exactly Brennan's thoughts and fears.
-
Exactly Brennan's thoughts and fears.
You may recall that on Friday afternoon all thoughts were that the murder was the result of multiple gunmen. ( Oswald and his commie accomplices)
So that answers your question....About bullets flying from both front and back.....Although It was NOT Lee Oswald who fired from the rear.
-
You may recall that on Friday afternoon all thoughts were that the murder was the result of multiple gunmen. ( Oswald and his commie accomplices)
So that answers your question....About bullets flying from both front and back.....Although It was NOT Lee Oswald who fired from the rear.
::)
Take your Gingko. I didn't say anything about bullets flying 'both front and back'. Try and figure out my ask before you declare mission accomplished, Clouseau
-
Weidmann has not complained.
Weidmann gave you a plausible answer, which you did not like and could not counter and thus ignored. S.O.P. for you!
I'm not giving you another one. Deal with it.
-
::)
Take your Gingko. I didn't say anything about bullets flying 'both front and back'. Try and figure out my ask before you declare mission accomplished, Clouseau
I woulda swore that you wrote this lil Chappie.....
"you also cannot explain why conspirators would place the shooter behind the limo and yet claim shots from in front of the limo."
And I pointed out why there was a shooter in front of the limo, as well as a shooter behind the president. But that's probably a little too difficult for you to understand.....
-
Weidmann gave you a plausible answer, which you did not like and could not counter and thus ignored. S.O.P. for you!
I'm not giving you another one. Deal with it.
Deal with it
LOL. I'm all shook up.
You did nothing but shuck & jive while inching your way toward the exit.
-
I woulda swore that you wrote this lil Chappie.....
"you also cannot explain why conspirators would place the shooter behind the limo and yet claim shots from in front of the limo."
And I pointed out why there was a shooter in front of the limo, as well as a shooter behind the president. But that's probably a little too difficult for you to understand.....
Goofball. Tell is why anybody would need to be framed in the first place.
-
So that's they only time the cartridges could have been fired from the carcano?? How do you explain the dirt and rust in the barrel, when three rounds would definitely have scoured any rust from the barrel.....
I explain it as largely a figment of your imagination along with a false understanding of the evidence. Now explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald? That is inexplicable. Why not use the same rifle to commit the crime as they are going to leave at the scene and avoid the obvious complications involved in using a different rifle/ammo and having to somehow fake all that evidence. It is absurd. And there is no credible evidence that any other rifle was used or that Oswald's rifle was planted. That is just a baseless "possibility" posed to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion from the actual evidence.
-
Your complete failure to answer any of my questions is extremely telling! Could it possibly be that you are afraid to answer them, as it might result in the realisation that the narrative you believe is actually a house of cards build on a shaky foundation?
Tell us, "Richard", how could the MC rifle have been fired on 11/22/63 when the rust in the barrel, which should have been removed by the first shot, was still there when they found the rifle?
And tell us also, what bullet fragments were recovered from the limo by Frazier and his team?
You, of course, already know that bullet fragments were recovered from the limo that came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle. Attempting to draw some distinction about who found them is just rabbit hole nonsense. There is no credible evidence that these fragments or the bullet found at Parkland (which also came from Oswald's rifle) was planted by anyone. Here is the WC report
WC:
After the Presidential car was returned to Washington on November 22, 1963, Secret Service agents found two bullet fragments in the front seat. One fragment, found on the seat beside the driver, weighed 44.6 grains and consisted of the nose portion of a bullet. The other fragment, found along the right side of the front seat, weighed 21.0 grains and consisted of the base portion of a bullet. During the course of an examination on November 23, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found three small lead particles, weighing between seven-tenths and nine-tenths of a grain each, on the rug underneath the left jump seat which had been occupied by Mrs. Connally.
As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.
-
I explain it as largely a figment of your imagination along with a false understanding of the evidence. Now explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald? That is inexplicable. Why not use the same rifle to commit the crime as they are going to leave at the scene and avoid the obvious complications involved in using a different rifle/ammo and having to somehow fake all that evidence. It is absurd. And there is no credible evidence that any other rifle was used or that Oswald's rifle was planted. That is just a baseless "possibility" posed to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion from the actual evidence.
explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald?
OMG!.... This is soooo elementary that even a little kid can understand .... If the kid wants to make it appear that his little brother ate all the cookies, he could plant a half eaten cookie in his little brothers pocket. Then when mom starts askin questions the culprit says that he saw little brother eating cookies and he had some in his pockets..... When Mom checks the patsy's pockets .... Shazam....She finds a half eaten cookie.....
Is that simple enough for you?
-
explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald?
OMG!.... This is soooo elementary that even a little kid can understand .... If the kid wants to make it appear that his little brother ate all the cookies, he could plant a half eaten cookie in his little brothers pocket. Then when mom starts askin questions the culprit says that he saw little brother eating cookies and he had some in his pockets..... When Mom checks the patsy's pockets .... Shazam....She finds a half eaten cookie.....
Is that simple enough for you?
Wow. That is incredibly stupid even from you. But let's use your idiotic analogy. If your kid ate a jar of chocolate chip cookies would he leave a ginger bread cookie to frame his brother? Of course not because it would not fulfill his purpose. He would leave a chocolate chip cookie. You are not following the obvious problem with leaving a rifle that was not involved in the crime to frame someone for that crime.
-
You, of course, already know that bullet fragments were recovered from the limo that came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle. Attempting to draw some distinction about who found them is just rabbit hole nonsense. There is no credible evidence that these fragments or the bullet found at Parkland (which also came from Oswald's rifle) was planted by anyone. Here is the WC report
WC:
After the Presidential car was returned to Washington on November 22, 1963, Secret Service agents found two bullet fragments in the front seat. One fragment, found on the seat beside the driver, weighed 44.6 grains and consisted of the nose portion of a bullet. The other fragment, found along the right side of the front seat, weighed 21.0 grains and consisted of the base portion of a bullet. During the course of an examination on November 23, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found three small lead particles, weighing between seven-tenths and nine-tenths of a grain each, on the rug underneath the left jump seat which had been occupied by Mrs. Connally.
As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.
You, of course, already know that bullet fragments were recovered from the limo that came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle. Attempting to draw some distinction about who found them is just rabbit hole nonsense.
No, I don't already know that. What I do know is that Frazier and his team were confronted by a contaminated crime scene when they arrived at the Secret Service garage to examine the limo and I do know that Frazier was handed some bullet fragments which he was told came from the limo. In other words, a contaminated crime scene and no solid chain of custody!
Quoting the WC report as evidence (of what exactly?) is pathetic!
If a contaminated crime scene and no solid chain of custody isn't grounds for reasonable doubt then nothing is!
There is no credible evidence that these fragments or the bullet found at Parkland (which also came from Oswald's rifle) was planted by anyone.
There doesn't have to be. What you need is credible and conclusive evidence that the fragments were indeed found in the limo and that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is in fact the same one Tomlinson found at Parkland Hospital. Regarding the latter, O.V. Wright, in Six seconds in Dallas, denied it was.
The WC failed to provide such proof and simply ignored all the evidentiary problems with both the fragments and the Parkland bullet.
-
You, of course, already know that bullet fragments were recovered from the limo that came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle.
"Recovered from the limo". LOL.
"Oswald's rifle". LOL.
"Richard" stating assumptions as facts. LOL.
WC:
After the Presidential car was returned to Washington on November 22, 1963, Secret Service agents found two bullet fragments in the front seat.
That's not even true. One was supposedly found by a Navy corpsman. Neither have any documented chain of custody whatsoever.
During the course of an examination on November 23, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found three small lead particles, weighing between seven-tenths and nine-tenths of a grain each, on the rug underneath the left jump seat which had been occupied by Mrs. Connally.
That doesn't help determine what weapon was used.
As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts.
The "nearly whole bullet" was allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital and also has no documented chain of custody. No evidence exists whatsoever that the bullet in evidence was ever in Dealey Plaza (or ever at Parkland Hospital for that matter) or ever went through Kennedy or Connally.
-
You, of course, already know that bullet fragments were recovered from the limo that came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle. Attempting to draw some distinction about who found them is just rabbit hole nonsense.
No, I don't already know that. What I do know is that Frazier and his team were confronted by a contaminated crime scene when they arrived at the Secret Service garage to examine the limo and I do know that Frazier was handed some bullet fragments which he was told came from the limo. In other words, a contaminated crime scene and no solid chain of custody!
Quoting the WC report as evidence (of what exactly?) is pathetic!
If a contaminated crime scene and no solid chain of custody isn't grounds for reasonable doubt then nothing is!
There is no credible evidence that these fragments or the bullet found at Parkland (which also came from Oswald's rifle) was planted by anyone.
There doesn't have to be. What you need is credible and conclusive evidence that the fragments were indeed found in the limo and that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is in fact the same one Tomlinson found at Parkland Hospital. Regarding the latter, O.V. Wright, in Six seconds in Dallas, denied it was.
The WC failed to provide such proof and simply ignored all the evidentiary problems with both the fragments and the Parkland bullet.
Same old song and dance. There is a mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the assassination. Your rebuttal is that maybe the evidence was "planted" or "contaminated" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Therefore nothing can ever proven because it is "possible" to dream up an explanation. It's an impossible standard of proof argument since it is always "possible" that evidence could be planted in any crime if you are not required to offer any evidence of such fakery. No fact in human history could ever be proven using this silly standard. The facts are that Oswald's rifle was found at the crime scene. Fired bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination. Bullet fragments from that rifle were found in the car. And a bullet from his rifle was found at hospital where his victims were taken. There couldn't be any more evidence absent a time machine.
-
Iacoletti:
No evidence exists whatsoever that the bullet in evidence was ever in Dealey Plaza (or ever at Parkland Hospital for that matter) or ever went through Kennedy or Connally.
No evidence whatsoever exists that some other rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza that day. No evidence whatsoever exists that the bullets that struck the victims came from some other rifle. No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a frameup. No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. No evidence exists that anyone but the shooter knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
-
Wow. That is incredibly stupid even from you. But let's use your idiotic analogy. If your kid ate a jar of chocolate chip cookies would he leave a ginger bread cookie to frame his brother? Of course not because it would not fulfill his purpose. He would leave a chocolate chip cookie. You are not following the obvious problem with leaving a rifle that was not involved in the crime to frame someone for that crime.
explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald?
Duh.... The conspirators knew that they would need to plant a rifle like the one seen in Lee's hands in the BY photo. And naturally the spent shells they had would need to be the type that fit the rifle. It didn't make a damn bit of difference if the shells were freshly fired, or the rifle had been fired recently ....They were the conspirators and the investigators. They could tell the trusting pissants anything and nobody would argue with them.
The fact that you believe that the Carcano was the murder weapon in spite of the evidence that's been presented that indicates it could not have been the murder weapon is an excellent example of how simple, trusting and naive fools, can be tricked.
Now then try to use your little pea brain and explain how a rifle that allegedly had been fired just hours before it was examined and found to have rust and dirt in the barrel , could have that dirty and rusty bore? Do you believe the tightly fitting, high velocity bullets, wouldn't have scoured that bore. ???
And explain why not a single trained police officer detected any trace of he smell of burned gunpowder when the rifle was found?
If that rifle had been fired less than an hour earlier the smell of gunpowder down in that enclosure of boxes of books would have been very noticeable.
Please explain how a 5 ' 9", 135 pound, man could reach out and place the rifle at the bottom of a five foot deep well from five feet away.....?? And then stack a couple of boxes over the top of the "well" opening?
If you can answer the questions.... Then you MIGHT have a plausible case that the carcano was the murder weapon.
-
Same old song and dance. There is a mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the assassination.
Same old song and dance, indeed. Your "mountain of evidence" is a mountain of conjecture, assumption, and false claims about the evidence.
-
No evidence whatsoever exists that some other rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza that day.
Or that rifle.
No evidence whatsoever exists that the bullets that struck the victims came from some other rifle.
Or that rifile.
No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a frameup.
You need evidence for a need? :D You can either prove that Oswald did it or you cannot. And you cannot.
No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. No evidence exists that anyone but the shooter knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
Completely irrelevant, like everything you try to regale us with.
-
Or that rifle.
Or that rifile.
You need evidence for a need? :D You can either prove that Oswald did it or you cannot. And you cannot.
Completely irrelevant, like everything you try to regale us with.
I've never said I could prove any of this, Neil. But then I don't need to anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, Slick.
-
I've never said I could prove any of this, Neil. But then I don't need to anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, Slick.
Sure, Mortimer, but a discussion is more that just telling us who you believe did it over and over again. Oh yeah, and all of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
-
I explain it as largely a figment of your imagination along with a false understanding of the evidence. Now explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald? That is inexplicable. Why not use the same rifle to commit the crime as they are going to leave at the scene and avoid the obvious complications involved in using a different rifle/ammo and having to somehow fake all that evidence. It is absurd. And there is no credible evidence that any other rifle was used or that Oswald's rifle was planted. That is just a baseless "possibility" posed to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion from the actual evidence.
Earlier in this thread I wrote;
Can you also tell us what would constitute "evidence" that Oswald's rifle was fired on 11.22.63 that is lacking from the record?
Again, there is no evidence in the record that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was fired on 11/22/63. There is, however, in the record the fact that the barrel of the MC was not cleared of rust, which is what it should have been had a shot been fired. For some reason you seem to ignore that fact. One can only wonder why...
A day later Walt asked the same question, I asked previously;
So that's they only time the cartridges could have been fired from the carcano?? How do you explain the dirt and rust in the barrel, when three rounds would definitely have scoured any rust from the barrel.....
And your "answer" is;
I explain it as largely a figment of your imagination along with a false understanding of the evidence.
Which is not only complete BS but also shows how you deal with inconvenient facts in the record. You simply ignore them and dismiss them as a figment of imagination.....
Weak... very weak! But thanks for proving me right.
-
Same old song and dance, indeed. Your "mountain of evidence" is a mountain of conjecture, assumption, and false claims about the evidence.
Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-
explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald?
Duh.... The conspirators knew that they would need to plant a rifle like the one seen in Lee's hands in the BY photo. And naturally the spent shells they had would need to be the type that fit the rifle. It didn't make a damn bit of difference if the shells were freshly fired, or the rifle had been fired recently ....They were the conspirators and the investigators. They could tell the trusting pissants anything and nobody would argue with them.
The fact that you believe that the Carcano was the murder weapon in spite of the evidence that's been presented that indicates it could not have been the murder weapon is an excellent example of how simple, trusting and naive fools, can be tricked.
Now then try to use your little pea brain and explain how a rifle that allegedly had been fired just hours before it was examined and found to have rust and dirt in the barrel , could have that dirty and rusty bore? Do you believe the tightly fitting, high velocity bullets, wouldn't have scoured that bore. ???
And explain why not a single trained police officer detected any trace of he smell of burned gunpowder when the rifle was found?
If that rifle had been fired less than an hour earlier the smell of gunpowder down in that enclosure of boxes of books would have been very noticeable.
Please explain how a 5 ' 9", 135 pound, man could reach out and place the rifle at the bottom of a five foot deep well from five feet away.....?? And then stack a couple of boxes over the top of the "well" opening?
If you can answer the questions.... Then you MIGHT have a plausible case that the carcano was the murder weapon.
So your explanation for why the fantasy conspirators used a different rifle to assassinate JFK than the rifle that was planted to frame Oswald is that they had to plant one to match the rifle in the BY photos! HA HA HA. This gets better and better. They had to have access to Oswald's MC rifle (i.e. the one in the BY photo) to have planted it at the TSBD and place fired bullet casings from that rifle at the scene. Right? So if they had this rifle in their possession, why not use it to assassinate JFK instead of using an entirely different rifle? Do you fully understand the complications of using a different rifle to assassinate JFK when trying to frame Oswald with another rifle not used in the crime? Obviously not. It is laughable.
-
Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him). The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle). Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt. It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.
-
Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him). The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle). Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt. It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.
You are very naive ...and gullible Mr "Smith"
-
So your explanation for why the fantasy conspirators used a different rifle to assassinate JFK than the rifle that was planted to frame Oswald is that they had to plant one to match the rifle in the BY photos! HA HA HA. This gets better and better. They had to have access to Oswald's MC rifle (i.e. the one in the BY photo) to have planted it at the TSBD and place fired bullet casings from that rifle at the scene.
Like you actually know the rifle in the photos is the same one supposedly found in the building.
HA HA HA
-
Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him).
Nope. The only thing that links Lee Oswald personally with a rifle from Klein's (a similar rifle, not an identical rifle) is unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon. From microfilm that is now "missing". Everything else is your assumptions.
The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle).
Nope. There is nothing that links that rifle to any bullet that can be demonstrated to have gone through Kennedy or Connally or that puts that particular rifle in Oswald's hands at 12:30 on 11/22/63. Other than your imagination.
Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt. It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.
Nope. The evidence doesn't have to be "fake or planted". It still doesn't demonstrate who pulled the trigger. Not without a giant exercise in assumption and handwaving.
-
Like you actually know the rifle in the photos is the same one supposedly found in the building.
HA HA HA
There is some very visible differences between the BY photo carcano. and the TSBD carcano....Primarily the Sling.
And yes you can make up excuses to explain the differences....but that does NOT prove that the BY carcano is the same as the TSBD carcano
-
There is some very visible differences between the BY photo carcano. and the TSBD carcano....Primarily the Sling.
And yes you can make up excuses to explain the differences....but that does NOT prove that the BY carcano is the same as the TSBD carcano
Facts don't matter to "Richard". If he wants them to be the same, then *poof*, they are the same.
-
Oswald is linked to the rifle by the evidence (i.e. documents, prints, photos, witness testimony, serial number, PO box, use of an alias associated with him). The rifle is linked to the assassination by overwhelming evidence (i.e. found at the crime scene, fired bullet casings, bullets and bullet fragments from that rifle). Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt. It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.
As I said earlier;
Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt.
No. My rebuttal is that the so-called "overwhelming" evidence is not only in no way overwhelming but also highly questionable to the extent that it justifies reasonable doubt.
It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.
Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative. It's not my problem that you don't like that.
-
Sure, Mortimer, but a discussion is more that just telling us who you believe did it over and over again. Oh yeah, and all of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".
------------
GLOSSARY
------------
Neil > rhymes with 'kneel'
as in kneeling at Oswald's grave
Mortimer > tell us what that has to do with anything, Mr McNeely
Oh yeah, and here's one of my clever, cut-to-the-quick insights: I've never trusted one word you've ever said. Here, let me cut that insight further, Neil: I don't trust you.
-
Facts don't matter to "Richard". If he wants them to be the same, then *poof*, they are the same.
"Richard"
Kudos to Richard if he is indeed using a generic name. You know, the ID theft thing.
As opposed to certain people who expose all their details on spaces like 'mylife'
Not to mention your atheist space on YouTube. Not to mention the tshirt emblazoned with 'IACOLETTI' you are wearing on said atheist space.
Talk about attention-seeking, eh cowboy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
« Iacoletti Reply #220 on: March 03, 2021, 10:42:35 PM »
Poor little attention-seeking clown-boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Indeed, neither "Richard" or that clown, Chapman, for that matter are able to have a normal discussion about the evidence. All they do is repeat the same old weak and implausible narrative and ignore and dismiss anything that does not fit in that narrative. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous line: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
'That clown Chapman' does not trust anything you say.
-
'That clown Chapman' does not trust anything you say.
Lil Chappie....You've made it abundantly clear that you believe in tales like Alice in Wonderland , and the Warren Report, so it comes as no surprise that you wouldn't believe that 2 +2=4 ....if the WR reported that 2+2=5.
-
Lil Chappie....You've made it abundantly clear that you believe in tales like Alice in Wonderland , and the Warren Report, so it comes as no surprise that you wouldn't believe that 2 +2=4 ....if the WR reported that 2+2=5.
You've made it abundantly clear that you are desperate for responses by the way you keep bumping yourself to Page 1.
-
As I said earlier;
Your rebuttal is simply that all this evidence could be faked or planted. That is not a basis to raise any doubt.
No. My rebuttal is that the so-called "overwhelming" evidence is not only in no way overwhelming but also highly questionable to the extent that it justifies reasonable doubt.
It is an exercise in applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts and evidence to raise fake doubt.
Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative. It's not my problem that you don't like that.
Pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and asking questions you can't (or don't want to) answer is not applying an impossible standard of proof. It is exposing the weakness of the narrative.
These are the questions that would have been raised if Lee had lived to stand trial. And it should be obvious that Lee would never have been convicted.....
-
Neil > rhymes with 'kneel'
as in kneeling at Oswald's grave
So what? You visit your father's grave.
Oh yeah, and here's one of my clever, cut-to-the-quick insights: I've never trusted one word you've ever said. Here, let me cut that insight further, Neil: I don't trust you.
Again, so what?
-
"Richard"
Kudos to Richard if he is indeed using a generic name. You know, the ID theft thing.
As opposed to certain people who expose all their details on spaces like 'mylife'
Who would those "certain people" be "Chapman"?
Not to mention your atheist space on YouTube. Not to mention the tshirt emblazoned with 'IACOLETTI' you are wearing on said atheist space.
I don't have an "atheist space on YouTube", Mr. Research. But it's cute that you're trying.
The t-shirt you speak of was made for me by the producer. It was a "game of thrones" motif, but I have never seen that show, so the reference was lost on me. Other crew members got similar shirts. This was also several years ago. But it had nothing to do with seeking attention. Again, nice try to somehow turn any of that into some kind of scandal, and to try to follow me around the Internet for gawd knows what purpose. You must have no life.
-
Who would those "certain people" be "Chapman"?
I don't have an "atheist space on YouTube", Mr. Research. But it's cute that you're trying.
The t-shirt you speak of was made for me by the producer. It was a "game of thrones" motif, but I have never seen that show, so the reference was lost on me. Other crew members got similar shirts. This was also several years ago. But it had nothing to do with seeking attention. Again, nice try to somehow turn any of that into some kind of scandal, and to try to follow me around the Internet for gawd knows what purpose. You must have no life.
Who would those "certain people" be "Chapman"?
Lamers who don't realize the very real dangers of ID theft
My name itself is so common it doesn't need disguising.
I don't have an "atheist space on YouTube", Mr. Research. But it's cute that you're trying
In case you're running your 'exact word' schtict again: TAE is/was an atheist space. Owning it or not, broadcasting from it or not, still there or not.
The t-shirt you speak of was made for me by the producer. It was a "game of thrones" motif, but I have never seen that show, so the reference was lost on me. Other crew members got similar shirts. This was also several years ago. But it had nothing to do with seeking attention.
So then how was I to know you didn't get the t-shirt on your own.
Again, nice try to somehow turn any of that into some kind of scandal, and to try to follow me around the Internet for gawd knows what purpose.
Don't flatter yourself.
You must have no life.
HAHA.. so that's your big ending is it.
Typical wrap-up by conspiracy-monger 'debaters'
-
Who would those "certain people" be "Chapman"?
Lamers who don't realize the very real dangers of ID theft
My name itself is so common it doesn't need disguising.
Another name for those people is "keyboard warrior cowards".
I don't have an "atheist space on YouTube", Mr. Research. But it's cute that you're trying
In case you're running your 'exact word' schtict again: TAE is/was an atheist space. Owning it or not, broadcasting from it or not, still there or not.
So what? Do you just like pointing out the things that I do, or is there some point?
The t-shirt you speak of was made for me by the producer. It was a "game of thrones" motif, but I have never seen that show, so the reference was lost on me. Other crew members got similar shirts. This was also several years ago. But it had nothing to do with seeking attention.
So then how was I to know you didn't get the t-shirt on your own.
What the hell difference does it make? Are observations of my clothing supposed to somehow contribute to discussion about the JFK assassination? What am I saying...you never contribute to discussions about the JFK assassination. All you do is divert and troll.
-
Another name for those people is "keyboard warrior cowards".
So what? Do you just like pointing out the things that I do, or is there some point?
What the hell difference does it make? Are observations of my clothing supposed to somehow contribute to discussion about the JFK assassination? What am I saying...you never contribute to discussions about the JFK assassination. All you do is divert and troll.
Another name for those people is "keyboard warrior cowards"
What a quaint notion: That knowing a person’s real name is somehow more honest or even important. Maybe you’re the nosey one after all.
So what? Do you just like pointing out the things that I do, or is there some point?
The point is that you started the ‘attention-seeker’ theme. And I’m pushing back.
What the hell difference does it make? Are observations of my clothing supposed to somehow contribute to discussion about the JFK assassination?
One is not discussing the assassination at this juncture; One is discussing the ‘attention-seeker’ theme you originated.
What am I saying...you never contribute to discussions about the JFK assassination. All you do is divert and troll.
Not my bad if one finds oneself ‘diverted’. Maybe one is too far down one’s personal rabbit-hole.
-
Another name for those people is "keyboard warrior cowards"
What a quaint notion: That knowing a person’s real name is somehow more honest or even important. Maybe you’re the nosey one after all.
It's way easier to be a "courageous" troll if you think you're anonymous.
So what? Do you just like pointing out the things that I do, or is there some point?
The point is that you started the ‘attention-seeker’ theme. And I’m pushing back.
Push away. Everything you post on this forum screams "look at me!".
One is not discussing the assassination at this juncture; One is discussing the ‘attention-seeker’ theme you originated.
"One" never discusses the assassination. Other than to make blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements about it.
-
It's way easier to be a "courageous" troll if you think you're anonymous.
Push away. Everything you post on this forum screams "look at me!".
"One" never discusses the assassination. Other than to make blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements about it.
"One" never discusses the assassination. Other than to make blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements about it.
"blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements"
Isn't that the hallmark of a liar?
-
It's way easier to be a "courageous" troll if you think you're anonymous.
Push away. Everything you post on this forum screams "look at me!".
"One" never discusses the assassination. Other than to make blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements about it.
'Courageous' about what exactly?
Everything you post on this forum is encapsulated in the image of you kneeling at Oswald's grave... and screams 'Look at Lee and me!
Some 'discuss' the assassination as if nothing is knowable, provable or believable. But yet, eternally capable of being faked, planted, or altered in some way. The ultimate conspiracy-monger security blanket.
-
"One" never discusses the assassination. Other than to make blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements about it.
"blanket unsubstantiated pronouncements"
Isn't that the hallmark of a liar?
The hallmark of a liar around here is you. The one with the bucketful of fabrications assigned by one of your own kind, no less.
-
The hallmark of a liar around here is you, the one with the bucketful of fabrications assigned by one of your own kind.
Even if you're not bright enough to understand many of the points I make....You should be able to understand that the in situ photo of the rifle is a fake. That in situ photo was created by the DPD to support the lie that their patsy and the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssssswald ( booo Hissss) had dashed by the spot at the top of the stairs and hastily dumped the rifle as he fled.
The very idea that an escaping assassin would carry the rifle all the way across the sixth floor before dumping it is ridiculous.
There were dozens of other better hiding places on the sixth floor.
-
Everything you post on this forum is encapsulated in the image of you kneeling at Oswald's grave...
You remain painfully unable to articulate what your problem is with that.
and screams 'Look at Lee and me!
Really? When you visit your dead father, is that what you're screaming?
Some 'discuss' the assassination as if nothing is knowable, provable or believable. But yet, eternally capable of being faked, planted, or altered in some way. The ultimate conspiracy-monger security blanket.
And some like to pretend that they know things that are unknown or unknowable.
-
You remain painfully unable to articulate what your problem is with that
I feel your pain. It must be a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' being you. And why exactly are you concerned with anything I say, Mr McNeeley?
Really? When you visit your dead father, is that what you're screaming?
Hahaha, screaming what.. 'Lee and me'? ::)
And some like to pretend that they know things that are unknown or unknowable
You forgot 'provable', your favorite squeal. And no pretence necessary, Sluggo. Just a Standard of Proof level that remains within the boundaries of sanity.
-
You remain painfully unable to articulate what your problem is with that
I feel your pain. It must be a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' being you. And why exactly are you concerned with anything I say, Mr McNeeley?
Really? When you visit your dead father, is that what you're screaming?
Hahaha, screaming what.. 'Lee and me'? ::)
And some like to pretend that they know things that are unknown or unknowable
You forgot 'provable', your favorite squeal. And no pretence necessary, Sluggo. Just a Standard of Proof level that remains within the boundaries of sanity.
Just a Standard of Proof level that remains within the boundaries of sanity.
I pity the accused who ever gets you on the jury.
-
Just a Standard of Proof level that remains within the boundaries of sanity.
I pity the accused who ever gets you on the jury.
Haha. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Oswald: I'm innocent.
CT Judge: Okay, you can go.
Oswald: [SMIRK]
-------------------
Oswald: I'm guilty
CT Judge: NO YOU'RE NOT! YOU'RE LYING!
-
Even if you're not bright enough to understand many of the points I make....You should be able to understand that the in situ photo of the rifle is a fake. That in situ photo was created by the DPD to support the lie that their patsy and the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssssswald ( booo Hissss) had dashed by the spot at the top of the stairs and hastily dumped the rifle as he fled.
The very idea that an escaping assassin would carry the rifle all the way across the sixth floor before dumping it is ridiculous.
There were dozens of other better hiding places on the sixth floor.
Goofball
-
'Courageous' about what exactly?
Everything you post on this forum is encapsulated in the image of you kneeling at Oswald's grave... and screams 'Look at Lee and me!
Some 'discuss' the assassination as if nothing is knowable, provable or believable. But yet, eternally capable of being faked, planted, or altered in some way. The ultimate conspiracy-monger security blanket.
Everything you post on this forum is encapsulated in the image of you kneeling at Oswald's grave...
This is basically an admission that you are blinded by hatred, Lil Chappie...... And you can't have an unbiased opinion.
-
Goofball
Lil Chappie.... I didn't ask you what drug you are taking.. But thank you, That answer explains a lot.
-
You remain painfully unable to articulate what your problem is with that
I feel your pain. It must be a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' being you. And why exactly are you concerned with anything I say, Mr McNeeley?
Really? When you visit your dead father, is that what you're screaming?
Hahaha, screaming what.. 'Lee and me'? ::)
And some like to pretend that they know things that are unknown or unknowable
You forgot 'provable', your favorite squeal. And no pretence necessary, Sluggo. Just a Standard of Proof level that remains within the boundaries of sanity.
Another vapid reply that doesn't address what the problem is with visiting a grave.
-
Another vapid reply that doesn't address what the problem is with visiting a grave.
'A' grave LOL
Not that you're attempting to lump Oswald's grave in with the average, to normalize/sanitize the little prick are you Mr McKneeley...
-
'A' grave LOL
Not that you're attempting to lump Oswald's grave in with the average, to normalize/sanitize the little prick are you Mr McKneeley...
Why should I care what you call him? What if I called your father a child molester?
-
Why should I care what you call him? What if I called your father a child molester?
Stop dodging. This is not about what I call Oswald. It's about you trying to reduce Oswald's grave to just an ordinary grave ("visiting a grave"). Nothing ordinary about Oswald's grave unless you want to pretend that Oswald never did anything out-of-the-ordinary, Neil.
.
-
Stop dodging. This is not about what I call Oswald. It's about you trying to reduce Oswald's grave to just an ordinary grave ("visiting a grave"). Nothing ordinary about Oswald's grave unless you want to pretend that Oswald never did anything out-of-the-ordinary, Neil.
.
I never said it was "ordinary". And you're the one pretending things about what he supposedly did.
-
I never said it was "ordinary". And you're the one pretending things about what he supposedly did.
I'm not pretending anything. The charges are the charges. You're pretending that Oswald didn't do the things he is accused of doing.
-
I'm not pretending anything. The charges are the charges. You're pretending that Oswald didn't do the things he is accused of doing.
You're pretending like being accused of something is the same as demonstrating that the person did those things.
-
You're pretending like being accused of something is the same as demonstrating that the person did those things.
You're pretending that this forum is a court of law.
Meantime, Oswald put on a nice demo of some of those 'things' he's been accused of @Tippit.
edit mar17 4:14pm est
-
You're pretending that this forum is a court of law.
You're pretending that declaring something to be true makes it true.
Meantime, Oswald put on a nice demo of some of those 'things' he's been accused of @Tippit.
What are you babbling about now?
-
You're pretending that declaring something to be true makes it true.
No pretending necessary. People saw him doing the things he was accused of doing @Tippit.
What are you babbling about now?
No babbling required. See above.
-
You're pretending that declaring something to be true makes it true.
No pretending necessary. People saw him doing the things he was accused of doing @Tippit.
"People saw him". LOL.
-
"People saw him". LOL.
Oswald: I killed Tippit.
JudgeJohnny: NO YOU DIDN'T! YOU'RE LYING!
Oswald: Poor dumb cop.
-
Oswald: I killed Tippit.
JudgeJohnny: NO YOU DIDN'T! YOU'RE LYING!
Oswald: Poor dumb cop.
Cool fantasy, bro. Now what "people saw him doing the things he was accused of doing @Tippit"? Your colossal ignorance is showing again.
-
Cool fantasy, bro. Now what "people saw him doing the things he was accused of doing @Tippit"? Your colossal ignorance is showing again.
Your colossal ignorance is showing again.
Nobody could be as ignorant as Lill Chappie pretends to be......
-
Cool fantasy, bro. Now what "people saw him doing the things he was accused of doing @Tippit"? Your colossal ignorance is showing again.
Oswald: That's it, it's all over now. I'm not resisting arrest! WHAM! BAM! POW!
-
Your colossal ignorance is showing again.
Nobody could be as ignorant as Lill Chappie pretends to be......
Time for your nap, Waldo.
-
Oswald: That's it, it's all over now. I'm not resisting arrest! WHAM! BAM! POW!
Yeah, like that actually happened.
-
Yeah, like that actually happened.
Oswald: I said it so it must be true.
JudgeJohnny: NO YOU DIDN'T! YOU'RE LYING!
Oswald: ::) ::) ::)
-
Oswald: I said it so it must be true.
JudgeJohnny: NO YOU DIDN'T! YOU'RE LYING!
Oswald: ::) ::) ::)
Says the guy who thinks things are true just because he says them.
Colossally ignorant.
-
Says the guy who thinks things are true just because he says them.
Colossally ignorant.
:'( :'( :'(
-
No one saw John Wilkes Booth pull the trigger by the application of contrarian logic. They just heard a "bang" and looked to see Booth holding a smoking pistol at the moment Lincoln was killed. So there must be doubt via contrarian logic that he did it. And "Booth's pistol" LOL. Forget about it. There is no documentation linking Booth to the "alleged" murder weapon much less a photo of him holding it or any prints. And "chain of custody" LOL. The pistol wasn't found until well after the event. There are conflicting accounts on who even found it. Eyewitnesses were inconsistent in identifying Booth as the assassin. Some said they were certain. Others that it only looked like him. That means doubt in the contrarian mind. What was Booth's motive? The war is practically over. He was a well respected actor. Why would he do it in theatre where he would be recognized with little hope of escape? No one can say for sure. That means doubt. Booth's handwritten diary confessing to the crime? LOL. It COULD have been forged. Handwriting analysis is not a science in contrarian lore. Booth was "silenced" before we could know the whole story. Imagine what our resident contrarians would make of Boston Corbett who killed Booth in direct violation of his orders. A man who self-castrated himself with a pair of scissors. In the end there are no facts and evidence that prove Booth's guilt using contrarian logic. Just endless contrarian rabbit holes.
-
---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------
BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable
BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Sinister
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
BOOK III: MINUTIAE
Trivia writ Large:
The CT Rabbit Hole
-
There are no cults about Oswald, Bill. Quite honestly, the man never got his day in court. Any good defense lawyer would have been able to reveal discrepancies in his case. I don't know where you're from, but here in the U.S., all people are innocent until proven guilty. The Warren Report is not a document that sprouted from a full-fledged courtroom trial with the living accused in attendance.
-
There are no cults about Oswald, Bill. Quite honestly, the man never got his day in court. Any good defense lawyer would have been able to reveal discrepancies in his case. I don't know where you're from, but here in the U.S., all people are innocent until proven guilty. The Warren Report is not a document that sprouted from a full-fledged courtroom trial with the living accused in attendance.
This forum is not a court of law, nor even a platform for formal debate. No ivory tower, this.
This case is a slam dunk. A good defense team would advise Oswald to plead out.
And what some call 'discrepancies', others might call minutia.
-
This forum is not a court of law, nor even a platform for formal debate. No ivory tower, this.
This case is a slam dunk. A good defense team would advise Oswald to plead out.
And what some call 'discrepancies', others might call minutia.
It appears that the Oswald defenders think the WC shouldn't have conducted an investigation because they may have found someone culpable in the assassination. In this case Oswald. And that would have violated his (or others') non-existent, for the WC investigation, right to a presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence is, as you point out, for a court of law. It's for a criminal proceeding and for the jury to adhere to. The WC wasn't a criminal proceeding. It had no power to indict anyone; even for perjury.
So the Warren Commission was wrong because they accused Oswald of a crime. And that was a violation of what? His right to a presumption of innocence? But he was dead and he couldn't be prosecuted. So we can't have an investigation - that would violate his rights - and he couldn't be prosecuted - he was dead. What was supposed to happen?
This is why we call them Oswald cultists.
And just to note: Jim Garrison accused all sorts of people, including dead ones (Ferrie), of crimes. Murder, conspiracy to murder, perjury....and some (not all but some) of the same people upset at what happened to Oswald are largely silent. In fact, some are big Garrison defenders.
-
There are no cults about Oswald, Bill. Quite honestly, the man never got his day in court. Any good defense lawyer would have been able to reveal discrepancies in his case. I don't know where you're from, but here in the U.S., all people are innocent until proven guilty. The Warren Report is not a document that sprouted from a full-fledged courtroom trial with the living accused in attendance.
Question, please: After the assassination, what should the government have done?
Oswald is dead. You can't prosecute him. And you say the WC was wrong because it wasn't a "full-fledged courtroom trial." But it was an investigation not a criminal prosecution. It had no power to indict anyone, not even for perjury. It didn't, because it couldn't, charge Oswald with any crimes. His "presumption of innocence" - which is for a trial - wasn't violated.
So what was there to do? If the government investigates the assassination and finds evidence indicating Oswald was the assassin should they not reveal that? What exactly could be done?
And the Dallas country prosecutor charged Oswald with the crimes - the murder of JFK and of Tippit. Was that wrong too? Every day the government accuses people of crimes. They are indicted. How is accusing or prosecuting a person a violation of their "presumption of innocence"?
-
This forum is not a court of law, nor even a platform for formal debate. No ivory tower, this.
This case is a slam dunk. A good defense team would advise Oswald to plead out.
And what some call 'discrepancies', others might call minutia.
Never said it was a court of law, Bill. You're venturing into hyperbole here. Lee never got his day in court.
-
Never said it was a court of law, Bill. You're venturing into hyperbole here. Lee never got his day in court.
The Katzenbach letter and the Hoover memo pretty much start off the Warren Commission with a foregone conclusion. From there, there was absolutely no chance their report would have been conducted in an honest manner. Not all the WC members supported the "conclusions" it came up with. The investigation was rotten from the start. So to answer your question, it would have helped tremendously if the investigation had been started from the get-go in an honest and forthright manner.
-
The Katzenbach letter and the Hoover memo pretty much start off the Warren Commission with a foregone conclusion. From there, there was absolutely no chance their report would have been conducted in an honest manner. Not all the WC members supported the "conclusions" it came up with. The investigation was rotten from the start. So to answer your question, it would have helped tremendously if the investigation had been started from the get-go in an honest and forthright manner.
The WC investigation against Oswald was only biased in the sense that all the evidence pointed toward his guilt. Katzenbach may have felt that it was important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt not due to any frame up but because Oswald was guilty and there were risks that nutty CTers could convince the public that a foreign power was behind the assassination and start WWIII on a false premise.
-
Never said it was a court of law, Bill. You're venturing into hyperbole here. Lee never got his day in court.
'Lee' haha. The 'identifier': The not-so-secret (virtual) handshake. Y'know, the first-name-basis thing.
You've ventured into cult-think.
-
The Katzenbach letter and the Hoover memo pretty much start off the Warren Commission with a foregone conclusion. From there, there was absolutely no chance their report would have been conducted in an honest manner. Not all the WC members supported the "conclusions" it came up with. The investigation was rotten from the start. So to answer your question, it would have helped tremendously if the investigation had been started from the get-go in an honest and forthright manner.
They figured they had Oswald dead-to-rights.
So they in fact were honest from the get-go.
They wanted to make sure there were no conspirators.
That's it.
But their messaging was badly written, at least in part.
Just bad enough to get the cultists all atwitter.
-
They figured they had Oswald dead-to-rights.
So they in fact were honest from the get-go.
They wanted to make sure there were no conspirators.
That's it.
But their messaging was badly written, at least in part.
Just bad enough to get the cultists all atwitter.
It was a very dishonest process. There were no dead-to-rights for Lee. J. Edgar Hoover said in a memo two days after John F. Kennedy's assassination that the public must be led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. You don't lead someone to believe something until all of the evidence is compiled and this memo was released mere weeks after the murder. They hadn't even yet come up with an explanation for the shot sequence and timing.
Katzenbach's memo says that "...it is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s Assassination be made public in a way..." that he's the lone assassin. The "in a way" is another example of putting the cart before the horse.
There was no such thing as dead-to-rights. Oswald has absolutely no legal representation during the time he was in custody which is why he asked for representation at the press conference. It was his right to retain legal representation.
Some WC members did not agree fully with the WC's conclusions. It's a mess beyond all comprehension.
-
It was a very dishonest process. There were no dead-to-rights for Lee. J. Edgar Hoover said in a memo two days after John F. Kennedy's assassination that the public must be led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. You don't lead someone to believe something until all of the evidence is compiled and this memo was released mere weeks after the murder. They hadn't even yet come up with an explanation for the shot sequence and timing.
Katzenbach's memo says that "...it is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s Assassination be made public in a way..." that he's the lone assassin. The "in a way" is another example of putting the cart before the horse.
There was no such thing as dead-to-rights. Oswald has absolutely no legal representation during the time he was in custody which is why he asked for representation at the press conference. It was his right to retain legal representation.
Some WC members did not agree fully with the WC's conclusions. It's a mess beyond all comprehension.
Your "in a way" also includes putting the findings of the investigation, including lack of conspirators, out to the public. That part is accounted for in the letter. You know, the part which you cultists clearly ignore or twist like a pretzel.
Oswald was offered legal representation but only wanted a particular lawyer (Abt) who was away and unavailable that weekend. Oswald was playing the fiddle real good in front of the press, wasn't he.
-
No one saw John Wilkes Booth pull the trigger by the application of contrarian logic. They just heard a "bang" and looked to see Booth holding a smoking pistol at the moment Lincoln was killed. So there must be doubt via contrarian logic that he did it.
Is this supposed to "prove" that Oswald shot a rifle at JFK?
One trick pony...
-
This case is a slam dunk.
So you claim after not having provided a single speck of evidence or basis for this assertion. Ever.
-
The WC investigation against Oswald was only biased in the sense that all the evidence pointed toward his guilt.
BS:
Katzenbach may have felt that it was important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt not due to any frame up but because Oswald was guilty and there were risks that nutty CTers could convince the public that a foreign power was behind the assassination and start WWIII on a false premise.
And Katzenbach (and Hoover) may have started with a foregone conclusion so that there wouldn't be a real investigation.
-
Oswald was offered legal representation
BS:
Not until after he was interrogated several times and arraigned. And both Captain King and Justice of the Peace Johnston blatantly lied to Gregory Lee Olds of the ACLU on Saturday, telling him that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.
-
So you claim after not having provided a single speck of evidence or basis for this assertion. Ever.
No proof needed; this is a discussion forum not a formal debate nor a court of law.
-
BS:
Not until after he was interrogated several times and arraigned. And both Captain King and Justice of the Peace Johnston blatantly lied to Gregory Lee Olds of the ACLU on Saturday, telling him that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.
That's your interpretation. It doesn't mean you're right. I will always take everything that Oswald-cultists say with a good deal of salt.
-
The whole thing was a sham, Bill. Once Lee was dead and buried, they pretty much could say whatever they wanted to and the end result proves this. Hoover said they had to lead the public and K-Bach pretty much said the same thing. Even Dan Rather, supposedly NOT working for the government as an "independent" news man, started spreading the lies too on national TV Sunday night - again after Lee was dead.
It was all a very corrupt whitewash. The real truth was never going to be revealed and the murder of Oswald pretty much made their jobs very easy to do because there was no dissenting voice that we would have heard and seen during a real trial.
-
The whole thing was a sham, Bill. Once Lee was dead and buried, they pretty much could say whatever they wanted to and the end result proves this. Hoover said they had to lead the public and K-Bach pretty much said the same thing. Even Dan Rather, supposedly NOT working for the government as an "independent" news man, started spreading the lies too on national TV Sunday night - again after Lee was dead.
It was all a very corrupt whitewash. The real truth was never going to be revealed and the murder of Oswald pretty much made their jobs very easy to do because there was no dissenting voice that we would have heard and seen during a real trial.
That's it. It's all over now. Poor dumb cop.
-
There is nothing inconsistent or sinister about the investigators concluding from the evidence that Oswald was guilty and suggesting that they wanted the public to be convinced of his guilt. The WC had a dual role. Investigate the crime and satisfy the American public that the anyone involved in the assassination of the President had been brought to justice. The investigation confirmed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and there was no credible evidence that he was involved in any conspiracy. That remains the case nearly 60 years later.
-
There is nothing inconsistent or sinister about the investigators concluding from the evidence that Oswald was guilty and suggesting that they wanted the public to be convinced of his guilt. The WC had a dual role. Investigate the crime and satisfy the American public that the anyone involved in the assassination of the President had been brought to justice. The investigation confirmed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and there was no credible evidence that he was involved in any conspiracy. That remains the case nearly 60 years later.
It's always odd how the conspiracists point to the Warren Commission and complain about Oswald somehow being mistreated and ignore the HSCA's conclusions. Did the HSCA somehow violate Oswald's "presumption of innocence"? Was that an unfair investigation too?
Jim Garrison accused Oswald (and others) of all sorts of crimes - even in open court. But the Oswald defenders seldom condemn him for those claims.
It's always the Warren Commission. Was the commission supposed to stop when they started finding evidence of Oswald's guilt? What exactly should they have done? The WC said "Ruby shot Oswald." Was that a violation of Ruby's rights or presumption of innocence?
In any case, the US has held dozens of commissions and congressional committee investigations that have accused all sorts of people of crimes. Does the 9/11 Commission come to mind? Yet it's the WC and only it that upsets these people.
Oswald is seen here as an American Alfred Dryefus, an innocent man set up by the evil secret cabal that took JFK's life and stole America. We call it an "Oswald cult" for a reason. This is why.
-
The whole thing was one big whitewash. If this had happened today, it would have been exposed much quicker and easier. Unfortunately, social media didn't exist back then, every city in the land had three - at most - TV stations, and of course newspapers. That was it. So it was very easy for Hoover to set up the marching orders and have it flow downward that "...Oswald did it and he had no confederates." And because the media back then could be massaged by the government to do its bidding, it continued on that way until Stone surprised them with his film. Then, we saw the media doing it all over again - a redux if you will - by passing on the same tireless, corrupt and inaccurate storyline.
That's why other parts of the world never bought into the hogwash that the WC came up with.
It was a sham, pure and simple.
-
The whole thing was one big whitewash. If this had happened today, it would have been exposed much quicker and easier. Unfortunately, social media didn't exist back then, every city in the land had three - at most - TV stations, and of course newspapers. That was it. So it was very easy for Hoover to set up the marching orders and have it flow downward that "...Oswald did it and he had no confederates." And because the media back then could be massaged by the government to do its bidding, it continued on that way until Stone surprised them with his film. Then, we saw the media doing it all over again - a redux if you will - by passing on the same tireless, corrupt and inaccurate storyline.
That's why other parts of the world never bought into the hogwash that the WC came up with.
It was a sham, pure and simple.
'pure and simple'
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Pure and simple.
'It was a sham'
Sure it was. Thanks for the update.
I'll add it to my 'Book of Oswald':
---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------
BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable
BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
BOOK III: MINUTIAE
Trivia writ Large
BOOK IV: OZZIE RABBIT
AKA LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Here
we
go,
down
the
rabbit
hole
-
The whole thing was one big whitewash. If this had happened today, it would have been exposed much quicker and easier. Unfortunately, social media didn't exist back then, every city in the land had three - at most - TV stations, and of course newspapers. That was it. So it was very easy for Hoover to set up the marching orders and have it flow downward that "...Oswald did it and he had no confederates." And because the media back then could be massaged by the government to do its bidding, it continued on that way until Stone surprised them with his film. Then, we saw the media doing it all over again - a redux if you will - by passing on the same tireless, corrupt and inaccurate storyline.
That's why other parts of the world never bought into the hogwash that the WC came up with.
It was a sham, pure and simple.
Well said, sir!
The 'investigation' to whose defense our Warren Gullible friends still devote themselves was an analog-era cover-up that simply cannot sustain the scrutiny of the digital age
-
Well said, sir!
The 'investigation' to whose defense our Warren Gullible friends still devote themselves was an analog-era cover-up that simply cannot sustain the scrutiny of the digital age
I'll second Mr Ford's statement , Mr Walton....
The whole thing was one big whitewash.
it was very easy for Hoover to set up the marching orders and have it flow downward that "...Oswald did it and he had no confederates." And because the media back then could be massaged by the government to do its bidding, it continued on that way until Stone surprised them with his film. Then, we saw the media doing it all over again - a redux if you will - by passing on the same tireless, corrupt and inaccurate storyline.
And I might add they continue with the bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns to this very day....right here in this forum.
-
Here
we
go,
down
the
rabbit
hole
-
That's your interpretation. It doesn't mean you're right. I will always take everything that Oswald-cultists say with a good deal of salt.
No, that's what's on the record, but since you know very little about the case and the evidence (and never discuss any of it), nothing you have to say is even relevant, much less taking it with a grain of salt.
-
There is nothing inconsistent or sinister about the investigators concluding from the evidence that Oswald was guilty and suggesting that they wanted the public to be convinced of his guilt. The WC had a dual role. Investigate the crime and satisfy the American public that the anyone involved in the assassination of the President had been brought to justice. The investigation confirmed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and there was no credible evidence that he was involved in any conspiracy. That remains the case nearly 60 years later.
"The thing I'm concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin".
-- J. Edgar Hoover, 4:00 PM, November 24, 1963
-
As John I's Hoover quote shows, the deed was done. Oswald was gone. There was going to be no due diligence in the case. No sharing of the evidence in discovery. No lawyers filing motions. No emotional arguments in court - on both sides - in front of a jury of Oswald's peers. Who knows - Lee himself may have even wanted to testify. Maybe even Marina. Has anyone noticed how hard Marina was crying the day they buried Lee? I mean she was bawling. Look at the photos. But there was going to be none of that in court.
Ruby at least had that but if you notice, he was trying to say things before his death but up to a point. There's a clip of him leaving the courthouse and he said something like, "...the man in the White House..." and he also made that statement in front of the cameras that he wanted to go to Washington. But I think Ruby played ball for the most part. Sorry folks but Ruby was a crook and that's what crooks do. No two ways about it.
The reason why I'm bringing up Ruby as compared to Oswald is simple - Lee was fired up. He was saying all of the right things - no legal representation, no fairness in the lineup. You can witness this several times in film clips where he's really fired up. That one time showing him shackled and in a t-shirt, the other time in the hallway. It was slowly becoming clear to him that he was being royally fucked. And we got the best gem of all - "I'm nothing but a patsy." I bet back then, a lot of people had to look up that word.
But once he was dead, and once Hoover said what he said - and believe me, Hoover was ten times more powerful than KBach, the assistant AG - all the rest of it is just noise. The WC (i.e., the lawyers under the WC members) had a mandate. Make it happen, boys. Say three shots were fired, one missing wildly, one hitting the back (er, I mean the neck courtesy the 38th president) heading downward then working its way up, then down. And there being no termination point from this shot, but just say it came out of the neck. Say the last shot comes right after the 2nd, after the assassin works a creaky bolt-action rifle, looks into a misaligned scope and fires away.
Sure say all of this and more. Wrap it in a leather cover then solemnly hand it over to the grieving 36th president. "We've solved it, Mr. President." "Thank you for your courage and commitment," he replies. And time goes on.
-
No, that's what's on the record, but since you know very little about the case and the evidence (and never discuss any of it), nothing you have to say is even relevant, much less taking it with a grain of salt.
What I say seems relevant to you since you keep reading it.
-
What I say seems relevant to you since you keep reading it.
Yet another colossal Chapman "seems" failure.
-
Yet another colossal Chapman "seems" failure.
Another gigantic Iacoletti dodge.
Tell us why you would read that which you find 'not even relevant' again and again.
-
Another gigantic Iacoletti dodge.
Tell us why you would read that which you find 'not even relevant' again and again.
Because you're a gigantic attention whore who butts in to every discussion thread with your inane babble. And engaging you just exposes you more as the clown-boy troll that you are.
-
Because you're a gigantic attention whore who butts in to every discussion thread with your inane babble. And engaging you just exposes you more as the clown-boy troll that you are.
I can post where I want, when I want. People can choose to pay attention to me or not. No biggee.
And Oswald could have kept his trap shut, but I guess he was just too much of a attention-whore, eh cowboy.
-
The whole thing was a sham from the get-go. The evidence that lone nutters love to throw around like gospel - "oh, a bullet can definitely hit one of the hardest bones in the body and come out pristine"; and "oh, of course a bullet can go through the neck [back with no termination point] and zig-zag on...of course"; and "oh, of course someone can pull off all of those shots with a creaky bolt-action with a misaligned scope, of course;" is actually quite hilarious.
Oswald had no motive - at all - to do what he did. He had actually claimed that he liked Kennedy. So there's that.
-
I can post where I want, when I want. People can choose to pay attention to me or not. No biggee.
At the pleasure of the forum owner. But nobody ever said otherwise. You expose your ignorance and your false bravado every time you post and it's an endless source of entertainment.
And Oswald could have kept his trap shut, but I guess he was just too much of a attention-whore, eh cowboy.
Kept his trap shut about what? The things you want to claim without evidence that he said?
-
The whole thing was a sham from the get-go. The evidence that lone nutters love to throw around like gospel - "oh, a bullet can definitely hit one of the hardest bones in the body and come out pristine"; and "oh, of course a bullet can go through the neck [back with no termination point] and zig-zag on...of course"; and "oh, of course someone can pull off all of those shots with a creaky bolt-action with a misaligned scope, of course;" is actually quite hilarious.
Exactly. Coulda-woulda-shoulda-mighta.
-
Exactly. Coulda-woulda-shoulda-mighta.
Could and did.
Tippit, too.
No 'mighta' about it.
-
Could and did.
Tippit, too.
No 'mighta' about it.
LOL
-
The whole thing was a sham from the get-go. The evidence that lone nutters love to throw around like gospel - "oh, a bullet can definitely hit one of the hardest bones in the body and come out pristine"; and "oh, of course a bullet can go through the neck [back with no termination point] and zig-zag on...of course"; and "oh, of course someone can pull off all of those shots with a creaky bolt-action with a misaligned scope, of course;" is actually quite hilarious.
Oswald had no motive - at all - to do what he did. He had actually claimed that he liked Kennedy. So there's that.
The bullet ended up pristine did it? Do tell.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SHz79HN/pristine-haha.png)
-
At the pleasure of the forum owner. But nobody ever said otherwise. You expose your ignorance and your false bravado every time you post and it's an endless source of entertainment.
Kept his trap shut about what? The things you want to claim without evidence that he said?
At the pleasure of the forum owner.
That's a given. Although coming from you, it sounds like a kind of warning.
You expose your ignorance and your false bravado
No bravado necessary, false or not. Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Or ignorance. That little gem is on full display elsewhere, Mr McKneeley.
Kept his trap shut about what? The things you want to claim without evidence that he said?
No one should say one fkn word to any cop if arrested.
-
That so-called pristine bullet is being taken out of context. The overriding meaning of "pristine" is NOT as if it was taken out of a box brand-new. THAT would be pristine. Any smart researcher has seen the photos of a bullet that was fired into a cadaver's wrist bone and the bending out of shape and mushrooming. THAT is how you compare CE399 with the cadaver bullet. You DON'T say "Pristine?! Why just look at the flattening of CE399."
I'm surprised Bill doesn't have the mental capability to figure this out. Wecht should have never used the word "pristine" way back on the NOVA TV show because it gives people like Bill the opportunity to wordplay or take out of context Wecht's true meaning.
-
That so-called pristine bullet is being taken out of context. The overriding meaning of "pristine" is NOT as if it was taken out of a box brand-new. THAT would be pristine. Any smart researcher has seen the photos of a bullet that was fired into a cadaver's wrist bone and the bending out of shape and mushrooming. THAT is how you compare CE399 with the cadaver bullet. You DON'T say "Pristine?! Why just look at the flattening of CE399."
I'm surprised Bill doesn't have the mental capability to figure this out. Wecht should have never used the word "pristine" way back on the NOVA TV show because it gives people like Bill the opportunity to wordplay or take out of context Wecht's true meaning.
'gives people like Bill the opportunity to wordplay'
You're the one trucking in wordplay. You're all bent out-of-shape.
This bullet is either pristine or it isn't. Well?
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SHz79HN/pristine-haha.png)
-
No bravado necessary, false or not. Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Under the theory that if you make the same claim over and over again that it will somehow become true.
No one should say one fkn word to any cop if arrested.
Agreed. But Fritz's interrogation "techniques" were legendary, and Oswald was not provided counsel when he asked for it.
-
I'm surprised Bill doesn't have the mental capability to figure this out. Wecht should have never used the word "pristine" way back on the NOVA TV show because it gives people like Bill the opportunity to wordplay or take out of context Wecht's true meaning.
You have to understand that wordplay is all that Chapman is mentally capable of.
"Near-pristine" works. Not that it matters since the bullet with no chain of custody that was allegedly discovered on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital cannot be connected to the assassination in any way.
-
Kept his trap shut about what? The things you want to claim without evidence that he said?
No one should say one fkn word to any cop if arrested.
Good advice, especially for those who are actually guilty of a crime or fear being set up by the police.
Innocent people normally forget the advice is good for them also, so they talk nevertheless.
-
I posted this video in 'Off-Topic' about a year ago, and was disappointed that practically no one visited that post. I was let down because it was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody.
Don't Talk to the Police
-
I posted this video in 'Off-Topic' about a year ago, and was disappointed that practically no one visited that post. I was let down because it was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody.
Don't Talk to the Police
You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!
So, on the one hand you agree that police officers can't be trusted by those they arrest, yet on the other hand, when it comes to reports like the one Fritz wrote, a week after talking to Oswald, you believe it all as gospel. Go figure!
You learn from the video that witnesses are hardly ever 100% accurate in their statements yet you still quote Scoggins as if you were there when he (allegedly) said it. :D
-
Under the theory that if you make the same claim over and over again that it will somehow become true.
Agreed. But Fritz's interrogation "techniques" were legendary, and Oswald was not provided counsel when he asked for it.
No repeating theory needed, Mr McKneeley.
-
You have to understand that wordplay is all that Chapman is mentally capable of.
"Near-pristine" works. Not that it matters since the bullet with no chain of custody that was allegedly discovered on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital cannot be connected to the assassination in any way.
I'm particularly fond of my wordplay involving Dirty Harry/Dirty Harvey/S&W. You know, the Tippit thing.
-
You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!
So, on the one hand you agree that police officers can't be trusted by those they arrest, yet on the other hand, when it comes to reports like the one Fritz wrote, a week after talking to Oswald, you believe it all as gospel. Go figure!
You learn from the video that witnesses are hardly ever 100% accurate in their statements yet you still quote Scoggins as if you were there when he (allegedly) said it. :D
You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!
Wow! The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law, especially with the police prior to and after being arrested. Seems many others need such a video otherwise it wouldn't have been made.
I've never been arrested. And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested. The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.
You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.
-
You needed a video to explain this to you? Wow!
Wow! The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law, especially with the police prior to and after being arrested. Seems many others need such a video otherwise it wouldn't have been made.
I've never been arrested. And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested. The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.
You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.
The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.
When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.
And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested.
I don't give a damn what you do when you get arrested. The main themes of the entire video are: (1) don't trust the police, as they are not your friend and (2) no matter how well intented their statements are, witnesses are highly unreliable. With that in mind, my comments about Fritz's report and Scoggings' claim and how you accept both blindly, were spot on.
You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.
Oh, I'm sorry, is that the purpose now of this forum?
Unlike you, it seems, it is my opinion that every person has the potential to teach me something I don't know. Only narrowminded individuals with a high insecurity level dismiss everything somebody else says out of hand. It's an emotional response, not a practical or logical one.
-
The video has supplied me with invaluable information regarding that.
When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.
And bringing up Scroggins and Fritz has nothing to do with how I should comport myself if ever do get arrested.
I don't give a damn what you do when you get arrested. The main themes of the entire video are: (1) don't trust the police, as they are not your friend and (2) no matter how well intented their statements are, witnesses are highly unreliable. With that in mind, my comments about Fritz's report and Scoggings' claim and how you accept both blindly, were spot on.
You, on the other hand, supply absolutely nothing of any import to me.
Oh, I'm sorry, is that the purpose now of this forum?
Unlike you, it seems, it is my opinion that every person has the potential to teach me something I don't know. Only narrowminded individuals with a high insecurity level dismiss everything somebody else says out of hand. It's an emotional response, not a practical or logical one.
'When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.'
1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms
-
Under the theory that if you make the same claim over and over again that it will somehow become true.
Repeating wishes can sometimes make things come true.
The Little Prick That Could
(Inspired by The Little Engine That Could)
CLICK-CLICK
--------------------
The Oswald Porch
--------------------
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
--------------------
The Cuckoo's Nest
--------------------
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
BOOM>Click-Click
'I thought I could, I thought I could'
-
Repeating wishes can sometimes make things come true.
When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.
When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...
We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.
Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.
-
When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.
When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...
We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.
Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.
When we say, "Can you explain the dates on this form?", Mr Galbraith runs away!
(https://images2.imgbox.com/b3/9b/f3Wxketr_o.jpg)
-
'When you need a video to explain something as basic as this, and when you admit that you are "not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law", you probably, for lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding, shouldn't voice so many "opinions" about the JFK murder.'
1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms
1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms
When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree.
-
When we challenge the conspiracy claims we often see that these same "skeptics" - who say they are just challenging allegations against Oswald - fight us not the conspiracists. Their skepticism suddenly disappears.
When we say, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?" or when we say, "If Oswald was framed why not have 4-6 people in Dealey Plaza say they saw him shoot JFK?" or "If Oswald was setup then how did the conspirators know he was in the building at the time?" or "If the WC report was a deliberate lie then why did distinguised men like Redlich or Ball do this"?...
We get angry replies. Their skepticism stops when those questions are asked.
Raising questions about Oswald's guilt is okay for them; raising them about conspiracy claims is not.
When you ask a question like the ones you asked you are asking for speculation. You are not challenging, or raising questions about, conspiracy claims. Instead you are merely defending the official narrative with questions nobody can answer without speculation.
When you say: "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say she saw Oswald leave with the rifle that morning?", you are really saying that Marina wasn't coached, unless somebody can prove to you that she was, which btw would be proof you would likely never accept.
The answer to a question can only be just as good as the quality of the question itself. "What if" questions have no value either way. The fact that they are not answered doesn't mean that question is a valid one or that the opposite of the premise of the question is true.
-
If Marina was coerced into testifying against Oswald then why wasn't she ordered to say he hated JFK?
If she was coerced then why didn't they coerce her to say she saw him wrap the rifle and take it with him to work Friday?
If she is coerced into framing him for the assassination these are the obvious statements they would force her to make. They would provide motive and a direct connection from him to the rifle found in the TSBD.
But they didn't because she said none of the above. Why?
Conspiracists cannot answer these questions. They don't even want to try. For even to try forces them to reconsider their claims. And this is something they don't want to do.
If one is skeptical of the evidence against Oswald, if one says he wants to challenge that evidence then one should apply that skeptical standard to the conspiracy claims. And that includes, it seems obvious, questions like the above.
It's difficult to prove a negative but not impossible (I can prove I didn't shoot Oswald). But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this. These are serious legitimate and logical questions a true skeptic would ask.
If, again, one was a true skeptic.
-
If Marina was coerced into testifying against Oswald then why wasn't she ordered to say he hated JFK?
If she was coerced then why didn't they coerce her to say she saw him wrap the rifle and take it with him to work Friday?
If she is coerced into framing him for the assassination these are the obvious statements they would force her to make. They would provide motive and a direct connection from him to the rifle found in the TSBD.
But they didn't because she said none of the above. Why?
Conspiracists cannot answer these questions. They don't even want to try. For even to try forces them to reconsider their claims. And this is something they don't want to do.
If one is skeptical of the evidence against Oswald, if one says he wants to challenge that evidence then one should apply that skeptical standard to the conspiracy claims. And that includes, it seems obvious, questions like the above.
It's difficult to prove a negative but not impossible (I can prove I didn't shoot Oswald). But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this. These are serious legitimate and logical questions a true skeptic would ask.
If, again, one was a true skeptic.
If, again, one was a true skeptic looking for speculation.
There, I fixed it for you
But one way to try and prove a negative - that Oswald wasn't framed - is to look into questions like this.
No it isn't, because the question requires speculation and even when the question is not answered it still does not justify the conclusion you desperately want to attach to it, i.e. that Oswald wasn't framed!
You're playing games and you know it. But we can easily turn this around. You can't answer (or refuse to do so) Alan's question about the DPD document. By your own "logic" that means Oswald was framed, right?
-
"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?
There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."
Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.
Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.
Oswald's room below (no rods are needed):
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/grant6.jpg)
-
"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?
There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."
Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.
Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.
Oswald's room below (no rods are needed):
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/grant6.jpg)
I take it this is your way of "answering" Alan's question?
Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.
I don't believe "all of this were lies", just that the narrative you present is only one biased side of the story. The fact that Ruth Paine's curtain rods were still in her garage, does not preclude the possibility that there had been more (for instance in Oswald's possession) and it certainly does not prove that Oswald did not carry curtain rods to the TSBD on Friday morning.
Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."
So what? It's only an assumption that Oswald needed the curtain rods to redecorate his room. There isn't a shred of evidence for it. Last week I picked up some removal boxes from a friend. But that doesn't mean that I was going to move! One can just as easily assume that Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to ask Marina to live with him again in a new appartment. Marina and Ruth Paine actually testified that they both thought this was his reason for the trip. The lack of evidence for the existing of such an appartment, for which Oswald could have brought to curtain rods, does not preclude that such an appartment did exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
For all we know, Oswald wanted to sign the rental agreement the next day. We will never know, because it was never investigated. Another alternative that was never considered is that Oswald brought the curtain rods for somebody else, who collected them during Friday morning. I'm not saying any of this is actually true or that it really happened. All I am saying is that when you start making assumptions you can always arrive where you want to end up.
He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods.
You shouldn't present something as fact what you can only assume and for which you have not a shred of evidence.
Now, to get back to Alan's question, which you haven't answered at all. Here's a logical conclusion justified by the evidence as we know it to date; if we accept that Ruth Paine's curtain rods were in her garage on the 23rd, when her testimony was taken, then they can not be the curtain rods who were in the custody of Lt Day until the 24th, which is when SSA Howlett collected them. It follows that the curtain rods Howlett submitted to the DPD identification bureau on the 15th are not Ruth Paine's curtain rods.
-
1) JFK 'murder' lol. Tell us just how important one has to be before one's 'murder' gets bumped up to 'assassination' status. Just sayin'.
Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?
2) Where did I 'admit' that I was not familiar with dealing with the nuances of the law' you fkn liar? I clearly said those not familiar
You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.
3) You dismiss that which does not follow Oswald-Cultism
BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?
4) Opinions are usually welcome on discussion platforms
When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree.
Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?
Geez, and here I thought he was assassinated, a more apt description for heads of state.
You wouldn't be trying to minimize the importance of what your hero Oswald did, now would you..
You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.
1) Re 'those not familiar': I can understand your need to twist what others mean.
2) I do not include myself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics of watching what one says around cops. I include myself with the guy who authored and presented the video.
BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?
So that's it, no Marty53?. Let me go all-CT: You're lying about accepting the BY pictures and the Klein's thing in order to present yourself as fair, but in reality you're just the same old tipsy troll who only comes here to argue.
When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree
::) Again, this is a discussion platform, not a court of law nor even formal debate. And you are not the arbiter of what constitutes 'fact'.
-
"Oswald told Frazier that the bag he brought to work that day contained curtain rods he obtained from Mrs. Paine. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Oswald did have curtain rods. The question then becomes: could the bag have contained curtain rods and not the rifle, regardless of length?
There were indeed curtain rods in the garage of the Paine residence, but both Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified their curtain rods were still in their garage on the day of the assassination after Oswald had taken his "curtain rods" to work. Oswald did not ask Mrs. Paine if he could use her curtain rods. Oswald did not discuss redecorating his room with his wife. He did not get the needed permission from his landlady, Mrs. Arthur Johnson, or her husband, to hang curtain rods and both testified there was no need for curtain rods in his room as there were curtain rods already up."
Source/link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Oswald's room needed no rods. He had no apartment that needed rods. He had not looked for an apartment that needed rods. There is no evidence from any eyewitnesses that saw him with rods after he left the building. He denied to the police, according to their account, that he brought rods to work.
Or you can believe all of this were lies meant to frame him. In which case, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented; you will dismiss it all as lies.
Speaking of curtain rods and evidence.......
Two curtain rods were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints 8 days BEFORE two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage under on-the-record questioning of Ms Paine. The two curtain rods originally submitted for testing were not released from the Crime Scene Search Section lab until AFTER that taking of testimony in Irving.
Can you explain the above facts, Mr Galbraith? Or do you prefer to stay in your McAdams/von Pein Talking Points comfort zone?
Thumb1:
-
Pathetic. No matter what you call it, Kennedy was murdered, was he not?
Geez, and here I thought he was assassinated, a more apt description for heads of state.
You wouldn't be trying to minimize the importance of what your hero Oswald did, now would you..
Assassination is murder for political reasons. Was Kennedy killed for political reasons and wouldn't that point to a conspiracy?
I thought you believe some lone nut with a rifle killed a guy in a car, which of course is murder, plain and simple.
You wouldn't be trying to minimize the importance of what your hero Oswald did, now would you..
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly how your warped depraved mind works.
You admitted it implicitly in your previous post, as you clearly wrote that as being one of "those not familiar". But I can understand why you now want to backpeddle.
1) Re 'those not familiar': I can understand your need to twist what others mean.
2) I do not include myself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics of watching what one says around cops. I include myself with the guy who authored and presented the video.
Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words;
"The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law"
"it was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody."
No further explanation necessary!
BS, but I'll play along.... Tell me, how do you explain that I accept the BY photos as authentic and that it is very will possible that Oswald did indeed write the order form from Klein's for the purchase of the rifle?
So that's it, no Marty53?. Let me go all-CT: You're lying about accepting the BY pictures and the Klein's thing in order to present yourself as fair, but in reality you're just the same old tipsy troll who only comes here to argue.
Thank you for showing one more time how a LN mind really works. When somebody you claim to be a CT (but isn't) actually tells you the truth, you call him a liar and start projecting because you don't know how to handle the truth. It's pathetic!
When they are not falsely presented as statements of fact, I agree
::) Again, this is a discussion platform, not a court of law nor even formal debate. And you are not the arbiter of what constitutes 'fact'.
Then try to discuss something for once, little man, instead of taking a page out of Trump's "alternative facts" book!
And you are not the arbiter of what constitutes 'fact'.
Sure I am. Every time a troll like you tries to pass opinion as "fact".
-
Assassination is murder for political reasons. Was Kennedy killed for political reasons and wouldn't that point to a conspiracy?
You're rather slow on the uptake, Martini. I reckon you've been spending way too much time with your drinking buddies Tom Collins, Jack Daniels, and Jim Beam. And Captain Morgan.
I've already schooled you lot with my essay 'the nobody who shot the somebody had help' In short:
1) O H Lee was in charge of procuring a safe-house
2) Alek Hidell was in charge of procuring armaments
3) Dirty Harvey was in charge of making the nobody a somebody
Well, they'll remember him now. ;)
-
You're rather slow on the uptake, Martini. I reckon you've been spending way too much time with your drinking buddies Tom Collins, Jack Daniels, and Jim Beam. And Captain Morgan.
I've already schooled you lot with my essay 'the nobody who shot the somebody had help' In short:
1) O H Lee was in charge of procuring a safe-house
2) Alek Hidell was in charge of procuring armaments
3) Dirty Harvey was in charge of making the nobody a somebody
Well, they'll remember him now. ;)
Sticks and stones.... But thank you for demonstrating again how your warped depraved mind works.
If this is the best come back you've got, you really haven't got anything. But hey, what else is new?
-
Sticks and stones.... But thank you for demonstrating again how your warped depraved mind works.
If this is the best come back you've got, you really haven't got anything. But hey, what else is new?
No 'best' needed: I'm just ragging the puck with you lot.
*Rag-the-puck meaning (hockey) To retain possession of the puck by skillful skating and stickhandling without attempting to score
-
No 'best' needed: I'm just ragging the puck with you lot.
*Rag-the-puck meaning (hockey) To retain possession of the puck by skillful skating and stickhandling without attempting to score
Ah... there are the usual delusions of grandeur :D
-
Assassination is murder for political reasons. Was Kennedy killed for political reasons and wouldn't that point to a conspiracy?
Tell us why it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons.
Lets see a couple of lone nut assassins in action:
William McKinley
Lone nut assassin Czolgosz's actions were politically motivated
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Czolgosz
James A. Garfield
Lone nut assassin Charles J. Guiteau claimed to have shot Garfield out of disappointment at being passed over for appointment as Ambassador to France. He attributed the president's victory in the election to a speech he wrote in support of Garfield.
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Guiteau
Not to mention all the lone nut attempts to kill American presidents over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#Gerald_Ford
-
Once again Bill loves to play his wordplay game to suit his argument. Of course the instances Bill shows did not require a conspiracy to kill those presidents. And of course there have been plenty of conspiracies due to political reasons to kill other politicians.
Booth and Lincoln is one good example. The JFK one is another one.
-
Once again Bill loves to play his wordplay game to suit his argument. Of course the instances Bill shows did not require a conspiracy to kill those presidents. And of course there have been plenty of conspiracies due to political reasons to kill other politicians.
Booth and Lincoln is one good example. The JFK one is another one.
So you have one good example..
-
Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words: "The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law. It was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody'.
No further explanation necessary!
Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words: "The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law(1). It was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody(2).
No further explanation necessary!(3)
1) Your argument would carry some substance if I had said those of us. I did not do so, Clouseau.
2) The video apparently does not seem important or interesting to you. Yet here you are claiming that you want to learn things. One thing you apparently need to learn is that the video is largely directed at innocent people who find themselves under arrest; people want to profess their innocence to any and all who will listen, especially cops.
3) You are in dire need of having things explained to you, all the way down the line.
-
Tell us why it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons.
Lets see a couple of lone nut assassins in action:
William McKinley
Lone nut assassin Czolgosz's actions were politically motivated
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Czolgosz
James A. Garfield
Lone nut assassin Charles J. Guiteau claimed to have shot Garfield out of disappointment at being passed over for appointment as Ambassador to France. He attributed the president's victory in the election to a speech he wrote in support of Garfield.
> No 'Help Wanted' sign hung out by Guiteau
Not to mention all the lone nut attempts to kill American presidents over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#Gerald_Ford
Totally beside the point. I did not say it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons. I merely asked if it wouldn't point to a conspiracy. Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference. You apparently don't.
Ironically, Oswald is not mentioned in that wikipedia list, so we can stick with using the word murder. Thumb1:
Of course you include yourself with those who are unfamiliar with the basics. Your words: "The video was made for the express intent of enlightening those not familiar with the nuances of dealing with the law(1). It was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody(2).
No further explanation necessary!(3)
1) Your argument would carry some substance if I had said those of us. I did not do so, Clouseau.
2) The video apparently does not seem important or interesting to you. Yet here you are claiming that you want to learn things. One thing you apparently need to learn is that the video is largely directed at innocent people who find themselves under arrest; people want to profess their innocence to any and all who will listen, especially cops.
3) You are in dire need of having things explained to you, all the way down the line.
Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
1) Your argument would carry some substance if I had said those of us. I did not do so, Clouseau.
BS..
You called the "enlightening" video "one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched". Says it all, really!
2) The video apparently does not seem important or interesting to you.
It had nothing in it I didn't already know. I found it entertaining, but I would not qualify it as "one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched". That, as you have shown, is a qualification only used by a novice who easily gets impressed.
Yet here you are claiming that you want to learn things. One thing you apparently need to learn is that the video is largely directed at innocent people who find themselves under arrest; people want to profess their innocence to any and all who will listen, especially cops.
No, that's not something I need to learn. Only a novice like you would need to learn that. And the video wasn't "largely directed at innocent people". It was completely directed at anybody who gets arrested or even interviewed by the police. It seems you haven't learned that yet.
3) You are in dire need of having things explained to you, all the way down the line.
Ah, more delusions of grandeur :D
And, please stop using lines a five year old would use when he throws a temper tantrum. It's so immature.
-
Totally beside the point. I did not say it would take a conspiracy to kill for political reasons. I merely asked if it wouldn't point to a conspiracy. Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference.
'I merely asked'
LOL. Stop JAQing off, coward.
'Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference..
See above.
That, as you have shown, is a qualification only used by a novice who easily gets impressed.
I'm easily impressed by top quality in any walk of life. I place the fellow who wrote and presented the video in that category.
Ironically, Oswald is not mentioned in that wikipedia list, so we can stick with using the word murder.
Oswald is listed as the killer of Kennedy and Tippit
Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
No, just catching a snake
It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here, sport.
-
'I merely asked'
LOL. Stop JAQing off, coward.
'Those capable of understanding what is written would know the difference. You apparently don't.
See above.
Ironically, Oswald is not mentioned in that wikipedia list, so we can stick with using the word murder.
Oswald is listed as the killer of Kennedy and Tippit
Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
No, just catching a snake
It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.
HAHAHA
'I merely asked'
LOL. Stop JAQing off, coward.
Nasty, nasty... :D Overcompensating for your total lack of understanding of what is written?
Still trying to weasel your way out of that one, I see.
No, just catching a snake
And again, more delusions of grandeur :D
It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.
Contradictio in terminis Thumb1:
You corrected them? And that somehow isn't talking to the police? It seems you still haven't learned much from the video you like so much.... Hilarious!
Btw, you (mistakenly) think you can teach people something on this board, you claim to have corrected the police..... Who the f*ck do you think you are?
-
HAHAHA
Nasty, nasty... :D Overcompensating for your total lack of understanding of what is written?
And again, more delusions of grandeur :D
Contradictio in terminis Thumb1:
You corrected them? And that somehow isn't talking to the police? It seems you still haven't learned much from the video you like so much.... Hilarious!
Btw, you (mistakenly) think you can teach people something on this board, you claim to have corrected the police..... Who the f*ck do you think you are?
Nasty, nasty... :D Overcompensating for your total lack of understanding of what is written?
Touchy, touchy... deflecting when caught out for JAQing around like the classic internet troll you are, I see..
You corrected them? And that somehow isn't talking to the police? It seems you still haven't learned much from the video you like so much.... Hilarious!
You're being way too superficial. And rigid... as if everything happens on a page in a book. Open up a page and up pops a paper cut-out, lifeless and inflexible. The Book of Oswald (See below) right there, permeating the entire lifeless 60 years of conspiracy-monger abject hopelessness.
Btw, my police interview happened 4-5 years ago, sport. Be advised that I posted the video about a year ago, in off-topics, immediately as I discovered it.
Yes, I corrected the interviewing officer. You do know why the cops will keep asking the same questions over and over again don't you, big fella?
---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------
BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable
BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
BOOK III: MINUTIAE
Trivia writ Large:
The Lifeblood of the
Oswald-Lover crowd
BOOK IV: OZZIE RABBIT
AKA LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Here
we
go,
down
the
rabbit
hole
-
Nasty, nasty... :D Overcompensating for your total lack of understanding of what is written?
Touchy, touchy... deflecting when caught out for JAQing around like the classic internet troll you are, I see..
[/quoting]
LOL
You corrected them? And that somehow isn't talking to the police? It seems you still haven't learned much from the video you like so much.... Hilarious!
You're being way too superficial. And rigid... as if everything happens on a page in a book. Open up a page and up pops a paper cut-out, lifeless and inflexible. The Book of Oswald (See below) right there, permeating the entire lifeless 60 years of conspiracy-monger hopelessness.
Btw, my police interview happened 4-5 years ago, sport. Be advised that I posted the video about a year ago, in off-topics, immediately as I discovered it.
Yes, I corrected the interviewing officer. You do know why the cops will keep asking the same questions over and over again don't you, big fella?
Way to eager to explain away your obvious contradiction. You talked to the police, period! :D
-
Way to eager to explain away your obvious contradiction. You talked to the police, period! :D
Quite the paradox there, Sluggo: Tell us how one can contradict oneself before the event actually happens.
2017: My police interview
2020: My finding of the video
Go ahead, you do the math... you go back to the future, Michael.
-
Quite the paradox there, Sluggo: Tell us how one can contradict oneself before the event actually happens.
2017: My police interview
2020: My finding of the video
Go ahead, you do the math... you go back to the future, Michael.
Just how stupid can you be?
You claimed to know that you should not talk to the police prior to seeing the video,
It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.
yet in 2017, despite that knowledge you talked to the police.
(* although you have edited your original post since, a copy still existed as quote in one of my posts, exposing your dishonesty)
Now, you want to explain the fact that you talked to the police in 2017 with not finding and watching the video in 2020, which of course means that, prior to finding the video, you didn't know that you should not talk to the police.
Which, in turn, of course perfectly explains this comment;
.... it was one of the most important and interesting videos I've ever watched and would be of great benefit to everybody.
Don't Talk to the Police
Care to try again?
-
Just how stupid can you be?
You claimed to know that you should not talk to the police prior to seeing the video,
yet in 2017, despite that knowledge you talked to the police.
(* although you have edited your original post since, a copy still existed as quote in one of my posts, exposing your dishonesty)
Now, you want to explain the fact that you talked to the police in 2017 with not finding and watching the video in 2020, which of course means that, prior to finding the video, you didn't know that you should not talk to the police.
Which, in turn, of course perfectly explains this comment;
Care to try again?
I reserve the right to edit my posts as long as it hasn't been answered yet and I don't see the the person it's directed to logged into the thread. Now point out the post you say I've edited dishonestly.
Now since I don't see your name as/of this moment, I'll add that I often inform the party that I'm posting to that I have done some editing, but in your case you just bleat that you don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns, so fck you.
-
I reserve the right to edit my posts as long as it hasn't been answered yet and I don't see the the person it's directed to logged into the thread. Now point out the post you say I've edited dishonestly.
Now since I don't see your name as/of this moment, I'll add that I often inform the party that I'm posting to that I have done some editing, but in your case you just bleat that you don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns, so fck you.
So much gibberish to "explain away" your dishonesty.
I reserve the right to edit my posts as long as it hasn't been answered yet and I don't see the the person it's directed to logged into the thread. Now point out the post you say I've edited dishonestly.
BS. You edited your post (# 376) after I had replied to it (# 377), otherwise I couldn't have quoted it, and you even replied to my reply (#378) without making a comment about the edit of # 376. That's dishonesty!
Now since I don't see your name as/of this moment,
What the hell does that even mean?
I'll add that I often inform the party that I'm posting to that I have done some editing, but in your case you just bleat that you don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns, so fck you.
Excuses, excuses and aggressive as well.... very telling.
Btw, none of this changes in any way the fact that you claimed to know that you should not talk to the police, prior to seeing the video, yet you still talked to them in 2017, proving your earlier statement to be false.
Care to try again?
-
So much gibberish
Post #376 Bill Chapman
==========================
It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.
>
Edited by me down to
'Same here'.
===========================
And so what? I do know that the police keep repeating the same questions while using varying terminology.
Why did I edit that out, one might ask. That's an easy one: Why feed trolls who love to call everything 'gibberish' (see above] as a way of inching towards the exit with no intelligent reply to offer up. Same old, same old conspiracy-mongery right there.
-
Post #376 Bill Chapman
==========================
It had nothing in it I didn't already know
Same here: I've been interviewed by the police and knew enough to correct them when they would keep repeating the questions but using different terminology.
>
Edited by me down to
'Same here'.
===========================
And so what? I do know that the police keep repeating the same questions while using varying terminology.
Why did I edit that out, one might ask. That's an easy one: Why feed trolls who love to call everything 'gibberish' (see above] as a way of inching towards the exit with no intelligent reply to offer up. Same old, same old conspiracy-mongery right there.
HAHAHAHA... Your desperation to find a way out of the mess you have created is duly noted.
Your temper tantrum and childish insults are not going to persuade anybody. You edited your post simply because you understood you had said something stupid that undermined your own silly claim.
The bottom line is a simple one; you talked to the police in 2017 because you didn't learn not to talk to them before you saw the video in 2020. Period!
-
What the hell does that even mean?
Re 'since I don't see your name as/of this moment':
This is 'what the hell that even means'
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCGsC4WK/no-see-poster.png)
-
Re 'since I don't see your name as/of this moment':
This is 'what the hell that even means'
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCGsC4WK/no-see-poster.png)
Did you really think, even for a minute, that I actually care what your ramblings mean? Hilarious!
You can try to pivot away to other subjects as much as you like, but the fact still remains that I caught you in a lie and in a dishonest attempt to cover it up by dishonestly editing your post.
The bottom line is still a simple one; you talked to the police in 2017 because you didn't learn not to talk to them before you saw the video in 2020. Period!
-
HAHAHAHA... Your desperation to find a way out of the mess you have created is duly noted.
Your temper tantrum and childish insults are not going to persuade anybody. You edited your post simply because you understood you had said something stupid that undermined your own silly claim.
The bottom line is a simple one; you talked to the police in 2017 because you didn't learn not to talk to them before you saw the video in 2020. Period!
::)
Yeah, sure.. I call 911 and report a break-in at my residence then refuse to talk to the police. Great plan.
-
Did you really think, even for a minute, that I actually care what your ramblings mean? Hilarious!
You can try to pivot away to other subjects as much as you like, but the fact still remains that I caught you in a lie and in a dishonest attempt to cover it up by dishonestly editing your post.
The bottom line is still a simple one; you talked to the police in 2017 because you didn't learn not to talk to them before you saw the video in 2020. Period!
Did you really think, even for a minute, that I actually care what your ramblings mean? Hilarious!
And yet here you are. Again.
In the meantime, you asked me 'what the hell that even means'. I showed you. Then you blow a gasket. Geez, and here I thought you said I was incapable of teaching anybody anything. I'm all shook up and disappointed now
-
::)
Yeah, sure.. I call 911 and report a break-in at my residence then refuse to talk to the police. Great plan.
That's not what the video was about, fool.... Only suspects and witnesses, remember? Oh, sorry, of course you don't remember. You're clueless.
Did you really think, even for a minute, that I actually care what your ramblings mean? Hilarious!
And yet here you are. Again.
Indeed. It's fun to expose your dishonesty and ignorance.
In the meantime, you asked me 'what the hell that even means'. I showed you. Then you blow a gasket. Geez, and here I thought you said I was incapable of teaching anybody anything. I'm all shook up and disappointed now
bla bla bla..... LOL You really "argue" as a five year old, throwing anything out there you can think of. It's a blast!
Will it be long before you start throwing the kitchen sink at me?
Go on, twist and turn some more..... Here it is again;
The bottom line is still a simple one; you talked to the police in 2017 because you didn't learn not to talk to them before you saw the video in 2020. Period!
-
That's not what the video was about, fool.... Only suspects and witnesses, remember? Oh, sorry, of course you don't remember. You're clueless.
Indeed. It's fun to expose your dishonestly and ignorance.
bla bla bla..... LOL You really "argue" as a five year old, throwing anything out there you can think of. It's a blast!
Will it be long before you start throwing the kitchen sink at me?
Go on, twist and turn some more..... Here it is again;
The bottom line is still a simple one; you talked to the police in 2017 because you didn't learn not to talk to them before you saw the video in 2020. Period!
I was an earwitness. I heard what turned out to be the b&e dude/dudette upstairs.
Go on, huff and puff as is your wont. Here it is again:
Yeah, sure.. I call 911 and report a break-in at my residence then refuse to talk to the police. Great plan.
-
I was an earwitness. I heard what turned out to be the b&e person upstairs.
Go on, huff and puff as is your wont. Here it is again:
Yeah, sure.. I call 911 and report a break-in at my residence then refuse to talk to the police. Great plan.
This is getting better and better.... You report a break-in at your home, making you the victim, but when you talk to the police, you're only an "earwitness" who somehow corrects police officers because they are asking the same questions in different ways.....
Hilarious...
Were you confused? Did you think police considered a victim to be a suspect, or what?
Now tell me, what has you, as a victim, reporting a crime to police in 2017 to do with a video you watched in 2020 in which suspects and witnesses are told never to talk to the police?
-
This is getting better and better.... You report a break-in at your home, making you the victim, but when you talk to the police, you're only an "earwitness" who somehow corrects police officers because they are asking the same questions in different ways.....
Hilarious...
Were you confused? Did you think police considered a victim to be a suspect, or what?
Now tell me, what has you, as a victim, reporting a crime to police in 2017 to do with a video you watched in 2020 in which suspects and witnesses are told never to talk to the police?
Were you confused? Did you think police considered a victim to be a suspect, or what?
No, a possible eye/earwitness
Now tell me, what has you, as a victim, reporting a crime to police in 2017 to do with a video you watched in 2020 in which suspects and witnesses are told never to talk to the police?
My break-in situation is a fine example as an exception to the 'don't talk to the police' rule.
-
Were you confused? Did you think police considered a victim to be a suspect, or what?
No, a possible eye/earwitness
Now tell me, what has you, as a victim, reporting a crime to police in 2017 to do with a video you watched in 2020 in which suspects and witnesses are told never to talk to the police?
My break-in situation is a fine example as an exception to the 'don't talk to the police' rule.
Hilarious.
There is no rule that says victims shouldn't talk to the police. Only suspects and witnesses! That's what the video was all about. FFS it was made by a former criminal defense lawyer.
What's your next idiotic claim? That victims also need a criminal defense lawyer?
As a victim, police requires you to make a statement, but that doesn't make you "a possible eye/earwitness". It makes you a victim who may have seen or heard something.
Earlier I said you were clueless. Thanks for proving me right!
-
Hilarious.
There is no rule that says victims shouldn't talk to the police. Only suspects and witnesses! That's what the video was all about. FFS it was made by a former criminal defense lawyer.
Only suspects and witnesses, you say? Cool. I'm an earwitness.
What's your next idiotic claim? That victims also need a criminal defense lawyer?
No, that you're trustworthy
As a victim, police requires you to make a statement, but that doesn't make you "a possible eye/earwitness". It makes you a victim who may have seen or heard something.
seen = eyewitness
heard = earwitness
Thanks for the support, professor
Earlier I said you were clueless. Thanks for proving me right!
So I'm the one making childish comments, huh?
-
There is no rule that says victims shouldn't talk to the police. Only suspects and witnesses! That's what the video was all about. FFS it was made by a former criminal defense lawyer.
Only suspects and witnesses, you say? Cool. I'm an earwitness.
What's your next idiotic claim? That victims also need a criminal defense lawyer?
No, that you're trustworthy
As a victim, police requires you to make a statement, but that doesn't make you "a possible eye/earwitness". It makes you a victim who may have seen or heard something.
seen = eyewitness
heard = earwitness
Thanks for the support, professor
Earlier I said you were clueless. Thanks for proving me right!
So I'm the one making childish comments, huh?
You're not having a good day, it seems. Just how stupid can you be?
There is no rule that says victims shouldn't talk to the police. Only suspects and witnesses! That's what the video was all about. FFS it was made by a former criminal defense lawyer.
Only suspects and witnesses, you say? Cool. I'm an earwitness.
Only suspects and witnesses, you say?
Said the former defense lawyer in the video.... Did you even watch the video. I seriously doubt it.
Cool. I'm an earwitness.
HAHAHAHA So, when somebody breaks in your house, you are not a victim, but only a witness? Canada has some really strange rules it seems! :D
Great stuff....
Perhaps the time has come for you to cut your losses and quietly leave this discussion before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But knowing you, I doubt that you will take such good advice.
-
You're not having a good day, it seems. Just how stupid can you be?
Only suspects and witnesses, you say?
Said the former defense lawyer in the video.... Did you even watch the video. I seriously doubt it.
Cool. I'm an earwitness.
HAHAHAHA So, when somebody breaks in your house, you are not a victim, but only a witness? Canada has some really strange rules it seems! :D
Great stuff....
Perhaps the time has come for you to cut your losses and quietly leave this discussion before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But knowing you, I doubt that you will take such good advice.
Said the former defense lawyer in the video
And I agreed with that.
HAHAHAHA So, when somebody breaks in your house, you are not a victim, but only a witness? Canada has some really strange rules it seems!
'Only' a witness?
Perhaps the time has come for you to cut your losses and quietly leave this discussion before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
Nah, I think I'll hang around a bit longer: You attack me, you're going to get pushback
By the way, is a white flag waving, or is that just a handkerchief you're crying into?
But knowing you, I doubt that you will take such good advice.
Get over yourself: I've yet to see any good advice from the likes of you.
-
Said the former defense lawyer in the video
And I agreed with that.
HAHAHAHA So, when somebody breaks in your house, you are not a victim, but only a witness? Canada has some really strange rules it seems!
'Only' a witness?
"Never argue with a fool,......." - Mark Twain
Perhaps the time has come for you to cut your losses and quietly leave this discussion before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
Nah, I think I'll hang around a bit longer: You attack me, you're going to get pushback
By the way, is a white flag waving, or is that just a handkerchief you're crying into?
But knowing you, I doubt that you will take such good advice.
Get over yourself: I've yet to see any good advice from the likes of you.
quod erat demonstrandum
-
"Never argue with a fool,......." - Mark Twain
quod erat demonstrandum
Run, Marty... RUN
-
I'm particularly fond of my wordplay involving Dirty Harry/Dirty Harvey/S&W. You know, the Tippit thing.
Yes, you're a legend in your own mind.
-
This is getting better and better.... You report a break-in at your home, making you the victim, but when you talk to the police, you're only an "earwitness" who somehow corrects police officers because they are asking the same questions in different ways.....
Hilarious...
Yeah, he "corrected" the police in the same way he "schooled" you with his stupid Oswald nursery rhyme. :D
-
I corrected the cop when he tried to trip me up regarding my story
-
Yeah, he "corrected" the police in the same way he "schooled" you with his stupid Oswald nursery rhyme. :D
It was written for 5 year olds
Seems I was aiming too high
-
Yes, you're a legend in your own mind.
Definitely a 'lege' alright
-
I corrected the cop when he tried to trip me up regarding my story
Why would a cop try to trip you up when you are the victim?
Probably because your story back then was just a dodgy as the one you are telling now..... :D
-
Why would a cop try to trip you up when you are the victim?
Probably because your story back then was just a dodgy as the one you are telling now..... :D
I wasn't a victim: None of my possessions were missing and I wasn't attacked. A valuable watch and some jewellery went missing. And I might have stolen the items myself in order to collect on the insurance, as far as the cop knew.
-
I wasn't a victim: None of my possessions were missing and I wasn't attacked. A valuable watch and some jewellery went missing. And I might have stolen the items myself in order to collect on the insurance, as far as the cop knew.
I wasn't a victim: None of my possessions were missing and I wasn't attacked.
You can't be this stupid! Your house was broken in to. That alone makes you a victim.
A valuable watch and some jewellery went missing. And I might have stolen the items myself in order to collect on the insurance, as far as the cop knew.
And that made you a potential suspect.
And as a suspect, you should not have talked to the police, as the video you like so much told you.
Your story is getting dodgier by the minute.
-
I wasn't a victim: None of my possessions were missing and I wasn't attacked.
You can't be this stupid! Your house was broken in to. That alone makes you a victim.
A valuable watch and some jewellery went missing. And I might have stolen the items myself in order to collect on the insurance, as far as the cop knew.
And that made you a potential suspect.
And as a suspect, you should not have talked to the police, as the video you like so much told you.
Your story is getting dodgier by the minute.
And as a suspect, you should not have talked to the police, as the video you like so much told you.
The break-in happened years before I saw the video.
-
And as a suspect, you should not have talked to the police, as the video you like so much told you.
The break-in happened years before I saw the video.
Please try to keep your story straight.
Earlier in this thread, you claimed that you already knew that, as a suspect, you should not talk to police, prior to seeing the video.
Clearly you didn't, because you talked to them anyway when they considered you to be a potential suspect.
-
Please try to keep your story straight.
Earlier in this thread, you claimed that you already knew that, as a suspect, you should not talk to police, prior to seeing the video.
Clearly you didn't, because you talked to them anyway when they considered you to be a potential suspect.
Where did I say they treated me as a suspect
-
And so Mr Chapman, perennial source of zero information & zero insight, derails yet another discussion. Mission accomplished! Thumb1:
-
And so Mr Chapman, perennial source of zero information & zero insight, derails yet another discussion. Mission accomplished! Thumb1:
How does what anyone says here derail anything. Not my bad if you get caught in the headlights.
-
Why even give the likes of a Doyle, a Ralphie or a Caprio any attention at all. Not that you're a crazed, forum-suffocating control freak and can't let even one tiny little speck of what you might see as dirt land on your precious little angel. No, not you..
Says the guy who regurgitates the same stupid irrelevant "clever quips" day in and day out. You've done nothing to contribute "dirt" or anything else.
-
Where did I say they treated me as a suspect
More word games. You didn't say that, nor have I ever claimed you said that. So, stop playing childish games.
Btw but when you mean that the police considered you a potential suspect, you told us that, right here;
I wasn't a victim: None of my possessions were missing and I wasn't attacked. A valuable watch and some jewellery went missing. And I might have stolen the items myself in order to collect on the insurance, as far as the cop knew.
When a cop thinks you might have stolen something, you will be treated as a potential suspect.
It's beyond amazing that something this easy to understand needs to be explained to you.
-
Why even give the likes of a Doyle, a Ralphie or a Caprio any attention at all. Not that you're a crazed, forum-suffocating control freak and can't let even one tiny little speck of what you might see as dirt land on your precious little angel. No, not you..
you're a crazed, forum-suffocating control freak
Considering who is saying this, it's freakin' hilarious :D
-
you're a crazed, forum-suffocating control freak
Considering who is saying this, it's freakin' hilarious :D
Gosh, I wonder how ol' Al-but's doing?
-
It's irrelevant whether Fritz showed Oswald a rifle. What is relevant is whether JFK was murdered by a bullet impacting his forehead. Dallas Police Department Motor Officer James Cheney was riding next to JFK. He saw the fatal round impact the front of JFK's face, a wound consistent with Parkland physicians' findings.
-
It's irrelevant whether Fritz showed Oswald a rifle. What is relevant is whether JFK was murdered by a bullet impacting his forehead. Dallas Police Department Motor Officer James Cheney was riding next to JFK. He saw the fatal round impact the front of JFK's face, a wound consistent with Parkland physicians' findings.
Which Parkland doctor said he saw a bullet wound in JFK's face? I've read their testimonies several times and I don't recall such an account.
JFK's face was towards/facing them as they worked on him. I would think they would see a bullet hole in his face. In any case, to my knowledge/memory none ever said they saw one.
-
It's irrelevant whether Fritz showed Oswald a rifle.
If Captain Fritz showed Mr Oswald a Mauser, as would appear to be the case from Mr Oswald's recorded response.................,
(https://images2.imgbox.com/29/eb/oR8lxbvQ_o.jpg)
............. then that's highly relevant
-
Says the guy who regurgitates the same stupid irrelevant "clever quips" day in and day out. You've done nothing to contribute "dirt" or anything else.
Dirty Harvey kept stepping in his own mess.
-
Didty Harvey kept stepping in his own mess.
Another nonsensical reply from the forum clown.
-
Another nonsensical reply from the forum clown.
Don't be so hard on him.
He's still trying to grasp the notion that when the police interview you because they think you could have stolen something, you are in fact a potential suspect and not an earwitness, as chappy mistakenly thought.
-
Another nonsensical reply from the forum clown.
Typo corrected to 'Dirty' Harvey. You know, by far the pithiest Oswald-Tippit association ever made on this or any other forum.
DIRTY HARRY
'Smith, Wesson.. and me'
DIRTY HARVEY
Smith, Wesson.. and Lee
'Too much sugar is bad for you'
-
Another nonsensical reply from the forum clown.
Says Neil McKneeley, the biggest Oswald arse-kisser in history.
-
Please try to keep your story straight.
Earlier in this thread, you claimed that you already knew that, as a suspect, you should not talk to police, prior to seeing the video.
Clearly you didn't, because you talked to them anyway when they considered you to be a potential suspect.
Point out where the cop considered me a 'potential suspect'.
-
Point out where the cop considered me a 'potential suspect'.
Already done. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend, but I can't dumb it down any more.
-
Already done. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend, but I can't dumb it down any more.
You can run but you can't hide: You have the opposite problem to 'dumbing' things down, Sluggo.
-
You can run but you can't hide: You have the opposite problem to 'dumbing' things down, Sluggo.
Ah, the standard childish insults that always signal when Chappy gets frustrated. How typical! :D
-
Ah, the standard childish insults that always signal when Chappy gets frustrated. How typical! :D
There's nothing off-the-rack/shelf about my remarks and you lot have the schoolyard-remark category cornered.
-
There's nothing off-the-rack/shelf about my remarks and you lot have the schoolyard-remark category cornered.
Ah, there is the ego thing again. You wouldn't be trying to "correct" me, just like you "corrected" the cop who interviewed you as a potential suspect after the break-in, would you now? Hilarious!
Btw, thanks for implicitely confirming that your "remarks" do indeed signal your frustration. But, please, do try to put a bit more effort and creativeness in your future insults, because the ones you keep on using are getting a bit tiresome and boring.
-
Ah, there is the ego thing again. You wouldn't be trying to "correct" me, just like you "corrected" the cop who interviewed you as a potential suspect after the break-in, would you now? Hilarious!
Btw, thanks for implicitely confirming that your "remarks" do indeed signal your frustration. But, please, do try to put a bit more effort and creativeness in your future insults, because the ones you keep on using are getting a bit tiresome and boring.
Say something original. Go ahead.
-
Ah, there is the ego thing again. You wouldn't be trying to "correct" me, just like you "corrected" the cop who interviewed you as a potential suspect after the break-in, would you now? Hilarious!
Btw, thanks for implicitely confirming that your "remarks" do indeed signal your frustration. But, please, do try to put a bit more effort and creativeness in your future insults, because the ones you keep on using are getting a bit tiresome and boring.
I know that cops are control freaks who will attempt to trip people up.
-
Say something original. Go ahead.
I just did. You just don't have a reply
I know that cops are control freaks who will attempt to trip people up.
It takes a control freak to know a control freak....
But why would the police try to trip you up, if they did not consider you to be a potential suspect?
-
Says Neil McKneeley, the biggest Oswald arse-kisser in history.
Says the biggest self-arse-kisser in history.
-
Says the biggest self-arse-kisser in history.
Even bigger than Trump? Cool.
-
I just did. You just don't have a reply
It takes a control freak to know a control freak....
But why would the police try to trip you up, if they did not consider you to be a potential suspect?
I just did. You just don't have a reply
Point out what you think is 'creative' and I'll reply. All I see is your usual bigmouth Oswald arse-kissing bombast.
It takes a control freak to know a control freak
Still not creative, Marty. Nor original or clever.
But why would the police try to trip you up, if they did not consider you to be a potential suspect?
I just told you. They're control freaks. Like Oswald arse kissers, I might add. And your obsession with my cop-talk and everything else I say is duly noted.
-
I just did. You just don't have a rely
Point out what you think is 'creative' and I'll reply. All I see is your usual bigmouth Oswald arse-kissing bombast.
It takes a control freak to know a control freak
Still not creative, Marty. Nor original or clever.
But why would the police try to trip you up, if they did not consider you to be a potential suspect?
I just told you. They're control freaks. Like Oswald arse kissers, I might add. And your obsession with my cop-talk and everything else I say is duly noted.
Wow, two times the same childish insult in one post.
Yeah, you're "creative" alright :D
And your obsession with my cop-talk
Pointing out you stupidity in talking to the cops and idiotically claiming you were only an earwitness when in fact you were a potential suspect isn't an obsession. It's a pleasure!
Point out what you think is 'creative' and I'll reply.
Are you really asking my advise on how you can insult me more creatively? Hilarious :D
Can't you figure out anything by yourself?
-
Wow, two times the same childish insult in one post.
Yeah, you're "creative" alright :D
And your obsession with my cop-talk
Pointing out you stupidity in talking to the cops and idiotically claiming you were only an earwitness when in fact you were a potential suspect isn't an obsession. It's a pleasure!
Point out what you think is 'creative' and I'll reply.
Are you really asking my advise on how you can insult me more creatively? Hilarious :D
Can't you figure out anything by yourself?
::)
Sigh... more nothingburgers from the Oswald-lovers.
Pointing out you stupidity in talking to the cops and idiotically claiming you were only an earwitness when in fact you were a potential suspect isn't an obsession.
On the contrary: If I was a potential suspect, then not answering the cop would definitely make me one, fool. Try to find some way to face reality, little Marty. Living inside a bottle will only keep you trapped until it's too late.
It's a pleasure!
Yes, you do have masochistic tendencies; coming back here as you do for a daily whuppin'..
Are you really asking my advise on how you can insult me more creatively?
No. Really.
Can't you figure out anything by yourself?
I figured you out right away from the very first post I read of yours years ago, Slick.
-
::)
Sigh... more nothingburgers from the Oswald-lovers.
Pointing out you stupidity in talking to the cops and idiotically claiming you were only an earwitness when in fact you were a potential suspect isn't an obsession.
On the contrary: If I was a potential suspect, then not answering the cop would definitely make me one, fool. Try to find some way to face reality, little Marty. Living inside a bottle will only keep you trapped until it's too late.
It's a pleasure!
Yes, you do have masochistic tendencies; coming back here as you do for a daily whuppin'..
Are you really asking my advise on how you can insult me more creatively?
No. Really.
Can't you figure out anything by yourself?
I figured you out right away from the very first post I read of yours years ago, Slick.
Is there something of any significance in there?
Because all I see is more childish insults and a massive demonstration of stupidity;
If I was a potential suspect,
When a cop questions you because you might have stolen something there is no "if". You simply are a potential suspect.
then not answering the cop would definitely make me one
You really need to watch that video again. This is exactly the biggest mistake a suspect can make!
-
Is there something of any significance in there?
Because all I see is more childish insults and a massive demonstration of stupidity;
If I was a potential suspect,
When a cop questions you because you might have stolen something there is no "if". You simply are a potential suspect.
then not answering the cop would definitely make me one
You really need to watch that video again. This is exactly the biggest mistake a suspect can make!
I wasn't a suspect, fool.
-
I wasn't a suspect, fool.
The cop just thought you might have stolen the objects yourself.....
How do they call somebody they believe might have stolen objects in Canada?
-
Is there something of any significance in there?
Because all I see is more childish insults and a massive demonstration of stupidity;
If I was a potential suspect,
When a cop questions you because you might have stolen something there is no "if". You simply are a potential suspect.
then not answering the cop would definitely make me one
You really need to watch that video again. This is exactly the biggest mistake a suspect can make!
You really need to watch that video again. This is exactly the biggest mistake a suspect can make!
You're taking that video as if one size fits all. Same as you do hereabouts.
> Here, take notes: If I refuse to say anything, that gets me a trip downtown, barrister.
Thanks, but I'll represent myself, JudgeMarty.
-
The cop just thought you might have stolen the objects yourself.....
How do they call somebody they believe might have stolen objects in Canada?
How do they call somebody they believe might have stolen objects in Canada?
An American
-
How do they call somebody they believe might have stolen objects in Canada?
An American
I wasn't a victim: None of my possessions were missing and I wasn't attacked. A valuable watch and some jewellery went missing. And I might have stolen the items myself in order to collect on the insurance, as far as the cop knew.
So, you are an American?
-
You really need to watch that video again. This is exactly the biggest mistake a suspect can make!
You're taking that video as if one size fits all. Same as you do hereabouts.
> Here, take notes: If I refuse to say anything, that gets me a trip downtown, barrister.
Thanks, but I'll represent myself, JudgeMarty.
No. You started talking to the cop because your ego wouldn't let you shut up, just like it happens here every day.
Thanks, but I'll represent myself, JudgeMarty.
"A person who represents himself has a fool for a client." - President Abraham Lincoln
-
So, you are an American?
Ich stehle nicht, kleiner Marty
-
I don't steal
Is that what you told the cop, Mr. Suspect?
-
Is that what you told the cop, Mr. Suspect?
He didn't ask me
-
He didn't ask me
So what did you "correct" the cop on, exactly, if he didn't ask you after considering you might have stolen goods?
Did you talk about the weather?
-
So what did you "correct" the cop on, exactly, if he didn't ask you after considering you might have stolen goods?
Did you talk about the weather?
No, the weather is always perfect here.
And you sound drunk.
-
No, the weather is always perfect here.
And you sound drunk.
Is there sound on this forum, or is your mind playing tricks on you again?
What did you "correct" the cop on, exactly, if he didn't ask you after considering you might have stolen goods?
-
Is there sound on this forum, or is your mind playing tricks on you again?
What did you "correct" the cop on, exactly, if he didn't ask you after considering you might have stolen goods?
I told him to never talk to strangers..
-
Question!-------------------
How can you tell Mr Weidmann has yet again let himself be baited by zero-insight zero-information zero-contribution Mr Chapman?
Answer!------------------
When the discussion has gone 100% off topic
::)
-
Yes, you do have masochistic tendencies; coming back here as you do for a daily whuppin'..
You're seriously deluded if you think your nonsensical ramblings are "whuppin'" anybody.
-
Question!-------------------
How can you tell Mr Weidmann has yet again let himself be baited by zero-insight zero-information zero-contribution Mr Chapman?
Answer!------------------
When the discussion has gone 100% off topic
::)
So you still don't know if Fritz showed Oswald a Mauser?
After 58 wash-rinse-repeat years?
What, too soon?
-
You're seriously deluded if you think your nonsensical ramblings are "whuppin'" anybody.
'If' is a big word