JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on October 21, 2022, 11:33:47 PM
-
Here's a couple of items that I noticed recently in a photo of LHO's arrest at the Texas Theater. First, Bob K. Carroll is holding the pistol by the cylinder, with the back of the grip area facing the camera, in his right hand (see yellow circle). Also, LHO is sporting a dark spot on his right side of his bare midsection. This dark spot appears to me to be where I would expect the pistol to have rubbed against him while he was walking/running with the pistol tucked in his belt. I don't think that I would be the first to notice these items, but I don't remember ever seeing them mentioned anywhere.
(https://i.vgy.me/OM14ZC.jpg)
And here is a photo of a man identified as Bob K. Carroll at the DPD headquarters. He is behind LHO and the only one looking at the camera.
(https://i.vgy.me/BzCrfC.png)
Bob Carroll said he grabbed the pistol during the subduing of LHO in the theater. They wasted no time in taking him out of the theater and whisking him away in the DPD car. It appears to me (in the photo in front of the theater) that Bob Carroll is probably still holding the pistol the way he grabbed it in the theater...
-
Here's a couple of items that I noticed recently in a photo of LHO's arrest at the Texas Theater. First, Bob K. Caroll is holding the pistol by the cylinder, with the back of the grip area facing the camera, in his right hand (see yellow circle). Also, LHO is sporting a dark spot on his right side of his bare midsection. This dark spot appears to me to be where I would expect the pistol to have rubbed against him while he was walking/running with the pistol tucked in his belt. I don't think that I would be the first to notice these items, but I don't remember ever seeing them mentioned anywhere.
(https://i.vgy.me/OM14ZC.jpg)
And here is a photo of a man identified as Bob K. Caroll at the DPD headquarters. He is behind LHO and the only one looking at the camera.
(https://i.vgy.me/BzCrfC.png)
Bob Caroll said he grabbed the pistol during the subduing of LHO in the theater. They wasted no time in taking him out of the theater and whisking him away in the DPD car. It appears to me that Bob Caroll is probably still holding the pistol the way he grabbed it in the theater...
Bob Caroll said he grabbed the pistol during the subduing of LHO in the theater.
True, but IIRC he also said that he didn't know who was holding that revolver at that time.
It appears to me that Bob Caroll is probably still holding the pistol the way he grabbed it in the theater...
Nope. Caroll testified that he gave the revolver to Hill when they got into the car
-
(https://i.vgy.me/BzCrfC.png)
This photo shows LHO to have had bushy hair. This is in line with Helen Markhams identification.
-
This photo shows LHO to have had bushy hair. This is in line with Helen Markhams identification.
Was Oswald already roughed up when Markham saw Tippit's killer or did that happen afterwards, at the Texas Theater?
-
And Reed's next photo appears to me to show Bob K. Carroll (yellow circle) finally looking down at the gun that he grabbed inside the theater.
(https://i.vgy.me/8m94gF.jpg)
-
Mr. WALKER. McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket, and Oswald then hit him, it appeared, with his left hand first, and then with his right hand. They was scuffling there, and Officer Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back over the seat. At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know whether we pulled Oswald away from McDonald for a split second or what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next thing I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see by his belt?
Mr. WALKER. I saw his right hand. I had his left hand, you see.
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.
-
This photo shows LHO to have had bushy hair. This is in line with Helen Markhams identification.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FFbrd12V/killer-ozz.png)
-
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.
Mr. BELIN. Now you had your left hand, or was it McDonald's left hand, on the suspect's right hand?
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was using both of his hands to hold onto this person's right hand.
-
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.
Mr. BELIN. Now you had your left hand, or was it McDonald's left hand, on the suspect's right hand?
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was using both of his hands to hold onto this person's right hand.
Here's what I do:
MCDONALD: "Stand up, sir."
ME: (As I slowly raise my hands): "Officer, I have a loaded revolver with me. It's in my pants."
'Course, I didn't just shoot the president and a police officer in broad daylight. If I did I'd probably do what Oswald did.
There I go believing the "official fantasy story". I'm hopeless.
-
Here's what I do:
MCDONALD: "Stand up, sir."
ME: (As I slowly raise my hands): "Officer, I have a loaded revolver with me. It's in my pants."
'Course, I didn't just shoot the president and a police officer in broad daylight. If I did I'd probably do what Oswald did.
There I go believing the "official fantasy story". I'm hopeless.
Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.
-
Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.
He didn't "pull out a revolver". That's LN mythology. It's not supported by either McDonald's account or Walker's account.
Besides, is this supposed to be evidence of murdering anybody?
-
He didn't "pull out a revolver". That's LN mythology. It's not supported by either McDonald's account or Walker's account.
Besides, is this supposed to be evidence of murdering anybody?
He didn't "pull out a revolver".
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
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.
Walker’s relevant testimony was already posted earlier in this thread.
-
Detective Paul Bentley from "No More Silence":
"Officer McDonald and the other officers were checking people on the lower floor. McDonald walked up in the row in front of this particular suspect, who was later identified as Oswald, as and he walked in front of him Oswald jumped up and pulled a pistol from his waist. At that instant I dove over about three or four rows of seats and came down on the side of Oswald...."
Hugh Aynesworth, in the theater during the search: from "November 22, 1963: Witness to History":
"Oswald stood up, raised his hands in an apparent gesture of surrender and then socked McDonald in the face with his left first. With his right hand he pulled a .38 Smith & Wesson from his belt...."
-
“Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption.
And Bentley wasn’t there yet. He was on his way down from the balcony. And Aynesworth wasn’t in the theater at all.
-
... Aynesworth wasn’t in the theater at all.
Claims that he was in Dealey at the time of the shots....buzzed out to the Tippit scene in progress....dashed to the theater and saw the arrest....was in the basement witnessing the Ruby shooting and yet---amazingly---- was not ever called as a witness to the Warren Commission or any other inquiry.
Also, there are no pictures of him doing any of that stuff [except one...I believe... showing him in an Oak Cliff neighborhood during a police search]
-
“Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption.
And Bentley wasn’t there yet. He was on his way down from the balcony. And Aynesworth wasn’t in the theater at all.
Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption.
LOL, try explaining that one to Tippit’s family…. :-\
-
Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption.
LOL, try explaining that one to Tippit’s family…. :-\
And now we have the claim that Aynesworth wasn't there at all. It's called being a reporter. Other people who were there can verify his presence at these events such as fellow reporter Jim Ewell. Did he and they lie too? There are news reports in the Dallas Time Herald Morning News by Aynesworth where he reported on these events including Oswald's arrest. Did he make it all up? It never ends; everything and everyone is corrupt.
Added: Victor Robertson, WFAA radio reporter, rode with Aynesworth and WFAA news photographer Ron Reiland to the Tippit scene:
WC testimony
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did you remain at the Depository?
Mr. ROBERTSON. Until the call came over the police radio about the officer having been shot.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Then where did you go?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I went out there.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Who did you go out with?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I drove out with Ron Reiland and Hugh Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News.
They then followed the police to the theater:
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you arrive [at the theater] before he [Oswald] was actually taken into custody?
Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. What did you see the police officers doing as you got there?
Mr. ROBERTSON. It was kind of confused. He rose in his seat. and lifted his arm with his pistol just about simultaneously with the time they landed all over him.
Note: "Lifted his arm with the pistol..."
But remember, they're not conspiracy believers, they're just skeptics.
Aynesworth on the right with the police during their search for the killer of Tippit.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9600590944/Key7y34k3osb1g7/aynesworth.JPG)
-
Hugh Aynesworth, in the theater during the search: from "November 22, 1963: Witness to History":
"Oswald stood up, raised his hands in an apparent gesture of surrender and then socked McDonald in the face with his left first. With his right hand he pulled a .38 Smith & Wesson from his belt...."
And Bentley wasn’t there yet. He was on his way down from the balcony. And Aynesworth wasn’t in the theater at all.
And now we have the claim that Aynesworth wasn't there at all.
Who exactly made the claim that "Aynesworth wasn't there at all"?
-
LOL, try explaining that one to Tippit’s family…. :-\
Moral indignation is always such a good argument. ::)
-
I wasn't aware that Aynesworth was actually inside the theater when Oswald was first approached. If there is any evidence beyond Aynesworth's colorful yarns years later, I'll gladly retract.
-
Moral indignation is always such a good argument. ::)
“Was arguing” is not the same as “ridiculing”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption. :D
-
“Was arguing” is not the same as “ridiculing”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption. :D
But calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony and all of the investigations unjust and unfair is, in conspiracy world, an argument. Just dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.
Yes, that's conspiracy logic.
-
But calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony and all of the investigations unjust and unfair is, in conspiracy world, an argument. Just dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.
Yes, that's conspiracy logic.
calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony
Who is doing that?
Are you always this paranoid and whiny?
-
“Was arguing” is not the same as “ridiculing”. In fact, it’s merely an assumption. :D
Appealing to Tippit’s family when lying about Oswald “pulling a gun” in the theater isn’t “ridicule”, but it is ridiculous.
-
But calling all witnesses against Oswald liars or corrupt and all of the evidence against him tainted and phony and all of the investigations unjust and unfair is, in conspiracy world, an argument. Just dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.
Except nobody did that.
-
Appealing to Tippit’s family when lying about Oswald “pulling a gun” in the theater isn’t “ridicule”, but it is ridiculous.
So, specifically who do you think is lying and specifically how do you think that they are they lying?
It doesn’t have to be the Tippit family. Try explaining your nonsensical idea, regarding pulling a weapon versus drawing a weapon, to someone who has risked their life on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: experienced major city law enforcement officers) in order to protect others from the bad people). Be sure to put it in the same context as to what was happening in the Texas Theater when LHO was arrested. And let us know what they think that they would have done under those circumstances.
-
Bob K. Carroll is holding the pistol by the cylinder
Bob Carroll said he grabbed the pistol during the subduing of LHO in the theater.
Another convoluted thread. Is it about the pistol...Oswald's hair or Bob Carroll?
Mr. CARROLL. ~~When Lyons and I went in, a lady that was in the theatre - I don't know who she was - she said he was upstairs, and that was all the conversation I heard from her.
Mr. BALL. Do you know who the lady was?
Mr. CARROLL. No, sir; I have no idea.
Mr. BALL. Was it the girl who sells tickets?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir, whether it was or not.
It was Carroll's testimony that when he walked into the theater some gal he didn't even know told him that "he" was upstairs. So upstairs he went-----
Mr. BALL. And where was the lady when you talked to her?
Mr. CARROLL. I didn't actually talk to her, sir, but when we went through the door, she just more or less - she just made a statement that he was upstairs, and as far as having any direct conversation with her, we did not. She said upstairs and we immediately went up to the balcony.
The following statement sounds completely made up---
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and we went into the balcony and we had - or rather I had satisfied myself with the fact that he wasn't in the balcony.
Mr. BALL. Was there anyone in the balcony?
Mr. CARROLL. Well, there were people sitting around there.
Mr. BALL. How did you satisfy yourself that he was in the balcony?
Mr. CARROLL. Well, we went in and had more or less a vague idea - well, the people that I saw up in the balcony were either real young or older people and so we started back down -
Mr. BALL. Had you had a description of the man you were looking for?
Mr. CARROLL. They gave me a vague one on the telephone when I called and checked about the officer.
Mr. BALL. Who are "they"?
Mr. CARROLL. Whoever was on duty at the dispatcher's office - I don't know who it was at that time.
Mr. BALL. What was the description that he gave you?
Mr. CARROLL. He just gave a general height description and age - just generally.
Mr. BALL. Tell me what he said.
Mr. CARROLL. I'm trying to recall now exactly - he gave the height and I can't recall now exactly how he said it - it's been so long ago, and it was all - I know he gave roughly, Just a rough description. It wasn't a detailed description at all, and I'm trying to remember now exactly how he worded it.
Mr. BALL. Can you give me the approximate age - around?
Mr. CARROLL. I believe he said he was between 20 or 25 or something, like that, I'm not quite sure, because everything moved real fast and everything like that.
It was "so long ago"? "Just a rough description"? He had stopped off to use the phone? "Everything moved real fast"?
My next biggest guess is that practically every cop in the theater knew exactly who they were looking for... [not some more or less vague idea]
-
So, specifically who do you think is lying and specifically how do you think that they are they lying?
It doesn’t have to be the Tippit family. Try explaining your nonsensical idea, regarding pulling a weapon versus drawing a weapon, to someone who has risked their life on a daily basis for an extended period of time (ie: experienced major city law enforcement officers) in order to protect others from the bad people). Be sure to put it in the same context as to what was happening in the Texas Theater when LHO was arrested. And let us know what they think that they would have done under those circumstances.
The contrarian brothers cast doubt on every piece of evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and then deny that they are claiming the evidence is the product of fakery or that anyone is lying to implicate Oswald. They make brilliant rebuttals like "Oswald's rifle - LOL." This is Alice-in-Wonderland contrarian thinking. They cast doubt on the evidence but then never are willing to accept the implications of their doubt having validity. The sole objective is to suggest doubt of Oswald's guilt. The implications of the doubt don't have to make any sense, be supported by any evidence, or even be mutually consistent with any other situations. It is just so. Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone and suspect no one. A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven. It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."
-
The contrarian brothers cast doubt on every piece of evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and then deny that they are claiming the evidence is the product of fakery or that anyone is lying to implicate Oswald. They make brilliant rebuttals like "Oswald's rifle - LOL." This is Alice-in-Wonderland contrarian thinking. They cast doubt on the evidence but then never are willing to accept the implications of their doubt having validity. The sole objective is to suggest doubt of Oswald's guilt. The implications of the doubt don't have to make any sense, be supported by any evidence, or even be mutually consistent with any other situations. It is just so. Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone and suspect no one. A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven. It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."
They cast doubt on the evidence
How can anybody cast doubt on evidence that you are unable to present?
It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."
Given your total failure to present even a shred of evidence for any of your idiotic claims, it's a fair observation to conclude that all you have are opinions and assumptions.
A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven.
When did you ever back up any claim with evidence?
A reasonable person backs up his conclusions or claims with evidence.
A fanatical zealot never presents evidence and just proclaims his opinion as the only truth.
Now, which one of those two are you?
-
Several people testified that they saw LHO hit McDonald with his left fist and attempt to pull a revolver from his belt with his right hand. No one will ever know for certain why LHO would choose to take this action. But we can offer some conjecture and opinions.
LHO must have seen that the police had him surrounded and were closing in on him. Hence his reported statement “Well, it’s all over now.” Under those circumstances, I think that most people would just surrender peacefully. Did LHO just want to die in a blaze of gunfire and take out as many policemen as he could before he was killed by their return fire. Or do you think that he intended to just commit suicide in front of the policemen? Are there any other possible reasons why you think that LHO would attempt to pull his revolver out?
-
So, specifically who do you think is lying and specifically how do you think that they are they lying?
You’re lying when you claim that Oswald “pulled out a gun”. That is specifically contradicted by McDonald and Walker.
-
They make brilliant rebuttals like "Oswald's rifle - LOL."
Brilliant unsubstantiated assertions like “Oswald’s rifle” deserve nothing more.
A world of endless ambiguity in which no fact that they don't wish to accept can ever be proven. It is all just "opinions" and "assumptions."
And therein lies the problem. You think your assumptions are facts.
-
You’re lying when you claim that Oswald “pulled out a gun”. That is specifically contradicted by McDonald and Walker.
BS:
-
BS:
Detective Paul Bentley from "No More Silence": "Officer McDonald and the other officers were checking people on the lower floor. McDonald walked up in the row in front of this particular suspect, who was later identified as Oswald, as and he walked in front of him Oswald jumped up and pulled a pistol from his waist. At that instant I dove over about three or four rows of seats and came down on the side of Oswald...."
Hugh Aynesworth, in the theater during the search: from "November 22, 1963: Witness to History":
"Oswald stood up, raised his hands in an apparent gesture of surrender and then socked McDonald in the face with his left first. With his right hand he pulled a .38 Smith & Wesson from his belt...."
Maybe they're wrong; maybe McDonald and Walker are right. But to state that it's a lie that Oswald pulled out a revolver is false.
It's interesting when the Oswald defenders know things with certainty and when they don't. If it absolves Oswald it's a fact; if it doesn't it's tainted or corrupt.
-
Several people testified that they saw LHO hit McDonald with his left fist and attempt to pull a revolver from his belt with his right hand.
Name them. And how would they know what he was “attempting” if he didn’t actually do it?
No one will ever know for certain why LHO would choose to take this action. But we can offer some conjecture and opinions.
The problem is trying to pass this off as evidence that he murdered somebody. It’s not.
LHO must have seen that the police had him surrounded and were closing in on him. Hence his reported statement “Well, it’s all over now.”
Which strangely only McDonald heard.
Under those circumstances, I think that most people would just surrender peacefully.
Under normal circumstances, honest cops don’t search, assault, or arrest people for murder without probable cause.
-
You’re lying when you claim that Oswald “pulled out a gun”. That is specifically contradicted by McDonald and Walker.
That is specifically contradicted by McDonald and Walker.
I don’t think so…
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 by his belt?
Mr. WALKER. I saw his right hand. I had his left hand, you see.
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.
-
I don’t think so…
You’re really trying to equate “holding the handle of it” with “pulling it out”? Really?
In his report to Curry, McDonald clearly stated that the gun was still in Oswald’s waistband when McDonald grabbed his hand and pulled both Oswald’s hand and the gun out.
-
You’re really trying to equate “holding the handle of it” with “pulling it out”? Really?
In his report to Curry, McDonald clearly stated that the gun was still in Oswald’s waistband when McDonald grabbed his hand and pulled both Oswald’s hand and the gun out.
What the freaking heck do you think LHO’s intentions were?
-
It doesn’t matter. He either did the thing you’re saying he did or he did not.
-
It doesn’t matter. He either did the thing you’re saying he did or he did not.
Yes it does matter! What possible other intent could make any sense whatsoever. And you excluding or ignoring McDonald’s sworn testimony that confirms LHO was indeed drawing or pulling the revolver is not how to determine whether or not I lied. Get a grip on reality clown!
-
Name them. And how would they know what he was “attempting” if he didn’t actually do it?
The problem is trying to pass this off as evidence that he murdered somebody. It’s not.
Which strangely only McDonald heard.
Under normal circumstances, honest cops don’t search, assault, or arrest people for murder without probable cause.
And how would they know what he was “attempting” if he didn’t actually do it?
Once LHO reached down and grabbed the handle of the revolver he was by definition in the process of drawing it. McDonald even stated that he could feel LHO’s hand on the trigger. It is very obvious from these actions what he was attempting to do. You trying to pretend otherwise is just plain nonsense.
Under normal circumstances, honest cops don’t search, assault, or arrest people for murder without probable cause.
These were not normal circumstances. And they had probable cause.
-
Yes it does matter! What possible other intent could make any sense whatsoever. And you excluding or ignoring McDonald’s sworn testimony that confirms LHO was indeed drawing or pulling the revolver is not how to determine whether or not I lied. Get a grip on reality clown!
Your perception of "intent" (or McDonald's) doesn't matter to the claim that Oswald "pulled out a gun". He either pulled one out or he didn't.
-
These were not normal circumstances. And they had probable cause.
Bull. Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman who saw no crime does not constitute probable cause for anything.
-
Your perception of "intent" (or McDonald's) doesn't matter to the claim that Oswald "pulled out a gun". He either pulled one out or he didn't.
He pulled it out and McDonald says that he had his hands on it and was trying to pull it away from him at the same time.
If you want to claim that he didn’t pull it out and call everyone who says otherwise a liar. Then you need to conclusively show that LHO didn’t intend to pull it out. Have at it…
-
He pulled it out and McDonald says that he had his hands on it and was trying to pull it away from him at the same time.
That's not what McDonald said at all.
"I was reaching for his waist and he struck me on the nose with his left hand. With his right hand, he reached to his waist and both
of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. At this
time I yelled, "I've got him." Three uniformed officers came to my aid immediately. One on the suspect's left, one to the rear in the
row behind and one to the front, in the row directly in front of the suspect and I. I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over
the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it
was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left check, causing a four
inch scratch."
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340009/m1/1/med_res_d/)
The "pistol" didn't "clear the suspect's clothing" until McDonald jerked it out.
If you want to claim that he didn’t pull it out and call everyone who says otherwise a liar. Then you need to conclusively show that LHO didn’t intend to pull it out. Have at it…
No, because intending to do something (even if you could determine "intent") is not the same thing as actually doing it.
-
That's not what McDonald said at all.
"I was reaching for his waist and he struck me on the nose with his left hand. With his right hand, he reached to his waist and both
of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. At this
time I yelled, "I've got him." Three uniformed officers came to my aid immediately. One on the suspect's left, one to the rear in the
row behind and one to the front, in the row directly in front of the suspect and I. I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over
the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it
was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left check, causing a four
inch scratch."
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340009/m1/1/med_res_d/)
The "pistol" didn't "clear the suspect's clothing" until McDonald jerked it out.
No, because intending to do something (even if you could determine "intent") is not the same thing as actually doing it.
The "pistol" didn't "clear the suspect's clothing" until McDonald jerked it out.
So what, do you think LHO was trying to keep the revolver in his belt?
No, because intending to do something (even if you could determine "intent") is not the same thing as actually doing it.
LHO was in the act. That’s not just intent.
-
He pulled it out and McDonald says that he had his hands on it and was trying to pull it away from him at the same time.
If you want to claim that he didn’t pull it out and call everyone who says otherwise a liar. Then you need to conclusively show that LHO didn’t intend to pull it out. Have at it…
The "pistol" didn't "clear the suspect's clothing" until McDonald jerked it out.
So what, do you think LHO was trying to keep the revolver in his belt?
In one post from: "He pulled it out" to "do you think LHO was trying to keep the revolver in his belt?".... Wow
And then he gets upset because I don't respect LNs who will say anything to defend their precious official narrative.
No, because intending to do something (even if you could determine "intent") is not the same thing as actually doing it.
LHO was in the act. That’s not just intent.
Intending to do something requires a decision prior to the act. Being "in the act" makes intention impossible.
-
So what, do you think LHO was trying to keep the revolver in his belt?
This is not complicated. If he didn’t pull out a gun, then don’t claim he pulled out a gun.
-
This is not complicated. If he didn’t pull out a gun, then don’t claim he pulled out a gun.
Not complicated at all:
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand
If he was drawing (pulling) a gun, then don’t claim he wasn’t.
-
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand If he was drawing (pulling) a gun, then don’t claim he wasn’t.
McDonald told the news reporters that he himself had his gun drawn...ready for trouble. That was not ever mentioned again.
-
McDonald told the news reporters that he himself had his gun drawn...ready for trouble. That was not ever mentioned again.
Walker testified that he had his gun drawn. But he put it in his holster to search the two people in front of LHO.
Mr. BELIN. All right, now, you mentioned there were two people sitting together in the center?
Mr. WALKER. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. You came up and approached those people?
Mr. WALKER. McDonald approached them from the -
Mr. BELIN. Right?
Mr. WALKER. Right center aisle, and I approached from the left center aisle.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have your gun drawn?
Mr. WALKER. I had it drawn, and I put it back in my holster.
Mr. BELIN. Why did you do that?
Mr. WALKER. I had to search him. As I got up to him, we had him stand up and we searched him with their hands up, and I had my gun in the holster. I searched the one on the left, and McDonald searched the one on the right.
-
If he was drawing (pulling) a gun, then don’t claim he wasn’t.
I didn’t. I said he didn’t pull out a revolver — which is the truth, despite all of your verbal gymnastics.
-
No, your statement is misleading and a distortion of the truth. This is typical of the nonsense disseminated by the conspiracy crowd. You fail to include the fact that LHO was pulling the revolver. Distortion by omission is not “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. It is intentional distortion and sadly too many people who are not familiar with the facts of the case are mislead because of the distortion. You should be ashamed.
In the context of my original statement (and indeed in the final analysis of what happened in the Texas Theater), the intent to pull the revolver is what is important and meaningful. Here is my original statement that you objected to:
Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.
Technically, I said that he was pulling out a revolver. Your supposed “distinction” doesn’t even really apply to my statement. Yet you intentionally distort and mislead the gullible. Shame on you.
-
Does anyone know who the photographer is that took this photo?
(https://i.vgy.me/z6EpRy.png)
I think that he might be a witness to the whole scuffle. And it would be interesting to see what he might have to say about it.
Edit: I found a name of the photographer: Jim MacCammon according to notes on page 331 of “With Malice” by Dale Myers. Now, I need to find what Jim had to say about what happened in the Texas Theater…
-
It turns out that Jim MacCammon is in the photograph that I posted in the original (first) post of this thread:
(https://i.vgy.me/yP7IL0.png)
Here’s the notes of a detail of that photo from page 333 of “With Malice” by Dale Myers:
Oswald is led toward an unmarked Dallas police car in front of the Texas Theater. Photographed by Stuart L. Reed at about 1:52 p.m., November 22, 1963. Left to right: Photographer Jim MacCammon (1) lowering camera, Detective Bob Carroll (2) carrying Oswald’s revolver, Officer C.T. Walker (3), Oswald (4) [face covered], Detective Paul L. Bentley (5), Sergeant Gerald L. Hill (6), and Dallas Morning News reporter Jim Ewell (7).
Interesting, that Dale Myers also states that Bob Carroll is carrying Oswald’s revolver…
-
Oswald was unstoppable on Friday and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
-
No, your statement is misleading and a distortion of the truth. This is typical of the nonsense disseminated by the conspiracy crowd. You fail to include the fact that LHO was pulling the revolver. Distortion by omission is not “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. It is intentional distortion and sadly too many people who are not familiar with the facts of the case are mislead because of the distortion. You should be ashamed.
This is doublespeak. The distortion is claiming that Oswald did something that he did not do. People interested in the truth describe events and evidence accurately instead of doubling down when they’re wrong, whining about “what is important and meaningful”, and gaslighting.
-
Interesting, that Dale Myers also states that Bob Carroll is carrying Oswald’s revolver…
Myers is infamous for stating assumptions as facts.
-
It turns out that Jim MacCammon is in the photograph that I posted in the original (first) post of this thread:
(https://i.vgy.me/yP7IL0.png)
Here’s the notes of a detail of that photo from page 333 of “With Malice” by Dale Myers:
Oswald is led toward an unmarked Dallas police car in front of the Texas Theater. Photographed by Stuart L. Reed at about 1:52 p.m., November 22, 1963. Left to right: Photographer Jim MacCammon (1) lowering camera, Detective Bob Carroll (2) carrying Oswald’s revolver, Officer C.T. Walker (3), Oswald (4) [face covered], Detective Paul L. Bentley (5), Sergeant Gerald L. Hill (6), and Dallas Morning News reporter Jim Ewell (7).
Interesting, that Dale Myers also states that Bob Carroll is carrying Oswald’s revolver…
MacCammon was, from my search, a freelance photographer who did work for Life magazine. One conspiracy article says he left Dallas in 1970 and was never heard from again.
As to Oswald: a revolver was in his waist/pants and it was seen by multiple people in his right hand during the fight/struggle. He pulled it out. Period. Oswald sees the police searching people (he wasn't the first). So when McDonald asks him to stand up he doesn't admit to carrying a revolver? Is that what an innocent man does?
All of these attempts to defend the man are by the same crowd who never parse claims made by the conspiracists and is just more hand waving to divert focus on what matters. Ruth and Michael were recently accused (again!) in a "documentary" of being CIA agents who framed Oswald; the "skeptics" didn't challenge those claims. McDonald is first quoted approvingly and then later called a dirty cop. The police were looking for a killer who fled the scene of his crime; the 4th amendment protections don't apply in such exigent circumstances. They didn't need a search warrant for crissakes.
-
Oswald was unstoppable on Friday and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Three heroes that should be hailed more often are:
J.D. Tippit
Johnny Brewer
M.N. McDonald
-
and it was seen by multiple people in his right hand during the fight/struggle.
Cite these “multiple people”.
Oswald sees the police searching people (he wasn't the first).
All illegal searches without probable cause.
So when McDonald asks him to stand up he doesn't admit to carrying a revolver? Is that what an innocent man does?
Is that supposed to be evidence of murder?
Ruth and Michael were recently accused (again!) in a "documentary" of being CIA agents who framed Oswald; the "skeptics" didn't challenge those claims.
If you’re talking about the Max Good documentary, they weren’t “accused” of anything.
McDonald is first quoted approvingly and then later called a dirty cop.
All of these attempts to defend police misconduct are made by people who ignore what the cop actually said and make up their own version.
The police were looking for a killer who fled the scene of his crime; the 4th amendment protections don't apply in such exigent circumstances. They didn't need a search warrant for crissakes.
BS: The 4th amendment always applies, and they needed probable cause.
-
MacCammon was, from my search, a freelance photographer who did work for Life magazine. One conspiracy article says he left Dallas in 1970 and was never heard from again.
As to Oswald: a revolver was in his waist/pants and it was seen by multiple people in his right hand during the fight/struggle. He pulled it out. Period. Oswald sees the police searching people (he wasn't the first). So when McDonald asks him to stand up he doesn't admit to carrying a revolver? Is that what an innocent man does?
All of these attempts to defend the man are by the same crowd who never parse claims made by the conspiracists and is just more hand waving to divert focus on what matters. Ruth and Michael were recently accused (again!) in a "documentary" of being CIA agents who framed Oswald; the "skeptics" didn't challenge those claims. McDonald is first quoted approvingly and then later called a dirty cop. The police were looking for a killer who fled the scene of his crime; the 4th amendment protections don't apply in such exigent circumstances. They didn't need a search warrant for crissakes.
MacCammon was, from my search, a freelance photographer who did work for Life magazine. One conspiracy article says he left Dallas in 1970 and was never heard from again.
Thanks, according to Gerald Hill’s testimony, that photo was taken about the same time that they were putting the cuffs on LHO. So, I am wondering how long MacCammon was in the theater before he took that photo. And if he ever said anything about what he witnessed.
As to Oswald: a revolver was in his waist/pants and it was seen by multiple people in his right hand during the fight/struggle. He pulled it out. Period. Oswald sees the police searching people (he wasn't the first). So when McDonald asks him to stand up he doesn't admit to carrying a revolver? Is that what an innocent man does?
All of these attempts to defend the man are by the same crowd who never parse claims made by the conspiracists and is just more hand waving to divert focus on what matters.
Exactly.
-
This information (from “With Malice” by Dale Myers) regarding MacCammon’s photos is intriguing:
James Newton “Jim” MacCammon — freelance photographer, took five 35mm color slides of the arrest of Oswald at the Texas Theater. Two of the five slides had insufficient exposures. The three remaining slides became Warren Commission exhibits. Died on December 3, 2006, at the age of 74.
I wonder what the two insufficient exposures would have shown if they had been exposed better. Due to (apparently) insufficient light, it seems reasonable that they were probably taken inside the theater. Hmmm…
-
This is doublespeak. The distortion is claiming that Oswald did something that he did not do. People interested in the truth describe events and evidence accurately instead of doubling down when they’re wrong, whining about “what is important and meaningful”, and gaslighting.
Distortion by omission is most definitely distortion. Your omission of the evidence that LHO was drawing the revolver is most definitely distortion. The result is an obvious intentional attempt to imply that LHO didn’t do anything. You are being dishonest and should be ashamed.
-
Distortion by omission is most definitely distortion.
I didn’t omit anything. You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that. Honest people admit it when they make a mistake — they don’t try to change the subject.
The shame is all yours.
-
Walker testified that he had his gun drawn. But he put it in his holster to search the two people in front of LHO.
I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?
-
I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?
Yes, I sure did. Is that a problem for you?
-
I didn’t omit anything. You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that. Honest people admit it when they make a mistake — they don’t try to change the subject.
The shame is all yours.
I didn’t omit anything.
Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.
You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you.
I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.
Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.
If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details. Your claim that: He didn't "pull out a revolver" is incomplete and therefore misleading. Intentionally misleading others is dishonest.
-
Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.
You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.
I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.
No, you said “hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer”.
It is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.
Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.
Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.
If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details.
He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.
-
I didn’t omit anything.
Yes you did. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. You haven’t accounted for this very important detail by disputing it or including it in your claim. That is omission. All the whining and deflection in the world does not change that.
You made a false claim about Oswald and I corrected you.
I made no false claim. McDonald testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. That’s what I said.
Your “correction” might be better understood if it didn’t omit important details. And it might “have a leg to stand on” if it accounted for the omissions. An honest person would admit his omission - and not try to mislead others.
If you had simply claimed that he didn’t completely pull out a revolver because McDonald intervened, it would be more inclusive of some of McDonald’s important details. Your claim that: He didn't "pull out a revolver" is incomplete and therefore misleading. Intentionally misleading others is dishonest.
This is where the contrarians go round and round deflecting the discussion onto some pedantic point to ignore the evidence that Oswald fled the TSBD, got a gun, shot a police officer, snuck into a movie theatre, and then engaged in a struggle with police officers without even bothering to find out what they wanted. Nothing to see there. Just a normal day. Instead page after page will be filled with pedantic nitpicking as to whether Oswald drew his gun or only had his hand on it. LOL. No logical inference can be allowed when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
-
“Logical inference” is “Richard”-speak for making up a story about what somebody wanted to do and calling that evidence for murdering the president and a cop.
If your fragile ego can’t stand being “nitpicked”, then don’t make false claims to begin with. It’s really that simple.
-
You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.
No, you said “hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer”.
It is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.
Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.
He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.
You made a false claim which you still have yet to admit. You claimed that Oswald pulled out a revolver. He did not. I corrected your false claim. That doesn’t obligate me to mention any other detail just because you would like me to.
I made no false claim and you most certainly didn't correct anything. An honest person should feel obligated to include or dispute important details. Your refusal to do so, even after being informed of the omission, clearly shows us that you intend to mislead others. That's dishonest.
No, you said “hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer”.
It is irrelevant what you think he wanted to do. Even if that could somehow be proven, wanting to commit a crime is not actually a crime.
It was a crime for LHO to be simply carrying a concealed firearm. And he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime. On top of that McDonald testified that he was drawing it (after LHO had already assaulted him). It isn't "what I think he wanted to do" It's what he did do. Your freaking innocent LHO wasn't innocent at all, period.
Misleading others is claiming that somebody “pulled out a revolver” when he did not.
McDonald said that he was drawing (aka: pulling) the revolver. That's what I said. If you think that is trying to mislead anyone, you are dead wrong.
He didn’t even partially pull out a revolver. McDonald just thought he was going to. You characterize this as “pulling out a revolver” and you accuse me of leaving out details? You made a statement that was blatantly false. I made a true statement that you wish I had elaborated more on.
These are not details that I left out. How could I, they are only delusions in your mind. Witnesses said LHO hit McDonald then grabbed the revolver. And McDonald intervened and testified that LHO was drawing the revolver. My statement reflects what McDonald testified to therefore it is not false.
If you want to believe that, somehow, after hitting McDonald and grabbing the revolver LHO didn't intend to pull it out, then go right ahead. But trying to mislead others into believing this nonsense by omitting important details is dishonest.
-
No one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln using contrarian logic. The witnesses just heard a gunshot, immediately looked in that direction to see Booth still pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head. No logical inference can be allowed, but they can imply entirely baseless alternatives to suggest false doubt. It's all an "assumption" or "opinion" erroneously using those terms out of sheer ignorance or intentional dishonesty. Perhaps Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just had the misfortune to pick up the gun, then realized things looked bad and fled. Booth worked there so nothing suspicious about his presence etc. It's possible unless we prove otherwise to their subjective contrarian satisfaction. Free John Wilkes Booth! There is doubt of his guilt. Contrarians of the world unite!
-
No one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln using contrarian logic. The witnesses just heard a gunshot, immediately looked in that direction to see Booth still pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head. No logical inference can be allowed, but they can imply entirely baseless alternatives to suggest false doubt. It's all an "assumption" or "opinion" erroneously using those terms out of sheer ignorance or intentional dishonesty. Perhaps Lincoln committed suicide and Booth just had the misfortune to pick up the gun, then realized things looked bad and fled. Booth worked there so nothing suspicious about his presence etc. It's possible unless we prove otherwise to their subjective contrarian satisfaction. Free John Wilkes Booth! There is doubt of his guilt. Contrarians of the world unite!
We are not discussing the Lincoln shooting. This forum discusses the Kennedy and Tippit murders.
If you want to convince anybody that Oswald killed both men, all you need to do is present the evidence for your claims. Whining about another case, with different circumstances, and "contrarians" will get you nowhere.
But I can answer in kind;
Nobody saw Alfred Dreyfus commit any act of treason, yet a extremely circumstantial and one sided case was presented against him by fanatical "patriots", based, in part, on manipulated evidence and resulting in his wrongful conviction. If it wasn't for a passionate campaign by leading artists and intellectuals such as Émile Zola, Dreyfus would have spend the rest of his life in prison, despite the fact that evidence of his innocence had already been found.
Dreyfus had his day in court and ultimately was officially exonerated by a military commission. Oswald ever had his day in court!
-
I made no false claim and you most certainly didn't correct anything.
Your exact words!
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.
It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who says something then immediately denies having said it. But it is there in black and white for all to see.
An honest person should feel obligated to include or dispute important details.
It's not an "important detail" to the issue of your false claim. I didn't include what the weather was like at the time either. You were still wrong. Your what-aboutism here is comical.
It was a crime for LHO to be simply carrying a concealed firearm.
Cite, please.
And he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime.
This is flat out false. I predict you won't admit this falsehood either. Besides that, Oswald was neither arrested, nor charged with carrying a concealed firearm.
On top of that McDonald testified that he was drawing it
McDonald's report to Curry merely says that Oswald "reached to his waist". "He was drawing it" was a later embellishment. It's pretty clear that McDonald merely assumed that Oswald was going to draw it. All of which is still irrelevant, because your claim was that he pulled out a revolver.
Your freaking innocent LHO wasn't innocent at all, period.
I didn't claim that LHO was innocent. I said that he didn't pull out a revolver. You can't be honest about anything.
These are not details that I left out. How could I, they are only delusions in your mind. Witnesses said LHO hit McDonald then grabbed the revolver.
I'm still waiting for the names of these "witnesses" who saw Oswald "grab the revolver", much less anybody who saw him pull one out.
-
Your exact words!
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who says something then immediately denies having said it. But it is there in black and white for all to see.
It's not an "important detail" to the issue of your false claim. I didn't include what the weather was like at the time either. You were still wrong. Your what-aboutism here is comical.
Cite, please.
This is flat out false. I predict you won't admit this falsehood either. Besides that, Oswald was neither arrested, nor charged with carrying a concealed firearm.
McDonald's report to Curry merely says that Oswald "reached to his waist". "He was drawing it" was a later embellishment. It's pretty clear that McDonald merely assumed that Oswald was going to draw it. All of which is still irrelevant, because your claim was that he pulled out a revolver.
I didn't claim that LHO was innocent. I said that he didn't pull out a revolver. You can't be honest about anything.
I'm still waiting for the names of these "witnesses" who saw Oswald "grab the revolver", much less anybody who saw him pull one out.
Your exact words!
It's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who says something then immediately denies having said it. But it is there in black and white for all to see.
I have not denied ever saying it. I responded by saying that McDonald said the same thing in his sworn testimony, therefore it isn't a falsehood. I cannot help it if you don't like what McDonald swore to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Get over it for crying out loud.
It's not an "important detail" to the issue of your false claim. I didn't include what the weather was like at the time either. You were still wrong. Your what-aboutism here is comical.
McDonald swore it to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it is the same thing that I said, therefore my statement isn't a falsehood. But you claim McDonald's sworn detail isn't an important detail when you are (lamely) trying to claim otherwise? ??? ::) An honest person should include the details and let others decide for themselves "from a level playing field." Instead of being honest, you just decide that a very important detail, that isn't in agreement with your idea, isn't important. So, you omit that detail. That's dishonest and you should be ashamed.
Cite, please.
"November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" by David Belin, page 466: "Carrying a concealed gun is a crime."
You can research the statutes yourself if you want to try to claim Belin was wrong. I'm not that interested.
This is flat out false. I predict you won't admit this falsehood either. Besides that, Oswald was neither arrested, nor charged with carrying a concealed firearm.
Mr. HILL. ...about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie."
I believe that there are others who testified similarly...
McDonald's report to Curry merely says that Oswald "reached to his waist". "He was drawing it" was a later embellishment. It's pretty clear that McDonald merely assumed that Oswald was going to draw it. All of which is still irrelevant, because your claim was that he pulled out a revolver.
There (dishonest) you go again, leaving out (aka: omitting) the details that you don't like. The report to Curry doesn't merely say that. It goes on (in the same freaking sentence) to say "and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt." The very next sentence states: "We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol." You will probably try to claim that the struggle was an assumption by McDonald also. Surely it couldn't possibly be that LHO was struggling for the pistol because he was drawing it. He "just had to" have been trying to keep in in his belt. ::) McDonald's later testimony was a question and answer examination designed to bring out more details. Just because you don't like the important details, doesn't mean they were an embellishment. My statement says ...pulling out... and so does McDonald. Put your glasses on if you need them to be able to read correctly.
I didn't claim that LHO was innocent. I said that he didn't pull out a revolver. You can't be honest about anything.
McDonald said LHO was drawing the revolver. So did I. And, if you were honest, you should also.
I'm still waiting for the names of these "witnesses" who saw Oswald "grab the revolver", much less anybody who saw him pull one out.
McDonald is one and CT Walker is another one. I believe the relevant testimonies are already posted earlier in this thread.
-
Quote from: Jerry Freeman on October 27, 2022, 09:54:41 PM --I mentioned McDonald and you bring up Walker?
Yes, I sure did. Is that a problem for you?
Hey...it's your silly [as usual] thread...you can disjoint it any way you want.
-
We are not discussing the Lincoln shooting. This forum discusses the Kennedy and Tippit murders.
If you want to convince anybody that Oswald killed both men, all you need to do is present the evidence for your claims. Whining about another case, with different circumstances, and "contrarians" will get you nowhere.
But I can answer in kind;
Nobody saw Alfred Dreyfus commit any act of treason, yet a extremely circumstantial and one sided case was presented against him by fanatical "patriots", based, in part, on manipulated evidence and resulting in his wrongful conviction. If it wasn't for a passionate campaign by leading artists and intellectuals such as Émile Zola, Dreyfus would have spend the rest of his life in prison, despite the fact that evidence of his innocence had already been found.
Dreyfus had his day in court and ultimately was officially exonerated by a military commission. Oswald ever had his day in court!
LOL. It's an analogy. And you unintentionally bolstered it here. Booth never had his day in court but no one doubts his guilt. Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.
-
LOL. It's an analogy. And you unintentionally bolstered it here. Booth never had his day in court but no one doubts his guilt. Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.
It's an analogy.
And a very poor one. Where hardly anybody doubts Booth's guilt, the majority of people still doubt Oswald's guilt.
The reason: Booth was seen jumping out of Lincoln's theater box (where at least three people had seen him shoot Lincoln) with a revolver in his hand, just after the shots were fired. Oswald, on the other hand was not seen on the 6th floor prior, during and after the shots were fired, nor was he seen holding the murder weapon or coming down the stairs. If you don't understand the difference, you're even dumber than you have shown yourself to be.
Your contrarian nonsense is only applied to evidence that links Oswald to the crime.
And what evidence would that be?
Oh yeah, that's right, you can't say, at least not without making a complete fool of yourself.
-
I have not denied ever saying it. I responded by saying that McDonald said the same thing in his sworn testimony, therefore it isn't a falsehood. I cannot help it if you don't like what McDonald swore to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Get over it for crying out loud.
This is also flat out false. McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony. But you said that on this forum. You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.
"November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" by David Belin, page 466: "Carrying a concealed gun is a crime."
You can research the statutes yourself if you want to try to claim Belin was wrong. I'm not that interested.
Of course you're not. Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.
Mr. HILL. ...about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie."
Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime". This quote does not support your claim. At all.
There (dishonest) you go again, leaving out (aka: omitting) the details that you don't like. The report to Curry doesn't merely say that. It goes on (in the same freaking sentence) to say "and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt." The very next sentence states: "We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol."
What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"? Absolutely nothing.
McDonald said LHO was drawing the revolver. So did I. And, if you were honest, you should also.
You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver". If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.
-
This is also flat out false. McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony. But you said that on this forum. You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.
Of course you're not. Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.
Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime". This quote does not support your claim. At all.
What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"? Absolutely nothing.
You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver". If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.
This is also flat out false. McDonald did not say that Oswald "pulled out a revolver" in his sworn testimony. But you said that on this forum. You're wrong but you refuse to admit it.
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.
Of course you're not. Just another unsubstantiated claim, and a false appeal to authority.
I gave you the source of my information as you asked. Here is another source that corroborates it:
John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and gun rights advocate, said in some ways, there were more regulations back in the 1960s than there are now.
“Back in the mid-60s, you were not allowed to carry a concealed handgun,” Lott said. “Today there are over one million Texans that have permits for concealed carry.”
https://thedailytexan.com/2016/08/01/texas-tightens-gun-laws-since-1966-shooting/ (https://thedailytexan.com/2016/08/01/texas-tightens-gun-laws-since-1966-shooting/)
If you are going to dispute this, please provide your evidence. Otherwise, you are just being an ass.
Note that your claim was "he admitted that he did and he knew it was a crime". This quote does not support your claim. At all.
It most certainly does. ::)
What does this have to do with either "pulled out a revolver", or "was drawing it"? Absolutely nothing.
None are so blind as those that will not see ::)
You claimed that Oswald "pulled out a revolver". If you were honest you'd admit that this is wrong instead of diverting.
Yes, hitting a police officer and pulling out a revolver certainly don’t seem to be the actions that one would expect from an innocent movie goer.
-
Charles is determined to misrepresent the evidence. “Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”, and “thing I have done” is not the same as “know it is a crime”.
Utterly dishonest.
-
Oswald to the Soviet embassy officials/KGB agents about two months before the assassination. This is from "Passport to Assassination" by one of the agents Oleg Nechiporenko.
Oswald to agents: "I am afraid they'll kill me. Let me in!" He then pulls out a revolver: "See? This what I must carry to protect my life!"
Oswald then says that "He was afraid to return to the United States - where he would be killed. "But if they don't leave me alone I'm going to defend myself..."
"If they don't leave me alone I'm going to defend myself.." With that revolver, the one he pulled out and waved around.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470857/Key3w3yqyhqv70b/oswald one.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470865/Key4l35rtxvigit/oswald two.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385677141/Key04hhvc9ujx6y/oswald three.JPG)
-
Charles is determined to misrepresent the evidence. “Was drawing” is not the same as “pulled out”, and “thing I have done” is not the same as “know it is a crime”.
Utterly dishonest.
There is no point in repeating again what was actually said. You can repeat your distortions as many times as you wish. They will only serve to demonstrate your dishonesty.
-
Oswald to the Soviet embassy officials/KGB agents about two months before the assassination. This is from "Passport to Assassination" by one of the agents Oleg Nechiporenko.
Oswald to agents: "I am afraid they'll kill me. Let me in!" He then pulls out a revolver: "See? This what I must carry to protect my life!"
Oswald then says that "He was afraid to return to the United States - where he would be killed. "But if they don't leave me alone I'm going to defend myself..."
"If they don't leave me alone I'm going to defend myself.." With that revolver, the one he pulled out and waved around.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470857/Key3w3yqyhqv70b/oswald one.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385470865/Key4l35rtxvigit/oswald two.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9385677141/Key04hhvc9ujx6y/oswald three.JPG)
I wonder if they kept the bullets. I am sure that I would have if I had been in their situation. If they did keep them, I wonder if they still have them.
-
There is no point in repeating again what was actually said. You can repeat your distortions as many times as you wish. They will only serve to demonstrate your dishonesty.
Says the guy making the dishonest distortions.
Why is it that people who promote the faith of the WC fairy tale always misrepresent the evidence? Is that because it’s the only way to get to those conclusions?
-
Says the guy making the dishonest distortions.
Why is it that people who promote the faith of the WC fairy tale always misrepresent the evidence? Is that because it’s the only way to get to those conclusions?
LOL
-
Oswald to the Soviet embassy officials....
Oswald to agents: "I am afraid they'll kill me. Let me in!" He then pulls out a revolver: "See? This what I must carry to protect my life!"
What a load!
-
LOL
And that's how you admit defeat