JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on October 24, 2022, 05:08:36 PM
-
Where was J.D. Tippit Shot?
Locating the exact spot where the Dallas Patrolman fell.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/101922/JDT_101922_title.jpg)
-
Where was J.D. Tippit Shot?
Locating the exact spot where the Dallas Patrolman fell.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/
Thumb1:
-
Where was J.D. Tippit Shot?
Locating the exact spot where the Dallas Patrolman fell.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/
Oswald would have shot over the hood of the police car? Not the top. From the sidewalk. I can't see any reason to grab/touch the front fender in this scenario.
And if he talked to JT through the open vent window, why the need to touch the door? Markham said he put his arms "on the ledge of the window". Arms not hands. I think he probably did something like that as he talked through the vent. I can't see any evidence indicating he could have left prints.
-
Where was J.D. Tippit Shot?
Locating the exact spot where the Dallas Patrolman fell.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/101922/JDT_101922_title.jpg)
That's great stuff Bill. I'm waiting for the contrarians to chime in and tell us that Tippit just "assumed" he was shot. It was merely his "opinion." Further evidence might one day be uncovered that precludes us from ever reaching a conclusion.
-
I’ve been to Dealey Plaza and the Sixth Floor Museum. I hope to visit again some day soon and to see the Tippit murder scene and memorial. It is great to know that the X is now in the correct position for all who go to see this site. Thankfully there are people who care enough about these things to take the proper action! :)
-
It's great that the historical marker at the scene doesn't hedge on what happened:
"On November 22, 1963, at this intersection, Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald..."
The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.
-
It's great that the historical marker at the scene doesn't hedge on what happened:
"On November 22, 1963, at this intersection, Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald..."
The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.
“The marker was unveiled and Marie Tippit smiled.
At Tenth and Patton, applause split the air where forty-nine years earlier gunshots had torn away the life of one of the city's faithful public servants.
Lest anyone forget.”
https://www.jdtippit.com/oakcliff_mem.htm (https://www.jdtippit.com/oakcliff_mem.htm)
-
That's great stuff Bill. I'm waiting for the contrarians to chime in and tell us that Tippit just "assumed" he was shot. It was merely his "opinion." Further evidence might one day be uncovered that precludes us from ever reaching a conclusion.
I'm waiting for Strawman "Smith" to get a life.
-
The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.
Yeah, because if it's carved on a plaque then it must be true. ::)
-
It is good to see that there are at least some LNs who pay attention to the details and try to get them right.
Now let's hope the day will come that they will also be willing (or perhaps able) to discuss those details rather than either making them up or running away from them.
-
The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.
Yeah, because if it's carved on a plaque then it must be true. ::)
That seems to be Richard's opinion. I wonder how he deals with the similar plaque at the TSBD that says Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy.
-
That seems to be Richard's opinion. I wonder how he deals with the similar plaque at the TSBD that says Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy.
You still don't understand the difference between an opinion and a conclusion. HA HA HA. The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion. A conclusion shared by the DPD and witnesses to the event. Another example of a conclusion is someone stating that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." Conclusions are a final decision about a matter. An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities. Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs, but there is clear distinction that appears to have eluded your contrarian brain.
-
You still don't understand the difference between an opinion and a conclusion. HA HA HA. The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion. A conclusion shared by the DPD and witnesses to the event. Another example of a conclusion is someone stating that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." Conclusions are a final decision about a matter. An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities. Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs, but there is clear distinction that appears to have eluded your contrarian brain.
Hilarious. Keep on displaying your total ignorance
The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion.
And thus an opinion. Or do you foolishly believe you can reach a conclusion without forming an opinion? :D :D :D
Conclusions are a final decision about a matter. An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.
I have just concluded that you are a complete delusional fool and guess what, it's also my opinion.
Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs,
Says the idiot who has claimed that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Now there's an conclusion for you..... :D
Btw, if the Tippit marker is a conclusion and thus a "final decision about a matter", then who came to that conclusion and based on what exactly?
And if the TSBD marker saying Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy is also a conclusion, doesn't the word "allegedly" mean that it leaves open the possibility that he wasn't the shooter?
-
Hilarious. Keep on displaying your total ignorance
The statement that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is a conclusion.
And thus an opinion.
Conclusions are a final decision about a matter. An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.
I have just concluded that you are a complete delusional fool and guess what, it's also my opinion.
Both conclusions and opinions can be wrong - as evidenced by your stupid conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs,
Says the idiot who has claimed that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Now there's an conclusion for you..... :D
Btw, if the Tippit marker is a conclusion and thus a "final decision about a matter", then who came to that conclusion and based on what exactly?
And if the TSBD marker saying Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy is also a conclusion, doesn't the word "allegedly" mean that it leaves open the possibility that he wasn't the shooter?
So amusing. The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. That is obviously a conclusion. Conclusions can be wrong as exemplified by your idiotic conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." What is so amusing is your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion. The height of stupidity reflecting a complete lack of understanding of the terms conclusion and opinion. You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true. You are a complete fool. You reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." That was a false conclusion but a conclusion nevertheless. The word you are looking for is "fact."
-
So amusing. The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. That is obviously a conclusion. Conclusions can be wrong as exemplified by your idiotic conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." What is so amusing is your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion. The height of stupidity reflecting a complete lack of understanding of the terms conclusion and opinion. You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true. You are a complete fool. You reached a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." That was a false conclusion but a conclusion nevertheless. The word you are looking for is "fact."
The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. That is obviously a conclusion. Conclusions can be wrong
Really? Didn't you just say;
Conclusions are a final decision about a matter.
Go figure...
your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion.
Fool. It's an opinion as well as a conclusion. No need to distance myself from either.
You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.
Never thought that, but you did. Anyway, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you said this;
It's great that the historical marker at the scene doesn't hedge on what happened:
"On November 22, 1963, at this intersection, Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald..."
The historical marker will forever document the responsibility of LHO for this crime.
it was total BS, right?
The word you are looking for is "fact."
You mean like in; It's a fact that you are a complete idiot for claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed without being able to present a shred of evidence for it?
-
The marker makes an affirmative statement that J.D. Tippit was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. That is obviously a conclusion. Conclusions can be wrong
Really? Didn't you just say;
Go figure...
your desperate effort to distance yourself from your own conclusion by claiming it is an opinion.
Fool. It's an opinion as well as a conclusion. No need to distance myself from either.
You still don't understand the difference wrongly thinking that a conclusion must be true.
Never thought that, but you did. Anyway, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you said this;
it was total BS, right?
The word you are looking for is "fact."
You mean like in; It's a fact that you are a complete idiot for claiming that Oswald did come down the stairs unnoticed without being able to present a shred of evidence for it?
Whew. When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true. In fact, it isn't. The point all along is that this is your conclusion. You stated this as your decision on the matter (i.e. Oswald "didn't come down the stairs"). I simply pointed out that if is this is your conclusion, then you must have also concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin since if he didn't come down the stairs (again as you concluded) then he couldn't have been the assassin. Why you struggled so mightily against your own conclusion is something that only a psychiatrist could shed light on but it is very amusing. And the bizarre attempt to change your conclusion to an opinion based on a complete misunderstanding of those concepts is a cherry on top of your humiliation.
-
Conclusions are a final decision about a matter. An opinion is a belief that leaves open other possibilities.
What orifice did you pull that out of?
There’s nothing more amusing than “Richard” trying to arrogantly school people with his made-up BS.
-
Whew. When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true. In fact, it isn't. The point all along is that this is your conclusion. You stated this as your decision on the matter (i.e. Oswald "didn't come down the stairs"). I simply pointed out that if is this is your conclusion, then you must have also concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin since if he didn't come down the stairs (again as you concluded) then he couldn't have been the assassin. Why you struggled so mightily against your own conclusion is something that only a psychiatrist could shed light on but it is very amusing. And the bizarre attempt to change your conclusion to an opinion based on a complete misunderstanding of those concepts is a cherry on top of your humiliation.
When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true.
When you claimed, with no evidence to back it up, that Oswald did come down the stairs, that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true. Thumb1:
I simply pointed out that if is this is your conclusion, then you must have also concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin since if he didn't come down the stairs (again as you concluded) then he couldn't have been the assassin.
Indeed. At least not in the context of the official narrative. So, when did I ever disagree with this?
And the bizarre attempt to change your conclusion to an opinion based on a complete misunderstanding of those concepts is a cherry on top of your humiliation.
Thanks for making me better understand how a delusional mind works.
-
When you stated that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true.
When you claimed, with no evidence to back it up, that Oswald did come down the stairs, that was a conclusion. Just because it was a conclusion doesn't make it true. Thumb1:
You have learned something! Who knew it was possible? I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion. To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false. The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin. You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin. Again, misunderstanding the point. The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin. That is the only implication that can be drawn. Whether your conclusion is true is not the issue. The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin). Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.
-
How arrogant and delusional does one have to be to declare that he understands another person's conclusions better than that person himself?
-
You have learned something! Who knew it was possible? I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion. To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false. The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin. You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin. Again, misunderstanding the point. The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin. That is the only implication that can be drawn. Whether your conclusion is true is not the issue. The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin). Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.
I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion. To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false.
Confused again? I never said that you made such a suggestion. But since you claim my conclusion is false, prove it!
Oh wait, you can only say it but can't present a shred of evidence to back it up, which makes your opinion/conclusion a pretty insignicifant figment of your imagination.
The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.
Reading problems again? Didn't I just agree (yet again) with this? But talk about not grasping something. Try this for size; that logical conclusion is only correct in the context of the official narrative.
You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.
Nope. The one going down that rabbit hole was you. I was laughing all the time about the idiotic statements you came up with.
The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin. That is the only implication that can be drawn.
Try to learn something for once. I'll say it again; only in the context of the official narritive.
The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin). Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.
That confirms it once and for all; you do have a reading comprehension problem.
-
How arrogant and delusional does one have to be to declare that he understands another person's conclusions better than that person himself?
What's really funny is that he keeps on displaying time after time that he doesn't understand a word of what I have been telling him.
-
I never suggested that your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" was true because it is a conclusion. To the complete contrary, your conclusion is false.
Confused again? I never said that you made such a suggestion. But since you claim my conclusion is false, prove it!
Oh wait, you can only say it but can't present a shred of evidence to back it up, which makes your opinion/conclusion a pretty insignicifant figment of your imagination.
The point - which you still can't grasp - is that having concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" means that you must also have concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.
Reading problems again? Didn't I just agree (yet again) with this? But talk about not grasping something. Try this for size; that logical conclusion is only correct in the context of the official narrative.
You went down a rabbit hole about whether you reached a conclusion or provided an opinion on the topic of Oswald coming down the stairs to deflect from admitting that you concluded that Oswald wasn't the assassin.
Nope. The one going down that rabbit hole was you. I was laughing all the time about the idiotic statements you came up with.
The point being that to conclude that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you have done means by implication that you must have concluded that Oswald could not be the assassin. That is the only implication that can be drawn.
Try to learn something for once. I'll say it again; only in the context of the official narritive.
The issue is understanding your position (i.e. "Oswald didn't come down the stairs" means that you have concluded he wasn't the assassin). Yet, after a hundred or more attempts to confirm that you accept the only implication of your conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs which is that Oswald wasn't the assassin, you still haven't done it.
That confirms it once and for all; you do have a reading comprehension problem.
So many words to no purpose. None of this gibberish is a complete thought or response to any point raised.
-
So many words to no purpose. None of this gibberish is a complete thought or response to any point raised.
Translation; I still have difficulty understanding and I haven't got a clue what to say.
But let me try to help you. Just tell me what part of "only in the context of the official narritive" do you have trouble understanding?
-
In “Richard”-land, conclusions are final, assumptions are facts, and made-up stories are evidence. Stay in school, kids. Don’t end up like “Richard”.
-
Translation; I still have difficulty understanding and I haven't got a clue what to say.
But let me try to help you. Just tell me what part of "only in the context of the official narritive" do you have trouble understanding?
Try to communicate via complete thoughts instead of fragments and gibberish. If you have something to discuss, just say it instead of asking others to read your mind. You concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." If he "didn't come down the stairs", then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor. at 12:30, and thus not the assassin. Are you suggesting now that Oswald assassinated JFK from some other place in the building? I know that there is good reason for you to be frightening to take any position but give it a try for once instead of being a coward. Have the courage of your contrarian convictions for once.
-
Try to communicate via complete thoughts instead of fragments and gibberish. If you have something to discuss, just say it instead of asking others to read your mind. You concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." If he "didn't come down the stairs", then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor. at 12:30, and thus not the assassin. Are you suggesting now that Oswald assassinated JFK from some other place in the building? I know that there is good reason for you to be frightening to take any position but give it a try for once instead of being a coward. Have the courage of your contrarian convictions for once.
And still he is incapable of logical thought and comprehension.
Try to communicate via complete thoughts instead of fragments and gibberish.
I have been clear as day. It is not my problem that you don't understand even simple concepts.
If you have something to discuss, just say it
"Something to discuss" says the guy who never discusses anything. Not even his own bogus claims.
instead of asking others to read your mind.
I never asked that..... again, it's not my problem when you are clueless.
If he "didn't come down the stairs", then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor. at 12:30, and thus not the assassin.
This was a logical conclusion and never really an issue, except somehow in your mind.
Are you suggesting now that Oswald assassinated JFK from some other place in the building?
No. Whatever gave you that idea?
I know that there is good reason for you to be frightening to take any position but give it a try for once instead of being a coward.
Hilarious.
-
And still he is incapable of logical thought and comprehension.
Try to communicate via complete thoughts instead of fragments and gibberish.
I have been clear as day. It is not my problem that you don't understand even simple concepts.
If you have something to discuss, just say it
"Something to discuss" says the guy who never discusses anything. Not even his own bogus claims.
instead of asking others to read your mind.
I never asked that..... again, it's not my problem when you are clueless.
If he "didn't come down the stairs", then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor. at 12:30, and thus not the assassin.
This was a logical conclusion and never really an issue, except somehow in your mind.
Are you suggesting now that Oswald assassinated JFK from some other place in the building?
No. Whatever gave you that idea?
I know that there is good reason for you to be frightening to take any position but give it a try for once instead of being a coward.
Hilarious.
Again, more fragments and gibberish. Why not have the courage to state YOUR own position? If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you concluded, then he wasn't the assassin. Right? Is that your position or not? If not, then explain to us how Oswald might still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
-
Well, for one thing, you don’t know that “the assassin” (sic), much less Oswald, was actually on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
-
Again, more fragments and gibberish. Why not have the courage to state YOUR own position? If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you concluded, then he wasn't the assassin. Right? Is that your position or not? If not, then explain to us how Oswald might still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs."
Full ignorance on display, yet again.
Why not have the courage to state YOUR own position?
I have stated my position, over and over again. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.
If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you concluded, then he wasn't the assassin. Right? Is that your position or not?
In the context of the official narrative, yes it is.
-
The problem is that “Richard” has official narrative blinders on. He is incapable of operating outside of it.
-
The problem is that “Richard” has official narrative blinders on. He is incapable of operating outside of it.
Indeed. That's his biggest problem. He actually lost the argument some two months ago and still doesn't realize it. It's kinda sad, really.
Like any other fanatical zealot, Richard, can not imagine that his bible (i.e. the official narrative) could possibly be wrong.
Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot means that he wasn't on the 6th floor and thus that he could not have shot Kennedy from there. This would destroy a crucial part of the official narrative and justify the question what else there is in the official narrative that could also be wrong.
Obviously, Richard doesn't like or accept any of that, but he is not so dumb that he doesn't understand that he hasn't got a shred of evidence to put Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired (as he claimed) so he falls back on his faith like belief and simply hopes he can BS his way out of the mess he has created from himself by deflection and making (in his mind) big issues out of non-issues.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” - Mark Twain
-
Well, for one thing, you don’t know that “the assassin” (sic), much less Oswald, was actually on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Did readers not see my posts?----Men were seen on the 6th floor. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney saw them come down the stairs.
-
Did readers not see my posts?----Men were seen on the 6th floor. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney saw them come down the stairs.
Where do I find these posts?
-
Indeed. That's his biggest problem. He actually lost the argument some two months ago and still doesn't realize it. It's kinda sad, really.
Like any other fanatical zealot, Richard, can not imagine that his bible (i.e. the official narrative) could possibly be wrong.
Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot means that he wasn't on the 6th floor and thus that he could not have shot Kennedy from there. This would destroy a crucial part of the official narrative and justify the question what else there is in the official narrative that could also be wrong.
Obviously, Richard doesn't like or accept any of that, but he is not so dumb that he doesn't understand that he hasn't got a shred of evidence to put Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired (as he claimed) so he falls back on his faith like belief and simply hopes he can BS his way out of the mess he has created from himself by deflection and making (in his mind) big issues out of non-issues.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” - Mark Twain
It looks like Richard has finally understood just how big a fool he made of himself and has now crawled back under the rock he calls home.
-
Did Oswalds pistol misfire when he was wrestling around with McDonald in the Texas Theatre ? Bent firing pin ?
-
Did Oswalds pistol misfire when he was wrestling around with McDonald in the Texas Theatre ? Bent firing pin ?
McDonald explained that he had his hand on the butt of the gun. To fire the revolver, the hammer has to move back first and then move forward to have the firing pin strike the bullet primer. It seems that his hand prevented the hammer from moving back which meant the gun could not fire.
-
So the vent window was open? Why didn’t the man just stick the pistol right thru the
-
… and shoot Tippet like a fish in a barrel?
-
So the vent window was open? Why didn’t the man just stick the pistol right thru the
Note that this is a question that calls for speculation. So the answer can't be dismissed as speculative by contrarians. Here goes. Tippit sees Oswald doing something suspicious that draws his attention. What exactly we can't ever know but likely the typical tells of criminals on the run when encountered by the police. Tippit takes notice and decides to pull over and check it out. Probably not for any reason directly related to the assassination. Just suspicious behavior. He asks Oswald a few questions through the window and maybe asks to see his ID. Oswald likely tries to bull his way out of the situation. Having just assassinated the president and being concerned that he may already be a suspect in that crime can't ID himself to Tippit without fear of arrest. This doesn't work. Tippit decides to exit the car for further discussion. Oswald can't risk the possibility that he has been identified as a suspect in the assassination. He realizes then that he had no choice but to kill Tippit while he still has the element of surprise.
-
That’s a reasonable possibility Mr.Smith, except that Oswald could have still stuck the pistol thru the open vent window and shot Tippet as soon as it was apparent to Oswald that Tippet was suspicious by whatever Oswald might have said.
So it could be maybe the timing. Oswald (or other man) said something that caused Tippet such insult that he opened his door so quickly that Oswald did not have time to pull out his pistol and fit it thru the vent window( which was probably not open all the way enough anyway)
He might have also envisioned that Tippet might hit the gas and move the car suddenly before the man could get his pistol fit thru the vent window or would get his arm/hand stuck in the vent and be dragged down the street.
Id better stop now before I turn myself into an LN 😳
-
That’s a reasonable possibility Mr.Smith, except that Oswald could have still stuck the pistol thru the open vent window and shot Tippet as soon as it was apparent to Oswald that Tippet was suspicious by whatever Oswald might have said.
So it could be maybe the timing. Oswald (or other man) said something that caused Tippet such insult that he opened his door so quickly that Oswald did not have time to pull out his pistol and fit it thru the vent window( which was probably not open all the way enough anyway)
He might have also envisioned that Tippet might hit the gas and move the car suddenly before the man could get his pistol fit thru the vent window or would get his arm/hand stuck in the vent and be dragged down the street.
Id better stop now before I turn myself into an LN 😳
Oswald was hoping to bull his way out of the situation without shooting Tippit. Killing a police officer in broad daylight was something that was going to draw attention to him. He wasn't going to do it unless there was no other option. Once Tippit starts to exit the car, Oswald realizes that didn't work and he is not going to risk that he has already been identified as a suspect in the JFK assassination. So he kills Tippit while he still has element of surprise.
-
Oswald was hoping to bull his way out of the situation without shooting Tippit. Killing a police officer in broad daylight was something that was going to draw attention to him. He wasn't going to do it unless there was no other option. Once Tippit starts to exit the car, Oswald realizes that didn't work and he is not going to risk that he has already been identified as a suspect in the JFK assassination. So he kills Tippit while he still has element of surprise.
Another piece of speculation is that Tippit noticed a bulge around the right side of LHO’s belt line. And Tippit suspected that LHO was carrying a gun. After all, it was said that Tippit’s gun was found under him and out of it’s holster. So, it appears that Tippit had drawn his gun. And even if it wasn’t apparent to Tippit that LHO had that bulge, LHO couldn’t take a chance on being frisked and having the revolver discovered. That would most likely mean a detention for carrying a concealed firearm. And LHO had to know that it was just a matter of a short time before he became a suspect in the JFK assassination.
-
Oswald was hoping to bull his way out of the situation without shooting Tippit.
The only person trying to bull his way out of a situation is "Richard".
-
Id better stop now before I turn myself into an LN 😳
(https://i.imgur.com/sPXIQfd.jpg)
-
LOL @ Mr.Brown inferring that the LN/WC version of reality is due to the “dark side of the force”.
Although I greatly respect Mr.Brown as one of the most knowledgeable persons on the JFK forum , I must respectfully decline any offer to be instructed in the ways of the dark force (upon advice from Yoda the Great CT). ⭐️