JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: David Von Pein on June 12, 2022, 08:28:31 AM
-
For many years now, a claim made by JFK assassination conspiracy theorists has been that the initials of FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd were not present on Warren Commission Exhibit 399.
Conspiracists such as James DiEugenio (among others) have made this claim even though the FBI agent in question (Elmer Todd) wrote up a report on 11/22/63 specifically saying that he had, indeed, etched his initials into the nose of the bullet.
Here's a conversation I had with DiEugenio in 2010 concerning the topic of CE399 and Todd's initials:
JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "[John] Hunt then brought magnifying glasses and a computer scanner to visually inspect the documents, the bullet, and the photos at very close range and under magnification. Does anyone truly believe that he could not locate Todd's initials under those circumstances?"
DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yes, I do. ALL of the markings that John Hunt found on Bullet CE399 from the NARA photos are very faint and quite difficult to see and discern. I can easily envision Todd's faint mark on that bullet being overlooked."
--------------------
Well, as it turns out, I was correct when I said to DiEugenio that Elmer Todd's initials are on Bullet CE399. And this fact was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever in 2022 by JFK assassination researcher Steve Roe, whose article concerning this matter, entitled "The Unfounded Attack on CE 399’s Chain of Custody", was published online at the Washington Decoded website on June 11, 2022. The article can be found HERE (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html).
That article by Steve Roe contains new high-definition photographs of CE399, including the picture below, which clearly shows that the initials "ET" (Elmer Todd) have been scratched into the surface of the bullet near the nose, which is precisely where Elmer Todd himself said in Commission Document No. 7 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=295) he had etched his initials:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5jc6oZB2P4oD0LSuJg8Py7t1vNT42ev-V4d6v_bY4dMxMeUPonsKwaD1ZcZ_GJkpz-s_WUvTrYDS6qzZC1XpKSkbwvzbSfl66_b-F6obPlaESJLHOJ2RojZCAoqANfS0XfcR5z6EebXXRl2als-lqaBUO1Yevfi0qnI3Q4HULKYJKLzS--h_AGg6/s1000/CE399-With-Initials-Of-FBI-Agent-Elmer-Todd-Clearly-Visible.jpg)
So, with Mr. Roe's definitive discovery of Elmer Lee Todd's initials on that crucial and long-maligned piece of assassination-related evidence known as Commission Exhibit 399, it should forever put to rest yet another long-standing (and inaccurate) argument that has been made by conspiracy theorists—the argument that Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.
Because as everyone can easily see via the above high-quality photograph, Mr. Todd's markings are most certainly present and accounted for on that bullet.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html
-
CTers caught lying again.
-
For many years now, a claim made by JFK assassination conspiracy theorists has been that the initials of FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd were not present on Warren Commission Exhibit 399.
Conspiracists such as James DiEugenio (among others) have made this claim even though the FBI agent in question (Elmer Todd) wrote up a report on 11/22/63 specifically saying that he had, indeed, etched his initials into the nose of the bullet.
Here's a conversation I had with DiEugenio in 2010 concerning the topic of CE399 and Todd's initials:
JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "[John] Hunt then brought magnifying glasses and a computer scanner to visually inspect the documents, the bullet, and the photos at very close range and under magnification. Does anyone truly believe that he could not locate Todd's initials under those circumstances?"
DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yes, I do. ALL of the markings that John Hunt found on Bullet CE399 from the NARA photos are very faint and quite difficult to see and discern. I can easily envision Todd's faint mark on that bullet being overlooked."
--------------------
Well, as it turns out, I was correct when I said to DiEugenio that Elmer Todd's initials are on Bullet CE399. And this fact was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever in 2022 by JFK assassination researcher Steve Roe, whose article concerning this matter, entitled "The Unfounded Attack on CE 399’s Chain of Custody", was published online at the Washington Decoded website on June 11, 2022. The article can be found HERE (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html).
That article by Steve Roe contains new high-definition photographs of CE399, including the picture below, which clearly shows that the initials "ET" (Elmer Todd) have been scratched into the surface of the bullet near the nose, which is precisely where Elmer Todd himself said in Commission Document No. 7 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=295) he had etched his initials:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5jc6oZB2P4oD0LSuJg8Py7t1vNT42ev-V4d6v_bY4dMxMeUPonsKwaD1ZcZ_GJkpz-s_WUvTrYDS6qzZC1XpKSkbwvzbSfl66_b-F6obPlaESJLHOJ2RojZCAoqANfS0XfcR5z6EebXXRl2als-lqaBUO1Yevfi0qnI3Q4HULKYJKLzS--h_AGg6/s1000/CE399-With-Initials-Of-FBI-Agent-Elmer-Todd-Clearly-Visible.jpg)
So, with Mr. Roe's definitive discovery of Elmer Lee Todd's initials on that crucial and long-maligned piece of assassination-related evidence known as Commission Exhibit 399, it should forever put to rest yet another long-standing (and inaccurate) argument that has been made by conspiracy theorists—the argument that Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.
Because as everyone can easily see via the above high-quality photograph, Mr. Todd's markings are most certainly present and accounted for on that bullet.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html
Todd's initials being on CE399 doesn't make a damned bit of difference for the lack of a solid chain of custody. You can not find a bullet in Dallas and have the chain of custody start several hours later in Washington. There is enough reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the bullet now in evidence as CE399. Todd's initials on CE399 does not engate that.
-
This completely discredits "jfk revisited" as a documentary.
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
-
For many years now, a claim made by JFK assassination conspiracy theorists has been that the initials of FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd were not present on Warren Commission Exhibit 399.
Conspiracists such as James DiEugenio (among others) have made this claim even though the FBI agent in question (Elmer Todd) wrote up a report on 11/22/63 specifically saying that he had, indeed, etched his initials into the nose of the bullet.
Here's a conversation I had with DiEugenio in 2010 concerning the topic of CE399 and Todd's initials:
JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "[John] Hunt then brought magnifying glasses and a computer scanner to visually inspect the documents, the bullet, and the photos at very close range and under magnification. Does anyone truly believe that he could not locate Todd's initials under those circumstances?"
DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yes, I do. ALL of the markings that John Hunt found on Bullet CE399 from the NARA photos are very faint and quite difficult to see and discern. I can easily envision Todd's faint mark on that bullet being overlooked."
--------------------
Well, as it turns out, I was correct when I said to DiEugenio that Elmer Todd's initials are on Bullet CE399. And this fact was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever in 2022 by JFK assassination researcher Steve Roe, whose article concerning this matter, entitled "The Unfounded Attack on CE 399’s Chain of Custody", was published online at the Washington Decoded website on June 11, 2022. The article can be found HERE (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html).
That article by Steve Roe contains new high-definition photographs of CE399, including the picture below, which clearly shows that the initials "ET" (Elmer Todd) have been scratched into the surface of the bullet near the nose, which is precisely where Elmer Todd himself said in Commission Document No. 7 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=295) he had etched his initials:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5jc6oZB2P4oD0LSuJg8Py7t1vNT42ev-V4d6v_bY4dMxMeUPonsKwaD1ZcZ_GJkpz-s_WUvTrYDS6qzZC1XpKSkbwvzbSfl66_b-F6obPlaESJLHOJ2RojZCAoqANfS0XfcR5z6EebXXRl2als-lqaBUO1Yevfi0qnI3Q4HULKYJKLzS--h_AGg6/s1000/CE399-With-Initials-Of-FBI-Agent-Elmer-Todd-Clearly-Visible.jpg)
So, with Mr. Roe's definitive discovery of Elmer Lee Todd's initials on that crucial and long-maligned piece of assassination-related evidence known as Commission Exhibit 399, it should forever put to rest yet another long-standing (and inaccurate) argument that has been made by conspiracy theorists—the argument that Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.
Because as everyone can easily see via the above high-quality photograph, Mr. Todd's markings are most certainly present and accounted for on that bullet.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html
So what, Dave? There are plenty of bullet fragments in this case when they hit the skull, shattering throughout the car. Yet, this alleged bullet is supposed to have gone through Kennedy and into Connally, hitting one of the hardest bones in the body, yet comes out remarkably in good shape.
A cop's initials mean absolutely nothing. Put another way, anyone could have said, "Here's a bullet that was found on a stretcher..." handed it to the cop, who put his marks on it. It does NOT mean it was part of the JFK murder.
What's amazing is people like you and others have absolutely no ability to apply even a little bit of critical thinking when it comes to stuff like this in this case. Do you not find it the least bit interesting - to say the least - that a bullet hit the radius bones and looks like it does when they did plenty of testing with cadavers and it shows far worst damage?
-
So what, Dave? .... A cop's initials mean absolutely nothing.
And let the CTer Denials begin!
Do you not find it the least bit interesting - to say the least - that a bullet hit the radius bones and looks like it does when they did plenty of testing with cadavers and it shows far worst damage?
And in those cadaver tests, did the test bullet(s) mimic the SBT by going through a simulated JFK back/neck first?
Answer: No.
Which is something Dr. Cyril Wecht has apparently never learned in all these years either, otherwise he would finally stop propping up this bullet chart (esp. CE856, which OF COURSE ended up way more damaged than CE399 because it hit a wrist bone at FULL MUZZLE VELOCITY and didn't first go through a JFK mock-up OR a Connally torso mock-up):
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UYUGbeJxMSQ/VgH_bjRCv_I/AAAAAAABHe0/goCrrYneEyo/s530/HSCA-Exhibit-F294.jpg)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1035.html
-
So what, Dave? There are plenty of bullet fragments in this case when they hit the skull, shattering throughout the car. Yet, this alleged bullet is supposed to have gone through Kennedy and into Connally, hitting one of the hardest bones in the body, yet comes out remarkably in good shape.
A cop's initials mean absolutely nothing. Put another way, anyone could have said, "Here's a bullet that was found on a stretcher..." handed it to the cop, who put his marks on it. It does NOT mean it was part of the JFK murder.
What's amazing is people like you and others have absolutely no ability to apply even a little bit of critical thinking when it comes to stuff like this in this case. Do you not find it the least bit interesting - to say the least - that a bullet hit the radius bones and looks like it does when they did plenty of testing with cadavers and it shows far worst damage?
Put another way, anyone could have said, "Here's a bullet that was found on a stretcher..." handed it to the cop, who put his marks on it. It does NOT mean it was part of the JFK murder.
That's exactly what happened! And it wasn't only with CE399.
Frazier was given bullet fragments and told they were found in the limo.
DPD officer Hill had several officers initial a revolver he said he was told came from Oswald
Several DPD officers initialed the gray jacket that they were told had been found under a parked car. None of the officers actually handled or saw the jacket in situ.
-
So what, Dave? There are plenty of bullet fragments in this case when they hit the skull, shattering throughout the car. Yet, this alleged bullet is supposed to have gone through Kennedy and into Connally, hitting one of the hardest bones in the body, yet comes out remarkably in good shape.
I always love it when I see another speak authoritatively on a subject that they (obviously) know nothing about.
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.
The bullet, now traveling at around 1300 to 1400 feet per second, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib.
The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half(?) of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius.
Basically, the bullet was traveling fast enough to cause damage to bones, but not fast enough to be damaged by impact with the bones. Every traveling bullet has a threshold where it is moving fast enough to destroy but not fast enough to be destroyed. Because it first passed through Kennedy, this bullet was within that threshold when it struck Connally's rib.
The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh.
The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back.
(The various velocities I mention above are only my estimates but they should get the point across)
-
I always love it when I see another speak authoritatively on a subject that they (obviously) know nothing about.
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.
The bullet, now traveling at around 1300 to 1400 feet per second, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib.
The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half(?) of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius.
Basically, the bullet was traveling fast enough to cause damage to bones, but not fast enough to be damaged by impact with the bones. Every traveling bullet has a threshold where it is moving fast enough to destroy but not fast enough to be destroyed. Because it first passed through Kennedy, this bullet was within that threshold when it struck Connally's rib.
The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh.
The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back.
(The various velocities I mention above are only my estimates but they should get the point across)
I always love it when I see another speak authoritatively on a subject that they (obviously) know nothing about.
You would know all about that, right?
-
Someone hands Todd a slug and says.. "here- put your initials on this" and Todd does it.
So what?
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second....
blah blah
All those trajectories and calculations are derived from where exactly?
Please quote references...If you will.
-
Someone hands Todd a slug and says.. "here- put your initials on this" and Todd does it.
So what? blah blah
All those trajectories and calculations are derived from where exactly?
Please quote references...If you will.
Start with Larry Sturdivan and his findings, related to the HSCA.
-
Start with Larry Sturdivan and his findings, related to the HSCA.
Where exactly did Sturdivan say the bullet now in evidence as CE399 (WC) left the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second?
In his HSCA testimony, I can see him talking about similarities and differences between test bullets he fired and CE399 but I couldn't find him saying anything about CE399 leaving the muzzle of the Carcano.
You wouldn't have just made that up, like you did with Butler's second "602" call?
-
Nobody knows how fast any of the bullets that struck Kennedy or Connally were traveling.
-
At The Education Forum (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27827-new-photographic-proof-todds-initials-on-399/?do=findComment&comment=461776) today, when talking about Elmer Todd's initials being located on CE399, Vince Palamara said:
"That "E" and "T" look mighty big (and awkward) to have been missed by ANYONE all these years. A clumsy, awkward late addition?"
I think Vince needs to take into consideration the fact that the photograph that contains the "ET" marking on CE399 is a picture of the bullet that has been zoomed-in and enlarged considerably in order to highlight the "ET" area being focused on.
In order to put the actual size of the bullet into better perspective, here's a montage photo I created that shows on the left side a human hand holding Commission Exhibit 399 and on the right is the new hi-def photo of the nose end of the bullet with Elmer Todd's initials:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipkB8ugLYRTa3-VD_1Fr_TWBqCp2iHTs-v_6hoT7ckypzfZb8YXdHL28q2BWO9SiTW6_oftx7JH8Z-pyFTDh1F1rMCDE6TUQXTzYKIa-S0T2SyOk0i0y6__qCixAHzN0Z3XziAH7QNu_LL5umOLzxF32rDPq_9QViq7r6YU27Jm5P_qhgRQdHF8N1l/s770/CE399.jpg)
I think it's clear when looking at the "bullet in the hand" photo on the left that those "ET" initials occupy a very very small amount of space at the nose end of that bullet.
The full length of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet like CE399 is only about 1.2 inches (per the Warren Commission testimony of FBI firearms examiner Robert A. Frazier). So the actual size of Elmer Todd's "ET" mark on the bullet must surely be measured in mere millimeters.
So perspective plays a huge role in explaining why Todd's markings look so large to Vincent Palamara.
-
What instrument would they use to carve their initials? A key?
-
What instrument would they use to carve their initials? A key?
I've wondered about that myself.
And after having put those two photos above side by side, I'm curious as to how difficult it actually is to gouge a couple of teeny-tiny little initials into an area of a bullet that's probably only a few millimeters in size. I would think it would be very difficult to do. Perhaps the FBI has some special tool with which they accomplish such engraving of evidence. ~shrug~
-
What instrument would they use to carve their initials? A key?
I read one comment from one of the DPD officers (if I remember correctly) when asked that question, he said a diamond point pen.
-
I read one comment from one of the DPD officers (if I remember correctly) when asked that question, he said a diamond point pen.
Barnes and Day.
-
And let the CTer Denials begin!
And in those cadaver tests, did the test bullet(s) mimic the SBT by going through a simulated JFK back/neck first?
Answer: No.
Which is something Dr. Cyril Wecht has apparently never learned in all these years either, otherwise he would finally stop propping up this bullet chart (esp. CE856, which OF COURSE ended up way more damaged than CE399 because it hit a wrist bone at FULL MUZZLE VELOCITY and didn't first go through a JFK mock-up OR a Connally torso mock-up):
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UYUGbeJxMSQ/VgH_bjRCv_I/AAAAAAABHe0/goCrrYneEyo/s530/HSCA-Exhibit-F294.jpg)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1035.html
Yes, I've seen that image too, Dave. But I'll go further and post Speer's page about the injuries including the wrist:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory
I doubt it will make any difference to you though.
-
Another gem. Kinda like when Stone's JFK was released they mysteriously were able to find the 'three tramps' bogus arrest sheets.That's not to say there wasn't any tramps arrested on the day
I do love it though when something so ridiculous like this happens. I always hear Don King saying ''Only in America!''
I said the same when Jeffery Epstein was found dead in his cell. ''Only in America!''.There is no more reality left for us to enjoy.
-
During the last several years, Jim DiEugenio has many times made a big deal out of Elmer Todd's initials in my discussions with him. When a search is performed at my JFK Archives website for "Elmer Todd" and "James DiEugenio" and "CE399", several separate discussions pop up:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Elmer+Todd;+James+DiEugenio;+CE399&updated-max=2015-07-10T02:16:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=10&by-date=false
Sample argument from October 3, 2012:
ROBERT HARRIS -- "Those initials [of FBI agent Elmer Todd] are not on CE399."
DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yes, they are. You just can't see them in the NARA photos (https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-CE399)."
JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "This has now gone beyond absurdity. Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages: Prove John Hunt is a liar."
DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399. Get real. Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19537-the-secret-service-and-ce399). And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399. Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=330106) and CE2011 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm)). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself. Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period."
Now back to 2022:
Mr. DiEugenio now has no choice but to drop the "Todd's Initials Aren't On The Bullet" argument. Or maybe he'll say the initials were faked and added by somebody other than Todd. Ya think?
-
During the last several years, Jim DiEugenio has many times made a big deal out of Elmer Todd's initials in my discussions with him. When a search is performed at my JFK Archives website for "Elmer Todd" and "James DiEugenio" and "CE399", several separate discussions pop up:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Elmer+Todd;+James+DiEugenio;+CE399&updated-max=2015-07-10T02:16:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=10&by-date=false
Sample argument from October 3, 2012:
DAVID VON PEIN -- "[The initials of FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd are on Bullet CE399 in the National Archives.] You just can't see them in the NARA photos."
JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "This has now gone beyond absurdity. Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages: Prove John Hunt is a liar."
DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399. Get real. Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19537-the-secret-service-and-ce399). And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399. Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=330106) and CE2011 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm)). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself. Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period."
Now back to 2022:
Mr. DiEugenio now has no choice but to drop the "Todd's Initials Aren't On The Bullet" argument. Or maybe he'll say the initials were faked and added by somebody other than Todd. Ya think?
Why are you posting about your interactions with Jim DiEugenio when he's not a member here?
You seem desperate for attention.
-
Why are you posting about your interactions with Jim DiEugenio when he's not a member here?
Why not?
Plus:
Any time a chance exists to make a longtime conspiracy clown look even more like a clown---why should such an opportunity go to waste? ;D
-
Any time a chance exists to make a longtime conspiracy clown look even more like a clown---why should such an opportunity go to waste? ;D
Yeah, I thought it was something sick like that. Posting stuff about somebody who isn't a member and thus won't reply.
Weak, pathethic, underhand and exactly what I would expect from a LN weasel.
You've told us just about everything we need to know about you and it isn't pretty.
It's one thing to simply disagree about the facts of this case. That would be civil. This, on the other hand, isn't. Anything but!
-
Yeah, I thought it was something sick like that. Posting stuff about somebody who isn't a member and thus won't reply.
Weak, pathethic, underhand[ed] and exactly what I would expect from a LN weasel.
You've told us just about everything we need to know about you and it isn't pretty.
It's one thing to simply disagree about the facts of this case. That would be civil. This, on the other hand, isn't. Anything but!
^^^^ From the desk of Saint Martin. ^^^^
-
^^^^ From the desk of Saint Martin. ^^^^
Said the clown who is posting this crap.
Pretty obvious who is the Saint and who is the low life.
Which makes me wonder why this is so important to you. All this went down nearly sixty years ago and nowadays only a small minority is even interested. The rest are so ignorant that all they know (if they know anything at all) that Kennedy was killed by some guy shooting from a building. So, what in the world motivates you to conduct a bogus propaganda campaign against a guy who died nearly sixty years ago and who may or may not have killed Kennedy?
Get a life, will ya..
-
Which makes me wonder why this is so important to you. All this went down nearly sixty years ago and nowadays only a small minority is even interested. The rest are so ignorant that all they know (if they know anything at all) that Kennedy was killed by some guy shooting from a building. So, what in the world motivates you to conduct a bogus propaganda campaign against a guy who died nearly sixty years ago and who may or may not have killed Kennedy?
Get a life, will ya..
^^^^ From the desk of a man who just made his 5400th post relating to the JFK assassination at just this one forum alone!
And that's just his total since January 6, 2018. Prior to the forum's re-boot following the 2018 hacker attack, who knows how
many more thousands of posts Saint Martin racked up.
I have made one-fourteenth the number of posts at this forum when compared to Saint Martin's tally, and yet (per the saint named
Martin) it is I who needs to "Get a life".
Beautiful.
-
Why this is so important to you[?] All this went down nearly sixty years ago and nowadays only a small minority is even interested.
[...]
So, what in the world motivates you to conduct a bogus propaganda campaign against a guy who died nearly sixty years ago and who may or may not have killed Kennedy?
The silly part about my conducting "a bogus propaganda campaign" is, of course, complete and utter nonsense, but as for my motivation....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/07/dvp-interview-about-television-and-jfk.html
-
^^^^ From the desk of a man who just made his 5400th post relating to the JFK assassination at just this one forum alone!
And that's just his total since January 6, 2018. Prior to the forum's re-boot following the 2018 hacker attack, who knows how
many more thousands of posts Saint Martin racked up.
I have made one-fourteenth the number of posts at this forum when compared to Saint Martin's tally, and yet (per the saint named
Martin) it is I who needs to "Get a life".
Beautiful.
Oh, you poor little baby...
My number of posts (about three a day on the only forum I'm active on) pale by comparision to the numbers of years you have invested in running your own little website scam and all the posts you have written to polute the internet.
I'm only active on this forum and only in a couple of conversations. On how many internet outlets have you been active for decades?
What a pathetic loser you truly are, trying to attack the messenger. But then, how typical LN of you.
Next you're going to argue that you've got a life because you are not posting on the Education Forum. Never mind that the banned you, when I never even bothered to join.
Just keep showing us your true nature.....
-
The part about my conducting "a bogus propaganda campaign" is, of course, complete and utter nonsense, but as for my motivation....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/07/dvp-interview-about-television-and-jfk.html
Sorry, not interested in your bogus propaganda. Nobody appointed you to be the official messenger of the most bogus narrative that was ever presented to the public. The world can do without your biased opinions. You are no authority on the Kennedy murder. You just collect some videos and have an opinion. That's it.
It's funny though that you apparently seem to want to explain what your motivation is for not conducting the propaganda campaign you clearly are conducting. What a joke.
-
I'm only active on this forum and only in a couple of conversations.
Says the man with 5,402 posts in just 4.5 years.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPojancLw8I/AAAAAAAAHoc/S5NkhhAYSFk/s1600/LOL.gif) (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPojancLw8I/AAAAAAAAHoc/S5NkhhAYSFk/s1600/LOL.gif) (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPojancLw8I/AAAAAAAAHoc/S5NkhhAYSFk/s1600/LOL.gif)
-
Says the man with 5,402 posts in just 4.5 years.
Do the math, fool. That's an average of 3 per day.
But it seems this is all you've got..... kinda sad, really
I'm sure my 3 posts per day take a hell of of lot more time than you spend on your blogs, youtube accounts and all the sites you are a member of. right?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
The world can do without your biased opinions.
But we certainly could never do without yours, right? (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
You are no authority on the Kennedy murder.
And I have never once ever said I was. Ever.
It's funny though that you apparently seem to want to explain what your motivation is for not conducting the propaganda campaign you clearly are conducting. What a joke.
I just follow the actual evidence in the case, Martin. That's all. (You know, that's the stuff that most conspiracists have chosen to mangle, skew, or just plain ignore.)
And just because I choose to believe that the evidence in the case has not all been faked and/or manufactured (and therefore my belief is that Lee Oswald was not "just a patsy"), I am accused of "conducting a bogus propaganda campaign".
Beautiful.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
You just collect some videos and have an opinion.
And my OPINION is to be considered a "bogus propaganda campaign", but your OPINION, however, is not to be considered "propaganda" in the slightest way. Is that it, St. Martin?
Beautiful.
PROPAGANDA (noun) --- Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Reprise ----> (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
----------------------------------------------
Bonus Breath Of Fresh Air....
"It is remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
-
I just follow the actual evidence in the case, Martin. That's all.
Given that 19 or your 21 items of “Oswald killed JFK evidence” are not evidence at all, that is patently absurd.
And just because I choose to believe that the evidence in the case has not all been faked and/or manufactured (and therefore my belief is that Lee Oswald was not "just a patsy"), I am accused of "conducting a bogus propaganda campaign".
Who said it was? There’s no need to fake a ring in a cup because it’s not evidence to begin with.
PROPAGANDA (noun) --- Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Yep, that describes what you write perfectly.
-
But we certainly could never do without yours, right? (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
And I have never once ever said I was. Ever.
I just follow the actual evidence in the case, Martin. That's all. (You know, that's the stuff that most conspiracists have chosen to mangle, skew, or just plain ignore.)
And just because I choose to believe that the evidence in the case has not all been faked and/or manufactured (and therefore my belief is that Lee Oswald was not "just a patsy"), I am accused of "conducting a bogus propaganda campaign".
Beautiful.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
And my OPINION is to be considered a "bogus propaganda campaign", but your OPINION, however, is not to be considered "propaganda" in the slightest way. Is that it, St. Martin?
Beautiful.
PROPAGANDA (noun) --- Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Reprise ----> (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
----------------------------------------------
Bonus Breath Of Fresh Air....
"It is remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
But we certainly could never do without yours, right?
Sure you can.
I just follow the actual evidence in the case, Martin. That's all.
No. You selectively follow the evidence and deliberately ignore all the problems with that evidence.
And just because I choose to believe that the evidence in the case has not all been faked and/or manufactured (and therefore my belief is that Lee Oswald was not "just a patsy"), I am accused of "conducting a bogus propaganda campaign".
And my OPINION is to be considered a "bogus propaganda campaign", but your OPINION, however, is not to be considered "propaganda" in the slightest way. Is that it, St. Martin?
You can believe whatever you want. The difference between your opinion and mine is that I am in no way trying to convince anybody of anything, where you have blogs (where you misrepresent and manipulate other people's postings on forums like this) and You Tube channels to desperately try to convince as many people as you can that there was no conspiracy. That's why you run a bogus propaganda campaign and I don't.
-
19 or your 21 items of “Oswald killed JFK evidence” are not evidence at all...
And how many of Vincent Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence would you say are "not evidence at all"? I'm just a little curious to know if any CTer thinks ANY of The VB 53 qualifies as "evidence" or not. Start with Vincent's first 20 items, which are listed HERE (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/gscypFcjzq4/m/9dUvxPeIR6AJ).
PROPAGANDA (noun) --- Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Yep, that describes what you write perfectly.
Look in the mirror, John. It describes what most conspiracy believers write---to a tee. (Particularly the "misleading" part.)
-
The list shows how straight up desperate whackjob Vince was and [each] of them can be dismissed in 5 seconds by anyone with basic knowledge of the case.
Yeah, I knew that's what all broken-record Internet CTers would say.
Thanks for not disappointing me, Otto. (I hope John does the same.)
You continue the rich CT tradition of Not Getting It.
Like #17: there is zero evidence of Oswald ever boarding a bus to whatever rooming house he allegedly lived at.
Embarrassing to even post that link.
I guess this item qualifies as "zero evidence", eh? (Undoubtedly planted, like everything else, right?)....
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nCe6HZ05SBs/TzLzpchaq1I/AAAAAAAAEeQ/aSmqu6kcujI/s627/Oswald-Bus-Transfer.gif)
And the tradition continues....
-
You can faintly see the "T" in one of the photos on the MFF site.
EDIT: Ah, Pat Speer has posted something similar in the Ed Forum. I'm too slow for this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFk2kRX5/399-5567-comp2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
EDIT2: I did think my graphic was clearer than Speer's, but judging by the embarrassed silence, I may have been wrong. Is this one better?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mZ1PZf6t/399-5567-comp3.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
It's amazing how this piece of evidence with initials just throws everything out the window by some in here. Ignoring the facts about how the WC holes of evidence and testimonies than this single piece of evidence.
-
And how many of Vincent Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence would you say are "not evidence at all"?
I wrote a post on that before the forum restart. As I recall, 8 of the 53 were actual evidence. Bugliosi goes down the rabbit-hole of ridiculousness even more than you do. His evidence of murder includes Oswald not being chatty with the cab driver and holding up his handcuffed hands to reporters. Of the 8, some implicated a weapon rather than a shooter, one was fingerprints on boxes which was not at all remarkable given that Oswald's job was literally removing books from boxes, and the remaining were all questionable or tainted in some way (unfair lineups, chains of custody, etc).
-
The list shows how straight up desperate whackjob Vince was and ech of them can be dismissed in 5 seconds by anyone with basic knowledge of the case.
Like #17: there is zero evidence of Oswald ever boarding a bus to whatever rooming house he allegedly lived at.
Embarrassing to even post that link.
And even if Oswald did board a bus, how is that evidence of murder?
It's evidence of murder when you don't have actual evidence of murder.
-
Well, as I understand the argument, it was the way he boarded the bus as opposed to his every day way of boarding the bus, of which no evidence is provided, that proves his guilt - - LOL
The key part of that "bus" item that CTers will apparently never grasp is that Oswald, on Nov. 22, decided he would walk several blocks east of his workplace to catch a bus, instead of just waiting for his Beckley Avenue bus at the bus stop which is located right on the corner of Elm & Houston. (And isn't it fairly reasonable to conclude that on days other than 11/22/63 [not counting Fridays when he went to Irving with Buell Frazier] Oswald very likely DID board his bus at the bus stop at Elm and Houston Streets? I'd say so.)
So several of the items on Vincent Bugliosi's 53-item list are things like that -- i.e., items which emphasize the Change In Behavior that Oswald exhibited on November 21st and 22nd, 1963. And, IMO, that type of circumstantial "evidence" should most definitely be included when constructing a list like the ones prepared by Vince Bugliosi and myself (http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com).
-
Is it fairly reasonable based on what? When he couldn't get a ride from Frazier?
The key part of that "bus" item that CTers will apparently never grasp is that Oswald, on Nov. 22, decided he would walk several blocks east of his workplace to catch a bus, instead of just waiting for his bus at the bus stop which is located right on the corner of Elm & Houston. (And isn't it fairly reasonable to conclude that on days other than 11/22/63 Oswald very likely DID board his bus at the bus stop at Elm and Houston Streets? I'd say so.)
So several of the items on Vincent Bugliosi's 53-item list are things like that -- i.e., the "Complete Change In Behavior" items that Oswald exhibited on November 21st and 22nd, 1963. And, IMO, that type of circumstantial "evidence" is most definitely appropriate to put on a list like the ones constructed by Vince Bugliosi (and myself (http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com)).
-
But we certainly could never do without yours, right?
Sure you can.
I just follow the actual evidence in the case, Martin. That's all.
No. You selectively follow the evidence and deliberately ignore all the problems with that evidence.
And just because I choose to believe that the evidence in the case has not all been faked and/or manufactured (and therefore my belief is that Lee Oswald was not "just a patsy"), I am accused of "conducting a bogus propaganda campaign".
And my OPINION is to be considered a "bogus propaganda campaign", but your OPINION, however, is not to be considered "propaganda" in the slightest way. Is that it, St. Martin?
You can believe whatever you want. The difference between your opinion and mine is that I am in no way trying to convince anybody of anything, where you have blogs (where you misrepresent and manipulate other people's postings on forums like this) and You Tube channels to desperately try to convince as many people as you can that there was no conspiracy. That's why you run a bogus propaganda campaign and I don't.
I strongly disagree with your "bogus propaganda" and "misrepresent and manipulate" and "deliberately ignore all the problems with that evidence" assessments. I do not believe I belong in those categories at all. But everybody is entitled to have their own opinions. And yours are duly noted.
-
How would the Marsalis bus take him to his rooming house?
It wouldn't. And, of course, that very fact is part of the "Oswald's Change In Behavior" point that Vince Bugliosi was making in that 17th item in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" book chapter:
"17. After exiting the front door of the Book Depository Building, if Oswald hadn't just murdered the president but still wanted to go home, he only had to turn left on the sidewalk in front of the building, cross Houston, and wait for the Beckley bus, which stopped at the northeast corner of Houston and Elm. This is the same bus that he took every weekday to and from work. .... But instead of waiting at the bus stop at Houston and Elm for his Beckley bus, Oswald walked past the bus stop and continued walking east on Elm, apparently wanting to get as far away as he could and looking for the very first Oak Cliff bus that came along, eventually boarding the Marsalis bus, which was proceeding westbound on Elm about seven blocks from the Book Depository Building. But the closest the Marsalis bus could possibly take him to where he lived was Marsalis and Fifth Street, requiring him, if he had stayed on the bus, to walk five blocks to the west and one block north to get to his home. Why would Oswald take a bus that he knew couldn't take him closer than a half mile from his home (when he knew the next bus, the Beckley bus, would take him to his front door) if he weren't in a frenzied flight from the scene of where he had done something terrible?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 959 of "Reclaiming History"
-
No, it's beyond stupid to expect Oswald to hang out on that street corner for the next hour, waiting to be recognised and picked up by the police.
Exactly.
And it's nice to see an Internet CTer actually admitting that Sweet Patsy Lee Harvey Oswald must have done at least something illegal on Nov. 22, otherwise why would he be the slightest bit concerned about being "picked up by the police"?
Thanks for that admission, Otto.
-
Exactly.
And it's nice to see an Internet CTer actually admitting that Sweet Patsy Lee Harvey Oswald must have done at least something illegal on Nov. 22, otherwise why would he be the slightest bit concerned about being "picked up by the police".
Thanks for that admission, Otto.
We don't know if he was concerned about being picked up by the police. Even if he wasn't concerned about that why would he hang around to wait for a bus that due to what was going on wouldn't probably come for some time.
But while we are on the subject of doing stupid things; why would a guy, who allegedly is on the run, not jump of the next bus out of town and instead take a taxi (being willing to give it up for a woman) and then, after a brief visit to his rooming house, talk walk down to a a dead go nowhere street in the middle of a suburban area? That's something no LN have even been able to provide a plausible or believable answer for. What in the world is a guy on the run doing there and why was he in such a hurry to get there?
-
Exactly, so boarding a Marsalis bus makes zero sense in the first place when a 95 cent cab ride would take him to the front door and beyond.
Your Bugliosi behavioral baloney sucks big time.
ROFL
Otto just doesn't get it.
Probably never will.
But at least Otto proved in a post at the bottom of page 5 that he doesn't believe in Oswald's complete innocence like many CTers do.
-
The key part of that "bus" item that CTers will apparently never grasp is that Oswald, on Nov. 22, decided he would walk several blocks east of his workplace to catch a bus, instead of just waiting for his Beckley Avenue bus at the bus stop which is located right on the corner of Elm & Houston. (And isn't it fairly reasonable to conclude that on days other than 11/22/63 [not counting Fridays when he went to Irving with Buell Frazier] Oswald very likely DID board his bus at the bus stop at Elm and Houston Streets? I'd say so.)
So several of the items on Vincent Bugliosi's 53-item list are things like that -- i.e., items which emphasize the Change In Behavior that Oswald exhibited on November 21st and 22nd, 1963. And, IMO, that type of circumstantial "evidence" should most definitely be included when constructing a list like the ones prepared by Vince Bugliosi and myself (http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com).
“Very likely”. LOL.
Anything in the form of “why did X do Y instead of Z?” is not evidence of anything.
And to argue a change in behavior, you need to actually demonstrate that there was a change in behavior, not simply declare that it is “very likely”.
-
Who are these CT'ers that believe Oswald is completely innocent?
But at least Otto proved in a post at the bottom of page 5 that he doesn't believe in Oswald's complete innocence like many CTers do.
[/quote]
-
Exactly, so boarding a Marsalis bus makes zero sense in the first place when a 95 cent cab ride would take him to the front door and beyond.
Your Bugliosi behavioral baloney sucks big time.
ROFL
One item that your statement fails to take into account is that LHO did take a cab and didn’t get out of it when it was right in front of the rooming house, as you apparently think that he should have. Instead, he chose to pay extra fare for the cab to keep going. I haven’t measured and compared the difference between the two distances (from the rooming house to the Marseilles bus stop, and from the rooming house to where he got out of the cab). But based on memory I would guess that the two distances are relatively close to each other. Why do you think that LHO was behaving in this very unusual manner?
-
One item that your statement fails to take into account is that LHO did take a cab and didn’t get out of it when it was right in front of the rooming house, as you apparently think that he should have. Instead, he chose to pay extra fare for the cab to keep going. I haven’t measured and compared the difference between the two distances (between the rooming house and the Marseilles bus stop, and the rooming house and where he got out of the cab). But based on memory I would guess that the two distances are relatively close to each other. Why do you think that LHO was behaving in this very unusual manner?
Why do you think that LHO was behaving in this very unusual manner?
What makes you think he was behaving in an unusual manner?
-
Why do you think that LHO was behaving in this very unusual manner?
What makes you think he was behaving in an unusual manner?
Already explained, sorry if you do not understand.
-
Who are these CT'ers that believe Oswald is completely innocent?
Well, as of 1988 at least, it would appear as though Jim Garrison was one such CTer. Here's what he said in '88:
"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination .... and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine .... is in some ways the greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; Spoken during an on-camera interview for the A&E Cable-TV mini-series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (Part 4; "The Patsy") (1988)
And there was also a CTer named J. Raymond Carroll (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-741.html), plus several other people I've talked to over the years online that have at least given me the impression that they believed Oswald was snow-white innocent on 11/22.
-
Says who? Besides the cab driver whose statements are in question who saw Oswald take the cab?
One item that your statement fails to take into account is that LHO did take a cab and didn’t get out of it when it was right in front of the rooming house, as you apparently think that he should have. Instead, he chose to pay extra fare for the cab to keep going. I haven’t measured and compared the difference between the two distances (from the rooming house to the Marseilles bus stop, and from the rooming house to where he got out of the cab). But based on memory I would guess that the two distances are relatively close to each other. Why do you think that LHO was behaving in this very unusual manner?
[/quote]
-
I was referring to people in here. My bad if not clear.
Well, as of 1988 at least, it would appear as though Jim Garrison was one such CTer. Here's what he said in '88:
"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination .... and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine .... is in some ways the greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; Spoken during an on-camera interview for the A&E Cable-TV mini-series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (Part 4; "The Patsy") (1988)
And there was also a CTer named J. Raymond Carroll (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-741.html), plus several other people I've talked to over the years online that have at least given me the impression that they believed Oswald was snow-white innocent on 11/22.
-
Says who? Besides the cab driver whose statements are in question who saw Oswald take the cab?
One item that your statement fails to take into account is that LHO did take a cab and didn’t get out of it when it was right in front of the rooming house, as you apparently think that he should have. Instead, he chose to pay extra fare for the cab to keep going. I haven’t measured and compared the difference between the two distances (from the rooming house to the Marseilles bus stop, and from the rooming house to where he got out of the cab). But based on memory I would guess that the two distances are relatively close to each other. Why do you think that LHO was behaving in this very unusual manner?
Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise and that you think outweighs the sworn testimony of the cab driver? If you do, please tell! I am certainly not opposed to learning about it if it exists.
-
We don't know if he was concerned about being picked up by the police. Even if he wasn't concerned about that why would he hang around to wait for a bus that due to what was going on wouldn't probably come for some time.
But while we are on the subject of doing stupid things; why would a guy, who allegedly is on the run, not jump [on] the next bus out of town and instead take a taxi (being willing to give it up for a woman) and then, after a brief visit to his rooming house, walk down to a dead go nowhere street in the middle of a suburban area? That's something no LN have even been able to provide a plausible or believable answer for. What in the world is a guy on the run doing there and why was he in such a hurry to get there?
Which begs an obvious question: Why was Oswald in such a hurry to leave the Depository in the first place on Nov. 22?
And why wasn't he the slightest bit interested in hanging around and seeing what all the commotion was all about?
He had literally a front-row seat for all the "action" surrounding the Book Depository immediately after the President was shot, and what does he want to do? He wants to get the heck out of the area as soon as humanly possible and go to a movie. Not logical at all---unless he's the assassin (or at the very least, he's guilty of being involved in some way in the murder that has just taken place on Elm Street).
Under those latter conditions of guilt, then Oswald's actions (fleeing the TSBD, going to his roominghouse to get his revolver, killing policeman J.D. Tippit, and then ducking into a dark movie theater without paying for the cheap ticket) all make perfect sense to me.
As for Lee Oswald's destination after leaving the TSBD --- We'll never know for certain of course, but some people have speculated that Oswald was on his way to General Walker's house to try and finish the job he failed to complete in April.
It could also be that Oswald didn't have any kind of an "escape plan" at all. Maybe he was just in a mad desperate flight after he made it out of the Depository alive, without any real focus or destination in mind at all. Perhaps he was surprised that he managed to get out of the building alive.
The inner workings of the mindset and thoughts of a Presidential assassin are, indeed, difficult to contemplate and discern. Especially when the authorities only had 48 hours to get any answers out of him.
-
You mean the testimony of the WC which many people indicated they didn't make statements or statements were changed? Again I ask the question outside of the cab driver did anyone see Oswald get in the cab? Hell for all we know the guy owed gambling debts and was told what to say. Years later the guy died in a questionable accident.
Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise and that you think outweighs the sworn testimony of the cab driver? If you do, please tell! I am certainly not opposed to learning about it if it exists.
-
Which begs an obvious question: Why was Oswald in such a hurry to leave the Depository in the first place on Nov. 22?
And why wasn't he the slightest bit interested in hanging around and seeing what all the commotion was all about?
Is this supposed to be evidence too? Why did Charles Givens not come back?
-
Already explained, sorry if you do not understand.
That was not an explanation.
What do you mean by unusual? Compared to his normal behavior or just compared to how you would do it?
-
You mean the testimony of the WC which many people indicated they didn't make statements or statements were changed? Again I ask the question outside of the cab driver did anyone see Oswald get in the cab? Hell for all we know the guy owed gambling debts and was told what to say. Years later the guy died in a questionable accident.
Again, if you have any evidence please provide it. Otherwise all of your innuendo just makes you look like a typical paranoid.
-
Is this supposed to be evidence too? Why did Charles Givens not come back?
He did. But he couldn't get back into the building.
Mr. GIVENS (WC Testimony) --- So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
-
Well, as of 1988 at least, it would appear as though Jim Garrison was one such CTer. Here's what he said in '88:
"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination .... and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine .... is in some ways the greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; Spoken during an on-camera interview for the A&E Cable-TV mini-series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (Part 4; "The Patsy") (1988)
And there was also a CTer named J. Raymond Carroll (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-741.html), plus several other people I've talked to over the years online that have at least given me the impression that they believed Oswald was snow-white innocent on 11/22.
Can you understand that Oswald could have been part of some scheme and still be innocent of the actual assassination?
The more I read and learn about Oswald, the more I start to consider the possibility that he was manipulated to do things that later could and were used against him.
-
Well if Oswald was looking for a phone to use it wasn't going to be in the TSBD or Dal-Tex building. 8)
Is this supposed to be evidence too? Why did Charles Givens not come back?
-
Says who? Besides the cab driver whose statements are in question who saw Oswald take the cab?
Not only that, but even if Oswald did take a cab, who says he intended to go directly to the rooming house when he got in the cab?
This is just another one of those “X seems to me like something a guilty person would do” arguments, which is rhetoric, not evidence.
-
Again, if you have any evidence please provide it. Otherwise all of your innuendo just makes you look like a typical paranoid.
Typical “My assumptions are automatically correct unless you prove me wrong” argument.
-
IMO he didn't take the cab. The WC would've lined up witnesses and instead he was manufactured to fit their narrative.
-
He did. But he couldn't get back into the building.
At which point he left.
Why wasn't he the slightest bit interested in hanging around and seeing what all the commotion was all about? He must have been guilty.
-
Typical “My assumptions are automatically correct unless you prove me wrong” argument.
What assumption are you blabbering about?
-
Which begs an obvious question: Why was Oswald in such a hurry to leave the Depository in the first place on Nov. 22?
And why wasn't he the slightest bit interested in hanging around and seeing what all the commotion was all about?
He had literally a front-row seat for all the "action" surrounding the Book Depository immediately after the President was shot, and what does he want to do? He wants to get the heck out of the area as soon as humanly possible and go to a movie. Not logical at all---unless he's the assassin (or at the very least, he's guilty of being involved in some way in the murder that has just taken place on Elm Street).
Under those latter conditions of guilt, then Oswald's actions (fleeing the TSBD, going to his roominghouse to get his revolver, killing policeman J.D. Tippit, and then ducking into a dark movie theater without paying for the cheap ticket) all make perfect sense to me.
As for Lee Oswald's destination after leaving the TSBD --- We'll never know for certain of course, but some people have speculated that Oswald was on his way to General Walker's house to try and finish the job he failed to complete in April.
It could also be that Oswald didn't have any kind of an "escape plan" at all. Maybe he was just in a mad desperate flight after he made it out of the Depository alive, without any real focus or destination in mind at all. Perhaps he was surprised that he managed to get out of the building alive.
The inner workings of the mindset and thoughts of a Presidential assassin are, indeed, difficult to contemplate and discern. Especially when the authorities only had 48 hours to get any answers out of him.
Which begs an obvious question: Why was Oswald in such a hurry to leave the Depository in the first place on Nov. 22?
Did he? I know the official narrative has him leaving within 3 minutes after the shooting, but did anybody actually see him leave?
And why wasn't he the slightest bit interested in hanging around and seeing what all the commotion was all about?
If that was the case, he most certainly wasn't the only one.
He had literally a front-row seat for all the "action" surrounding the Book Depository immediately after the President was shot, and what does he want to do? He wants to get the heck out of the area as soon as humanly possible and go to a movie. Not logical at all---unless he's the assassin (or at the very least, he's guilty of being involved in some way in the murder that has just taken place on Elm Street).
Utter BS. It has nothing to do with logic. Not everybody reacts the same way to events happening around them. You've got people who want to get as close as possible to see what is happening and others who just want no part of it. Besides, going to a movie isn't exactly what one would expect an assassin of the President to do? And neither is talking a walk to a go nowhere suburban street like 10th street. I noticed you completely ignored my question about that. Why was that?
Under those latter conditions of guilt, then Oswald's actions (fleeing the TSBD, going to his roominghouse to get his revolver, killing policeman J.D. Tippit, and then ducking into a dark movie theater without paying for the cheap ticket) all make perfect sense to me.
If that makes sense to you then you also be able to explain what he was doing at 10th street and why he was in a hurry to get there. Or do you believe he just went there to kill Tippit and draw more attention to himself, after having just killed the President. If that makes sense to you, then you really need to explain it to me because to me it makes no sense whatsoever. If he had continued to walk straight down Beckley he could have gotten on any bus he liked and get out of town. That would make sense to me, if he was really on the run.
As for Lee Oswald's destination after leaving the TSBD --- We'll never know for certain of course, but some people have speculated that Oswald was on his way to General Walker's house to try and finish the job he failed to complete in April.
Yeah right. I'm sure he had nothing better to do....
It could also be that Oswald didn't have any kind of an "escape plan" at all. Maybe he was just in a mad desperate flight after he made it out of the Depository alive, without any real focus or destination in mind at all. Perhaps he was surprised that he managed to get out of the building alive.
Sure... and he just decided to take a walk through Oak Cliff.
-
Your evidence is the WC which I've said I do not trust because they've changed witnesses testimonies. My "innuendo" and support sure in the hell isn't gonna rely on a cab driver who NO ONE ELSE SAW GET INTO THE CAB.
Again, if you have any evidence please provide it. Otherwise all of your innuendo just makes you look like a typical paranoid.
[/quote]
-
What assumption are you blabbering about?
That Oswald was Whaley’s passenger and that getting out on the 500 block was “unusual behavior”.
-
He did. But he couldn't get back into the building.
Mr. GIVENS (WC Testimony) --- So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
You may want to watch the Z-film just as the limo was driving towards the triple underpass. In the area where Tague was, there was a small flat bedded truck parked on Main street. Only a mere seconds after the assassination it was gone. Somebody wanted to get out of there quickly. In your book that must be highly suspicious, right?
-
Your evidence is the WC which I've said I do not trust because they've changed witnesses testimonies. My "innuendo" and support sure in the hell isn't gonna rely on a cab driver who NO ONE ELSE SAW GET INTO THE CAB.
Again, if you have any evidence please provide it. Otherwise all of your innuendo just makes you look like a typical paranoid.
Your general paranoia doesn’t qualify as reasonable doubt that the sworn testimony of the cab driver is not the truth.
-
That Oswald was Whaley’s passenger and that getting out on the 500 block was “unusual behavior”.
Neither one of those are in any way an assumption.
-
Neither one of those are in any way an assumption.
So now you show us what an assumption is?
-
Besides, going to a movie isn't exactly what one would expect an assassin of the President to do? And neither is taking a walk to a go nowhere suburban street like 10th street. I noticed you completely ignored my question about that. Why was that?
Well, Martin, suppose you tell me what you think Oswald was doing on that "go nowhere" street in Oak Cliff in the middle of the day on 11/22?
Even from the POV of Oswald being completely innocent of shooting JFK (but possibly part of some "plot"), does it make any sense to you that Oswald would be walking around a "go nowhere" street in Oak Cliff?
I mean, we KNOW Oswald WAS there on 10th Street on 11/22. So he must have had SOME reason for being there, right?
So let's hear YOUR interpretation of Oswald's movements.
-
Utter BS. It has nothing to do with logic. Not everybody reacts the same way to events happening around them. You've got people who want to get as close as possible to see what is happening and others who just want no part of it. Besides, going to a movie isn't exactly what one would expect an assassin of the President to do? And neither is talking a walk to a go nowhere suburban street like 10th street. I noticed you completely ignored my question about that. Why was that?
Well, Martin, suppose you tell me what you think Oswald was doing on that "go nowhere" street in Oak Cliff in the middle of the day on 11/22?
Even from the POV of Oswald being completely innocent of shooting JFK (but possibly part of some "plot"), does it make any sense to you that Oswald would be walking around a "go nowhere" street in Oak Cliff?
I mean, we KNOW Oswald WAS there on 10th Street on 11/22. So he must have had SOME reason for being there, right?
So let's hear YOUR interpretation of Oswald's movements.
Well, Martin, suppose you tell me what you think Oswald was doing on that "go nowhere" street in Oak Cliff in the middle of the day on 11/22?
I am not convinced he was even there.
Even from the POV of Oswald being completely innocent of shooting JFK (but possibly part of some "plot"), does it make any sense to you that Oswald would be walking around a "go nowhere" street in Oak Cliff?
No. I don't think he had any reason to be there at all.
I mean, we KNOW Oswald WAS there on 10th Street on 11/22. So he must have had SOME reason for being there, right?
We know he was there? Really?
-
I am not convinced he was even there.
So who shot J.D. Tippit?
Was it the Easter bunny (who looked just exactly like Lee Oswald)?
-
Your general paranoia doesn’t qualify as reasonable doubt that the sworn testimony of the cab driver is not the truth.
Like “sworn testimony” makes something a fact.
-
So who shot J.D. Tippit?
Was it the Easter bunny (who looked just exactly like Lee Oswald)?
I have no idea.
It is possible Oswald was indeed there and did it, but the evidence I have seen simply isn't conclusive enough to justify that conclusion.
-
I mean, we KNOW Oswald WAS there on 10th Street on 11/22.
LOL
-
So who shot J.D. Tippit?
Was it the Easter bunny (who looked just exactly like Lee Oswald)?
Where did you get the silly idea that Tippit’s killer “looked just exactly like Lee Oswald”?
-
So who shot J.D. Tippit?
Was it the Easter bunny (who looked just exactly like Lee Oswald)?
I have no idea. It is possible Oswald was indeed there and did it, but the evidence I have seen simply isn't conclusive enough to justify that conclusion.
You're joking, right? (You must be.)
-
You're joking, right? (You must be.)
He’s talking about real evidence, not your silly rhetoric.
-
Where did you get the silly idea that Tippit’s killer “looked just exactly like Lee Oswald”?
Well, as far as I can tell, Lee Harvey Oswald DID look just exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald.
-
You're joking, right? (You must be.)
No.
Let me ask you this; do you believe it is possible that Oswald was not on 10th street?
-
No.
Let me ask you this; do you believe it is possible that Oswald was not on 10th street?
No. Absolutely not possible.
The best possible combination of evidence that could possibly exist (lacking a confession from the killer) does, indeed, exist in the Tippit murder case --- i.e., (1) more than half-a-dozen witnesses who positively identified Oswald as either the killer of Tippit or as the man who was leaving the scene of the shooting holding a gun and (2) the culprit being caught with the murder weapon in his very own hands at the time of his arrest (which was just half-an-hour after Officer Tippit was gunned down).
You couldn't get a better "evidence combination" to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit.
CTers will argue that there's "no evidence" at all against Oswald for Tippit's slaying. And they'll argue that they think the cops tampered with the shells AND did a switch-a-roo with the revolver.
But where's the PROOF that ANY evidence WAS tampered with? Do the CTers have any such PROOF? Of course they don't.
-
That's hard to do when witnesses had Oswald in theatre when Tippit was shot. Amazing how the names of the people in the theatre just disappeared. Poof gone.
No. Absolutely not possible.
The best possible combination of evidence that could possibly exist (lacking a confession from the killer) does, indeed, exist in the Tippit murder case --- i.e., (1) more than half-a-dozen witnesses who positively identified Oswald as either the killer of Tippit or as the man who was leaving the scene of the shooting holding a gun and (2) the culprit being caught with the murder weapon in his very own hands at the time of his arrest (which was just half-an-hour after Officer Tippit was gunned down).
You couldn't get a better "evidence combination" to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit.
CTers will argue that there's "no evidence" at all against Oswald for Tippit's slaying. And they'll argue that they think the cops tampered with the shells AND did a switch-a-roo with the revolver.
But where's the PROOF that ANY evidence WAS tampered with? Do the CTers have any such PROOF? Of course they don't.
-
No. Absolutely not possible.
The best possible combination of evidence that could possibly exist (lacking a confession from the killer) does, indeed, exist in the Tippit murder case --- i.e., (1) more than half-a-dozen witnesses who positively identified Oswald as either the killer of Tippit or as the man who was leaving the scene of the shooting holding a gun and (2) the culprit being caught with the murder weapon in his very own hands at the time of his arrest (which was just half-an-hour after Officer Tippit was gunned down).
You couldn't get a better "evidence combination" to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit.
CTers will argue that there's "no evidence" at all against Oswald for Tippit's slaying. And they'll argue that they think the cops tampered with the shells AND did a switch-a-roo with the revolver.
But where's the PROOF that ANY evidence WAS tampered with? Do the CTers have any such PROOF? Of course they don't.
So you do believe that Helen Markham, who was supposed to get her regular bus to work at 1:15 (according to her testimony) took 9 minutes to walk one block and just happened to miss her bus that day?
And you do believe that Bowley needed around 20 minutes to drive from his daughter's school to 10th street, which normally doesn't take any more than around 13 minutes?
And you do believe that Ted Callaway didn't make his radio call until six minutes after the shots were fired and he only had less than one block to run to get to the scene?
And you must disbelieve Bowles, the chief of the DPD dispatchers, when he said that the time stamps called out by the dispatchers do not reflect real time and that the clocks they used did not match the master clock which in turn did not match the main clock in the town hall?
And btw, where did you get the idea that Oswald was "caught with the murder weapon in his very own hands at the time of his arrest"? Haven't you been paying attention at all?
-
So you do believe that Helen Markham, who was supposed to get her regular bus to work at 1:15 (according to her testimony) took 9 minutes to walk one block and just happened to miss her bus that day?
And you do believe that Bowley needed around 20 minutes to drive from his daughter's school to 10th street, which normally doesn't take any more than around 13 minutes?
And you do believe that Ted Callaway didn't make his radio call until six minutes after the shots were fired and he only had less than one block to run to get to the scene?
And you must disbelieve Bowles, the chief of the DPD dispatchers, when he said that the time stamps called out by the dispatchers do not reflect real time and that the clocks they used did not match the master clock which in turn did not match the main clock in the town hall?
And btw, where did you get the idea that Oswald was "caught with the murder weapon in his very own hands at the time of his arrest"? Haven't you been paying attention at all?
Why would you disregard all of the best evidence (positive witness I.D.s + ballistics proof) in favor of the much-less-reliable "timeline" type of evidence?
Makes no sense to do that. And yet, CTers are experts at doing just that.
-
I would hardly label Markham testimony as best evidence. Again you're ignoring the time frame of the Tippit murder including Oswald being in the theatre. Also witnesses at the Tippit scene indicated two men sooooooo who was with LHO? By the way ballistics were for an automatic 38 which Oswald did not have but a 38 revolver.
Why would you disregard all of the best evidence (positive witness I.D.s + ballistics proof) in favor of the much-less-reliable "timeline" type of evidence?
Makes no sense to do that. And yet, CTers are experts at doing just that.
-
Why would you disregard all of the best evidence (positive witness I.D.s + ballistics proof) in favor of the much-less-reliable "timeline" type of evidence?
Makes no sense to do that. And yet, CTers are experts at doing just that.
Because it's not the "best evidence". You just call it that. Upon closer inspection it completely falls apart.
Eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence you can have. When 5 people watch an accident you will get 5 different versions of what happened. Yet you want us to believe that all these witnesses saw exactly the same thing. Give me a break!
And as far as ballistic proof is concerned, only Nicol claimed he could match one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body to the revolver. All other experts disagreed. And that's not all. You can't even prove that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the revolver that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.
I don't care if it makes sense to you or not, but the events only happened in one way. And that means you will have to take all the evidence into consideration and not just what you like. Markham testified that she took her regular bus to work at 1.15 from a bus stop on Jefferson. So, if Tippit was really shot at 1.15, what in the world was Markham still doing on 10th street?
If you can't even provide a plausible explanation for a simple question like that (instead of just dismissing it as "much-less-reliable "timeline" type of evidence") you haven't got a conclusive case at all.
-
I would hardly label Markham testimony as best evidence.
It's not JUST Markham. Several other witnesses IDed LHO in the area with a gun. But you'll just ignore them, right?
Again you're ignoring the time frame of the Tippit murder including Oswald being in the theatre.
So you think Oswald was in the theater at about 1:00 PM, right? Which, if true, means he would have then left the theater about 35 minutes later in order to be seen standing in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store at about 1:35 PM. And then Oswald re-enters the theater after seemingly trying to avoid the police cars screaming past the Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson Boulevard (per Brewer's testimony).
How much sense does that scenario make---even if you're a CTer? Did the plotters screw up and have TWO different "Lee Oswalds" go to the theater at about the same time between 1 and 2 PM on Nov. 22? How dumb would that have been?
Also, witnesses at the Tippit scene indicated two men. Sooooooo, who was with LHO?
Nobody was with LHO:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html
-
WTF are you saying with the 35 minutes. Johnny Brewer himself is questionable for turning in Oswald. I ignore them because the Texas Theatre employee sold popcorn to Oswald around 1PM. SO hell yes I'm ignoring them because I'll take up close employee serving popcorn versus witnesses from a distance. I would also suggest you do more background on Brewer and another employee at the store who knew Ruby.
quote author=David Von Pein link=topic=3509.msg132029#msg132029 date=1655435334]
It's not JUST Markham. Several other witnesses IDed LHO in the area with a gun. But you'll just ignore them, right?
So you think Oswald was in the theater at about 1:00 PM, right? Which, if true, means he would have then left the theater about 35 minutes later in order to be seen standing in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store at about 1:35 PM. And then Oswald re-enters the theater after seemingly trying to avoid the police cars screaming past the Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson Boulevard (per Brewer's testimony).
How much sense does that scenario make---even if you're a CTer?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html
[/quote]
-
It's not JUST Markham. Several other witnesses IDed LHO in the area with a gun. But you'll just ignore them, right?
So you think Oswald was in the theater at about 1:00 PM, right? Which, if true, means he would have then left the theater about 35 minutes later in order to be seen standing in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store at about 1:35 PM. And then Oswald re-enters the theater after seemingly trying to avoid the police cars screaming past the Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson Boulevard (per Brewer's testimony).
How much sense does that scenario make---even if you're a CTer? Did the plotters screw up and have TWO different "Lee Oswalds" go to the theater at about the same time between 1 and 2 PM on Nov. 22? How dumb would that have been?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html
How much sense does that scenario make-
It doesn't because it's a strawman argument, not even worthy of discussion.
-
It's like he can't comprehend that Oswald WAS IN THE THEATRE. Does he even research beyond the WC report?
How much sense does that scenario make-
It doesn't because it's a strawman argument, not even worthy of discussion.
-
It's like he can't comprehend that Oswald WAS IN THE THEATRE. Does he even research beyond the WC report?
Oswald was in his room on Beckley at 1 PM. How could he be in the theater at the same time?
Or is Earlene Roberts supposed to be tossed under the bus too?
-
Oh I can play that game. What about the employee who served Oswald at the theatre? Go read Roberts testimony I would hardly call her credible.
-
Oh I can play that game. What about the employee who served Oswald at the theatre? Go read Roberts testimony I would hardly call her credible.
Even if you think Earlene Roberts wasn't as credible as that uber-observant Super Witness Butch Burroughs at the Texas Theater, would you mind telling me who you think it was who rushed into the roominghouse at 1026 Beckley at about 1:00 PM on 11/22, if it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald?!
Did some stranger come bursting into the Beckley residence and go immediately to Oswald's room?
Or do you think Roberts lied about ANYONE hurriedly entering the roominghouse that day?
-
I know based upon witnesses that I've read and find credible that Oswald was in the theatre. It's just too bad the patrons list in the theatre that day went missing. The WC is full of crap including Oswald's time having walked which has been proven over and over he couldn't have done. Yes I don't believe Roberts. For all we know that rooming house could've been a safe haven. The timeline for Oswald with Tippit to the theatre has never been convincing. I guess that leaves you going back to the WC report and finding out how they made Oswald fit the narrative.
Even if you think Earlene Roberts wasn't as credible as that uber-observant Super Witness Butch Burroughs at the Texas Theater, would you mind telling me who you think it was who rushed into the roominghouse at 1026 Beckley at about 1:00 PM on 11/22, if it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald?!
Did some stranger come bursting into the Beckley residence and go immediately to Oswald's room?
Or do you think Roberts lied about ANYONE hurriedly entering the roominghouse that day?
-
Paul,
Even Oswald HIMSELF admitted to going to his roominghouse and retrieving his pistol on 11/22.
Did he lie too?
Yes, I know Oswald was a Lying Machine, but why would he lie about something as innocuous as going to his roominghouse?
-
Did it occur to you that he was at the rooming house before 1PM? Oswald was picked up by the Nash Rambler 12:40-12:45PM. It's a short drive from TSBD to Beckley but hey it doesn't fit the narrative does it? The timeline with Oswald killing Tippit and then going to the theatre doesn't work for the WC and believe even Dulles said as much. You have more eye witnesses saying Oswald got into the Rambler than him getting in the cab.
-
Did it occur to you that he [Lee Oswald] was at the rooming house before 1PM?
It's very possible that Oswald did, indeed, arrive at his room prior to 1:00 PM (CST) on 11/22. But not by enough to allow him to also be at the theater at the time Burroughs said.
Oswald was picked up by the Nash Rambler 12:40-12:45PM.
Why is it you believe the LHO "Nash Rambler" sighting but just can't begin to believe the much more believable* "bus and cab" sightings?
* They're "much more believable" because of the paper bus transfer in LHO's pocket, plus Mary Bledsoe's account (she KNEW Oswald on sight, keep in mind), plus William Whaley's positive-I.D. testimony, plus Lee Oswald's very own admission that he DID take a bus and a cab on 11/22. (And there was absolutely no reason under the sun for even the chronic liar named Oswald to lie about his Nov. 22nd bus and cab rides.)
I'm always accused of being biased and selectively choosing the evidence that favors the Lone Assassin scenario, but there can be no doubt that CTers do the same thing all day long (as Paul Cummings just demonstrated above).
It's a short drive from TSBD to Beckley but hey it doesn't fit the narrative does it?
Since we all know (based on the sum total of evidence) that Oswald walked east on Elm for seven blocks before getting on Cecil McWatters' bus, of course the Rambler fantasy doesn't fit the Warren Commission's narrative (aka the proper narrative).
The timeline with Oswald killing Tippit and then going to the theatre doesn't work for the WC...
The Warren Commission timeline works just fine. In fact, it works perfectly.
Is it a tight WC timeline? Sure it is. But, hey, given what Oswald did and when he did it on November 22, it definitely should be an extremely tight timeline. Why wouldn't it be tight?
But to think, as many CTers do, that such a timeline can be fine-tuned right down to the exact minute is just not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO. All timelines associated with Lee Harvey Oswald's 11/22 movements are "approximate" times, just as the Warren Commission said in CE1119-A (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NcxH7In8DRU/Wgj7hu4h6rI/AAAAAAABNpM/yPZjNuNPCjswILXSIUf2eIqxTQFy7MPZwCLcBGAs/s9000-h/CE1119-A.JPG).
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kEXZbGK39dI/Wgj5jK4u30I/AAAAAAABNpA/DcnZGzkL7E0K3UgyKgaHudH4VrVltyUHACLcBGAs/s1210/Warren-Commission-Exhibit-1119A.png)
You have more eye witnesses saying Oswald got into the Rambler than him getting in the cab.
Well, that's not too surprising. Would you have expected Whaley's taxicab stand at the Greyhound bus station to be packed with onlookers on any given day?
Bonus "Timeline" Link....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html
-
The best possible combination of evidence that could possibly exist (lacking a confession from the killer) does, indeed, exist in the Tippit murder case
You might be impressed by sham lineups and a gun with no provenance, but that doesn’t justify certainty in any objective sense.
-
Why would you disregard all of the best evidence (positive witness I.D.s + ballistics proof) in favor of the much-less-reliable "timeline" type of evidence?
What “ballistics proof”? Fabricate much?
-
It's not JUST Markham. Several other witnesses IDed LHO in the area with a gun. But you'll just ignore them, right?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about evidence of murder, not evidence of carrying a gun down the street.
So you think Oswald was in the theater at about 1:00 PM, right? Which, if true, means he would have then left the theater about 35 minutes later in order to be seen standing in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store at about 1:35 PM. And then Oswald re-enters the theater after seemingly trying to avoid the police cars screaming past the Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson Boulevard (per Brewer's testimony).
So Burroughs and Jack Davis can be wrong but Brewer can’t? How do those cherries taste?
-
Even Oswald HIMSELF admitted to going to his roominghouse and retrieving his pistol on 11/22.
You don’t know what Oswald HIMSELF admitted.
-
Oswald was picked up by the Nash Rambler 12:40-12:45PM.
Hi Paul, on a regular work day Oswald was due back at work at 12:45 and up until 12:30 on the 22nd it was just another work day and if a murder didn't happen directly outside their workplace, the staff would have gone back to work at 12:45.
So when do you feel that this pickup/getaway car which had to negotiate road closures and crawling traffic, was organised?
JohnM
-
* They're "much more believable" because of the paper bus transfer in LHO's pocket,
You mean the transfer they didn’t “find” until hours after he was arrested and searched?
plus Mary Bledsoe's account (she KNEW Oswald on sight, keep in mind),
You mean the Mary Bledsoe whose evidence that she rented a room to Oswald was a calendar page that her son sold? The Mary Bledsoe who somehow saw a photo of Rachel before she was born?
plus William Whaley's positive-I.D. testimony
You mean the William Whaley who picked his passenger up at 12:30 and described him as wearing a blue khaki workman uniform and two jackets?
-
But to think, as many CTers do, that such a timeline can be fine-tuned right down to the exact minute is just not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO.
You mean like the way Dale Myers claims that Tippit was shot at exactly 1:14 and 30 seconds?
-
And how many of Vincent Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence would you say are "not evidence at all"? I'm just a little curious to know if any CTer thinks ANY of The VB 53 qualifies as "evidence" or not. Start with Vincent's first 20 items, which are listed HERE (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/gscypFcjzq4/m/9dUvxPeIR6AJ).
Thumb1:
"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... With Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi
JohnM
-
Sorry, I thought we were talking about evidence of murder, not evidence of carrying a gun down the street.
That unlucky Oswald, he flees the building from which many eyewitnesses said shots were fired from, and ends up walking down the street away from a just occurred murder while removing shells and carrying a gun?
IIRC the first Dallas Police shooting since 1961 just happens when Oswald was walking close by, while carrying his gun, geez what are the chances?
JohnM
-
CTers caught lying again.
It's really sad that the influential CT's are just so goddam dishonest and unfortunately the brainless army of CT's who blindly worship these "gods" just repeat and perpetuate the lies.
JohnM
-
Why don't you calculate them and let us know the numbers?
Why are you responding to my question with a question? LMFAO!
JohnM
-
It's really sad that the influential CT's are just so goddam dishonest and unfortunately the brainless army of CT's who blindly worship these "gods" just repeat and perpetuate the lies.
JohnM
Says the brainless and dishonest guy who blindly and without question accepts the BS the WC served up and who worships Bugliosli and his so-called 53 pieces of "evidence" :D
-
Because it's not the "best evidence". You just call it that. Upon closer inspection it completely falls apart.
Eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence you can have. When 5 people watch an accident you will get 5 different versions of what happened. Yet you want us to believe that all these witnesses saw exactly the same thing. Give me a break!
And as far as ballistic proof is concerned, only Nicol claimed he could match one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body to the revolver. All other experts disagreed. And that's not all. You can't even prove that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the revolver that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.
I don't care if it makes sense to you or not, but the events only happened in one way. And that means you will have to take all the evidence into consideration and not just what you like. Markham testified that she took her regular bus to work at 1.15 from a bus stop on Jefferson. So, if Tippit was really shot at 1.15, what in the world was Markham still doing on 10th street?
If you can't even provide a plausible explanation for a simple question like that (instead of just dismissing it as "much-less-reliable "timeline" type of evidence") you haven't got a conclusive case at all.
Still waiting for a plausible explanation by David von Pein for Markham still being on the corner of 10th and Patton at the exact moment that she said she got on her regular bus, on Jefferson, every day.
-
You mean like the way Dale Myers claims that Tippit was shot at exactly 1:14 and 30 seconds?
Indeed. The WC was clever enough not to give an exact time estimate, but since Myers did we can start placing the sequence of events in context.
Markham and Bowley were towards 10th/Patton each in there own way.
Markham was en route from her home on 9th street to the bus stop on Jefferson where she got on her regular bus to work every day. The distance she had to walk was two blocks which would have taken her no more than 5 minutes. She testified she left home at around 1.06/1.07, which would have gotten her to the bus stop at around 1.11/1.12, well in time for her bus. This means, of course, that she would have passed by the corner of 10th/Patton at around 1.09/1.10.
Bowley told us he had picked up his 12 year old daughter from R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at 12.55 and he was on his way to pick up his wife at her place of work (i.r.r.c. on 9th street). The drive from the school to 10th/Patton, along Marsalis Ave, is about 6.3 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did in his affidavit.
But even if we are kind to the LNs and accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1.14 or 1.15
The only way for Markham and Bowley to arrive at the same location, roughly a minute or two apart, is when both of their time lines as described above are correct.
If Tippit was really killed at 1.14/1.15 there needs to be a plausible explanation for Markham still being on that location at that time and for why Bowley took between 22 and 17 minutes to drive a distance of mere 6.3 miles.
Perhaps this is just too much logic for the LNs to deal with. Could that be?
-
Still waiting for a plausible explanation by David von Pein [sic] for Markham still being on the corner of 10th and Patton at the exact moment that she said she got on her regular bus, on Jefferson, every day.
Let's see what every CTer's favorite human on the Earth, the late Vince Bugliosi, said about the topic of Helen Markham's bus schedule....
--- Quote On: ---
"Although an FBI report (CD 630[h]) says that Helen Markham’s bus, per the Dallas Transit System, came by each day “at about 1:12 p.m.,” not 1:15 p.m., I tend to doubt the 1:12 time for two reasons. Number one, the FBI never nailed down which of two separate buses Markham could have taken at Jefferson and Patton, not asking her what corner at the intersection she got on her bus.
Apparently, only one of the buses was scheduled to come by at 1:12, and the FBI never even alluded to the existence of another bus that stopped at a different corner of the intersection and would also have taken Markham downtown by a more indirect route (Myers, 'With Malice', p.597 footnote 154; CD 1128, p.3). Much more importantly, Markham, when asked by Warren Commission counsel, “You know what time you usually get your bus, don’t you?” she answered “1:15” (3 H 306).
And in an earlier FBI interview she said the bus came by at 1:15 p.m. (CD 630[c], p.1). Why in the world would she say 1:15 if it was 1:12? We know that Markham was not a bright woman, but she was smart enough to hold down a job as a waitress, where one has to deal with numbers on a customer’s bill, and smart enough to get to work every day.
It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 44 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
So clearly, you agree that "Bud" has labeled Vincent Bugliosi a liar.
"Bud" is desperately arguing that the bus came at 1:26.
Either "Bud" or Bugliosi is lying...
Who is it, David?
Who's lying?
BUD SAID:
Perhaps he [Vince Bugliosi] wasn't aware of the bus schedule.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Where on any of these bus schedules (http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11524&relPageId=7) does it say "1:26", Bud? I can't seem to find that time shown anywhere.
BUD SAID:
It doesn't say, it indicates.
This post (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/DfAImX9BK7c/K3N9-KC3KGEJ) provides the support.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ten-Four. Thanks.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... one liar covering up for another.
Tell us David, why do you believe that "Bud" can label Bugliosi a liar and get away with it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no idea why you, Ben Holmes, think anyone has to label Bugliosi a "liar" in this "bus schedule" regard. It seems to me that Vince pretty much AGREES with Bud's analysis on this thing --- i.e., both Bud and Vince B. agree that Helen Markham must not have actually been trying to catch a "1:12" bus. Both Bud and Vince think she caught her usual bus LATER than 1:12.
Why are you so anxious to hang a "liar" label on Vincent Bugliosi at every turn in the road? He didn't "LIE" at all about this bus schedule thing. He was giving his OPINION about Markham's testimony and FBI statements. And those opinions make a lot of sense to me. Why doesn't this VB logic make sense to you, Ben?....
"It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're a GUTLESS liar...
If Bugliosi doesn't agree with Helen Markham on a THREE MINUTE DIFFERENCE, there's no possible way that he'd agree with a difference almost FOUR TIMES LARGER.
Tell us David - why would you pretend that Bugliosi would accept an Eleven minute difference when he refused to accept a three minute difference?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If presented with the analysis that Bud provided, Vince Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.
The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?
So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.
Makes sense, doesn't it Holmes? Or would you rather continue your daily habit of being an obnoxious prick by calling me a "GUTLESS liar" one or two more times before this day is done?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... liars are capable of justifying ANYTHING.
Bugliosi made it quite clear what his reasoning was...
You're simply too dishonest to acknowledge it.
Bugliosi would be ashamed of you...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're nuts. .... Who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter."
So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.
But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.
More Bus Talk....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
-
Indeed. The WC was clever enough not to give an exact time estimate, but since Myers did we can start placing the sequence of events in context.
Markham and Bowley were towards 10th/Patton each in there own way.
Markham was en route from her home on 9th street to the bus stop on Jefferson where she got on her regular bus to work every day. The distance she had to walk was two blocks which would have taken her no more than 5 minutes. She testified she left home at around 1.06/1.07, which would have gotten her to the bus stop at around 1.11/1.12, well in time for her bus. This means, of course, that she would have passed by the corner of 10th/Patton at around 1.09/1.10.
Bowley told us he had picked up his 12 year old daughter from R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at 12.55 and he was on his way to pick up his wife at her place of work (i.r.r.c. on 9th street). The drive from the school to 10th/Patton, along Marsalis Ave, is about 6.3 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did in his affidavit.
But even if we are kind to the LNs and accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1.14 or 1.15
The only way for Markham and Bowley to arrive at the same location, roughly a minute or two apart, is when both of their time lines as described above are correct.
If Tippit was really killed at 1.14/1.15 there needs to be a plausible explanation for Markham still being on that location at that time and for why Bowley took between 22 and 17 minutes to drive a distance of mere 6.3 miles.
Perhaps this is just too much logic for the LNs to deal with. Could that be?
Markham?
.....who was an even bigger screwball than Markham,
How about we look at the actual eyewitnesses who encountered the murdering Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The eyewitnesses who confirmed he was carrying a gun.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with killer Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Come now, David. What you propose is contrary to the official version of events. The Warren Commission had to use every trick in the book to get Oswald to Beckley by 1:00 p.m. To the point of getting William Whaley to make a liar out of himself on his second appearance. I don't care how long he was in his room.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But even if the Warren Commission's estimates are correct (with LHO leaving 1026 Beckley at precisely 1:03), there was still time enough for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder site by 1:14 or 1:15 (which is the best estimate for when Tippit's murder took place, being based primarily on the Dallas Police radio tapes, which indicate that T.F. Bowley's call to the DPD occurred at 1:18, which followed about 90 seconds of microphone "pumping" by Domingo Benavides prior to Bowley taking the mike).
We know that the trip from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton can be done in about 11 minutes. Several people have done it in just that amount of time. (Plus, we can't possibly know how fast Oswald was walking, or exactly what route he took to get there.)
Let me ask you this, Lee:
Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike?
And via the most commonly believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio.
Frankly, Lee, that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't.
Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
-
AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
You said you can still get him [Oswald] there for 1:06-1:09. Show me.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure:
Earlene Roberts was very likely wrong about her "3 or 4 minutes" estimate. Oswald, just like Frederic Forrest in the 1978 movie scene I linked to, probably was in his cubbyhole of a room for about 30 seconds, and not anywhere near three or four minutes.
David Belin & Co. walked the distance from Neely & Beckley to 1026 Beckley in 5 minutes & 45 seconds.
If Oswald had moved considerably faster than Belin's "walking" pace, he could have shaved some time off of Belin's re-creation time and could have likely been inside his room by about 12:57.
He's in his room for 30 seconds, then heads for Tenth Street.
He can positively get to Tenth & Patton in about 11 minutes (that's been done by Dave Perry and others in past reconstructions).
That puts him beside Tippit's patrol car at precisely 1:09. Which, as mentioned, would also have to mean that Domingo Benavides stood beside Tippit's police car picking lint out of his belly button for SEVEN MINUTES before using the police radio. And that is not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
-
There's the photo of Roger Craig on the south side of Elm St when the Rambler was in front of the TSBD and the time on the Hertz sign. Once in the car Craig couldn't get to it because of traffic but he also stated by that time the vehicle was on it's way toward the Triple Underpass.
Hi Paul, on a regular work day Oswald was due back at work at 12:45 and up until 12:30 on the 22nd it was just another work day and if a murder didn't happen directly outside their workplace, the staff would have gone back to work at 12:45.
So when do you feel that this pickup/getaway car which had to negotiate road closures and crawling traffic, was organised?
JohnM
-
You might be impressed by sham lineups and a gun with no provenance, but that doesn’t justify certainty in any objective sense.
Either Oswald looked like the guy they saw or he didn't
-
VB is a hack. Anyone that attempts to continue the false premise of Oswald being the shooter with the magic bullet has zero credibility.
-
Dishonest? The WC report is littered with lies starting with this impossible notion of the magic bullet. Until you realize the WC was nothing more to pin the blame on Oswald and ignoring the evidence they are the liars. The magic bullet theory is biggest lie of this case.
It's really sad that the influential CT's are just so goddam dishonest and unfortunately the brainless army of CT's who blindly worship these "gods" just repeat and perpetuate the lies.
JohnM
-
The two sources Von Pein uses are the WC report and VB which are garbage. "AG Katzenbach stated the following "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." That's the premise of how they started investigating Oswald. If your research is nothing more than WC and VB then I suggest reading "Case Closed." At least you would have completed the hat trick on the laughable authors of the case. The WC, VB and Posner the three stooges of the Kennedy Assassination.
-
Let's see what every CTer's favorite human on the Earth, the late Vince Bugliosi, said about the topic of Helen Markham's bus schedule....
--- Quote On: ---
"Although an FBI report (CD 630[h]) says that Helen Markham’s bus, per the Dallas Transit System, came by each day “at about 1:12 p.m.,” not 1:15 p.m., I tend to doubt the 1:12 time for two reasons. Number one, the FBI never nailed down which of two separate buses Markham could have taken at Jefferson and Patton, not asking her what corner at the intersection she got on her bus.
Apparently, only one of the buses was scheduled to come by at 1:12, and the FBI never even alluded to the existence of another bus that stopped at a different corner of the intersection and would also have taken Markham downtown by a more indirect route (Myers, 'With Malice', p.597 footnote 154; CD 1128, p.3). Much more importantly, Markham, when asked by Warren Commission counsel, “You know what time you usually get your bus, don’t you?” she answered “1:15” (3 H 306).
And in an earlier FBI interview she said the bus came by at 1:15 p.m. (CD 630[c], p.1). Why in the world would she say 1:15 if it was 1:12? We know that Markham was not a bright woman, but she was smart enough to hold down a job as a waitress, where one has to deal with numbers on a customer’s bill, and smart enough to get to work every day.
It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 44 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no idea why you, Ben Holmes, think anyone has to label Bugliosi a "liar" in this "bus schedule" regard. It seems to me that Vince pretty much AGREES with Bud's analysis on this thing --- i.e., both Bud and Vince B. agree that Helen Markham must not have actually been trying to catch a "1:12" bus. Both Bud and Vince think she caught her usual bus LATER than 1:12.
Why are you so anxious to hang a "liar" label on Vincent Bugliosi at every turn in the road? He didn't "LIE" at all about this bus schedule thing. He was giving his OPINION about Markham's testimony and FBI statements. And those opinions make a lot of sense to me. Why doesn't this VB logic make sense to you, Ben?....
"It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If presented with the analysis that Bud provided, Vince Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.
The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?
So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.
Makes sense, doesn't it Holmes? Or would you rather continue your daily habit of being an obnoxious prick by calling me a "GUTLESS liar" one or two more times before this day is done?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're nuts. .... Who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter."
So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.
But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.
Where in my question did I mention that Markham was trying to catch the 1.12 bus? It doesn't make a damned bit of difference. She estimated in her testimony that she "got her bus" at 1.15. That could be either a delayed 1.12 (busses do not always run exactly on time) or the 1.22 bus.
The fact is that she, in her mind, needed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1.15 to take her regular bus to work every day. That's why she left home at around 1.06 or 1.07. The two blocks/five minute walk would have gotten her to the bus stop a couple of minutes before 1.15 and thus on time to get on either the 1.12 or 1.22 bus.
Nowhere do you address the fact that Markham still was at 10th/Patton at around 1.14/1.15, if that's when the shooting took place, when by then she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day,
Exactly, so how could she witness the shooting of Tippit, on 10th street, if it really happened at 1.14 / 1.15. The logical answer is of course that she couldn't. If she got to her bus stop on Jefferson at around 1.15, then she could only have witnessed the events on 10th street if they had happened at around 1.11 or 1.12 at the latest.
Care to try again, to explain how Markham came to be at 10th/Patton at 1.14 / 1.15, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson?
-
Yeah Markham was a cool, calm and collected person after Tippit was shot. ::)
-
Markham?
Even a screwball is capable of doing some things correctly, John.
You can clearly type and Markham can clearly tell time and get to her bus on time.
How about we look at the actual eyewitnesses who encountered the murdering Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The eyewitnesses who confirmed he was carrying a gun.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
When 5 people watch a car accident, you'll get 5 different stories about what actually happened. Eye witness testimony is the most unreliable type of evidence.
Yet here we are to believe that all these witnesses got everything right. Go figure.... But since you seem to believe that, would you be interested in buying a nice bridge in London?
-
Either Oswald looked like the guy they saw or he didn't
Would you care to pay me $1 for every person who was unjustly convicted based upon flawed eyewitness identification?
-
You mean the transfer they didn’t “find” until hours after he was arrested and searched?
You mean the Mary Bledsoe whose evidence that she rented a room to Oswald was a calendar page that her son sold? The Mary Bledsoe who somehow saw a photo of Rachel before she was born?
You mean the William Whaley who picked his passenger up at 12:30 and described him as wearing a blue khaki workman uniform and two jackets?
You mean the transfer they didn’t “find” until hours after he was arrested and searched?
You mean the Mary Bledsoe whose evidence that she rented a room to Oswald was a calendar page that her son sold? The Mary Bledsoe who somehow saw a photo of Rachel before she was born?
You mean the William Whaley who picked his passenger up at 12:30 and described him as wearing a blue khaki workman uniform and two jackets?
Do you mean the Rachel you claimed was too old to need Ruth around to help out?
Do you mean the transfer that was found flat, and therefore unnoticed, in his breast pocket?
Do you mean the Whaley who used a quarter-hour time slot... which in this case would cover the 12:30-12:45 slot?
Do you mean Bledsoe is lying, and if so, can you tell us what would that be in aid of?
What you are doing is casting a wide net over everything under the sun and hoping something sticks
-
Oh please they couldn't find it because it was flat? He was accused of killing Tippit and your answer is they just didn't look hard enough is quite comical. As for Whaley not a single witness saw Oswald with him. NOT ONE. So what if he used a quarter time slot? That puts Oswald in the cab based upon one written piece of evidence after the assassination? FOUR people witnessed Oswald getting in the Rambler. How many reported seeing Oswald in the cab?
Do you mean the transfer that was found flat, and therefore unnoticed, in his breast pocket?
Do you mean the Whaley who used a quarter-hour time slot... which in this case would cover the 12:30-12:45 slot?
-
"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you.
“Highly incriminating evidence”. LOL.
-
That unlucky Oswald, he flees the building from which many eyewitnesses said shots were fired from, and ends up walking down the street away from a just occurred murder while removing shells and carrying a gun?
“Flees”. LOL.
“building from which many eyewitnesses said shots were fired from”. LOL.
“ends up walking down the street away from a just occurred murder while removing shells and carrying a gun”. LOL.
-
Let's see what every CTer's favorite human on the Earth, the late Vince Bugliosi, said about the topic of Helen Markham's bus schedule....
What every WC-cultist’s favorite propagandist finds “hard to believe” is irrelevant.
-
How about we look at the actual eyewitnesses who encountered the murdering Oswald.
“Encountered the murdering Oswald”. LOL.
-
Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike?
a) you don’t know how accurate the dispatcher’s time announcements were.
b) Benavides said he waited in his truck for a few minutes.
-
Do you mean the Rachel you claimed was too old to need Ruth around to help out?
BS: I never said that.
Do you mean the transfer that was found flat, and therefore unnoticed, in his breast pocket?
There’s no evidence that it was “unnoticed”.
Do you mean the Whaley who used a quarter-hour time slot... which in this case would cover the 12:30-12:45 slot?
His trip log has other entries that don’t fall on 15 minute boundaries. And besides, if his passenger really caught the cab at 12:48 (according to scripture) then the closest 15 minute interval would be 12:45, not 12:30.
Do you mean Bledsoe is lying, and if so, can you tell us what would that be in aid of?
Why does it have to be “in aid” of something? What is Roberts’ story of the police car honking “in aid of”? What are the Oswald-Tippit-Ruby together sightings “in aid of”?
Any other lame excuses to trot out?
-
[DVP Said:] My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day...
Exactly, so how could she witness the shooting of Tippit, on 10th street, if it really happened at 1.14 / 1.15. The logical answer is of course that she couldn't. If she got to her bus stop on Jefferson at around 1.15, then she could only have witnessed the events on 10th street if they had happened at around 1.11 or 1.12 at the latest.
Care to try again, to explain how Markham came to be at 10th/Patton at 1.14 / 1.15, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson?
Taking into account the sum total of evidence which verifies that Lee Harvey Oswald was positively the murderer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit, the logical answer to Martin's question is --- Helen Markham was merely a minute or two behind her normal routine on 11/22/63. In fact, an argument could actually be made that Markham was virtually on schedule to be at her bus stop at precisely 1:15, if Tippit's murder occurred somewhere between 1:12 PM and 1:14:30 PM.*
* The 1:12 estimate comes from Vincent Bugliosi (which is a time that I think is too early); the 1:14:30 time comes from the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing, Dale K. Myers (which is an estimate that I think is just about right, given the timing of when Domingo Benavides first started mashing the mic on the radio in Tippit's patrol car, which was 1:16). So the question would be: Could Mrs. Markham traverse the short distance from 10th & Patton to her Jefferson bus stop in about 30 seconds? I really have no idea. Maybe somebody in Dallas/Oak Cliff can try a re-creation to see how long it takes (at a regular walking speed, or even a fast walk) to travel that distance on foot.
-
The logical answer is, of course --- given the sum total of evidence which verifies that Lee Harvey Oswald was positively the murderer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit --- Helen Markham was merely a minute or two behind her normal routine on 11/22/63. In fact, an argument could actually be made that Markham was virtually on schedule to be at her bus stop at precisely 1:15, if Tippit's murder occurred somewhere between 1:12 PM and 1:14:30 PM.*
* The 1:12 estimate comes from Vincent Bugliosi (which is a time that I think is too early); the 1:14:30 time comes from the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing, Dale K. Myers (which is an estimate that I think is just about right, given the timing of when Domingo Benavides first started mashing the mic on the radio in Tippit's patrol car, which was 1:16). So the question would be: Could Mrs. Markham traverse the distance from 10th & Patton to her Jefferson bus stop in about 30 seconds? I really have no idea. Maybe somebody in Dallas/Oak Cliff can try a re-creation to see how long it takes (at a regular walking speed, or even a fast walk) to walk that distance.
And you deny being a biased propagandist?
given the sum total of evidence which verifies that Lee Harvey Oswald was positively the murderer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit
This is a weak circular argument. First you assume that Oswald was Tippit's killer and then you try to make the evidence fit that opinion. There is nothing logical about a circular argument.
Helen Markham was merely a minute or two behind her normal routine on 11/22/63.
No she wasn't. She testified that she left home on 9th street at 1.06 or 1.07. A one block walk, from 9th to 10th street would have taken her no more than 3 minutes, getting her to the corner of 10th and Patton at around 1.09 or 1.10. The result of your concocted story is not that she was "a minute or two behind". You have her five minutes behind and needing 8 minutes to walk approx 400 feet from 9th to 10th street. It's beyond belief.
the 1:14:30 time comes from the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing, Dale K. Myers
First of all, this is a appeal to authority fallacy and a very bad one, because there is no such thing as "the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing". All there is, is a guy with an opinion who has written a book to make money out of a tragedy. The mere fact that you agree with him doesn't make him an expert.
(which is an estimate that I think is just about right, given the timing of when Domingo Benavides first started mashing the mic on the radio in Tippit's patrol car, which was 1:16)
Assumes that the times of the DPD radio recordings are actually 100% correct, which they are not. Bowles, who was in charge of the DPD dispatchers, has told us unequivocally that police time was not real time.
Consider this; when Benavides could not get the radio to work, Bowley took the mic from him and made a call that lasted 48 seconds (you can time the audio recording). Ted Callaway was less than a block away from 10th street when he heard the shooting. He first encountered a man running towards him with a gun and then ran to the scene. That didn't take him more than 3 minutes, after the shots, at best. If we assume that the shooting took place, as Myers claims, at 1:14:30 than Callaway would have arrived on the scene at 1:17:30. The official narrative has Bowley starting to make his call past 1:17. However, when Callaway arrived, Bowley had already completed his call, which means Bowley's call must have started earlier and, in turn means that there is no way that Benavides started "smashing the mic on the radio" at 1:16.
So the question would be: Could Mrs. Markham traverse the distance from 10th & Patton to her Jefferson bus stop in about 30 seconds? I really have no idea. Maybe somebody in Dallas/Oak Cliff can try a re-creation to see how long it takes (at a regular walking speed, or even a fast walk) to walk that distance.
Already done and the answer is easy; No. The distance between 10th/Patton and Jefferson is one block, just over 400 feet. At walking speed it takes around 2 to 2,5 minutes.
So, why are you now backtracking from your own statement?
Oh and before I forget; are you really saying that Bowley needed 22 minutes to drive a 6.3 miles distance, which at normal speed would only have taken him 13 minutes at best? You must be saying that, because that would be the consequence of Myers' bogus timeline.
-
And you deny being a biased propagandist?
the 1:14:30 time comes from the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing, Dale K. Myers
Assumes that the times of the DPD radio recordings are actually 100% correct, which they are not. Bowles, who was in charge of the DPD dispatchers, has told us unequivocally that police time was not real time.
And how far off from reality did Bowles say the times were?
-
There is no such thing as "the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing".
Bulls**t.
-
Bulls**t.
Classy response. Thanks for your sharing your biased opinion.
The men you worship are false profets, but to zealots such an objective statement is blasphemy.
-
And how far off from reality did Bowles say the times were?
Find out for yourself;
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
Three quotes from the same page:
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked.
It is, however, important to remember that
1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
To sum up; the master clock in the telephone room reported "official" time, not real time.
Simplex clocks used by the telephone and radio operators were not synchronized and indicated an incorrect time.
Time stamps on calls could be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock.
And radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio.
So, if the master clock was 2 minutes out of synch with real time and the dispatcher's clocks were 2 minutes out of synch also, you've already got a four minute discrepancy between real time and the time stamps. Add to that the fact that radio operators were not exact with their time statements and you end up with totally unreliable time stamps on the DPD recordings.
The irony is that I am sure Bowles was not out to discredit the DPD recordings, as far as the Tippit murder is concerned. He provided the information in response to the HSCA finding of a 4th shoot and the 5 minute open mic incident. Bowles probably did not consider the fact that his information would basically destroy the time stamp issue for the Tippit case.
Good luck trying to explain to us why Bowles was wrong and Myers was right :D
-
BS: I never said that.
There’s no evidence that it was “unnoticed”.
His trip log has other entries that don’t fall on 15 minute boundaries. And besides, if his passenger really caught the cab at 12:48 (according to scripture) then the closest 15 minute interval would be 12:45, not 12:30.
Why does it have to be “in aid” of something? What is Roberts’ story of the police car honking “in aid of”? What are the Oswald-Tippit-Ruby together sightings “in aid of”?
Any other lame excuses to trot out?
Re Rachel, not if you are using the 'precise words' schtick.
-
And you deny being a biased propagandist?
given the sum total of evidence which verifies that Lee Harvey Oswald was positively the murderer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit
This is a weak circular argument. First you assume that Oswald was Tippit's killer and then you try to make the evidence fit that opinion. There is nothing logical about a circular argument.
Helen Markham was merely a minute or two behind her normal routine on 11/22/63.
No she wasn't. She testified that she left home on 9th street at 1.06 or 1.07. A one block walk, from 9th to 10th street would have taken her no more than 3 minutes, getting her to the corner of 10th and Patton at around 1.09 or 1.10. The result of your concocted story is not that she was "a minute or two behind". You have her five minutes behind and needing 8 minutes to walk approx 400 feet from 9th to 10th street. It's beyond belief.
the 1:14:30 time comes from the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing, Dale K. Myers
First of all, this is a appeal to authority fallacy and a very bad one, because there is no such thing as "the world's leading expert on the Tippit killing". All there is, is a guy with an opinion who has written a book to make money out of a tragedy. The mere fact that you agree with him doesn't make him an expert.
(which is an estimate that I think is just about right, given the timing of when Domingo Benavides first started mashing the mic on the radio in Tippit's patrol car, which was 1:16)
Assumes that the times of the DPD radio recordings are actually 100% correct, which they are not. Bowles, who was in charge of the DPD dispatchers, has told us unequivocally that police time was not real time.
Consider this; when Benavides could not get the radio to work, Bowley took the mic from him and made a call that lasted 48 seconds (you can time the audio recording). Ted Callaway was less than a block away from 10th street when he heard the shooting. He first encountered a man running towards him with a gun and then ran to the scene. That didn't take him more than 3 minutes, after the shots, at best. If we assume that the shooting took place, as Myers claims, at 1:14:30 than Callaway would have arrived on the scene at 1:17:30. The official narrative has Bowley starting to make his call past 1:17. However, when Callaway arrived, Bowley had already completed his call, which means Bowley's call must have started earlier and, in turn means that there is no way that Benavides started "smashing the mic on the radio" at 1:16.
So the question would be: Could Mrs. Markham traverse the distance from 10th & Patton to her Jefferson bus stop in about 30 seconds? I really have no idea. Maybe somebody in Dallas/Oak Cliff can try a re-creation to see how long it takes (at a regular walking speed, or even a fast walk) to walk that distance.
Already done and the answer is easy; No. The distance between 10th/Patton and Jefferson is one block, just over 400 feet. At walking speed it takes around 2 to 2,5 minutes.
So, why are you now backtracking from your own statement?
Oh and before I forget; are you really saying that Bowley needed 22 minutes to drive a 6.3 miles distance, which at normal speed would only have taken him 13 minutes at best? You must be saying that, because that would be the consequence of Myers' bogus timeline.
As David is apparently still busy considering how to reply, I'll give him some more information to consider.
That the timestamps on the DPD radio recordings are not reliable is proven by the actual recording itself.
After the dispatcher calls 1:12 there is only 23 seconds of conversation with "45".
This is followed by a tape slice which takes 33 seconds. During that time the dispatcher saying "Did you get it 45" is repeated 8 times. Strangely enough, in the background a noise can be heard which could be somebody keying a mic.
This is followed by 28 seconds of added conversation which can not be found in the transcripts.
As I believe, with good reason, that Tippit was shot around 1:09 or 1:10 it could be regarded as somewhat remarkable that exactly around the time Benavides was trying to key the mic of the police car, there was a slice in the recording. But I'm sure David will tell me I'm just paranoid.
So, let's move on. After the sliced part, the conversation on channel 1 starts again with a call from "212". The segment starting with that "212" and ends with the dispatcher calling the time stamp 1:15 has a total duration of 49 seconds.
Combined this means that the tape slice must have taken from 1:12:45 to 1:14:11, if (and that's a very big "if") the time stamps are correct. But they are not, as we will now see;
The next segment between the time stamp 1:15 and 1:16 is only 47 seconds long. And between 1:16 and 1:19 there are no time stamps at all. However, we can measure the time from the 1:16 time stamp until Bowley starts his radio call. The duration of that segment is 1 minute and 47 seconds. Add to this the 48 seconds that Bowley's call lasted and you end up at 1:18:35 as the actual time (according to the recording) where the dispatcher called 1:19.
The evidence that the DPD radio time stamps can not be relied on, as Bowles told us, is staring us in the fact. All anybody who wants to know (which probably excludes the LNs) has to do it time the actual recording with a stopwatch.
-
Martin is trying to micro-manage the Tippit murder timeline down to the second, which really cannot be done.
Yes, before anyone jumps down my throat for talking out of both sides of my pie hole, I have done a bit of that "micro-managing" myself, when I said I agree with Dale Myers' exacting 1:14:30 time for when the shooting occurred. But I happen to think that Dale has done probably the most work and research that has ever been done by anyone in the world when it comes to the Tippit murder case, and so I am certainly inclined to lean toward his conclusions about various things related to J.D. Tippit's demise....such as Dale's very detailed 2017 article (below) concerning many of the "loose ends" (if you will) concerning the topic of Acquilla Clemons:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-october-jfk-assassination-file.html
But when Martin says something like this....
"...and you end up at 1:18:35 as the actual time (according to the recording) where the dispatcher called 1:19."
....we're only talking about a difference of 25 seconds in real (actual) time---even if Martin's analysis is 100% correct (which is a big "if" right there).
Now, am I really supposed to just flush all of the "Oswald Shot Tippit" evidence (and witnesses) down the nearest toilet due to an alleged 25-second discrepancy when comparing the Dallas police radio transcript with the analysis performed by a guy named Martin Weidmann?
Pardon me if I choose not to perform that last bit of flushing.
-
In fact, an argument could actually be made that Markham was virtually on schedule to be at her bus stop at precisely 1:15
Markham said she got her bus at 1:15, not she got to her bus stop at 1:15.
-
Re Rachel, not if you are using the 'precise words' schtick.
I never said anything even remotely similar to that. You’re either delusional or lying.
-
Martin is trying to mico-manage the Tippit murder timeline down to the second, which really cannot be done.
Yes, before you jump down my throat and have me tossed in the hoosegow for talking out of both sides of my pie hole, I have done a bit of that "micro-managing" myself, when I said I agree with Dale Myers' exacting 1:14:30 time for when the shooting occurred. But I happen to think that Dale has done probably the most work and research that has ever been done by anyone in the world when it comes to the Tippit murder case, and so I am certainly inclined to lean toward his conclusions about various things related to J.D. Tippit's demise....
You were right the first time. You’re talking out of both sides of your pie hole.
-
Markham said she got her bus at 1:15, not she got to her bus stop at 1:15.
The problem there, John, is that there was no 1:15 bus. It was really a 1:12 bus. You'd better read THIS POST (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3509.msg132079.html#msg132079) one more time.
-
The problem there, John, is that there was no 1:15 bus. It was really a 1:12 bus. You'd better read THIS POST (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3509.msg132079.html#msg132079) one more time.
It doesn’t matter what the bus schedule was. What matters is that Markham thought she got her bus at 1:15.
-
It doesn’t matter what the bus schedule was. What matters is that Markham thought she got her bus at 1:15.
But it's very possible that Markham was just approximating (i.e., rounding off) the time when she said "1:15". A lot of people do such "rounding off". Don't you?
When people are asked "What time is it?" and it's 1:12, a common response would be, "It's just about a quarter after."
-
Somebody prone to such approximating probably wouldn’t say something like “6 or 7 minutes after 1”.
-
[...]
The next segment between the time stamp 1:15 and 1:16 is only 47 seconds long. And between 1:16 and 1:19 there are no time stamps at all. However, we can measure the time from the 1:16 time stamp until Bowley starts his radio call. The duration of that segment is 1 minute and 47 seconds. Add to this the 48 seconds that Bowley's call lasted and you end up at 1:18:35 as the actual time (according to the recording) where the dispatcher called 1:19.
The evidence that the DPD radio time stamps can not be relied on, as Bowles told us, is staring us in the fact. All anybody who wants to know (which probably excludes the LNs) has to do it time the actual recording with a stopwatch.
The first "1:19" timestamp doesn't begin immediately after the end of Bowley's transmission. It occurs about 35 seconds after Bowley signs off with "thank you." So, from your 1:16 timestamp, it's 1:47 to the beginning of Bowley's call, 48 seconds where Bowley gets to be a radio star, and another 35 seconds until 1:19 appears. Once that mistake is corrected, your 1:18:35, becomes 1:19:10.
-
Martin is trying to micro-manage the Tippit murder timeline down to the second, which really cannot be done.
Yes, before anyone jumps down my throat for talking out of both sides of my pie hole, I have done a bit of that "micro-managing" myself, when I said I agree with Dale Myers' exacting 1:14:30 time for when the shooting occurred. But I happen to think that Dale has done probably the most work and research that has ever been done by anyone in the world when it comes to the Tippit murder case, and so I am certainly inclined to lean toward his conclusions about various things related to J.D. Tippit's demise....such as Dale's very detailed 2017 article (below) concerning many of the "loose ends" (if you will) concerning the topic of Acquilla Clemons:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-october-jfk-assassination-file.html
But when Martin says something like this....
"...and you end up at 1:18:35 as the actual time (according to the recording) where the dispatcher called 1:19."
....we're only talking about a difference of 25 seconds in real (actual) time---even if Martin's analysis is 100% correct (which is a big "if" right there).
Now, am I really supposed to just flush all of the "Oswald Shot Tippit" evidence (and witnesses) down the nearest toilet due to an alleged 25-second discrepancy when comparing the Dallas police radio transcript with the analysis performed by a guy named Martin Weidmann?
Pardon me if I choose not to perform that last bit of flushing.
But I happen to think that Dale has done probably the most work and research that has ever been done by anyone in the world
Which to rational people doesn't mean that he can't be wrong.
But when Martin says something like this....
"...and you end up at 1:18:35 as the actual time (according to the recording) where the dispatcher called 1:19."
....we're only talking about a difference of 25 seconds in real (actual) time---even if Martin's analysis is 100% correct (which is a big "if" right there).
The major point you are ignoring, most likely on purpose, is that this alone confirms what Bowles said about the dispatchers not calling out the correct time stamps. You can try to play it down as much as you like but 1:18:35 isn't 1:19! When the dispatchers get the time wrong by 25 seconds within a three minute time frame, just how much do they get it wrong within 30 minutes?
Isn't it just hypocritical how LNs constantly go on about that, instead of discussing parts of the evidence, you have to look at the totality it but when you present them with the totality of the evidence (in this case about the DPD recordings) they start to argue about only a part of it and ignore the rest. This is why you can never have an honest conversation with a LN.
My analysis of the DPD recording is 100% correct and anybody who wants to check can do so by timing the actual recording;
Now, am I really supposed to just flush all of the "Oswald Shot Tippit" evidence (and witnesses) down the nearest toilet due to an alleged 25-second discrepancy when comparing the Dallas police radio transcript with the analysis performed by a guy named Martin Weidmann?
Pardon me if I choose not to perform that last bit of flushing.
Nobody is asking you to flush anything down the nearest toilet. That's just a massive cop out. All you need to do is discuss the actual evidence honestly. The mere fact that you refuse to tells me all I need to know about how little confidence you have in that evidence. It also tells me that you understand what the implications for the official narrative are when the DPD time stamps are wrong and other evidence points to Tippit being killed earlier.
You have completely bypassed my question about Markham and there is no alleged 25-second discrepancy. There is a lot more than that, but if you simply refuse to look at it honestly, you will never know. It was already idiotic that you thought Markham could walk one block of 400 feet in 30 seconds in order to still get to her bus on time.
Your entire response to the factual information I have been giving you is an absolutely emotional, not a rational, one. You've really shown your true colors.
-
The problem there, John, is that there was no 1:15 bus. It was really a 1:12 bus. You'd better read THIS POST (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3509.msg132079.html#msg132079) one more time.
There is no problem. You are trying to create one. The bus schedule for Markham's bus said 1:12 and 1:22. It doesn't matter one bit which bus Markham was talking about. In her mind she had to be at the bus stop to take her bus at 1:15, which could mean either a delayed 1:12 bus or the one of 1:22.
The point which you are so desperate to confuse is that in Markham's mind she had to be at that bus stop on Jefferson by 1:15, which means that she would have passed 10th/Patton at least some 3 minutes earlier and probably more. If Tippit was really killed at 1:14:30, Markham wouldn't have been there to see it.
-
But it's very possible that Markham was just approximating (i.e., rounding off) the time when she said "1:15". A lot of people do such "rounding off". Don't you?
When people are asked "What time is it?" and it's 1:12, a common response would be, "It's just about a quarter after."
Desperation of full display!
Let's complicate matters a bit further for you. Markham and Bowley are inseparably linked together by the times they arrived at the scene. Markham arrived about 1 minute before the shooting and saw a man crossing Patton walking east being followed by a patrol car. Bowley arrived no more than about 1 minute after the shooting. We know this because Callaway was on the scene within less than 3 minutes after the shots and by then Bowley had already made his 48 seconds long radio call.
Markham and Bowley's actions can be traced and timed. Markham left her home at 1:06 or 1:07 and only needed to walk one block of 400 feet to get to 10th and Patton, which would have taken her 3 minutes. Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 12:55 and only needed to drive 6.3 miles or about 13 to 15 minutes to arrive at 10th and Patton.
If you push Markham's timing further back, as you've tried to do, by nearly 5 minutes, you need to do the same for Bowley and the other way around. The only time that really makes sense for Markham and Bowley to both be at the scene is if Tippit was killed between 1:09 and 1:11 at the latest. But maybe that's just to much rationality for you.
-
The first "1:19" timestamp doesn't begin immediately after the end of Bowley's transmission. It occurs about 35 seconds after Bowley signs off with "thank you." So, from your 1:16 timestamp, it's 1:47 to the beginning of Bowley's call, 48 seconds where Bowley gets to be a radio star, and another 35 seconds until 1:19 appears. Once that mistake is corrected, your 1:18:35, becomes 1:19:10.
There is no point in discussing this when you ignore what happened before the 1:16 time stamp.
-
The point which you are so desperate to confuse is that in Markham's mind she had to be at that bus stop on Jefferson by 1:15...
Why? Do you think she was totally unaware of the fact that a bus would pass that bus stop every 10 minutes?
She was very likely quite aware that she could catch the 1:22 if she missed the 1:12. It's just too bad the WC didn't ask her about that very thing.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
-
Markham left her home at 1:06 or 1:07....
You know that for an absolute fact, do you? Remarkable.
Was there an atomic clock flashing the Naval Observatory time above Markham's head as she left the washateria?
-
Why? Do you think she was totally unaware of the fact that a bus would pass that bus stop every 10 minutes? She was very likely quite aware that she could catch the 1:22 if she missed the 1:12. It's just too bad the WC didn't ask her about that very thing.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes and she probably did take a delayed 1:12 sometimes and a 1:22 on other occassions.
But people don't arrive at a bus stop at the exact moment a bus is due to arrive. They get there a couple of minutes earlier and the fact remains that Markham said she got on her regular bus at 1:15.
This still means that she would not have been at 10th and Patton at 1:14:30, with another three minutes to walk to her bus stop.
-
You know that for an absolute fact, do you? Remarkable.
Was there an atomic clock flashing the Naval Observatory time above Markham's head as she left the washateria?
You know that for an absolute fact, do you? Remarkable.
No, I know for an absolute fact that this is what she said during her testimony.
Do you know for a fact that she wasn't correct?
-
...the fact remains that Markham said she got on her regular bus at 1:15.
She couldn't possibly have "GOT ON" her regular bus at 1:15, because (per CD630) there was no bus at 1:15. It was 1:12.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
I think she normally attempted to be at her bus stop at 1:15 (to catch the 1:22 bus, because she sure as heck didn't catch the 1:12 every day, unless it was always late), but on Nov. 22 she was just a tiny bit behind schedule.
This still means that she would not have been at 10th and Patton at 1:14:30, with another three minutes to walk to her bus stop.
You think it takes three full minutes to walk the one short block from 10th & Patton to Patton & Jefferson?
Maybe you can help me out on exactly WHERE on Jefferson Blvd. her bus stop was actually located. Maybe I'm not thinking of the location correctly. I'm envisioning her bus stop being right at (or near) the corner of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard. Is that correct or incorrect?
EDIT -- I see now that the CD630 page I linked above does say where the bus stop was --- it was "at the corner of Patton and Jefferson" (per CD630). And there's no way it takes 3 minutes to walk that distance.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/photos-of-tippit-murder-scene.html
-
Why? Do you think she was totally unaware of the fact that a bus would pass that bus stop every 10 minutes?
She was very likely quite aware that she could catch the 1:22 if she missed the 1:12. It's just too bad the WC didn't ask her about that very thing.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that makes this wild guess “very likely”?
-
Is there any evidence whatsoever that makes this wild guess “very likely”?
Markham's own testimony makes it very likely. Because if she really DID get to her bus stop at 1:15 each day, she would have had no choice but to wait for the 1:22 bus a lot of the time.
-
She couldn't possibly have "GOT ON" her regular bus at 1:15, because (per CD630) there was no bus at 1:15. It was 1:12.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
I think she normally attempted to be at her bus stop at 1:15 (to catch the 1:22 bus, because she sure as heck didn't catch the 1:12 every day, unless it was always late), but on Nov. 22 she was just a tiny bit behind schedule.
The FBI report tells you the busses were scheduled to arrive at 1:12 and 1:22, not that they always arrived exactly on time.
It has been my experience, as a young man taking a bus to school every day, that busses in urban areas seldom actually arrived on time.
But - and I have already said this earlier - it doesn't make a damned bit of difference on which of the two busses she actually got. In her mind she needed to be at the bus stop at 1:15, which means that she wouldn't be at 10th and Patton at 1:14:30.
You think it takes three full minutes to walk the one short block from 10th & Patton to Patton & Jefferson?
No, I don't think that. I knew it was less, but I was being kind to you, as the 3 minutes give Callaway a bit more time between the shots and his arrival at the crime scene. Less than three minutes would mean that Markham arrived at 10th/Patton even earlier than 1:10.
This may go over your head, but the totality of the evidence involves three people; Markham, Bowley and Callaway.
Markham arrived just prior to the shots and Bowley a minute or so after the shots. Callaway was further down Patton, when he heard the shots and saw a man with a revolver running towards him. After the man turned on to Jefferson, Callaway ran to the Tippit scene. As both men were running, it couldn't have taken Callaway much more than about 2 minutes to get to the scene, and by that time Bowley had already arrived and made his 48 seconds long radio call. In other words, Bowley must have arrived roughly one minute after the shots. His timeline and Markham's are linked. You can not push back Markham's times and not do the same with Bowley's.
We know that the distance Bowley had to drive from the school where he picked up his daughter to 10th street is 6.3 miles. I know this for a fact as I drove the distance myself, but you can also check it on google maps if you don't believe me. A 6.3 miles journey in normal traffic would have taken him about 13 to 15 minutes, which fits perfectly with his arrival at the scene at around 1:10.
Maybe you can help me out on exactly WHERE on Jefferson Blvd. her bus stop was actually located. Maybe I'm not thinking of the location correctly. I'm envisioning her bus stop being right at (or near) the corner of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard. Is that correct or incorrect?
EDIT -- I see now that the CD630 page I linked above does say where the bus stop was --- it was "at the corner of Patton and Jefferson" (per CD630). And there's no way it takes 3 minutes to walk that distance.
You are right. From 9th street to the bus stop is two blocks of each around 400 feet. It would have taken around 5 minutes to walk that distance at normal walking speed.
-
Markham's own testimony makes it very likely. Because if she really DID get to her bus stop at 1:15 each day, she would have had no choice but to wait for the 1:22 bus a lot of the time.
Again, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference which bus she actually took. She knew she had to be at the bus stop at 1:15 and - like most people - she would probably make sure she arrived there a couple of minutes earlier.
You are desperately trying to make the evidence fit your narrative instead of honestly looking at the evidence.
-
She [Markham] knew she had to be at the bus stop at 1:15...
Nonsense. That's ridiculous. She had about 90 minutes to get to her job by 2:30. And even you admitted this....
"I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes."
So why would it be so critical for her to be at the bus stop at precisely 1:15?
Also....
Markham never told the WC that she HAD to be at the bus stop by 1:15 (or "at" 1:15). She did say she "usually" (Joe Ball's word) got her bus at 1:15, yes. But you're making it sound like it was 1:15 OR BUST for Helen Markham, and that's just silly given the fact she had oodles of time to get to work by 2:30.
Also....
She told the FBI on 3/16/64 that "she had hoped to catch a bus at about 1:15 PM". [CD630c]
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=59
-
Nonsense. That's ridiculous. She had about 90 minutes to get to her job by 2:30. And even you admitted this....
"I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes."
So why would it be so critical for her to be at the bus stop at precisely 1:15?
She had about 90 minutes to get to her job by 2:30
I'm not sure when you got this from, but it's meaningless. If you start calculating from 8 AM she even had more time to get to her job by 2:30
The fact of the matter remains that she testified that she left home at 1:06 / 1:07 and she got on her regular bus at 1:15.
The walking distance between 9th street and the bus stop is about 5 minutes, so she would have arrived on Jefferson at around 1:11 or 1:12 well in time for her bus.
So why would it be so critical for her to be at the bus stop at precisely 1:15?
Who said anything about it being "so critical for her"? She just told us what she did every day and you have no reason whatsoever to doubt what she said, unless of course, you want to make the evidence fit your narrative.
Btw what happened to the LN mantra of having to consider that totality of the evidence and not just trying (and failing) to discredit a single part of that evidence?
-
...you have no reason whatsoever to doubt what she said, unless of course, you want to make the evidence fit your narrative.
I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.
So everybody's got a gripe with Markham for one reason or another---LNs and CTs alike.
You like Markham for her timestamping ability....but you don't agree at all with her positive identification of Oswald as Tippit's murderer, do you Martin?
Should we call it a stalemate?
-
Also....
Markham never told the WC that she HAD to be at the bus stop by 1:15 (or "at" 1:15). She did say she "usually" (Joe Ball's word) got her bus at 1:15, yes. But you're making it sound like it was 1:15 OR BUST for Helen Markham, and that's just silly given the fact she had oodles of time to get to work by 2:30.
You are really trying too hard.
I never claimed she told the WC that she had to be at the bus stop by or at 1:15. She just answered Ball's question by saying that she "usually" got her bus at 1:15.
How you feel I am making this sound is irrelevant. The fact remains that she said it.
Also....
She told the FBI on 3/16/64 that "she had hoped to catch a bus at about 1:15 PM". [CD630c]
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=59
What's your point? This reenforces exactly what I have been saying. She left the washeteria after failing to reach he daughter on the phone at around 1:04. This means she was probably correct when she said she left at 1:06 or 1:07.
The walk from 9th street to the bus stop on Jefferson took about 5 minutes, which means that her hope to catch as bus at about 1:15 was fully justified. It also means that if she wanted to be at the bus stop by 1:15, she wouldn't have been hanging around on the corner of 10th and Patton at 1:14:30.
-
I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.
So everybody's got a gripe with Markham for one reason or another---LNs and CTs alike.
You like Markham for her timestamping ability....but you don't agree at all with her positive identification of Oswald as Tippit's murderer, do you Martin?
Should we call it a stalemate?
No, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking a particular witness. It should be about the evidence and not the person, but perhaps that's a foreign concept for you. Ball called Markham an utter screwball and still he used her identification.
I don't think her identification ("was there a # 2) of Oswald was convincing, because of the way it was obtained. And as far as her times are concerned, they are intertwined with those of Bowley and Callaway and unless you want to argue that Bowley needed 22 minutes to drive 6.3 miles and Callaway needed 7 or 8 minutes after the shots to run less than 400 feet, you simply can not dismiss Markham's times.
I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.
Sure you do. They don't fit with your preferred narrative. And that's the only reason!
You might not have noticed by I have only used information from the official narrative to make my case. I have shown that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon by using the actual radio recordings. I have used the information provided by Markham, Bowley and Callaway to present a sequence of events that must have happened within about three minutes and which only could have happened at a particular moment in time for all three components to come together in the right order.
All you have done is actually dismiss just about all the information from the official narrative I have used.
Kinda ironic, don't you think?
Should we call it a stalemate?
Most certainly not, because even if Markham's identification of Oswald was questionable, it doesn't automatically mean that she was also wrong about her daily routine and the corresponding times. Even less so, as the totality of the evidence suggests her times were actually pretty accurate.
But I am not getting the impression that you want to bail out of this conversation. Is that so, and, if so, why?
If you are not bailing out, why don't you explain what reasons you have exactly to doubt Markham's timestamps?
-
Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?
-
Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald.
Well, then it's a good thing that I am not a CT, because I couldn't care less if Oswald did it by himself or if there was some sort of conspiracy. In fact, for several decades I was happy to just accept that Oswald had done it, simply because that's what the official story told us and I never gave it a second thought. That all changed when I was present at a discussion about the case. That sparked my interest and I decided to read the WC report. After I did that it was pretty obvious to me that the official narrative was not supported by the evidence the WC had presented and at that time I became very skeptical indeed.
But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence.
Fair enough, I suppose. We all have an opinion. The problem with opinions in general is that they are highly influenced by what an individual knows or understands. So, if what for me is a major red flag - like a very inconvenient spliced tape recording at a crucial point in time and unreliable timestamps by DPD dispatchers (according to their own supervisor) - does not bother you, there isn't much I can tell you.
One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that.
That's an emotional argument not a rational one. Of course most of the DPD officers would want to catch the killer of one of their own, but that doesn't preclude that there wasn't a bad apple with an alternate motive somewhere. Besides, good cops can still be misled and honestly deal with manipulated evidence.
For instance, when Gus Rose had just arrived at the police station to start work, he ended up talking briefly with Oswald. Just prior to that some officer, who to this day has remained unidentified, gave him a wallet (which as it turned out had Oswald and Hidell ID's in it) and he was told the wallet belonged to Oswald. Obviously, Rose had no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement, but what if it wasn't Oswald's wallet at all? What if the original wallet (the one Paul Bentley took from Oswald in the car, the one he said on TV contained a credit card and a driver's license) was switched with the wallet FBI officer Barrett said Captain Westbrook had when he asked him (at the Tippit scene) if he had ever heard the names Hidell or Oswald? Now, remember this is just a "what if" question to demonstrate how evidence could be manipulated. Westbrook is actually an interesting fellow when it comes to the three most crucial pieces of evidence; the wallet, the jacket and the revolver, but that's a nice bit of speculation on my part for perhaps another day.
But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
Yes, that is ridiculous. But there is a difference between an entire police force and a few bad apples. And who said that the DPD framed Oswald?
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
Actually, it would only be a reasonable conclusion to reach if you first (as you do) conclude that Oswald did in fact own both murder weapons. IMO there is massive reasonable doubt about that.
BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?
Trying to shift the burden of proof is exposing the weakness of your own case. Even more so as your own case is based on, for instance, the claim that Oswald leaving his wedding ring behind, or allegedly changing his routine (when he barely had a routine to speak of) is somehow evidence of his guilt.
But to answer your question, I have never claimed that evidence was faked, planted or manufactured. I have merely said that I can't rule out the possibility as in some cases circumstantial evidence suggests that it might be. What I do consider absolutely possible is that some of the crucial pieces of physical evidence, as well as Oswald himself, were manipulated as well as that there was a selective process in the way witnesses were dealt with in relation to a piece of physical evidence.
But to get back to the matter of proof. Since you claim Oswald was guilty of both crimes you really should be able to present conclusive evidence for that claim. In the Markham (and Bowley and Callaway) discussion I haven't see you doing that.
So, why don't you begin with telling us what your reasons are for doubting Markham's timestamps?
-
There is no point in discussing this when you ignore what happened before the 1:16 time stamp.
It's not really something requiring discussion. Your calculations did not factor in the time between the end of Bowley's transmission and the "603,602 1:19" transmission. This is simply a fact. As a direct result of this mistake, your assertion that the first "1:19" timestamp occurs at 1:18:35 is simply wrong, and it is wrong no matter what you think happened before 1:16.
-
Markham's own testimony makes it very likely. Because if she really DID get to her bus stop at 1:15 each day, she would have had no choice but to wait for the 1:22 bus a lot of the time.
Markham didn’t say she got to her bus stop at 1:15 every day. That’s something you just made up.
-
It's not really something requiring discussion. Your calculations did not factor in the time between the end of Bowley's transmission and the "603,602 1:19" transmission. This is simply a fact. As a direct result of this mistake, your assertion that the first "1:19" timestamp occurs at 1:18:35 is simply wrong, and it is wrong no matter what you think happened before 1:16.
When you can not be sure that the 1:16 timestamp actually happened on 1:16, you can't be certain of anything else either.
-
When you can not be sure that the 1:16 timestamp actually happened on 1:16, you can't be certain of anything else either.
It's one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him. When you hear him announce "1:16" on channel one, that clock is showing 1:16. The announced "1:19" on channel one is 1:19 on the same clock. He's not just making up random numbers and announcing them.
-
It's one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him. When you hear him announce "1:16" on channel one, that clock is showing 1:16. The announced "1:19" on channel one is 1:19 on the same clock. He's not just making up random numbers and announcing them.
Didn't you just say;
It's not really something requiring discussion.
Now you want to discuss it after all?
Oh very well. Yes it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him, except there is no guarantee that the clock is showing the "current time" and we know from Bowles that the timestamps were not always called correctly.
Between the 1:15 and the 1:16 calls on the DPD recordings only 45 seconds had passed. This means that either the 1:15 or the 1:16 was most certainly incorrect. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Didn't you just say;
Now you want to discuss it after all?
You're the guy who wrote "There is no point in discussing this when you ignore what happened before the 1:16 time stamp" when I pointed out that your timestamp figurin' was wrong. The 'not wanting to discuss this' is your doing, not mine.
Oh very well. Yes it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him, except there is no guarantee that the clock is showing the "current time" and we know from Bowles that the timestamps were not always called correctly.
Between the 1:15 and the 1:16 calls on the DPD recordings only 45 seconds had passed. This means that either the 1:15 or the 1:16 was most certainly incorrect. Wouldn't you agree?
What do you mean by ""current time"?"
Also, if we quantize it down to the second, some random point in 1:15 will be anywhere from 1 second (1:15:59 vs 1:16:00) to 119 seconds (1:15:00 vs 1:16:59) apart. So there is no problem with the 1:15 and 1:16 timestamps.
-
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
This is a silly argument because cops can (and do) falsify evidence because they believe somebody committed the crime but don’t have the evidence to prove it.
But it’s the burden of the person using evidence to formulate a conclusion to authenticate that evidence. It’s nobody’s burden to prove that it was falsified. That’s why evidence handling procedures exist.
Besides that, there does exist cops who are rotten lowlifes.
-
You're the guy who wrote "There is no point in discussing this when you ignore what happened before the 1:16 time stamp" when I pointed out that your timestamp figurin' was wrong. The 'not wanting to discuss this' is your doing, not mine.
What do you mean by ""current time"?"
Also, if we quantize it down to the second, some random point in 1:15 will be anywhere from 1 second (1:15:59 vs 1:16:00) to 119 seconds (1:15:00 vs 1:16:59) apart. So there is no problem with the 1:15 and 1:16 timestamps.
This is why there is no point in having a discussion with you. You argue for argument's sake.
You ask me: What do you mean by ""current time"?"
When you are the guy who actually brought up the term first;
It's one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him.
Don't even bother replying. I'm done with wasting my time with you and it will give you more time to try and put square pegs in round holes.
-
Markham said in her WC testimony that she left the washateria (where she had tried to phone her daughter but got no answer) at around 1:06 or 1:07.
When Ball asked her at what time she usually got her bus (on Jefferson) she answered: 1:15
Yesterday, David von Pein said;
I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.
Despite being asked what his reason(s) for doubting for the times given by Markham are, David has so far failed to provide an explanation.
Could that be simply because he has no credible reason(s) for doubting Markham's times?
-
Here's an example of how dishonest David Von Pein truly is. On his blog he published a part of my conversation with him. By way of an example this is what he posted;
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes and she probably did take a delayed 1:12 sometimes and a 1:22 on other occassions. But people don't arrive at a bus stop at the exact moment a bus is due to arrive. They get there a couple of minutes earlier and the fact remains that Markham said she got on her regular bus at 1:15.
This is the actual post.
I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes and she probably did take a delayed 1:12 sometimes and a 1:22 on other occassions.
But people don't arrive at a bus stop at the exact moment a bus is due to arrive. They get there a couple of minutes earlier and the fact remains that Markham said she got on her regular bus at 1:15.
This still means that she would not have been at 10th and Patton at 1:14:30, with another three minutes to walk to her bus stop.
It seems David didn't like the last sentence, so he just simply left it out, probably so he could continue to argue about the scheduled 1:12 and 1:15 bus instead of having to address that if Markham should have been at the bus stop at 1:15 she couldn't have witnessed the shooting of Tippit, if that happened at 1:14:30 or 1:15.
But it gets worse. He then leaves out several posts of mine in which I explain that it doesn't make a damned bit of difference which bus Markham actually got on, either the 1:12 or 1:22. The fact remained that in her mind she had to be at the bus stop at around 1:15, which means she had to have passed 10th/Patton at 1:12 at the latest, if you ignore that people normally like to get to the bus stop a couple of minutes earlier.
David then "resumes" the discussion on his blog by reducing this post;
No, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking a particular witness. It should be about the evidence and not the person, but perhaps that's a foreign concept for you. Ball called Markham an utter screwball and still he used her identification.
I don't think her identification ("was there a # 2) of Oswald was convincing, because of the way it was obtained. And as far as her times are concerned, they are intertwined with those of Bowley and Callaway and unless you want to argue that Bowley needed 22 minutes to drive 6.3 miles and Callaway needed 7 or 8 minutes after the shots to run less than 400 feet, you simply can not dismiss Markham's times.
I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.
Sure you do. They don't fit with your preferred narrative. And that's the only reason!
You might not have noticed by I have only used information from the official narrative to make my case. I have shown that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon by using the actual radio recordings. I have used the information provided by Markham, Bowley and Callaway to present a sequence of events that must have happened within about three minutes and which only could have happened at a particular moment in time for all three components to come together in the right order.
All you have done is actually dismiss just about all the information from the official narrative I have used.
Kinda ironic, don't you think?
Should we call it a stalemate?
Most certainly not, because even if Markham's identification of Oswald was questionable, it doesn't automatically mean that she was also wrong about her daily routine and the corresponding times. Even less so, as the totality of the evidence suggests her times were actually pretty accurate.
But I am not getting the impression that you want to bail out of this conversation. Is that so, and, if so, why?
If you are not bailing out, why don't you explain what reasons you have exactly to doubt Markham's timestamps?
to;
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Why don't you explain what reasons you have exactly to doubt Markham's timestamps?
David then replies by editing even his own post;
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence.
One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
When you read this post on this board you will notice an additional sentence in which David asks me this;
Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?
CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.
So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?
I did reply to that post, but it seems David wasn't interested, because it's nowhere on his blog.
What is on his blog is something he never said in this conversion;
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006
Not only did David bail out of a conversation that wasn't going well for him, but, as a true propaganist, he also misrepresented that same conversation on his own blog so that people who only read the blog come away with a completely false impression of the conversation.
The worst part about it is of course that David did not tell me he was going to post the (misrepresented version of) the conversation on his blog, he also did not offer me the possibility to respond on any of it on his blog.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true David von Pein. He wanted nothing to do with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley and Callaway, because he probably understood it caused severe problems for the official narrative. That's why IMO he bailed on the conversation after trying and failing to change the subject by asking me if I could prove that one piece of evidence was faked, which wasn't the subject we were discussing. On his own blog he made sure the conversation stayed well clear of the actual subject.
Btw this is the link to David's blog;
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1352.html?fbclid=IwAR3On7diW__ZFobO4FiJuTsTmOcsz5jpUlELcaQXf0Opkrt9fTFJFv540Cc
-
Here's an example of how dishonest David Von Pein truly is. On his blog he published a part of my conversation with him. By way of an example this is what he posted;
This is the actual post.
It seems David didn't like the last sentence, so he just simply left it out, probably so he could continue to argue about the scheduled 1:12 and 1:15 bus instead of having to address that if Markham should have been at the bus stop at 1:15 she couldn't have witnessed the shooting of Tippit, if that happened at 1:14:30 or 1:15.
But it gets worse. He then leaves out several posts of mine in which I explain that it doesn't make a damned bit of difference which bus Markham actually got on, either the 1:12 or 1:22. The fact remained that in her mind she had to be at the bus stop at around 1:15, which means she had to have passed 10th/Patton at 1:12 at the latest, if you ignore that people normally like to get to the bus stop a couple of minutes earlier.
David then "resumes" the discussion on his blog by reducing this post;
to;
David then replies by editing even his own post;
When you read this post on this board you will notice an additional sentence in which David asks me this;
I did reply to that post, but it seems David wasn't interested, because it's nowhere on his blog.
What is on his blog is something he never said in this conversion;
Not only did David bail out of a conversation that wasn't going well for him, but, as a true propaganist, he also misrepresented that same conversation on his own blog so that people who only read the blog come away with a completely false impression of the conversation.
The worst part about it is of course that David did not tell me he was going to post the (misrepresented version of) the conversation on his blog, he also did not offer me the possibility to respond on any of it on his blog.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true David von Pein. He wanted nothing to do with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley and Callaway, because he probably understood it caused severe problems for the official narrative. That's why IMO he bailed on the conversation after trying and failing to change the subject by asking me if I could prove that one piece of evidence was faked, which wasn't the subject we were discussing. On his own blog he made sure the conversation stayed well clear of the actual subject.
Thumb1:
-
David does the same thing in every conversation he copies over to his website. It’s highly dishonest and it’s part of the reason he was kicked off the education forum.
-
This is why there is no point in having a discussion with you. You argue for argument's sake.
You ask me: What do you mean by ""current time"?"
When you are the guy who actually brought up the term first;
Don't even bother replying. I'm done with wasting my time with you and it will give you more time to try and put square pegs in round holes.
Let's go back to what you wrote:
Oh very well. Yes it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him, except there is no guarantee that the clock is showing the "current time" and we know from Bowles that the timestamps were not always called correctly.
You start off by directly quoting me ("it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him") but then go on to say "no guarantee that the clock is showing the 'current time'." But putting the second "current time" in quotes, you differentiated it from my use of the term. So I asked you to clarify what you'd meant by that.
Your response was to throw a hissy fit and stomp off. Go figure.
-
Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.
“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”
-
Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.
“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”
Todd isn't interested in what Bowles said. In fact he will twist and turn as much as he can to justify the conclusion that the DPD timestamps are somehow correct. He never achieves that, of course, but he will keep on trying. Which combines nicely with his nasty habit of arguing for argument's sake, as he has done again in the post above yours.
-
Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.
“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”
The station checks are where the announcer states the stations call sign. That's supposed to happen something like every 30 minutes on public safety channels, but there is no requirement that it happens at any specific minute. Those aren't the timestamps we're talking about here.
Station ID happens twice in the hour or so after the assassination. First, the "KKB364 12:30" broadcast on channel two. That one doesn't fit Bowles hypothetical scenario because traffic the traffic before the station check is too sparse. There is another at the tail end of the 12:45 simulcast announced by the channel two dispatcher. However, this is preceded by two 12:43 and one 12:44 timestamps and followed by a 12:46 timestamp --just as would be expected if "12:45" was correct, at least as far as the ch 2 clock is concerned. And not at all like what we'd see if your pet Bowles worst-case-scenario was in play.
-
Todd isn't interested in what Bowles said. In fact he will twist and turn as much as he can to justify the conclusion that the DPD timestamps are somehow correct. He never achieves that, of course, but he will keep on trying. Which combines nicely with his nasty habit of arguing for argument's sake, as he has done again in the post above yours.
I have said --repeatedly-- are that the DPD timestamps are correct, as far as the clocks used by the dispatchers are concerned. I have also maintained, from the beginning, is that channel 1 time is within one minute of channel 2 time, and that channel 2 time is within one minute of what you call "real time."
-
Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.
-
Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.
I have already laid out my arguments for this in at least one other thread. You are welcome to examine and challenge them as well as you are able. Otherwise, your "you haven't actually proved this" shtick is just a load of childish whining.
-
Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.
And, despite his claims to the contrary, he never will. It's made up out of thin air.
-
To get back to David von Pein's blatant misrepresentation on his blog of the conversation in this thread.
Not only is it dishonest, but it is also an admission of the weakness of his own case. If the official narrative was strong enough to withstand scrutiny, David would not only would have stood his ground in the discussion here, instead of bailing out of the conversation, but he also would have no need to misrepresent the conversation on his blog, by editing posts and even ignoring posts that he doesn't like and hasn't got a credible rebuttal for.
-
I have already laid out my arguments for this in at least one other thread. You are welcome to examine and challenge them as well as you are able.
And I have done that repeatedly. Your arguments rely on unsubstantiated assumptions.
-
And I have done that repeatedly. Your arguments rely on unsubstantiated assumptions.
If by "I have done that repeatedly," you mean:
-- Trying to rely on Bowles' unsubstantiated speculations as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card
-- Playing dumb about what I've argued in this particular case
-- Putting scare quotes around the term regression analysis because you know nothing about the fairly common statistical technique, or how it's been used in the JFK case
-- lame eye-rolling
-- making oblique, nebulous, and unexplained references to Francis Cason talking about different clocks that Bowles.
you have definitely managed the feat. And that's about all you've managed. You haven't actually rebutted anything I've argued. Just pretended to.
-
And, despite his claims to the contrary, he never will. It's made up out of thin air.
The best that you can do at this point is to make a completely unsubstantiated claim that I've made it all up. And you do it in this passive-aggressive I-won't-say-it-to-him-but-I'll-say-it-about-him-where-he-can-hear-it way common to sniffy teen-aged girls. Nice
-
Mitch, who are you trying to fool?
- you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not
- you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.
- you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.
- you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.
- you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.
- you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.
- you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
-
Mitch, who are you trying to fool?
- you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not
- you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.
- you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.
- you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.
- you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.
- you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.
- you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
- you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
hear! hear!
-
It's not really something requiring discussion. Your calculations did not factor in the time between the end of Bowley's transmission and the "603,602 1:19" transmission. This is simply a fact. As a direct result of this mistake, your assertion that the first "1:19" timestamp occurs at 1:18:35 is simply wrong, and it is wrong no matter what you think happened before 1:16.
It's a pity you allowed yourself to be distracted from this point.
Martin and John fail to realise that "real time" is utterly meaningless in this case.
There is no way to corroborate that any watch/clock is synchronised with whatever is to be regarded as the representation of "real time" [the USNO master clock according to John].
No Unassailable Fact or Absolute Truth can be determined from the available evidence regarding the Tme in this case, we are in the subjective realms of Common Sense and Reasonable Doubt.
There are three Times to consider:
Police Time - the timestamps called out by the police radio dispatchers on channels 1 and 2
Dealey Time - the clocks/watches in Dealey Plaza and any witness evidence regarding times
Patton Time - the clocks/watches around Patton and 10th, plus any witness evidence regarding times.
The events in Dealey Plaza are connected to those around Patton and 10th by the police radio. An example would be Bowley's call on the radio in Tippit's car being heard by Hill, Owens, Sawyer and Alexander stood in front of the TSBD building.
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.
-
It's a pity you allowed yourself to be distracted from this point.
Martin and John fail to realise that "real time" is utterly meaningless in this case.
There is no way to corroborate that any watch/clock is synchronised with whatever is to be regarded as the representation of "real time" [the USNO master clock according to John].
No Unassailable Fact or Absolute Truth can be determined from the available evidence regarding the Tme in this case, we are in the subjective realms of Common Sense and Reasonable Doubt.
There are three Times to consider:
Police Time - the timestamps called out by the police radio dispatchers on channels 1 and 2
Dealey Time - the clocks/watches in Dealey Plaza and any witness evidence regarding times
Patton Time - the clocks/watches around Patton and 10th, plus any witness evidence regarding times.
The events in Dealey Plaza are connected to those around Patton and 10th by the police radio. An example would be Bowley's call on the radio in Tippit's car being heard by Hill, Owens, Sawyer and Alexander stood in front of the TSBD building.
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.
The events in Dealey Plaza are connected to those around Patton and 10th by the police radio.
That would be the case if the recordings of the police radio were indeed continuously, which they were not. Also not to be ignored is a sliced tape at 1:12:15 that nobody knows how long the gap really is.
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.
What available evidence would that be?
There are three Times to consider:
Actually, there are a few more times to consider;
1. The time it took Markham to walk to block to take her regurar bus on Jefferson
2. The time Bowley's daughter's school bell rings
3. The time needed for Bowley and his daughter to drive 6.3 miles to get from Singing Hills to 10th street
4. The time Callaway needed to run down Patton to 10th street (less then one block)
4. The time the doctor at Methodist hospital declared Tippit D.O.A. at 1:15
5. The time Officer Davenport reported that same time of D.O.A. in two separate reports
You see, there is a sequence of events which can be linked to eachother.
After Markham left home only needed to walk one block of roughly 400 feet to get to 10th and Patton. When she arrived there she stopped to let a couple of cars pass by. She then saw a man walking east followed by a slow driving police car. Less than 30 seconds later shots were fired. Callaway heard those shots and then saw a man running towards him on Patton. When the men turned onto Jefferson, Callaway ran less than one block to the scene of the shooting. When he arrived, Bowley was already there and had already made his 48 seconds long radio call.
Now, here's the thing; Bowley said he picked up his daughter at school at 12:55, but let's say that he was there and waited for the girl until the school bell rang at 1:00. He then went to pick up his wife from work, on 9th street. He used Marsalis Ave and drove a verifiable total of 6.3 miles, which at a normal speed of 30 miles per hour would have taken him 12 minutes. We know for a fact that he arrived between Tippit being shot and Callaway arriving on the scene. He said he looket at his watch and it said 1:10, but let's for argument's sake say that his watch was off by 2 minutes and it really was 1:12. Taking in consideration that Bowley needed 48 seconds to make his radio call, it is a fair assumption that he probably arrived at the scene around 1 minute after the shooting. Markham was there roughly 1 or 1,5 minutes before the shooting after walking one block of 400 feet in about 2,5 to 3 minutes. It's not 100% perfect, but the time Markham said she left home, at 1:06 or 1:07 fits perfectly into this time line.
So, for Tippit not to be shot at around 1:10, this entire block of evidence needs to shift in time by several minutes, resulting in Bowley needed at least 17 minutes to drive 6.3 miles and Markham being at the scene at the time she was supposed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson to get her regular bus. Very unlikely.
-
The events in Dealey Plaza are connected to those around Patton and 10th by the police radio.
That would be the case if the recordings of the police radio were indeed continuously, which they were not. Also not to be ignored is a sliced tape at 1:12:15 that nobody knows how long the gap really is.
Just to clarify - you do agree that when Hill, Sawyer etc., stood out front of the TSBD building, hear Bowley's call on the police radio, that Bowley is sat in Tippit's car at that moment?
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.
What available evidence would that be?
Much of it has been presented elsewhere regarding synchronising Dealey Time with Police Time and synchronising Channel 1 with Channel 2. You, yourself have taken part in discussions involving this evidence.
There are three Times to consider:
Actually, there are a few more times to consider;
1. The time it took Markham to walk to block to take her regurar bus on Jefferson
2. The time Bowley's daughter's school bell rings
3. The time needed for Bowley and his daughter to drive 6.3 miles to get from Singing Hills to 10th street
4. The time Callaway needed to run down Patton to 10th street (less then one block)
4. The time the doctor at Methodist hospital declared Tippit D.O.A. at 1:15
5. The time Officer Davenport reported that same time of D.O.A. in two separate reports
I would consider all these as part of what I am loosely calling Patton Time
You see, there is a sequence of events which can be linked to each other.
This is equally true for events in Dealey Plaza
After Markham left home only needed to walk one block of roughly 400 feet to get to 10th and Patton. When she arrived there she stopped to let a couple of cars pass by. She then saw a man walking east followed by a slow driving police car. Less than 30 seconds later shots were fired. Callaway heard those shots and then saw a man running towards him on Patton. When the men turned onto Jefferson, Callaway ran less than one block to the scene of the shooting. When he arrived, Bowley was already there and had already made his 48 seconds long radio call.
Now, here's the thing; Bowley said he picked up his daughter at school at 12:55, but let's say that he was there and waited for the girl until the school bell rang at 1:00. He then went to pick up his wife from work, on 9th street. He used Marsalis Ave and drove a verifiable total of 6.3 miles, which at a normal speed of 30 miles per hour would have taken him 12 minutes. We know for a fact that he arrived between Tippit being shot and Callaway arriving on the scene. He said he looket at his watch and it said 1:10, but let's for argument's sake say that his watch was off by 2 minutes and it really was 1:12. Taking in consideration that Bowley needed 48 seconds to make his radio call, it is a fair assumption that he probably arrived at the scene around 1 minute after the shooting. Markham was there roughly 1 or 1,5 minutes before the shooting after walking one block of 400 feet in about 2,5 to 3 minutes. It's not 100% perfect, but the time Markham said she left home, at 1:06 or 1:07 fits perfectly into this time line.
So, for Tippit not to be shot at around 1:10, this entire block of evidence needs to shift in time by several minutes, resulting in Bowley needed at least 17 minutes to drive 6.3 miles and Markham being at the scene at the time she was supposed to be at the bus stop on Jefferson to get her regular bus. Very unlikely.
Obviously, I'm familiar with your arguments - which I find convincing.
The problem is that the scenario you're putting forward requires a five minute discrepancy between Patton Time and Police Time.
I wanted to explore this aspect of your claim, so I approached it from the angle that a similar five minute discrepancy must also be present between Police Tme and Dealey Time. I have failed to find anything that supports this claim but that doesn't mean it's not there, just that I have failed to find it.
What I have found is that the limited evidence available regarding this aspect of the case supports the view that such a discrepancy does not exist.
-
Just to clarify - you do agree that when Hill, Sawyer etc., stood out front of the TSBD building, hear Bowley's call on the police radio, that Bowley is sat in Tippit's car at that moment?
Much of it has been presented elsewhere regarding synchronising Dealey Time with Police Time and synchronising Channel 1 with Channel 2. You, yourself have taken part in discussions involving this evidence.
I would consider all these as part of what I am loosely calling Patton Time
This is equally true for events in Dealey Plaza
Obviously, I'm familiar with your arguments - which I find convincing.
The problem is that the scenario you're putting forward requires a five minute discrepancy between Patton Time and Police Time.
I wanted to explore this aspect of your claim, so I approached it from the angle that a similar five minute discrepancy must also be present between Police Tme and Dealey Time. I have failed to find anything that supports this claim but that doesn't mean it's not there, just that I have failed to find it.
What I have found is that the limited evidence available regarding this aspect of the case supports the view that such a discrepancy does not exist.
Just to clarify - you do agree that when Hill, Sawyer etc., stood out front of the TSBD building, hear Bowley's call on the police radio, that Bowley is sat in Tippit's car at that moment?
Please elaborate. Where did you get from that Hill, Sawyer etc heard Bowley's call standing out front of the TSBD building, and how is that even important unless you can provide a verifiable time for those men being there and hearing the call.
Edit: ignore the first question. I see it came from Hill's WC testimony. The second question becomes more relevant as Hill does not mention a time, at least not in his testimony.
The problem is that the scenario you're putting forward requires a five minute discrepancy between Patton Time and Police Time.
Roughly five minutes, yes. Have you taken in consideration that the DPD recording was interrupted, for an indefinitive period, at 1:12:15, due to a sliced tape?
What I have found is that the limited evidence available regarding this aspect of the case supports the view that such a discrepancy does not exist.
And what exactly would that available limited evidence be?
So, far I have only mentioned the sequence of events that links Markham, Bowley and Callaway together. If you assume that the DPD time stamps are accurate you need to explain what Markham was still doing at 10th/Patton at 1:14:30 when she was supposed to be at her bus stop in Jefferson around that time. Also, it needs to be explained how Bowley would have needed at least 17 minutes to drive 6.3 miles.
But that's not all. Tippit being declared D.O.A. at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 and Officer Davenport confirming that same time in to separate reports also ties in perfectly with the Markham/Bowley/Callaway sequence as the driver of the ambulance, Butler, confirms that it took him about 4 minutes to get from the Funeral home, pick up Tippit and get to the hospital.
-
But we certainly could never do without yours, right? (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
And I have never once ever said I was. Ever.
I just follow the actual evidence in the case, Martin. That's all. (You know, that's the stuff that most conspiracists have chosen to mangle, skew, or just plain ignore.)
And just because I choose to believe that the evidence in the case has not all been faked and/or manufactured (and therefore my belief is that Lee Oswald was not "just a patsy"), I am accused of "conducting a bogus propaganda campaign".
Beautiful.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
And my OPINION is to be considered a "bogus propaganda campaign", but your OPINION, however, is not to be considered "propaganda" in the slightest way. Is that it, St. Martin?
Beautiful.
PROPAGANDA (noun) --- Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Reprise ----> (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
----------------------------------------------
Bonus Breath Of Fresh Air....
"It is remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
I’ll say it. DVP is an authority on the JFK murder. That’s obvious to any sane researcher, LN or CT.
-
I’ll say it. DVP is an authority on the JFK murder. That’s obvious to any sane researcher, LN or CT.
He's also a dishonest propagandist, who bails out of a conversation he understands he can't win and misrepresents discussions with others on his blog. You don't have to be researcher to see that.
-
He's also a dishonest propagandist, who bails out of a conversation he understands he can't win and misrepresents discussions with others on his blog. You don't have to be researcher to see that.
That’s your opinion Martin. Answer this if you can: was the late Gary Mack a researcher or propagandist?
-
That’s your opinion Martin. Answer this if you can: was the late Gary Mack a researcher or propagandist?
I'm not going to have a discussion about Gary Mack with you, Paul
As far as what I said about Von Pein, sure it's my opinion but it is also the truth, because he did bail out of conversation with me and he did misrepresent what I said in that conversation on his blog. Just go back in this thread and you will find my post in which I explain exactly what he did. Or, if you don't want to know, don't look at that post.
-
I'm not going to have a discussion about Gary Mack with you, Paul
As far as what I said about Von Pein, sure it's my opinion but it is also the truth, because he did bail out of conversation with me and he did misrepresent what I said in that conversation on his blog. Just go back in this thread and you will find my post in which I explain exactly what he did. Or, if you don't want to know, don't look at that post.
Was a question only Martin, not a discussion.
-
"Did John's baptism come from heaven or was it merely human?"
That’s your opinion Martin. Answer this if you can: was the late Gary Mack a researcher or propagandist?
-
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.
No, because there is no legitimate way to correlate Dealey time with Patton time. The available evidence is that we don’t know how much of a discrepancy there was.
-
As far as what I said about Von Pein...he did bail out of conversation with me and he did misrepresent what I said in that conversation on his blog.
I said everything I wanted (or needed) to say in that conversation in order to get my points across with respect to J.D. Tippit's murder.
Not everything uttered by every CTer in every discussion is going to get moved over to my own blog site, and that is so for one very simple and logical reason, which is a reason I stressed many times at The Education Forum when my blog archive became such a popular topic with the CTers there in 2016 and again in 2019:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The stuff I save on my site is mainly for the purpose of archiving MY OWN words and MY OWN Kennedy arguments. And what better place to archive one's own material than at their own site (or blog)?
Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? One year? Two years? Who knows? All Lancer Forum posts are now gone forever, except for perhaps a few that are recoverable via the Wayback Machine at Archive.org.
IMO, it's just dumb to take that risk. So, I archive my own material at my site. And if "my material" is in the form of a REPLY to a conspiracy theorist on a JFK forum, then (of course) it makes sense to bring the CTer's words that I'm replying to along for the ride too." -- DVP; February 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three years later (after apparently not giving a damn about this matter for the interim 3-year period), it suddenly became a major issue with some of the CTers at the EF, at which time I said the following (all emphasis in original post):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I shall again stress this important point....
The portions of any Internet forum discussion that I copy to my website are almost always only the portions that I myself have CHOSEN to participate in --- and no more than that. If I have chosen not to respond to various points being made in the same thread, then (naturally) there will be nothing in those particular sections of a discussion that I would have a desire to transfer over to my site --- because my main goal at my site is to archive my own comments and posts (so that my posts won't be lost to the dustbin of the Internet junkyard should the forums I'm posting on go belly-up in the future). But the entire discussion is always made available to view via a link that I always include (if it's available) at the bottom of each of my webpages.
And it is my firm opinion that I have not "distorted" or "misrepresented" anyone's comments
that appear on my website. (James DiEugenio's constant protests to the contrary
notwithstanding.)" -- DVP; August 2019
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically, there was a discussion on this very forum back in early September of 2014 in which Martin Weidmann and I
had the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Do you really copy/paste every discussion about JFK?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Most of the ones that I am personally involved in, yes. (So I can archive them at my websites.)
Sorry if it bothers you.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Please tell me you have a life beyond this case..... if you can, that is.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I can't tell you that, because I don't have a life. Haven't for years.
Sorry if it bothers you.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
It doesn't bother me at all. I just think it is very very sad, that's all.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, it is. But we puppets who work at Langley have no choice. Once CIA---always CIA.
~sigh~
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
That's an extremely paranoid reply, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hint: It was a joke, Martin.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
I was only amazed that anybody would go through such length to archive and index most of his conversations about a 50 year old murder.
What would the purpose for that even be?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I like to archive my writings in a place where I know they'll be safe.
Plus, I don't like the idea of taking hours (sometimes) to write an article or an Internet post and then having it virtually vanish from sight overnight (as almost all Internet forum posts do). That is to say, they get buried under a sea of other things in a very short period of time. And who is going to take the time to dig deep into the bowels of a forum's archives for 5-year-old posts or 10-year-old discussions? I sure don't.
What a huge waste of time and energy it would be to continually post in such a fashion, particularly in an Internet world where forums can come and go about as fast as a start-up airline. Take Bob Harris' now-defunct forum, for example, with all of those posts now gone into the dustbin of cyberspace. (And I thought Bob had a pretty good forum, too. Too bad all that work was wiped out when he decided it wasn't worth the effort.)
Ergo, I archive my material on my own site, where I have many articles indexed on the main page for easy access.
Simple as that.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-791.html#Archiving-Discussions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(NOTE --- The above 2014 posts were written prior to the 2018 hacking incident,
so I can no longer link to the original thread here at Duncan's forum.)
-
I said everything I wanted (or needed) to say in that conversation in order to get my points across with respect to J.D. Tippit's murder.
Not everything uttered by every CTer in every discussion is going to get moved over to my own blog site, and that is so for one very simple and logical reason, which is a reason I stressed many times at The Education Forum when my blog archive became such a popular topic with the CTers there in 2016 and again in 2019:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The stuff I save on my site is mainly for the purpose of archiving MY OWN words and MY OWN Kennedy arguments. And what better place to archive one's own material than at their own site (or blog)?
Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? One year? Two years? Who knows? All Lancer Forum posts are now gone forever, except for perhaps a few that are recoverable via the Wayback Machine at Archive.org.
IMO, it's just dumb to take that risk. So, I archive my own material at my site. And if "my material" is in the form of a REPLY to a conspiracy theorist on a JFK forum, then (of course) it makes sense to bring the CTer's words that I'm replying to along for the ride too." -- DVP; February 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three years later (after apparently not giving a damn about this matter for the interim 3-year period), it suddenly became a major issue with some of the CTers at the EF, at which time I said the following (all emphasis in original post):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I shall again stress this important point....
The portions of any Internet forum discussion that I copy to my website are almost always only the portions that I myself have CHOSEN to participate in --- and no more than that. If I have chosen not to respond to various points being made in the same thread, then (naturally) there will be nothing in those particular sections of a discussion that I would have a desire to transfer over to my site --- because my main goal at my site is to archive my own comments and posts (so that my posts won't be lost to the dustbin of the Internet junkyard should the forums I'm posting on go belly-up in the future). But the entire discussion is always made available to view via a link that I always include (if it's available) at the bottom of each of my webpages.
And it is my firm opinion that I have not "distorted" or "misrepresented" anyone's comments
that appear on my website. (James DiEugenio's constant protests to the contrary
notwithstanding.)" -- DVP; August 2019
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically, there was a discussion on this very forum back in early September of 2014 in which Martin Weidmann and I
had the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Do you really copy/paste every discussion about JFK?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Most of the ones that I am personally involved in, yes. (So I can archive them at my websites.)
Sorry if it bothers you.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Please tell me you have a life beyond this case..... if you can, that is.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I can't tell you that, because I don't have a life. Haven't for years.
Sorry if it bothers you.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
It doesn't bother me at all. I just think it is very very sad, that's all.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, it is. But we puppets who work at Langley have no choice. Once CIA---always CIA.
~sigh~
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
That's an extremely paranoid reply, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hint: It was a joke, Martin.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
I was only amazed that anybody would go through such length to archive and index most of his conversations about a 50 year old murder.
What would the purpose for that even be?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I like to archive my writings in a place where I know they'll be safe.
Plus, I don't like the idea of taking hours (sometimes) to write an article or an Internet post and then having it virtually vanish from sight overnight (as almost all Internet forum posts do). That is to say, they get buried under a sea of other things in a very short period of time. And who is going to take the time to dig deep into the bowels of a forum's archives for 5-year-old posts or 10-year-old discussions? I sure don't.
What a huge waste of time and energy it would be to continually post in such a fashion, particularly in an Internet world where forums can come and go about as fast as a start-up airline. Take Bob Harris' now-defunct forum, for example, with all of those posts now gone into the dustbin of cyberspace. (And I thought Bob had a pretty good forum, too. Too bad all that work was wiped out when he decided it wasn't worth the effort.)
Ergo, I archive my material on my own site, where I have many articles indexed on the main page for easy access.
Simple as that.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-791.html#Archiving-Discussions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(NOTE --- The above 2014 posts were written prior to the 2018 hacking incident,
so I can no longer link to the original thread here at Duncan's forum.)
Not everything uttered by every CTer in every discussion is going to get moved over to my own blog site,
The stuff I save on my site is mainly for the purpose of archiving MY OWN words and MY OWN Kennedy arguments. And what better place to archive one's own material than at their own site (or blog)?
Storing only your own words and Kennedy arguments on your own blog would be no problem. But that's not what you do. You actually select words and Kennedy arguments from others, from a wider conversation, in accordance with what you like and in doing so you purposely misrepresent what the other people have said in order to present a completely untrue version of the actual conversation. By editing out the parts you don't like you can steer any discussion in any direction and always (and that's the real reason for it) come out the "winner" of the argument. It's the way propaganda works.
As soon as you decide that you are going to copy/paste a conversation with a third party, you should have the decency and, quite honestly, the obligation to present the arguments from both side in a truthful and complete manner. It's either that or not use third party conversations with others at all.
The portions of any Internet forum discussion that I copy to my website are almost always only the portions that I myself have CHOSEN to participate in --- and no more than that. If I have chosen not to respond to various points being made in the same thread, then (naturally) there will be nothing in those particular sections of a discussion that I would have a desire to transfer over to my site --- because my main goal at my site is to archive my own comments and posts
Thank you admitting so clearly that you distort and edit other people's posts in accordance with what you like. It is the epiphany of dishonesty and demonstrates a complete and utter disrespect for the people whose words you use to fabricate a conversation that actually never happened that way. The Education Forum was right to ban you and if you ask me, Duncan should do the same here. Why? Because if he doesn't, members here might think twice of having a discussion and risk being misrepresented on a blog, where they have no right of reply. That's why.
-
Storing only your own words and Kennedy arguments on your own blog would be no problem. But that's not what you do.
You actually select words and Kennedy arguments from others, from a wider conversation, in accordance with what you like...
Which is precisely what everybody does at every JFK forum that has ever existed, and you surely know it.
Everybody picks & chooses "select words and Kennedy arguments" from "wider conversations" that they wish to respond to (i.e., "in accordance with what [the forum member likes]").
Has there ever been a member of a forum (any forum) that hasn't done precisely that?
And if your response to this is going to be....
But most of those forum members don't then copy their discussions to their own blog.
....I'd then remind you that I have always made a great effort to make links available on all of my webpages that point directly back to the original and complete forum discussion(s) (if such original links are still available online).
...and in doing so you purposely misrepresent what the other people have said in order to present a completely untrue version of the actual conversation.
It's my opinion that the above comment by Martin Weidmann is 100% B.S.!
"Completely untrue version..." ??
Such slander should not be permitted at this forum. The above three words are utterly ridiculous and outrageous....and, of course, totally false.
I was treated to similar B.S. about "distortion" and "misrepresentation" at the EF forum too. The moderator/owner of that forum (James R. Gordon) was even silly enough to utter the following absurdities:
JAMES R. GORDON -- "It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context. .... In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum."
DAVID V.P. -- "I strongly resent such a charge. Furthermore, it's a really stupid charge in the first place. Since I am merely taking verbatim quotes from the EF forum over to my own site, Gordon must actually think I'm some sort of Houdini or David Copperfield, in that I am apparently able to take those verbatim CTer quotes and (somehow) change the entire belief structure of the conspiracy theorist being quoted. Even though, keep in mind, the quotes are the EXACT VERBATIM WORDS that were written by the CTer at the EF forum before I copied them to another Internet location. I guess I'm more powerful than I thought! Unbelievable! In other words --- James R. Gordon is full of s**t. It appears to me as if he has been significantly influenced by the other conspiracy theorists at the EF forum who also contend that I have taken things "out of context" and have literally "changed" what CTers have posted at the EF forum. But regardless of which CTer utters such garbage, it's still going to be garbage (and a lie)."
JAMES R. GORDON -- "DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website."
DAVID V.P. -- "More lies. .... Plus, Gordon should re-read this comment I aimed at him earlier today at the EF forum ---- "With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on...I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum." -- DVP ---- And the bunk about me having "two opinions" on various JFK matters is just...well...bizarre (to say the least). Where on this Earth did Gordon get the idea that my basic "opinions" about any aspect of the JFK murder case somehow change between the time I post my thoughts at The Education Forum and when I re-post those EXACT SAME VERBATIM COMMENTS at my website? The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....WTF?"
-
Not everything uttered by every CTer in every discussion is going to get moved over to my own blog site,
Especially the parts that refute you or make you look bad. This is, after all, purely an exercise in ego.
-
Which is precisely what everybody does at every JFK forum that has ever existed, and you surely know it.
Everybody picks & chooses "select words and Kennedy arguments" from "wider conversations" that they wish to respond to (i.e., "in accordance with what [the forum member likes]").
Has there ever been a member of a forum (any forum) that hasn't done precisely that?
Yes, there are members here who select very carefully what they respond to, but not all of them. And the fact that two people having a conversation sometimes do not fully answer the other person's question is a completely other matter than you selecting the words of the other and posting it, out of context, in a blog where the other has no possibility of reply.
And if your response to this is going to be....
But most of those forum members don't then copy their discussions to their own blog.
....I'd then remind you that I have always made a great effort to make links available on all of my webpages that point directly back to the original and complete forum discussion(s) (if such original links are still available online).
Which of course is a cheap excuse as the main reason you give for storing information in your own blog is to safeguard against disappearance.
Your words;
"Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? "
So, you're quite happy to risk that the original conversations you post a link to "vanish into nothingness" as long as what you want people to take away from your own blog remains.
It's my opinion that the above comment by Martin Weidmann is 100% B.S.!
"Completely untrue version..." ??
Such slander should not be permitted at this forum. The above three words are utterly ridiculous and outrageous....and, of course, totally false.
When you edit the words of somebody else and leave out, sometimes vital parts, what you don't like, you do indeed create a completely untrue version of the conversation. Case in point; when I confronted you with the logic of the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline as apparent from the circumstantial evidence you not only bailed out of the conversation but completely and purposely omitted that entire argument from your blog, thus presenting a completely untrue version of the actual conversation.
I was treated to similar B.S. about "distortion" and "misrepresentation" at the EF forum too. The moderator/owner of that forum (James R. Gordon) was even silly enough to utter the following absurdities:
JAMES R. GORDON -- "It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context. .... In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum."
DAVID V.P. -- "I strongly resent such a charge. Furthermore, it's a really stupid charge in the first place. Since I am merely taking verbatim quotes from the EF forum over to my own site, Gordon must actually think I'm some sort of Houdini or David Copperfield, in that I am apparently able to take those verbatim CTer quotes and (somehow) change the entire belief structure of the conspiracy theorist being quoted. Even though, keep in mind, the quotes are the EXACT VERBATIM WORDS that were written by the CTer at the EF forum before I copied them to another Internet location. I guess I'm more powerful than I thought! Unbelievable! In other words --- James R. Gordon is full of s**t. It appears to me as if he has been significantly influenced by the other conspiracy theorists at the EF forum who also contend that I have taken things "out of context" and have literally "changed" what CTers have posted at the EF forum. But regardless of which CTer utters such garbage, it's still going to be garbage (and a lie)."
JAMES R. GORDON -- "DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website."
DAVID V.P. -- "More lies. .... Plus, Gordon should re-read this comment I aimed at him earlier today at the EF forum ---- "With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on...I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum." -- DVP ---- And the bunk about me having "two opinions" on various JFK matters is just...well...bizarre (to say the least). Where on this Earth did Gordon get the idea that my basic "opinions" about any aspect of the JFK murder case somehow change between the time I post my thoughts at The Education Forum and when I re-post those EXACT SAME VERBATIM COMMENTS at my website? The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....WTF?"
Sorry, not interested in any conversation you may have had on another forum, because it is painfully obvious that I can not rely on it being a complete and/or accurate representation of what was really said.
Just one comment; I'm clearly not the only one who has accused you of this kind of dishonesty. Just how many people need to complain about before you stop misrepresenting the words of others?
-
Especially the parts that refute you or make you look bad. This is, after all, purely an exercise in ego.
Indeed. That's why his blog is propaganda based on misrepresentation of what others have said.
-
So, you're quite happy to risk that the original conversations you post a link to "vanish into nothingness" as long as what you want people to take away from your own blog remains.
You're being silly here, Martin. I have no control whatsoever over the fate of any JFK forum. So that's a "risk" I have no choice but to take (if I choose to post on a forum). Which is kind of the whole point of my wanting to preserve my own posts at an Internet location that I can control (until Google or Blogger go down the tubes at any rate, which isn't very likely).
-
You're being silly here, Martin. I have no control whatsoever over the fate of any JFK forum. Which is kind of the whole point of my wanting to preserve my own posts at an Internet location that I can control (until Google or Blogger go down the tubes at any rate, which isn't very likely).
You're being silly here, Martin. I have no control whatsoever over the fate of any JFK forum.
That's not the point. In your holier than thou approach, you try to justify your editing of other people's words on your blog with the poor excuse that you always post a link to the whole conversation. You are doing so in the full knowledge that the original conversation can vanish, where your blog will survive, along with the edited versions of what others have actually said.
It is really very simple; don't use the words of others on your blog (without their consent) or post all of it. What you do is dishonest, a misrepresentation of the facts, and btw and admission of the weakness of your own arguments. Ever thought about that, have you?
-
James Gordon is right and so is Martin Weidmann. By selectively leaving out parts of the conversation, you are creating a false narrative. That is nothing like selecting what portions of a forum post to respond to in your own post to the same forum, for the simple reason that the entire post and the context is right there in the same forum for all to see. Somebody who stumbles onto your blog or clicks on a link that you post elsewhere is not getting the complete context of what was said, but they are still associating people’s names with your carefully curated version of the conversation. That’s neither fair nor honest.
-
Don't use the words of others on your blog (without their consent) or post all of it. What you do is dishonest, a misrepresentation of the facts, and btw an admission of the weakness of your own arguments. Ever thought about that, have you?
Absolutely not. As far as the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are concerned, I do not think (and never have thought) that any of my arguments are "weak". Just the opposite. The case against Oswald couldn't be much stronger. (Regardless of what portions of a particular discussion I choose to post at my own website.)
It's the "Conspiracy" and "Cover-Up" and "Oswald Was Framed" arguments that are pathetically weak when put up against the vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence. And that includes your recent "Callaway/Markham/Bowley Timeline" argument. That, too, is a very weak argument when placed alongside the virtual PROOF of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder which exists in the "Eyewitnesses & Bullet Shells" combination of evidence.
CTers will forever tell me that that combination of "Witnesses & The Bullet Shells" is just worthless and "proves" nothing. But those CTers are just talking through their hats, and even they probably know it.
When a CTer has to practically ignore (or gloss over) all of Lee Oswald's very own incriminating and unusual Nov. 22 actions, plus the PHYSICAL ballistics evidence and the multiple witnesses who positively IDed LHO as the gun-toting man on 10th Street, with that CTer instead focusing on the much-less-reliable mush such as "Timeline Evidence" of various witnesses....then I say it's time for that CTer to step back and attempt to re-evaluate the things that really matter the most in the Tippit murder case.
IOW---Should the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline really trump the fact that Lee Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63?*
* And, yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the two official Government investigations who looked into this matter), it is a FACT that Oswald was carrying the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater a mere 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.
-
Absolutely not. As far as the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are concerned, I do not think (and never have thought) that any of my arguments are "weak". Just the opposite. The case against Oswald couldn't be much stronger. (Regardless of what portions of a particular discussion I choose to post at my own website.)
It's the "Conspiracy" and "Cover-Up" and "Oswald Was Framed" arguments that are pathetically weak when put up against the vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence. And that includes your recent "Callaway/Markham/Bowley Timeline" argument. That, too, is a very weak argument when placed alongside the virtual PROOF of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder which exists in the "Eyewitnesses & Bullet Shells" combination of evidence.
CTers will forever tell me that that combination of "Witnesses & The Bullet Shells" is just worthless and "proves" nothing. But those CTers are just talking through their hats, and even they probably know it.
When a CTer has to practically ignore (or gloss over) all of Lee Oswald's very own incriminating and unusual Nov. 22 actions, plus the PHYSICAL ballistics evidence and the multiple witnesses who positively IDed LHO as the gun-toting man on 10th Street, with that CTer instead focusing on the much-less-reliable mush such as "Timeline Evidence" of various witnesses....then I say it's time for that CTer to step back and attempt to re-evaluate the things that really matter the most in the Tippit murder case.
IOW---Should the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline really trump the fact that Lee Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63?*
* And, yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the two official Government investigations who looked into this matter), it is a FACT that Oswald was carrying the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater a mere 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.
As far as the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are concerned, I do not think (and never have thought) that any of my arguments are "weak". Just the opposite. The case against Oswald couldn't be much stronger. (Regardless of what portions of a particular discussion I choose to post at my own website.)
BS. Of course you're going to say that. What else could you say? But actions speak louder than words and frequently reveal the truth. If your arguments were not weak, you would not feel the need to edit the posts of others on your blog and take out the parts you don't like or simply do not like to deal with. Neither would you bail out of a conversation!
It's the "Conspiracy" and "Cover-Up" and "Oswald Was Framed" arguments that are pathetically weak when put up against the vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence. And that includes your recent "Callaway/Markham/Bowley Timeline" argument. That, too, is a very weak argument when placed alongside the virtual PROOF of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder which exists in the "Eyewitnesses & Bullet Shells" combination of evidence.
Then why did you bail out of the conversation? There is only one reason; you couldn't refute what I said and you understood that it was a problem for the official narrative.
Btw, we were not talking about Oswald's guilt or innocence. We were talking about when Tippit was really shot and that Dale Myers was wrong when he claimed it was at 1:14:30.
CTers will forever tell me that that combination of "Witnesses & The Bullet Shells" is just worthless and "proves" nothing. But those CTers are just talking through their hats, and even they probably know it.
Nothing to do with me or our conversation.
When a CTer has to practically ignore (or gloss over) all of Lee Oswald's very own incriminating and unusual Nov. 22 actions, plus the PHYSICAL ballistics evidence and the multiple witnesses who positively IDed LHO as the gun-toting man on 10th Street, with that CTer instead focusing on the much-less-reliable mush such as "Timeline Evidence" of various witnesses....then I say it's time for that CTer to step back and attempt to re-evaluate the things that really matter the most in the Tippit murder case.
Nice bit of propaganda rhetoric. Not worthy of a reply. It just shows how fanatical you really are.
IOW---Should the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline really trump the fact that Lee Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63?*
Before you say something as stupid as this, you might at least want to try and prove - instead of assume - that the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater was in fact the "Tippit murder weapon". Or, do little facts like that don't bother you?
* And, yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the two official Government investigations who looked into this matter), it is a FACT that Oswald was carrying the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater a mere 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.
[/quote]
Appeal to authority fallacy. Biased Government enquiries can say and find whatever they want and they clearly did. That doesn't mean it's actually true. You can not use the WC report as proof when it is the narrative put forward by the WC (and propagandists like you) that's being challenged. Besides, the WC report is full of conclusions that are not supported by the evidence they published.
-
Too bad you can’t actually demonstrate what the Tippit murder weapon was or what weapon (if any) Oswald was carrying. Anyone can make an accusation.
There isn’t any “vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence”. It’s all rhetoric about his “guilty behavior” or misrepresentations like the above. That was the whole point of the “David Von Pein's ‘evidence’ deconstructed” topic.
-
Too bad you can’t actually demonstrate what the Tippit murder weapon was or what weapon (if any) Oswald was carrying. Anyone can make an accusation.
There isn’t any “vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence”. It’s all rhetoric about his “guilty behavior” or misrepresentations like the above. That was the whole point of the “David Von Pein's ‘evidence’ deconstructed” topic.
A guy claiming that the evidence is overwhelming doesn't need to misrepresent anything, if it really is overwhelming.
-
Mitch, who are you trying to fool?
- you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not
- you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.
- you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.
- you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.
- you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.
- you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.
- you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.
what I've said is that the Hertz clock, agrees with Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Powers' watch, and the channel two dispatchers clock in putting the assassination at 12:30. The odds of this happening from random happenstance are very small. And, we expect timepieces to converge on correct time as they regress towards the mean.
Alternatively, since we can relate these clocks directly to the assassination, we might as well set the assassination to 12:30 and use that datum as a reference for all subsequent events as if it were the "correct" time.
you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.
What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements. As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.
you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.
The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.
I pointed out that the recording system was designed so that the recorders' auto shutoff had a four second runoff delay at the end of a transmission. This was commonly done to reduce wear and tear on the recorder mechanicals. Therefore, before the recorder shuts off, it will record four seconds of dead air. So if there isn't a four-second spot of silence, then the recorder was running continuously. In particular, I applied this reasoning to the period between the start of Bowley's call and the 1:19 time stamp, BTW.
I didn't reference the regression analysis towards this end. However, BBN did use regression analysis to claim that channel one was running continuously from a bit before 12:30 to about 12:40 and that channel two was running continuously or nearly so beginning just after the assassination. The former conclusion is almost a gimme. After all, this is where the extended stuck mic episode occurred.
And, there's those scare quotes again.
you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.
I've said from the beginning that trying to pinpoint the instant of Tippit's shooting is as fools errand. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.
you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
This is a pretty rich statement coming from you. You started off by misrepresenting Bowles. And misrepresented what I've said. And shown that you're proud to be running off your big trap about a subject you know little about. But you think I'm arrogantly wasting people's time.
-
It's a pity you allowed yourself to be distracted from this point.
Martin and John fail to realise that "real time" is utterly meaningless in this case.
There is no way to corroborate that any watch/clock is synchronised with whatever is to be regarded as the representation of "real time" [the USNO master clock according to John].
No Unassailable Fact or Absolute Truth can be determined from the available evidence regarding the Tme in this case, we are in the subjective realms of Common Sense and Reasonable Doubt.
There are three Times to consider:
Police Time - the timestamps called out by the police radio dispatchers on channels 1 and 2
Dealey Time - the clocks/watches in Dealey Plaza and any witness evidence regarding times
Patton Time - the clocks/watches around Patton and 10th, plus any witness evidence regarding times.
The events in Dealey Plaza are connected to those around Patton and 10th by the police radio. An example would be Bowley's call on the radio in Tippit's car being heard by Hill, Owens, Sawyer and Alexander stood in front of the TSBD building.
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.
There are several clocks involves. There is a channel one DPD clock, and channel two DPD clock, the Hertz sign, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Bowley's watch, the funeral home clock, whatever Markham was using, and the Methodist clock. I guess we can include what Martin calls "real time" as well. Each is running with an offset to every other timepiece in this collection. The trick is to figure how far off they are, or at least to come up with a consistent narrative as to reconcile them as best as can be done.
-
you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.
what I've said is that the Hertz clock, agrees with Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Powers' watch, and the channel two dispatchers clock in putting the assassination at 12:30. The odds of this happening from random happenstance are very small. And, we expect timepieces to converge on correct time as they regress towards the mean.
Alternatively, since we can relate these clocks directly to the assassination, we might as well set the assassination to 12:30 and use that datum as a reference for all subsequent events as if it were the "correct" time.
you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.
What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements. As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.
you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.
The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.
I pointed out that the recording system was designed so that the recorders' auto shutoff had a four second runoff delay at the end of a transmission. This was commonly done to reduce wear and tear on the recorder mechanicals. Therefore, before the recorder shuts off, it will record four seconds of dead air. So if there isn't a four-second spot of silence, then the recorder was running continuously. In particular, I applied this reasoning to the period between the start of Bowley's call and the 1:19 time stamp, BTW.
I didn't reference the regression analysis towards this end. However, BBN did use regression analysis to claim that channel one was running continuously from a bit before 12:30 to about 12:40 and that channel two was running continuously or nearly so beginning just after the assassination. The former conclusion is almost a gimme. After all, this is where the extended stuck mic episode occurred.
And, there's those scare quotes again.
you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.
I've said from the beginning that trying to pinpoint the instant of Tippit's shooting is as fools errand. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.
you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
This is a pretty rich statement coming from you. You started off by misrepresenting Bowles. And misrepresented what I've said. And shown that you're proud to be running off your big trap about a subject you know little about. But you think I'm arrogantly wasting people's time.
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
What a load of BS. Bowles has first hand experience of what happens in the dispatcher room on a daily basis. If there is one person in the world who would know, it is him. He's not speculating and doesn't need to substantiate any scenario. He is just telling us what actually happens with the system.
You call it "unsubstantiated speculation" simply because you don't like what he is telling us. When it comes to the DPD radio dispatchers, I'll take Bowles' word over your theorizing and argumentative crap a thousand times.
you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.
This is a pretty rich statement coming from you. You started off by misrepresenting Bowles. And misrepresented what I've said. And shown that you're proud to be running off your big trap about a subject you know little about. But you think I'm arrogantly wasting people's time.
The mere fact that you think you can say that John is talking about a subject he knows little about, shows just how arrogant you really are. And yes, you are wasting everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou BS.
And btw, in all your ramblings you have ignored completely that there is a massive gap in the recordings, due to a sliced tape at 1:12:15. Also, the tape has clearly been manipulated as it contains a part of a conversation that doesn't show up in any transcript. And, also there were no timestamps called between 1:16 and 1:19, so starting at the point where Bowley starts making his radio call is pathetically meaningless, simply because there is no way of knowing for sure when that call actually started.
-
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
No, you misrepresent what Bowles said. He said the dispatcher time checks can not be relied on to reflect actual time. And he explained why.
what I've said is that the Hertz clock, agrees with Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Powers' watch, and the channel two dispatchers clock in putting the assassination at 12:30. The odds of this happening from random happenstance are very small.
You have no evidence of what somebody’s watch said other than his say-so. And in Kellerman’s case it’s not even his say-so. And Sorrels said “about 12:30”, whatever that means. Funny how Bowles’ say-so about the dispatcher clocks is “unsubstantiated speculation” but Powers’ say-so about his watch is unassailable fact. Besides, unless you have some basis for calculating odds, your “very small” claim is meaningless rhetoric. Incidentally, nobody said it was random happenstance.
Alternatively, since we can relate these clocks directly to the assassination, we might as well set the assassination to 12:30 and use that datum as a reference for all subsequent events as if it were the "correct" time.
Sure, and that’s what Bowles does in the rest of his treatise.Unfortunately that’s purely arbitrary and tells us nothing about what time it was when Tippit was shot.
What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements.
Of course there is. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.
As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.
No. You’re the one using his statement as the basis for an argument. It’s your burden to demonstrate that it’s actually true.
The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry. Asserting that something is “well-known” does not constitute supporting evidence.
I pointed out that the recording system was designed so that the recorders' auto shutoff had a four second runoff delay at the end of a transmission. This was commonly done to reduce wear and tear on the recorder mechanicals. Therefore, before the recorder shuts off, it will record four seconds of dead air. So if there isn't a four-second spot of silence, then the recorder was running continuously.
That’s irrelevant when the recordings can be edited. And they have been.
I've said from the beginning that trying to pinpoint the instant of Tippit's shooting is as fools errand.
If that’s the case, then why would you even care how close the dispatcher announcements are to real time? Especially enough to quibble about it endlessly.
-
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
What a load of BS. Bowles has first hand experience of what happens in the dispatcher room on a daily basis. If there is one person in the world who would know, it is him. He's not speculating and doesn't need to substantiate any scenario. He is just telling us what actually happens with the system.
You call it "unsubstantiated speculation" simply because you don't like what he is telling us. When it comes to the DPD radio dispatchers, I'll take Bowles' word over your theorizing and argumentative crap a thousand times.
You continue to misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He can only say that this one thing 'could have happened' a certain way or something else 'might have happened this way' or someone 'may have done something in this way.' Or, 'well, maybe it went like this'. If it begins with "might have" or "maybe" or "coulda" or "may have," it speculation, pretty much by definition. And he doesn't provide us with any specific examples of any of his hypothetical scenarios. Not from the channel recordings, the transcripts, or from any other source or time. That makes his speculation unsubstantiated, also by definition. So "unsubstantiated speculation" is a perfect description of Bowles' words.
The mere fact that you think you can say that John is talking about a subject he knows little about, shows just how arrogant you really are. And yes, you are wasting everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou BS.
And btw, in all your ramblings you have ignored completely that there is a massive gap in the recordings, due to a sliced tape at 1:12:15. Also, the tape has clearly been manipulated as it contains a part of a conversation that doesn't show up in any transcript. And, also there were no timestamps called between 1:16 and 1:19, so starting at the point where Bowley starts making his radio call is pathetically meaningless, simply because there is no way of knowing for sure when that call actually started.
John is pounding the table with his shoe, demanding that I present evidence of something that is already well known, and has been for decades. He might as well demand that I prove that the sky is blue on a cloudless summer day. If you think that I'm the one who's being arrogant here then you're in need of a proper dictionary.
And yes, there is a splice at about 1:12. But you've yet to explain how this affects anything that I've already written.
-
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
No, you misrepresent what Bowles said. He said the dispatcher time checks can not be relied on to reflect actual time. And he explained why.
To begin with, I've never claimed that the time checks "reflect real time," though I'm assuming that by "actual time" you mean Central Standard Time. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said, and it's getting to be a suspicious habit of yours. What I claim is that the various time announcements you hear after 12:30 are the result of one guy reading the (then) current time off of a clock in front of him. As such, the set of time announcements on each channel are internally consistent. Bowles advances a number of hypothetical reasons why one or another of these announcements might be off, but never stoops to the level of identifying a single instance of any of them happening. That is, all he can provide is unsubstantiated speculation.
what I've said is that the Hertz clock, agrees with Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Powers' watch, and the channel two dispatchers clock in putting the assassination at 12:30. The odds of this happening from random happenstance are very small.
You have no evidence of what somebody’s watch said other than his say-so. And in Kellerman’s case it’s not even his say-so. And Sorrels said “about 12:30”, whatever that means.
Those men simply said that at a certain point, their watch read a certain time. How dare I beleive that?! HOW DARE I?! Where does this madness end?! Next thing you know, people will be bringing up Bowley's account of looking at his watch. Can't do that. Mr Iacoletti might hear, and he would raise total H E double toothpicks if someone brought it up. Iacoletti would be all over the guy --TOTALLY all over the guy-- who brought Bowley up.
Oh, and Sorrels said "just about 12:30." The extra adjective makes a large difference in the specificity of the phrase. I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part.
Funny how Bowles’ say-so about the dispatcher clocks is “unsubstantiated speculation” but Powers’ say-so about his watch is unassailable fact.
Powers said that that a certain point in the motorcade, he looked at his watch and it read a certain time. Bowles claimed that there were certain situations where the announced time on the DPD radio channels might not be the time on the clocks read by the dispatchers. But Bowles couldn't point to a single instance of any of these hypothetical scenarios actually happening within the recordings. The difference is that Powers reports the actuality of what he saw, but Bowles trades in speculation about what might have occurred. You're bright enough to see the difference, so why are you making such a clatter about it?
Besides, unless you have some basis for calculating odds, your “very small” claim is meaningless rhetoric. Incidentally, nobody said it was random happenstance.
As to odds, let's see....
To begin with, let's go back to the idea that in the early 60's, most clocks in common use could only be expected to be within about 5 minutes of correct time. If we quantize down to the minute, that gives us eleven values: [-5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. We have Sorrel's watch, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, the Hertz sign, and the DPD channel two dispatcher's clock.... five in all. So, how likely is it that all five would be within the same minute, if we arrange the time on each clock randomly within the given set? The simplest way is to use one clock as a reference, and see how like it would be for the others to be in the same minute. IOW, the likelihood that all five clocks would be in the same minute is 1/(11^(5-1)) or 1/(11^4) or 1/14641 or 0.007%.
Let's say you don't like the +/-5 minute interval. Ok, we can tighten it down to within three minutes rather than five. That gives us seven possible values (-3, -2,...0,...,2,3). The likelihood that all five are on the same minute is 1/(7^4), or 1/2401 or 0.04%.
But maybe you don't like within three minutes. Okay. We can try two. That gives us five possible values from -2 to 0 to 2. And the resulting probability is 1/(5^4) or 1/625 or 0.16%.
And, maybe we could bring it down to plus or minus one minute, which would create a set of three possible values. That leads to a probability of 1/(3^4) or 1/81 or 1.23%. That's still pretty improbable.
BTW, one of the delicious aspects of this particular kerfluffle is watching you and Martin repeatedly pleading, "trust us, you gotta believe the cop! You gotta believe the cop!"
Alternatively, since we can relate these clocks directly to the assassination, we might as well set the assassination to 12:30 and use that datum as a reference for all subsequent events as if it were the "correct" time.
Sure, and that’s what Bowles does in the rest of his treatise. Unfortunately that’s purely arbitrary and tells us nothing about what time it was when Tippit was shot.
That's what an awful lot of researchers do. Why look a gift Hertz clock in the mouth? Especially when all those other clocks agree with it. Is this arbitrary? No more so than using any other clock, including using the NBS ones. The trick is to figure out the offset between them if you can.
What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements.
Of course there is. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.
I want you to go back to the first post in the "Lame LN Excuses" post, and preface every line in that post with what you just wrote, giving yourself generous credit each time. Should be fun!
As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.
No. You’re the one using his statement as the basis for an argument. It’s your burden to demonstrate that it’s actually true.
In order to use his statement as an argument, all I have to do is quote Powers and show that he said it. It is not my job to disprove each and every hypothetical objection that anyone could possibly dream up. Therefore, any objection to the result is completely up to you. You need to avail yourself of that opportunity. Otherwise you're just whizzin' into the wind.
The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry. Asserting that something is “well-known” does not constitute supporting evidence.
I do not have to "prove" that the simulcasts exist anymore than I have to prove that the world is round. It's well enough known, and has been known long enough that there is no further need to explain.
I pointed out that the recording system was designed so that the recorders' auto shutoff had a four second runoff delay at the end of a transmission. This was commonly done to reduce wear and tear on the recorder mechanicals. Therefore, before the recorder shuts off, it will record four seconds of dead air. So if there isn't a four-second spot of silence, then the recorder was running continuously.
That’s irrelevant when the recordings can be edited. And they have been.
There are a couple of splices in the known recordings. However, the existence of these does not prove, demonstrate, or imply that there are any other overdubs, splices, or edits on the recording. Just because it rained Tuesday doesn't mean it rained all week, or that it will rain tomorrow. If you want to argue an edit is in there somewhere which affects what I've written, you need to show that the edit is actually there. Otherwise, you're just hoping that one might be there, and hope is never a good plan. It's also never a good argument. Again, the burden in on you.
-
What I claim is that the various time announcements you hear after 12:30 are the result of one guy reading the (then) current time off of a clock in front of him. As such, the set of time announcements on each channel are internally consistent.
Actually it's two guys reading their own clocks, and then not always even that (as in the case of station ID). As such, the two clocks can be out of sync.
Bowles advances a number of hypothetical reasons why one or another of these announcements might be off, but never stoops to the level of identifying a single instance of any of them happening. That is, all he can provide is unsubstantiated speculation.
There's nothing "speculative" about it. If the clocks never got out of sync with each other and with "city time" then he wouldn't say that they do.
Those men simply said that at a certain point, their watch read a certain time. How dare I beleive that?! HOW DARE I?! Where does this madness end?!
Sarcasm isn't evidence either. Believe what you like, but don't pretend that it proves anything.
Oh, and Sorrels said "just about 12:30." The extra adjective makes a large difference in the specificity of the phrase.
Only because you want it to.
If we quantize down to the minute, that gives us eleven values: [-5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. We have Sorrel's watch, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, the Hertz sign, and the DPD channel two dispatcher's clock.... five in all. So, how likely is it that all five would be within the same minute, if we arrange the time on each clock randomly within the given set? The simplest way is to use one clock as a reference, and see how like it would be for the others to be in the same minute. IOW, the likelihood that all five clocks would be in the same minute is 1/(11^(5-1)) or 1/(11^4) or 1/14641 or 0.007%.
What is this, "How to lie with statistics 101"? We don't have 5 clocks all saying 12:30. Powers said "almost". Sorrels said "about". Both allow for them to be off in either direction. Kellerman is hearsay. But by all means, be consistent and apply this same contrived analysis to Markham, Bowley, Higgins, and Methodist Hospital and then there is no need to quibble about the dispatcher clocks.
Why look a gift Hertz clock in the mouth? Especially when all those other clocks agree with it.
Because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the channel 2 dispatcher makes no time announcements near the time Tippit's shooting is being reported.
Is this arbitrary? No more so than using any other clock, including using the NBS ones. The trick is to figure out the offset between them if you can.
You can't.
I want you to go back to the first post in the "Lame LN Excuses" post, and preface every line in that post with what you just wrote, giving yourself generous credit each time. Should be fun!
Well, you missed the entire point of that thread, which is that the WC-faithful only use the "mistaken/lying" gambit for witnesses that contradict the preferred narrative. Otherwise, witness statements are golden. Kind of like what you do with Powers.
In order to use his statement as an argument, all I have to do is quote Powers and show that he said it. It is not my job to disprove each and every hypothetical objection that anyone could possibly dream up. Therefore, any objection to the result is completely up to you. You need to avail yourself of that opportunity. Otherwise you're just whizzin' into the wind.
No, because all I'm saying is that the timepieces are of unknown accuracy. Since you are claiming a particular range of accuracy, then the burden is on you to substantiate it. Not just believe what somebody said unless it's proven wrong.
I do not have to "prove" that the simulcasts exist anymore than I have to prove that the world is round. It's well enough known, and has been known long enough that there is no further need to explain.
If it's so "well-known", then it should be easily substantiated. The fact that you are using this cop-out tells me that you cannot. "Mitch said so" is even less compelling than the "Bowles said so" that you reject out of hand.
There are a couple of splices in the known recordings. However, the existence of these does not prove, demonstrate, or imply that there are any other overdubs, splices, or edits on the recording. Just because it rained Tuesday doesn't mean it rained all week, or that it will rain tomorrow. If you want to argue an edit is in there somewhere which affects what I've written, you need to show that the edit is actually there. Otherwise, you're just hoping that one might be there, and hope is never a good plan. It's also never a good argument. Again, the burden in on you.
No, you are shifting the burden again. If you want to claim that a portion of an edited recording is continuous then you need to actually show that it is continuous, not just assume it is until proven otherwise.
To sum up, you have failed to show that the channel 2 dispatcher announcements are within a minute of real time, and you have failed to show that the channel 1 dispatcher announcements are within a minute of the channel 2 dispatcher announcements. What you have done is a lot of grandstanding, handwaving, and burden-shifting.
-
There are several clocks involves. There is a channel one DPD clock, and channel two DPD clock, the Hertz sign, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Bowley's watch, the funeral home clock, whatever Markham was using, and the Methodist clock. I guess we can include what Martin calls "real time" as well. Each is running with an offset to every other timepiece in this collection. The trick is to figure how far off they are, or at least to come up with a consistent narrative as to reconcile them as best as can be done.
Agreed to a large extent but we can forget about what Martin calls "real time".
He never defines what he means by this and neither does Bowles.
John I. defines it as the time set by the USNO master clock but it makes no difference what the standard is - there is no way of knowing if any of the watches/clocks in question are in synch with this standard.
All that matters is:
Are the two dispatchers clocks in synch with each other [Police Time]
Are the dispatchers clocks in synch with events in Dealey Plaza [Dealey Time]
Are the dispatchers clocks in synch with events around 10th and Patton [Patton Time]
The evidence isn't definitive on any of these points but there is enough evidence to present strong arguments for the second point, that Channel 2 is in synch with Dealey Time from 12:30 to 12:39pm.
There is a good argument that both channels were in synch until Bowley's call.
From the testimonies of Cason and Henslee we know that both Henslee and Murray were sat at the same radio board and, more importantly, Henslee was overseeing calls for both channels. This supports the view both men were communicating with each other, which appears to be confirmed by a number of instances in the DP tape transcripts where the timestamps are in synch with various calls coming in.
It is much harder to confirm that Police Time was in synch with Patton time and it is Martin's argument that around the time of the Tippit shooting Channel 1 was about 5 minutes out of synch with events on 10th and Patton.
Overall, I find the argument that the Channel 1 dispatcher's clock drifted out by 5 minutes unnoticed quite weak but what is much harder to determine is whether there was a deliberate falsification of the tapes.
In this respect, there is one curious detail - between 1:11 - 1:12pm on Channel 1, Sawyer makes this call:
"On the 3rd floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls and it looked like the man had been here for some time. We are checking it out now."
I believe this call was a result of information given to Sawyer by Hill. In his testimony Hill gives the distinct impression he is there"only a minute" before Bowley's call comes through but, according to the tape transcripts, there is a least a five minute gap between Sawyer's call and Bowley's. Also, on Channel 1 there is a five to six minute gap between 1:12pm and 1:18pm timestamps, around the same time (1:12pm) there is a splice in the tape on Channel 1.
If there is any deliberate falsification of the tapes I suspect it would be around this point.
-
Let's speculate a bit..
Tippit was declared D.O.A. at Methodist Hospital at 1:15. It says so on the authorisation for autopsy as well in two seperate documents signed by DPD officer Davenport, who had followed the ambulance and was present at the hospital when it happened.
I know of no other case where concern was expressed about the D.O.A. of a victim. Why would there be, right? Somebody shoots a guy and a few minutes later he's declared D.O.A.. Why would anybody even assume ore that the D.O.A. time could be wrong by a few minutes? What's the big deal?
With that in mind, I keep asking myself the same question over and over again. Why did the FBI pester Methodist Hospital's staff members, not once but on multiple occassions, with questions about the accuracy of the D.O.A. time? They didn't do it with Kennedy, but in Tippit's case, where the jurisdiction clearly lies with the DPD, their all over it.
What was so important about Tippit's D.O.A. time that the FBI took it upon itself to make enquiries?