JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 05:37:42 PM
-
Who do you believe?
Carolyn Arnold stated that she had lunch in the second floor lunchroom and saw Oswald there at around 12:25. She did not say this until 15 YEARS LATER!
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he had lunch on the first floor with Jarman and Norman.
Pauline Sanders stated that she was in the second floor lunchroom at the time Arnold was there and she DID NOT SEE Oswald!
Jarman and Norman both stated that they did not have lunch with Oswald.
Obviously Oswald could not have had lunch on the second floor and the first floor.
So, whom do you believe?
-
Who do you believe?
Carolyn Arnold stated that she had lunch in the second floor lunchroom and saw Oswald there at around 12:25. She did not say this until 15 YEARS LATER!
Do you believe what Jack Tatum and Louie Steven Witt said 15 YEARS LATER?
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he had lunch on the first floor with Jarman and Norman.
That's debatable. There are several different accounts of what Oswald said about Jarman and Norman.
Fritz's notes: "two negr. came in.....one Jr. + short negro."
Fritz's report: "he said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called "Junior" and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know."
Bookhout's report: "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period."
Kelley's report: "He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as "Junior," a colored boy, and the other was little short negro boy."
Pauline Sanders stated that she was in the second floor lunchroom at the time Arnold was there and she DID NOT SEE Oswald!
What kind of argument is this? How many people DID NOT SEE Oswald in the 6th floor window?
-
Do you believe what Jack Tatum and Louie Steven Witt said 15 YEARS LATER?
That's debatable. There are several different accounts of what Oswald said about Jarman and Norman.
Fritz's notes: "two negr. came in.....one Jr. + short negro."
Fritz's report: "he said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called "Junior" and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know."
Bookhout's report: "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period."
Kelley's report: "He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as "Junior," a colored boy, and the other was little short negro boy."
What kind of argument is this? How many people DID NOT SEE Oswald in the 6th floor window?
You didn't answer the question. Who do you believe Oswald or Arnold? And several witnesses did see a gunman in the window.
-
What is this debate about? Does someone here believe Oswald is innocent?
-
We can't believe anything which Fritz alleges Oswald to have said, the captain was an obvious nazi and would not have cared about a Communist supporter, and he proved this when he set up his prisoner to be murdered in custody
-
What is this debate about? Does someone here believe Oswald is innocent?
By the way, I believe Oswald acted alone. It's just a question for CT's. A lot of them will point to Arnold as proof that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when the president was shot. That disputes what their hero Oswald said. They can't have it both ways. I just want to see what they say.
-
Do you believe what Jack Tatum and Louie Steven Witt said 15 YEARS LATER?
Jack Tatum simply reinforced what already happened whereas Arnold made up an entirely new story.
Louie Steven Witt just clarified what he did and the alternative that he used a poison dart is probably likely in your world.
Btw why this weak attempt at diverting away from Wesley's powerful presentation but I suppose when you have no evidence this type of digression is all you got!
JohnM
-
You didn't answer the question. Who do you believe Oswald or Arnold?
I don't know if I believe Oswald or not, since I have no idea what he actually said.
I believe that Arnold caught a glimpse of somebody she recalled as being Oswald. Exactly when and where this happened is a matter of dispute.
-
By the way, I believe Oswald acted alone. It's just a question for CT's. A lot of them will point to Arnold as proof that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when the president was shot. That disputes what their hero Oswald said. They can't have it both ways. I just want to see what they say.
Why does Oswald become anybody's hero just because they reject your weak arguments for Oswald's guilt?
-
Do you believe what Jack Tatum and Louie Steven Witt said 15 YEARS LATER?
Do you?
-
I don't know if I believe Oswald or not, since I have no idea what he actually said.
I believe that Arnold caught a glimpse of somebody she recalled as being Oswald. Exactly when and where this happened is a matter of dispute.
John you seem like the type of person that if you were standing with a friend and a crime was committed right in front of the two of you and your friend said it was a man in black clothes you would say "I really don't believe or believe the clothes were black, they could have been gray". Come on jump down off that fence and take a stand. Which theory do you believe? I have stated clearly what I believe so why don't you and we can get on with a fair debate.
-
Jack Tatum simply reinforced what already happened whereas Arnold made up an entirely new story.
Arnold didn't make up an entirely new story. As early as 11/26 she mentioned catching a glimpse of Oswald right around the time she left the building to go outside. Whether the FBI recorded the details correctly is a matter of dispute for several witnesses.
Louie Steven Witt just clarified what he did and the alternative that he used a poison dart is probably likely in your world.
You guys never get tired of making up arguments, do you?
Btw why this weak attempt at diverting away from Wesley's powerful presentation but I suppose when you have no evidence this type of digression is all you got!
You always think that arguments that rely on rhetoric and unproven assumptions are "powerful". Look at your sycophantic treatment of Bugliosi's "53".
-
For Oswald to be guilty he has to make the trip from the 6th floor "shooter's nest" to 2nd floor lunch room before Truly and Baker arrive there.
The only path for him to have done so was the rear staircase. (Truly's observation of the lifts precludes their use by Oswald)
Whilst the investigation proved the trip was possible in the time available, it did not prove the path was clear for him to have done so.
All staff in the TSBD between the 6th and 2nd should have been interviewed as to their location and if their actions could have precluded the suspect from using that route.
Adams and Styles descent time is controverted, however the obvious step was to interview Garner and Dorman. If the "Stroud" document is genuine (as I believe it is) then it would appear that the investigation did at least speak to Garner, got an answer they didn't like, so "lost" her testimony. Now Garner may have followed Adams and Styles as they made an early descent and then stayed in the rear area and saw Truly and Baker ascend, but that doesn't preclude Oswald somehow sneaking past her. However due to the failure of the investigation to properly check the possible people that may have been in Oswald's path and enter their testimony into the official record, we will never know officially iof the path was clear and that alone for me is reasonable doubt as to Oswald's guilt. (Especially when added to the fact that the investigation appears to have known about Garner's movements but appears to have deliberately excluded this piece of information)
-
John you seem like the type of person that if you were standing with a friend and a crime was committed right in front of the two of you and your friend said it was a man in black clothes you would say "I really don't believe or believe the clothes were black, they could have been gray".
You seem like the kind of person who was 100 miles away from that crime, was told that the clothes were 4 different colors by 4 different witnesses, and then just declared that they must have been black because that's your favorite color.
Come on jump down off that fence and take a stand. Which theory do you believe? I have stated clearly what I believe so why don't you and we can get on with a fair debate.
I don't form conclusions without a good reason to do so. Why do you?
-
You seem like the kind of person who was 100 miles away from that crime, was told that the clothes were 4 different colors by 4 different witnesses, and then just declared that they must have been black because that's your favorite color.
I don't form conclusions without a good reason to do so. Why do you?
Still balancing on that fence John. I'm just trying to get you to say which conspiracy you believe. I have been straight forward with what I believe. Have you been to Dealy Plaza? Do you have experience with firearms? My point in asking that is, I have been at the scene of the crime and not a 100 miles away. I have done my own study and research of it John. I'm not afraid to say what I believe, but you seem terrified of just saying which conspiracy you believe. Fascinating.
-
Still balancing on that fence John. I'm just trying to get you to say which conspiracy you believe. I have been straight forward with what I believe. Have you been to Dealy Plaza? Do you have experience with firearms? My point in asking that is, I have been at the scene of the crime and not a 100 miles away. I have done my own study and research of it John. I'm not afraid to say what I believe, but you seem terrified of just saying which conspiracy you believe. Fascinating.
This is a loaded question. Which of your wives did you beat?
What makes you think there is any conspiracy that I believe in? Yes, I've been to Dealey Plaza multiple times. Not that it makes any difference unless you were there at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963. And perhaps not even then.
So you've said what you believe. Now what are your reasons for believing it? If it's because you think bullets have been linked to Oswald, I think I see the problem.
-
This is a loaded question. Which of your wives did you beat?
What makes you think there is any conspiracy that I believe in? Yes, I've been to Dealey Plaza multiple times. Not that it makes any difference unless you were there at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963. And perhaps not even then.
So you've said what you believe. Now what are your reasons for believing it? If it's because you think bullets have been linked to Oswald, I think I see the problem.
John, you disappoint me. I thought we were having an adult debate here and you start insulting. Most of you CT's do when you can't answer the most basic questions about the assassination. I'm not going to insult you back and play that childish game. I think you know exactly what I believe because I have stated it. You on the other hand can't even admit that you believe there was a conspiracy. One more time John, can you cite one piece of physical, ballistic evidence that points to anyone other than Oswald?
-
John, you disappoint me. I thought we were having an adult debate here and you start insulting.
I didn't insult you. I was illustrating to you what a loaded question is. It's a question that has a built-in assumption behind it.
You on the other hand can't even admit that you believe there was a conspiracy.
Are you in the habit of deciding what it is that the people you talk to believe? I'll bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
One more time John, can you cite one piece of physical, ballistic evidence that points to anyone other than Oswald?
Not anything that's particularly convincing. There's the alleged Malcolm Wallace print for example, and the second man that several witnesses claimed to see.
But so what? Is Oswald just automatically guilty if nobody else can be proven to be?
-
I didn't insult you. I was illustrating to you what a loaded question is. It's a question that has a built-in assumption behind it.
Are you in the habit of deciding what it is that the people you talk to believe? I'll bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
Not anything that's particularly convincing. There's the alleged Malcolm Wallace print for example, and the second man that several witnesses claimed to see.
But so what? Is Oswald just automatically guilty if nobody else can be proven to be?
Okay John, we are finally getting somewhere. You admit that you cannot cite any credible evidence one way or the other. So do you believe it was really Malcolm Wallace's print? Name the witnesses who claimed to see Wallace.
-
Okay John, we are finally getting somewhere. You admit that you cannot cite any credible evidence one way or the other. So do you believe it was really Malcolm Wallace's print? Name the witnesses who claimed to see Wallace.
I've already said that I haven't seen anything particularly convincing. You on the other hand are convinced that Oswald did it. Name the witnesses who claimed to see Oswald shoot JFK.
-
I've already said that I haven't seen anything particularly convincing. You on the other hand are convinced that Oswald did it. Name the witnesses who claimed to see Oswald shoot JFK.
No you brought up Wallace and claimed witnesses saw him. Name the source.
-
No you brought up Wallace and claimed witnesses saw him. Name the source.
I think you misread. I didn't claim that witnesses saw Malcolm Wallace. I said that witnesses saw a second man in the TSBD.
-
I think you misread. I didn't claim that witnesses saw Malcolm Wallace. I said that witnesses saw a second man in the TSBD.
Okay, name the source for the witnesses that you cited as seeing a second man that you had in the same statement about Wallace.
-
Okay, name the source for the witnesses that you cited as seeing a second man that you had in the same statement about Wallace.
I'll make you a deal. I will name the witnesses who saw a second man if you name the witnesses who saw Oswald. Deal?
-
I'll make you a deal. I will name the witnesses who saw a second man if you name the witnesses who saw Oswald. Deal?
I said "saw the gunman" in the window. Okay, James Worrell was right below the 6th floor and when the shooting started he looked up and saw the gun barrel sticking out, Amos Euins looked up and watched the gunman as he was shooting, Howard Brennan saw the gunman, as well, as the shooting took place. Brennan at first said he couldn't id Oswald but later said that he could have id'd Oswald and that he had just been scared to id him. I already know some of the names you are going to cite John. Did any of them see this second man shooting? The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.
-
I said "saw the gunman" in the window. Okay, James Worrell was right below the 6th floor and when the shooting started he looked up and saw the gun barrel sticking out, Amos Euins looked up and watched the gunman as he was shooting, Howard Brennan saw the gunman, as well, as the shooting took place. Brennan at first said he couldn't id Oswald but later said that he could have id'd Oswald and that he had just been scared to id him. I already know some of the names you are going to cite John. Did any of them see this second man shooting? The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.
I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window. Hint: Worrell was not one of them. But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace. So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.
It's just Brennan then, right? And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right? Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable? I don't. Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't. For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing? How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up? How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?
The people who claimed to have seen two men:
- Arnold Rowland
- Carolyn Walther
- Ruby Henderson
- Norman Similas
- Johnny Powell
-
I said "saw the gunman" in the window. Okay, James Worrell was right below the 6th floor and when the shooting started he looked up and saw the gun barrel sticking out, Amos Euins looked up and watched the gunman as he was shooting, Howard Brennan saw the gunman, as well, as the shooting took place. Brennan at first said he couldn't id Oswald but later said that he could have id'd Oswald and that he had just been scared to id him. I already know some of the names you are going to cite John. Did any of them see this second man shooting? The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.
Did any of them see this second man shooting?
If there was a second man, why does it even matter if he was shooting or not? Do you really think that if somebody is standing next to a gun man who is killing somebody is just an innocent bystander?
The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.
First of all, this is a massive leap of faith. The only person who actually claimed he saw Oswald, and not somebody else, at the 6th floor window is Brennan and there are too many problems with his story to be credible on it's own.
Secondly, there is no mountain of evidence against Oswald. I know LNs like to throw that expression about, but in reality all these massive investigations have ever brought up, especially in the murder of Kennedy, is a circumstantial case against Oswald and a very weak one at that.
-
If you believe that Oswald was a lone assassin then there should be no problems in letting all of the evidence be seen and not wait for 75 years to release all the files pertaining to the JFK case. I feel that there are people who thought that the Assassination of JFK would just blow over in a few years and it would be looked at like a piece of history that might be talked about in a History class in school. Wait 75 years and the majority of those who talk about the case would be dead. Does anyone know of any person who has read the 26 volumes of the Warren Report . I don't ! The Assassination seemed to be on a slippery slope right off the bat. One shooter , more than one shooter, certain placements of wounds , different placements of wounds. Why would a group of people say they saw one thing and a different group of people say they saw something totally different. Ceremonial casket , shipping casket. One thing I feel strong about is that the United States of America did not kill its President . Whoever killed JFK had a reason that they thought was strong enough to take him out of power. I will not put the Assassination of JFK on the people of the United States . The War Machine made money doing what they do best and that was being at war !
-
I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window. Hint: Worrell was not one of them. But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace. So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.
It's just Brennan then, right? And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right? Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable? I don't. Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't. For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing?
You have this tiresome obsession with Brennan. He saw different parts of Oswald over the course of two sightings.
How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up?
He couldn't. His affidavit says:
"I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was
taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel
of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was
looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion.
Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out
of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man
from about his belt up."
Cherry-picking his testimony gets one this:
"But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up."
Which supposedly you take to mean him seeing "a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up". Yet a review of his affidavit shows he meant that at the time of the final shot, he saw more of the assassin because the gunman stood up and stepped back.
How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?
The scope is black and against a dark background. And the rifle is at an oblique angle to Brennan.
-
You have this tiresome obsession with Brennan. He saw different parts of Oswald over the course of two sightings.
How did he know it was the same person?
Cherry-picking his testimony gets one this:
"But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up."
That's not a cherry-pick. "At the time that he was firing the gun" is not ambiguous. You're changing it to mean something else because you want it to mean something else. Nothing more. You're the one who's cherry-picking what you like out of his affidavit and ignoring his testimony which says something different. Besides, he doesn't ever mention in his affidavit seeing the man stand up, does he? He thought he was standing the entire time.
At best, Brennan made different claims and gave different details every time he talked about what he saw, which makes him unreliable. But you have to go with him because he's all you got. That is what's tiresome. If he had described an elderly negro, you would be attacking him like the WC did to Arnold Rowland.
The scope is black and against a dark background. And the rifle is at an oblique angle to Brennan.
Please explain. What's the dark background? And how oblique? At the time of the head shot?
-
Why do you believe that he was on the sixth floor when there is ZERO evidence for this contention?
The question is, "do you believe Oswald or Arnold"? Well which is it?
-
Who do you believe?
Everybody.
Steve Thomas
-
Can you list any physical or ballistic evidence that points to LHO?
Typical "buff" response. All you guys ever do is answer a question by asking a question.
-
I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window. Hint: Worrell was not one of them. But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace. So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.
It's just Brennan then, right? And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right? Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable? I don't. Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't. For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing? How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up? How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?
The people who claimed to have seen two men:
- Arnold Rowland
- Carolyn Walther
- Ruby Henderson
- Norman Similas
- Johnny Powell
Fair enough John. Did Rowland, Walther, Henderson, Similas, or Powell see this second man shooting out of a window at the president?
-
Let's remove them from the equation. What evidence do you have to place LHO at the SE sixth floor window at the time of the assassination?
No let's not. The question is valid because you CT's are always quoting Arnold about Lee being in the second floor lunchroom and Oswald as saying he was on the first floor. So, again, who do you believe? Arnold or Oswald?
-
No let's not. The question is valid because you CT's are always quoting Arnold about Lee being in the second floor lunchroom and Oswald as saying he was on the first floor. So, again, who do you believe? Arnold or Oswald?
Your question would possibly be valid if we had a full first hand verbatim account about what Oswald and Arnold really said. Context matters and since we only have scant second hand information to deal with, there is nothing valid about your question.
Both Oswald and Arnold could well both be correct, for one very simple reason; we know that Oswald, at some point in time, was in the 2nd floor lunchroom because Truly and Baker saw him there. However, his being there 90 seconds post shots does not preclude him being on the 1st floor earlier, to see Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD at the back, near the domino room.
So, ask questions, by all means, but provide context to them before you do.
-
Your question would possibly be valid if we had a full first hand verbatim account about what Oswald and Arnold really said. Context matters and since we only have scant second hand information to deal with, there is nothing valid about your question.
Both Oswald and Arnold could well both be correct, for one very simple reason; we know that Oswald, at some point in time, was in the 2nd floor lunchroom because Truly and Baker saw him there. However, his being there 90 seconds post shots does not preclude him being on the 1st floor earlier, to see Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD at the back, near the domino room.
So, ask questions, by all means, but provide context to them before you do.
If it is not valid to ask then CT'ers should not cite Arnold about Lee being in the second floor lunchroom or Lee saying he was on the first floor. And given your rational: "However, his being there 90 seconds post shots does not preclude him being on the first floor earlier, to see Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD at the back, near the domino room"! If Lee stated he saw Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD on the first floor in the back near the domino room, then he surely lied. CT's should never use that argument again Martin. It is well documented that Jarman, Norman and Williams were below the SE 6th floor window on the 5th floor SE window at the time of the shooting and heard the shots. There is even a photo of them in the window seconds after the shooting. So they very well could not have gotten all the way down and out of the building and come back in at that same 90 seconds now could they? And it doesn't preclude Oswald from being on the 6th floor either, does it Martin? Thanks for pointing that out.
-
If it is not valid to ask then CT'ers should not cite Arnold about Lee being in the second floor lunchroom or Lee saying he was on the first floor. And given your rational: "However, his being there 90 seconds post shots does not preclude him being on the first floor earlier, to see Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD at the back, near the domino room"! If Lee stated he saw Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD on the first floor in the back near the domino room, then he surely lied. CT's should never use that argument again Martin. It is well documented that Jarman, Norman and Williams were below the SE 6th floor window on the 5th floor SE window at the time of the shooting and heard the shots. There is even a photo of them in the window seconds after the shooting. So they very well could not have gotten all the way down and out of the building and come back in at that same 90 seconds now could they? And it doesn't preclude Oswald from being on the 6th floor either, does it Martin? Thanks for pointing that out.
It is well documented that Jarman, Norman and Williams were below the SE 6th floor window on the 5th floor SE window at the time of the shooting and heard the shots.
True, but I was not talking about the moment of the shooting. It seems you don't know the details of this case as well as you think. Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. They took the elevator up to the 5th floor where they were joined by Williams, who had just come down from the 6th floor.
Again, context is important!
Oswald could have been in the Domino room, on the first floor, when he saw Jarman and Norman enter the building. He could then have gone up to the 2nd floor where Arnold saw him, at around 12.25 (which is what she told the FBI initially, if I remember correctly).
-
It is well documented that Jarman, Norman and Williams were below the SE 6th floor window on the 5th floor SE window at the time of the shooting and heard the shots.
True, but I was not talking about the moment of the shooting. It seems you don't know the details of this case as well as you think. Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. They took the elevator up to the 5th floor where they were joined by Williams, who had just come down from the 6th floor.
Again, context is important!
Yes context is important and it seems you don't know as much as you think either. I was aware of their movements Martin. So, you just admitted that they were on the 5th floor below the 6th floor window and in 90 seconds they ran down or rode the elevator and went back outside and then came back inside at the back by the domino room for Oswald to see them 90 seconds after the shooting? Is that what you are saying?
-
Yes context is important and it seems you don't know as much as you think either. I was aware of their movements Martin. So, you just admitted that they were on the 5th floor below the 6th floor window and in 90 seconds they ran down or rode the elevator and went back outside and then came back inside at the back by the domino room for Oswald to see them 90 seconds after the shooting? Is that what you are saying?
No that's not what I am saying at all. Read my post again.
-
No that's not what I am saying at all. Read my post again.
This is what you wrote: "They took the elevator up to the 5th floor where they were joined by Williams, who had just come down from the 6th floor."
Context matters Martin. I have read the statements of Jarman, Norman, and Williams. You made the statement, so were they on the 5th floor or not? If they were then they would not have had time to get all the way back down, outside, and come back in the back by the domino room for Oswald to see them 90 seconds later. Here is what you also wrote: " Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. "
I am not disputing that they could have been seen by someone when they came in Martin, I am disputing it was Oswald and I am basing that on "your context". Are you saying that they were not on the 5th floor at the time of the shooting? You seem to have a timing issue here Martin.
-
This is what you wrote: "They took the elevator up to the 5th floor where they were joined by Williams, who had just come down from the 6th floor."
Context matters Martin. I have read the statements of Jarman, Norman, and Williams. You made the statement, so were they on the 5th floor or not? If they were then they would not have had time to get all the way back down, outside, and come back in the back by the domino room for Oswald to see them 90 seconds later. Here is what you also wrote: " Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. "
I am not disputing that they could have been seen by someone when they came in Martin, I am disputing it was Oswald and I am basing that on "your context". Are you saying that they were not on the 5th floor at the time of the shooting? You seem to have a timing issue here Martin.
Read again;
Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. "
The only one talking about 90 seconds post shots is you.
You wanted to know who to believe; Oswald (saying he was on the 1st floor) or Arnold (saying she believed she saw him on the 2nd floor at 12.25 pm). I have given you a scenario where both Oswald and Arnold can be believed. It seems that's not the answer you wanted to get.
-
Read again;
Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. "
The only one talking about 90 seconds post shots is you.
You wanted to know who to believe; Oswald (saying he was on the 1st floor) or Arnold (saying she believed she saw him on the 2nd floor at 1.25 pm). I have given you a scenario where both Oswald and Arnold can be believed. It seems that's not the answer you wanted to get.
They likely left the front of the TSBD closer to 12.25.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,162.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,162.0.html)
-
They likely left the front of the TSBD closer to 12.25.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,162.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,162.0.html)
Works for me, Colin... I was writing from memory.
I just noticed I got the Arnold time wrong by one hour as well....Imagine her seeing him one hour after the shooting. Anyway, it's corrected now.
-
Works for me, Colin... I was writing from memory.
I just noticed I got the Arnold time wrong by one hour as well....Imagine her seeing him one hour after the shooting. Anyway, it's corrected now.
No worries Martin.....the WR report got the time wrong by much later I think.....but then memory can be a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'.
-
Read again;
Jarman and Norman were actually outside the building to watch the motorcade pass by. Some ten minutes before the cars arrived they decided that they would get a better view from the 5th floor, so they went along Houston street to the back of the building and entered the shipping department, where they could have been observed by somebody in the Domino room. "
The only one talking about 90 seconds post shots is you.
You wanted to know who to believe; Oswald (saying he was on the 1st floor) or Arnold (saying she believed she saw him on the 2nd floor at 12.25 pm). I have given you a scenario where both Oswald and Arnold can be believed. It seems that's not the answer you wanted to get.
Martin I simply asked who you believe Oswald or Arnold. You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in. I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before. But that is not supported by anyone. Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that. Now let's look at Arnold's statements in a contextual way ;D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time? Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me. Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.
-
One doesn't exclude the other. Arnold said that she saw LHO at 12:25 p.m. and LHO said that he was on the first floor at 12:30 p.m. at the time of the assassination. It doesn't take more than 5 minutes to go down one flight of stairs.
Now, cite your evidence for showing that LHO was on the sixth floor as the WC claimed.
No, You CT'ers are always claiming one or the other. Now did Oswald have lunch in the second floor lunchroom or on the first floor? I'll give you the same response I gave Martin: I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before. But that is not supported by anyone. Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that. Now let's look at Arnold's statements in a contextual way ;D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time? Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me. Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.
-
Martin I simply asked who you believe Oswald or Arnold. You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in. I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before. But that is not supported by anyone. Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that. Now let's look at Arnold's statements in a contextual way ;D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time? Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me. Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.
You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in.
Yes, but only because the Truly/Baker meeting confirms that Oswald was on the 2nd floor at that time. Arnold said she saw him on the same floor a few minutes earlier
I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before.
I'm not trying. I said it.
that is not supported by anyone.
And Oswald at the 6th floor window is not supported by anyone either, yet you believe Brennan.
Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that.
The problem is that we don't know what Oswald really said. There are only conflicting third party accounts. So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?
D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time?
It seems to me that all you've got it third party information and nothing from Arnold directly. Regardless of the minor time differences, her story is still the same; she saw Oswald on the second floor just minutes prior to the shooting.
Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me.
No surprise there. Why deal with the elephant in the room that is her seeing Oswald when you can concentrate on minor differences in times which she may or may not have given herself?
Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom?
Again, you reply on what an FBI agent wrote in a report that she never saw or signed. How do you know for sure this is exactly what she told the agent?
She contends the FBI mis quoted her,
So Arnold herself says the FBI misquoted her, yet you go with what the FBI report says anyway.
but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot".
This is just about the weakest argument you can make.... In March 64 the FBI was instructed to ask all TSBD employees if they had seen Oswald at the time the President was shot and of course nobody, including Arnold did. But that does not make her statement about seeing him a few minutes earlier any less truthful
A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.
Pauline Sanders never disputed that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald. Sanders claimed that she left the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12.20. If Oswald came up from the 1st floor at around 12.25 and Arnold saw him on the 2nd floor shortly after that, Sanders wouldn't have been able to see either or even know about it as she was already out of the building by then.
You need to do better to make a convincing case.
-
You are the one who originally put the 90 seconds in.
Yes, but only because the Truly/Baker meeting confirms that Oswald was on the 2nd floor at that time. Arnold said she saw him on the same floor a few minutes earlier
I understand that you are trying to say that Oswald could have seen Jarman and Norman coming in 10 minutes before.
I'm not trying. I said it.
that is not supported by anyone.
And Oswald at the 6th floor window is not supported by anyone either, yet you believe Brennan.
Oswald claimed he had lunch on the first floor and told Capt. Fritz that. Depending on who you talk to on here you might get variations of his exact wording, whether he said, "I had lunch with Junior, Jarman, a black guy, a black man, a black, whatever", he told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor and no one else supports that.
The problem is that we don't know what Oswald really said. There are only conflicting third party accounts. So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?
D, In 1978, fifteen years after the assassination Carolyn Arnold told the Dallas Morning News that around 12:25 pm she saw Oswald sitting having his lunch in the second floor lunchroom. In the same month she told author Anthony Summers that "she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment and she saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch", Instead of 12:25 pm that she told Dallas Morning News, she told Summers she saw Oswald, "about a quarter of an hour before the assassination about 12:15 pm, it may have been a little later" Why in a month period fifteen years after does she give the News a 12:30 pm time and then give Summers a 12:15 pm or later time?
It seems to me that all you've got it third party information and nothing from Arnold directly. Regardless of the minor time differences, her story is still the same; she saw Oswald on the second floor just minutes prior to the shooting.
Doesn't sound like a very convincing witness to me.
No surprise there. Why deal with the elephant in the room that is her seeing Oswald when you can concentrate on minor differences in times which she may or may not have given herself?
Why did she give the FBI four days after the statement that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and not in the lunchroom? She contends the FBI mis quoted her, but on March 18, 1964 she gave the FBI a signed statement that "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time the president was shot". A very weak witness that is disputed by several others witnesses including Pauline Sanders.
[/b]
"I'm not trying. I said it"?
Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you? ;D Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan? "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.
"So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?
So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?
Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break. Is there even one piece of evidence that you guys believe? By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe? Or do you just lump them all into one basket and then pick information from this one or that one depending on what part of the assassination you are debating? I truly would like to know. The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories?
-
"I'm not trying. I said it"?
Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you? ;D Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan? "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.
"So, let's not assume to know what Oswald really said and then proceed to call it a lie, shall we?
So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?
Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break. Is there even one piece of evidence that you guys believe? By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe? Or do you just lump them all into one basket and then pick information from this one or that one depending on what part of the assassination you are debating? I truly would like to know. The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories?
Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you? ;D Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan? "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.
Where did I say I believed Arnold and/or Brennan or not? The discussion was about your question about who to believe; Oswald or Arnold. I have merely demostrated to you that there is not enough evidence to reach any kind of firm conclusion. Both could be telling the truth and both could not be.
So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?
Nobody is doing that. All I have done is counter your claim with the argument that she could indeed be telling the truth. I didn't like much how you concentrated on minor differences in time told to third parties 15 years later and basically ignored the fact that she still claimed to have seen Oswald just prior to the shooting, just like she told the FBI on 11/26/63.
So, why are you making a big effort to argue that she was lying or at least is not a reliable witness, when you simply lack the evidence to reach such a determination?
Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break.
First of all, I don't care what you think CT'ers have or not. I'm not one of them in as much as I don't have a theory and I don't really care if there was conspiracy or not. All I am interested in is finding out for myself if the case against Oswald is conclusive or not. And, no I won't give you a break.
By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe?
I have no theory. I just have serious doubts about the quality of the evidence presented against Oswald, that's all. LNs very often confuse playing Devil's advocate with defending some wacky theory... Why is that?
The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories?
I have never put any of those theories forward, nor do I subscribe to them, so I wouldn't know how CT'ers that do feel
about those theories.
But why are you now trying to make it about me and CT'ers. Why not continue to look at the evidence honestly and go from there?
Any thoughts about my comments about Sanders?
-
Come on Martin, a little picky there aren't you? ;D Let me ask you. Why is it, that you will believe Arnold but not Brennan? "yet you believe Brennan." and yet you believe Arnold? Very funny there Martin.
Where did I say I believed Arnold and/or Brennan or not? The discussion was about your question about who to believe; Oswald or Arnold. I have merely demostrated to you that there is not enough evidence to reach any kind of firm conclusion. Both could be telling the truth and both could not be.
So, let's not assume to know what Arnold really said and then proceed to call it truth, shall we?
Nobody is doing that. All I have done is counter your claim with the argument that she could indeed be telling the truth. I didn't like much how you concentrated on minor differences in time told to third parties 15 years later and basically ignored the fact that she still claimed to have seen Oswald just prior to the shooting, just like she told the FBI on 11/26/63.
So, why are you making a big effort to argue that she was lying or at least is not a reliable witness, when you simply lack the evidence to reach such a determination?
Very humorous Martin, all the CT'ers have is third party crap. Give me a break.
First of all, I don't care what you think CT'ers have or not. I'm not one of them in as much as I don't have a theory and I don't really care if there was conspiracy or not. All I am interested in is finding out for myself if the case against Oswald is conclusive or not. And, no I won't give you a break.
By the way, you know what I believe, so, could you tell me which conspiracy theory you believe?
I have no theory. I just have serious doubts about the quality of the evidence presented against Oswald, that's all. LNs very often confuse playing Devil's advocate with defending some wacky theory... Why is that?
The one that really gets me is the "theory" that JFK was really not killed that day. What a hoot. Or how about "Jackie did it" , "the driver did it"!! I mean come on Martin. Do the CT'ers ever feel any embarrassment by some of these theories?
I have never put any of those theories forward, nor do I subscribe to them, so I wouldn't know how CT'ers that do feel
about those theories.
But why are you now trying to make it about me and CT'ers. Why not continue to look at the evidence honestly and go from there?
Any thoughts about my comments about Sanders?
Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought? Okay, I get it, you just have questions about the evidence against Oswald. It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side. Is there any evidence at all against Oswald that you do believe to be true? Just curious. By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation. Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
-
Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought? Okay, I get it, you just have questions about the evidence against Oswald. It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side. Is there any evidence at all against Oswald that you do believe to be true? Just curious. By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation. Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought?
I accidentally posted the message before it was finished and then added the rest.
It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side.
Really? And it isn't obvious to you why?
Is there any evidence at all against Oswald that you do believe to be true?
Actually, I believe most of the evidence brought against Oswald to be true, but there is a difference between evidence and proof and factual information can sometimes be presented in different ways, depending upon what one wants to prove. What one calls evidence of guilt is considered by someone else to be pure speculation.
By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation.
Sure you do....and the "whole situation" would be the official narrative, right?
So, in Arnold's case you give more weight to her possibly getting the time wrong, some 15 years after the fact, than her consistency throughout the years in saying she saw Oswald just prior to the shooting? And in Sanders' case you take away from her statement something she did not actually say and incorrectly claim it doesn't support what Arnold said?
Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
There you go again.... Pray tell, who would you expect to support Arnold's statement, when she alone happened to see Oswald? You don't expect others to support Brennan, right? So, why change the rules for Arnold?
And, as far as Oswald himself is concerned, since you don't know with any kind of certainty what he actually said verbatim, how can you even conclude that there was no support for his claim. Norman and Jarman were asked if they had eaten lunch with Oswald and they denied it, that's true, but what if that was the wrong question to ask? What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?
-
Martin, you edited your previous post and added the remark about Sanders after I quoted it. Was that intentional or just an afterthought?
I accidentally posted the message before it was finished and then added the rest.
It just seems like you debate mainly as a "devil's advocate" from the CT side.
Really? And it isn't obvious to you why?
By the way, I just look at statements by witnesses like Arnold, Sanders or whomever and weigh it in the balance of the whole situation.
Sure you do....and the "whole situation" would be the official narrative, right?
So, in Arnold's case you give more weight to her possibly getting the time wrong, some 15 years after the fact, than her consistency in saying she saw Oswald just prior to the shooting? And in Sanders' case you take away from her statement something she did not actually say and incorrectly claim it doesn't support what Arnold said?
Arnold's statements, as well as Oswald's, concerning where he was at lunchtime are just not supported by other witnesses that day.
There you go again.... First of all, who would you expect to support Arnold's statement, when she alone happened to see Oswald? And, as far as Oswald himself is concerned, since you don't know with any kind of certainty what he said verbatim, how can you even conclude that there was no support for his claim. Norman and Jarman were asked if they had eaten lunch with Oswald and they denied it, that's true, but what if that was the wrong question to ask? What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
-
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch.
Asking for information which you know does not exist, or at least is not included in the official narative, does not make your case any stronger. In fact, trying to shift the burden of proof only weakens your own arguments.
I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
The problem is, that what Fritz says isn't always supported by what others who were present said in their reports. But in this case, if Oswald said he had his lunch on the first floor (in the Domino room) what do you think that proves?
On the one hand it only makes it more possible that he did indeed see Norman and Jarman enter the building, minutes before the shots being fired and on the other hand it does not rule out at all that, after he finished his lunch, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a drink. So, what is your point?
Remember, the man in the 6th floor window was first seen some 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The problem for you is that we know for a fact that Norman and Jarman entered the shipping room of the building anywhere between 12.20 and 12.25. If Oswald did in fact see them and/or if Carolyn Arnold did see Oswald some time between 12.20 (when Sanders said she was in the 2nd floor lunchroom) and 12.25 (when Arnold said she left the building to watch to motorcade) you've got Oswald on either the first or second floor at a time when the man seen in the 6th floor window was already in position!
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?"
Trying to ridicule a serious point is a weak strategy. The point I was making, which apparently went over your head, is that the quality of the answer by a witness is determined by the quality of the question asked. Ask the wrong question and you get a wrong answer. Failure to question Norman and Jarman more closely on this subject tells me that Fritz et all were not really interested in finding out anything that might support Oswald's claim.
You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch."
Name one person who can support Brennan's claim that it was Oswald who was shooting from the 6th floor window?
Name one person who can support Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was wearing the same shirt on the bus as he was arrested in?
Name one person who can support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket?
See, how easy it is to ask such questions?
You seem to think (as many LNs do) that your position is correct unless you can be proven wrong. It doesn't work that way. There is no "winning by default". You need to prove your case... try and concentrate on that!
Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody?
Yes, I have read the reports and they contradict eachother too often to be considered accurate or sufficiently reliable. As for the fims of Oswald in custody, I don't really see what's there to study...
If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it.
Really? How was he supposed to act?
I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent.
You are not Oswald. Not everybody reacts and acts in the same way. Just because you would do something one way, doesn't mean that everybody else has to do it that way. Your argument is bogus. Besides, Oswald protested his innocence and he did ask for a lawyer several times.
Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time.
How in the world would you even know this for a fact? And what does that mean to you? Oswald did something different than you would do and thus he must be guilty, is that it? That's right out of the Salem playbook.
He told lie after lie.
We have already established that there is no verbatim account of what Oswald really said while in custody, yet you continue to claim he lied.... based on what, exactly?
-
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
And what would Oswald's motivation be for trying to provide an alibi that included co-workers who could easily deny his presence there. Does anyone think Fritz would not ask Jarman and Norman if Oswald was there? Perhaps that is not exactly what he said.....we will never know will we.
How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the shots? Was he Nostradamus? Perhaps he knew he would be killed on the Sunday and it didn?t matter what he said.
-
So, in Arnold's case you give more weight to her possibly getting the time wrong, some 15 years after the fact, than her consistency throughout the years in saying she saw Oswald just prior to the shooting? And in Sanders' case you take away from her statement something she did not actually say and incorrectly claim it doesn't support what Arnold said?
There was no consistency in her statements. Saying that she might have caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing on the first floor at 12:25 is not the same as saying that she saw him in the second floor lunchroom at 12:15. Even her statements made in 1978 are not consistent with one another.
-
How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the shots? Was he Nostradamus? Perhaps he knew he would be killed on the Sunday and it didn?t matter what he said.
He could see them standing in the street below and as they made their way towards the southeast corner of the building. Shortly after that, he could hear them below as they chatted at their open windows on the fifth floor. He knew that they would have passed the Domino room on their up.
-
There was no consistency in her statements. Saying that she might have caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing on the first floor at 12:25 is not the same as saying that she saw him in the second floor lunchroom at 12:15. Even her statements made in 1978 are not consistent with one another.
I agree Tim. Who knows why her story is different and what motivated the change. Best ignore it. If accurate, her initial story is far more damaging anyway.
-
There was no consistency in her statements. Saying that she might have caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing on the first floor at 12:25 is not the same as saying that she saw him in the second floor lunchroom at 12:15. Even her statements made in 1978 are not consistent with one another.
Inconsitent would be to deny seeing Oswald in one interview and claiming having seen him in another interview. You are playing word games again, Tim. What the FBI agent wrote in his report is not automatically what she really said.
Brennan's statements are not consistent with one another, so why do you believe him?
-
He could see them standing in the street below and as they made their way towards the southeast corner of the building. Shortly after that, he could hear them below as they chatted at their open windows on the fifth floor. He knew that they would have passed the Domino room on their up.
Pure speculation. You can't even prove that Norman and Jarman could be seen standing in the street from the 6th floor window and there most certainly is no possibility to see them walk down Houston street. There is also no way he could have known for sure they entered the building at the back.
-
He could see them standing in the street below and as they made their way towards the southeast corner of the building. Shortly after that, he could hear them below as they chatted at their open windows on the fifth floor. He knew that they would have passed the Domino room on their up.
At some stage he could have seen Norman, Jarman and Givens leave from the western side of the front stepsin a south easterly direction and then Norman and Jarman return towards the building. Given this was about the time someone might expect the President and that an ambulance had arrived (with sirens?) near the corner their movements might not be foremost in his attention. Which window would he be looking out to see them walk along the eastern side of the building? What angle would be required to see them? Can we use SN photos to get an indication whether your hypothesis is viable
-
Inconsitent would be to deny seeing Oswald in one interview and claiming having seen him in another interview. You are playing word games again, Tim. What the FBI agent wrote in his report is not automatically what she really said.
Brennan's statements are not consistent with one another, so why do you believe him?
I've said before that I personally believe Brennan but I do not use him because the inconsistency of his statements do give validity to those who discount him.
-
At some stage he could have seen Norman, Jarman and Givens leave from the western side of the front stepsin a south easterly direction and then Norman and Jarman return towards the building. Given this was about the time someone might expect the President and that an ambulance had arrived (with sirens?) near the corner their movements might not be foremost in his attention. Which window would he be looking out to see them walk along the eastern side of the building? What angle would be required to see them? Can we use SN photos to get an indication whether your hypothesis is viable
He wouldn't have needed to see them walking along the East side of the building. He could see from their angle of approach that they were not headed for the front entrance. Therefore, when he heard them below on the fifth floor he knew that they had entered the building from the rear.
Use Google street.
-
At some stage he could have seen Norman, Jarman and Givens leave from the western side of the front stepsin a south easterly direction and then Norman and Jarman return towards the building. Given this was about the time someone might expect the President and that an ambulance had arrived (with sirens?) near the corner their movements might not be foremost in his attention. Which window would he be looking out to see them walk along the eastern side of the building? What angle would be required to see them? Can we use SN photos to get an indication whether your hypothesis is viable
Norman and Jarman were not on the front steps. They were on the sidewalk of Elm.
-
https://www.google.ca/maps/@32.7795334,-96.8082293,3a,75y,339.68h,105.65t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPVK3KH3EdAQ72bc2-CcIGkgtle5qK0EXQYzszz!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPVK3KH3EdAQ72bc2-CcIGkgtle5qK0EXQYzszz%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-7.747949-ya141.0765-ro-7.4691653-fo100!7i5376!8i2688
-
Norman and Jarman were not on the front steps. They were on the sidewalk of Elm.
Mute point Tim once I acknowledged they moved south easterly with Givens. My recollection was that they were standing just west of the steps close to the building when Truly was standing on the other side by the mailboxes. My memory is not great these days.....getting old.
-
He wouldn't have needed to see them walking along the East side of the building. He could see from their angle of approach that they were not headed for the front entrance. Therefore, when he heard them below on the fifth floor he knew that they had entered the building from the rear.
Use Google street.
Assuming he was noting them and their angle of approach was consistent with your argument. So he noted their movements, heard them below....deduces that they passed the lunchroom on their way. Why say he ate lunch with them as an alibi that would be so easily disproven? Why say he was in the room when anyone could have been there? West, Piper and Dougherty could all be candidates to destroy his "alibi" along with Norman and Jarman. He had to have known they moved the way they did and that no one else was in the domino room at 12.25pm.
-
Mute point Tim once I acknowledged they moved south easterly with Givens. My recollection was that they were standing just west of the steps close to the building when Truly was standing on the other side by the mailboxes. My memory is not great these days.....getting old.
Mr. BALL. Where did you stand?
Mr. NORMAN. We stood on the Elm Street sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. On the sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. We didn't go any further than that point.
Mr. BALL. What time was it that you went out there?
Mr. NORMAN. Oh, I would say, I don't know exactly, around 12 or 12:10, something like that.
Mr. BALL. Who was standing with you when you were standing on the sidewalk, on the Elm Street sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember it was Danny Arce.
Mr. BALL. And who else?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.
-
Mr. BALL. Where did you stand?
Mr. NORMAN. We stood on the Elm Street sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. On the sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes. We didn't go any further than that point.
Mr. BALL. What time was it that you went out there?
Mr. NORMAN. Oh, I would say, I don't know exactly, around 12 or 12:10, something like that.
Mr. BALL. Who was standing with you when you were standing on the sidewalk, on the Elm Street sidewalk?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember it was Danny Arce.
Mr. BALL. And who else?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember seeing Mr. Truly and Mr. Campbell. They were standing somewhere behind us, not exactly behind us but they were back of us.
Thanks Tim, I think my impression of Truly being near the mailbox was obtained from his mentioning Shelly to his right "when he faced the motorcade". So at some stage he must have turned back to view Shelley on the steps (behind and to his west).
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved out a bit.
And then when the policemen leading the motorcade came off of Main on to Houston, we saw them coming, and then we just moved out a little farther to the edge of the parkway.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close. And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys. I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
-
Actually, she was very consistent in her statement. It was the FBI that kept altering it. She never said that she only got a glimpse of LHO. That was dreamed up by the FBI. She consistently said 12:25 p.m., but this sunk the official claim so they changed the time.
I covered all of this in my series.
Rob, has it ever occurred to you that she changed her story in 1978 out of fear? Moving her sighting back to 12.15pm is much less of a problem for the WC version. Also was it ever confirmed where the drinking fountain was? I believe some research places the place her drink of water could be obtained was some distance from the lunch room.
-
When the author contacted Arnold in 1978 to get a first and account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that the FBI had misquoted her, came before the author explained to her the importance of Oswald?s whereabouts at given moments. Arnold?s recollection of what she observed was clear?having spotted Oswald had been her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What she claimed she told the FBI is very different from the Bureau report of her comments. ?About a quarter of an hour before the assassination,? she said in 1978, ?I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment? . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him, but I recognized him clearly.?
Arnold had some reason to remember having gone into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. She also recalled, in 1978, that this was ?about 12:15. It may have been slightly later.? -- "Not In Your Lifetime" by Anthony Summers, page 92
-
Actually, she was very consistent in her statement. It was the FBI that kept altering it. She never said that she only got a glimpse of LHO. That was dreamed up by the FBI. She consistently said 12:25 p.m., but this sunk the official claim so they changed the time.
I covered all of this in my series.
I read your disclaimer Rob on one of your posts that get hardly any replies about keeping on topic. Practice what you preach. The question is "who do you believe? Oswald or Arnold. And you are always spouting off about LNers never having evidence. What a joke. You buffs never have anything but third party hearsay, or "It was altered, it was faked , it was covered up, he said, she said". Very amusing. By the way, are you one of the fence walkers on here? Which theory do you believe?
-
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch.
Asking for information which you know does not exist, or at least is not included in the official narative, does not make your case any stronger. In fact, trying to shift the burden of proof only weakens your own arguments.
I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
The problem is, that what Fritz says isn't always supported by what others who were present said in their reports. But in this case, if Oswald said he had his lunch on the first floor (in the Domino room) what do you think that proves?
On the one hand it only makes it more possible that he did indeed see Norman and Jarman enter the building, minutes before the shots being fired and on the other hand it does not rule out at all that, after he finished his lunch, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a drink. So, what is your point?
Remember, the man in the 6th floor window was first seen some 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The problem for you is that we know for a fact that Norman and Jarman entered the shipping room of the building anywhere between 12.20 and 12.25. If Oswald did in fact see them and/or if Carolyn Arnold did see Oswald some time between 12.20 (when Sanders said she was in the 2nd floor lunchroom) and 12.25 (when Arnold said she left the building to watch to motorcade) you've got Oswald on either the first or second floor at a time when the man seen in the 6th floor window was already in position!
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?"
Trying to ridicule a serious point is a weak strategy. The point I was making, which apparently went over your head, is that the quality of the answer by a witness is determined by the quality of the question asked. Ask the wrong question and you get a wrong answer. Failure to question Norman and Jarman more closely on this subject tells me that Fritz et all were not really interested in finding out anything that might support Oswald's claim.
You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch."
Name one person who can support Brennan's claim that it was Oswald who was shooting from the 6th floor window?
Name one person who can support Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was wearing the same shirt on the bus as he was arrested in?
Name one person who can support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket?
See, how easy it is to ask such questions?
You seem to think (as many LNs do) that your position is correct unless you can be proven wrong. It doesn't work that way. There is no "winning by default". You need to prove your case... try and concentrate on that!
Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody?
Yes, I have read the reports and they contradict eachother too often to be considered accurate or sufficiently reliable. As for the fims of Oswald in custody, I don't really see what's there to study...
If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it.
Really? How was he supposed to act?
I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent.
You are not Oswald. Not everybody reacts and acts in the same way. Just because you would do something one way, doesn't mean that everybody else has to do it that way. Your argument is bogus. Besides, Oswald protested his innocence and he did ask for a lawyer several times.
Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time.
How in the world would you even know this for a fact? And what does that mean to you? Oswald did something different than you would do and thus he must be guilty, is that it? That's right out of the Salem playbook.
He told lie after lie.
We have already established that there is no verbatim account of what Oswald really said while in custody, yet you continue to claim he lied.... based on what, exactly?
Martin you and your CT buff buddies better not ever start a life of crime or be in a real conspiracy. None of you have any common sense or any sense at all. Over the years the CTers have created so many theories that there must be over a hundred shooters now. It is funny that a lot of the people on here will not commit to saying which theory they believe. Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone. CTers have more people being at the plaza then were really there. You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything? It is entertaining though.
-
And what would Oswald's motivation be for trying to provide an alibi that included co-workers who could easily deny his presence there. Does anyone think Fritz would not ask Jarman and Norman if Oswald was there? Perhaps that is not exactly what he said.....we will never know will we.
How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the shots? Was he Nostradamus? Perhaps he knew he would be killed on the Sunday and it didn?t matter what he said.
Colin, what theory do you believe?
"How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the
shots?"
Colin, Oswald did not name Norman. He really never named Jarman, what he told Fritz was "he had lunch with some of the colored boys that worked with him. One of them was called Junior and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know." The short man was probably Charles Givens. Do you want to re-track that statement? And none of the black men that worked there said they saw Oswald during lunch.
-
Martin you and your CT buff buddies better not ever start a life of crime or be in a real conspiracy. None of you have any common sense or any sense at all. Over the years the CTers have created so many theories that there must be over a hundred shooters now. It is funny that a lot of the people on here will not commit to saying which theory they believe. Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone. CTers have more people being at the plaza then were really there. You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything? It is entertaining though.
It seems you have great difficulty processing information and dealing with anything that is outside the bubble you live in. When unable to debate and come up with credible replies, just attack/insult the person your talking to. Classic LN strategy and as weak as can be. But at least you have now shown your true colors...
Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone.
Of course they do, because those people seem to be the gullible ones who claim to know and be right about just about everything yet are unable to prove and/or convince.
You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything?
What, now you turn into Richard Smith make II? Always the same crappy questions. You sound like a desperate prosecutor with an extremely weak case who is asking to jury what he needs to tell them to get a conviction. It's beyond pathetic.
I have answered every question you have asked me. You on the other hand, not so much. Fortunately, I have enough common sense to know when I am talking to a zealot with an agenda and a closed mind. Conversation is over....
-
It seems you have great difficulty processing information and dealing with anything that is outside the bubble you live in. When unable to debate and come up with credible replies, just attack/insult the person your talking to. Classic LN strategy and as weak as can be. But at least you have now shown your true colors...
Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone.
Of course they do, because the people are the gullible ones who claim to know and be right about just about everything yet are unable to prove and/or convince.
You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything?
What, now you turn into Richard Smith make II? Always the same crappy questions. You sound like a desperate prosecutor with an extremely weak case who is asking to jury what he needs to tell them to get a conviction. It's beyond pathetic.
I have answered every question you have asked me. You on the other hand, not so much. Fortunately, I have enough common sense to know when I am talking to a zealot with an agenda and a closed mind. Conversation is over....
A little sensitive there aren't you Martin? I don't know who Richard Smith is so "your insult" means nothing. And what you guys always do when you fail is to quit. Been fun. Thanks for the amusement. ;D
-
Colin, what theory do you believe?
"How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the
shots?"
Colin, Oswald did not name Norman. He really never named Jarman, what he told Fritz was "he had lunch with some of the colored boys that worked with him. One of them was called Junior and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know." The short man was probably Charles Givens. Do you want to re-track that statement? And none of the black men that worked there said they saw Oswald during lunch.
Do you understand what a theory is?
Do you know that Oswald knew Jarman's surname? Or Normans'? They didn?t even know Bonnie Ray Williams' surname. How tall do you believe Givens was.....and Norman? Do you think the facts require me to retract?
-
I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window. Hint: Worrell was not one of them. But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace. So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.
It's just Brennan then, right? And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right? Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable? I don't. Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't. For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing? How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up? How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?
The people who claimed to have seen two men:
- Arnold Rowland
- Carolyn Walther
- Ruby Henderson
- Norman Similas
- Johnny Powell
It's just Brennan then, right? And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right?
For the record, at the time he attended the lineup, Brennan did pick Oswald as most resembling the man (of all the lineup "suspects") who he saw in the window.
While this may not be a proof positive identification, it is also inaccurate to state that Brennan did not identify Oswald in the lineup.
-
Do you understand what a theory is?
Do you know that Oswald knew Jarman's surname? Or Normans'? They didn?t even know Bonnie Ray Williams' surname. How tall do you believe Givens was.....and Norman? Do you think the facts require me to retract?
It seems he is completely clueless and beyond any sense of reality. Givens wasn't anywhere near the TSBD when Norman and Jarman made their way to the 5th floor. Wesley seems to be one of those LNs who won't let the facts get in the way of a bogus selfserving claim.
The reality is that, according to his own testimony, Givens left the building to see the motorcade with Norman and Jarman, but he left them and went first to the parking lot east of Elm and Houston and then to the corner of Main and Record, where he was when the shots were fired. There is no way the short guy was Givens.
-
It seems he is completely clueless and beyond any sense of reality. Givens wasn't anywhere near the TSBD when Norman and Jarman made their way to the 5th floor. Wesley seems to be one of those LNs who won't let the facts get in the way of a bogus selfserving claim.
The reality is that, according to his own testimony, Givens left the building to see the motorcade with Norman and Jarman, but he left them and went first to the parking lot east of Elm and Houston and then to the corner of Main and Record, where he was when the shots were fired. There is no way the short guy was Givens.
Then again Givens was a short 6?2? LOL. Some people should stick to the shallow end.
-
Do you understand what a theory is?
Do you know that Oswald knew Jarman's surname? Or Normans'? They didn?t even know Bonnie Ray Williams' surname. How tall do you believe Givens was.....and Norman? Do you think the facts require me to retract?
Sure I know what a theory is, but you guys don't. Why don't you name the one you believe and we can continue.
-
It seems he is completely clueless and beyond any sense of reality. Givens wasn't anywhere near the TSBD when Norman and Jarman made their way to the 5th floor. Wesley seems to be one of those LNs who won't let the facts get in the way of a bogus selfserving claim.
The reality is that, according to his own testimony, Givens left the building to see the motorcade with Norman and Jarman, but he left them and went first to the parking lot east of Elm and Houston and then to the corner of Main and Record, where he was when the shots were fired. There is no way the short guy was Givens.
Marty, I never said it was Givens, I said probably. The point is Oswald never named Norman and the fact of the matter is Norman never said he had lunch with Oswald. He also said he never saw Oswald during lunch. Givens on the other hand did say he saw Oswald. On the 6th floor the last time he saw him. Do you dispute Givens saying he saw Oswald on the 6th floor. And for one who claimed I insulted them you sure walk a fine line there Marty. The pot calling the kettle black there a little Marty.
-
Marty, I never said it was Givens, I said probably. The point is Oswald never named Norman and the fact of the matter is Norman never said he had lunch with Oswald. He also said he never saw Oswald during lunch. Givens on the other hand did say he saw Oswald. On the 6th floor the last time he saw him. Do you dispute Givens saying he saw Oswald on the 6th floor. And for one who claimed I insulted them you sure walk a fine line there Marty. The pot calling the kettle black there a little Marty.
Are you talking to me?
-
Are you talking to me?
Yeah, I'm talking to you. So what? Who are you Robert De Niro in taxi?
-
Yeah, I'm talking to you. So what? Who are you Robert De Niro in taxi?
If you want a response, at least get my name right.
-
If you want a response, at least get my name right.
Gee I'm sorry Martin. I didn't realize you were so touchy. :o
-
Sure I know what a theory is, but you guys don't. Why don't you name the one you believe and we can continue.
-
The WC defender argument is that Oswald stated he ate his lunch in the domino room with Jr and a short guy, believed to be Jarman and Norman, when asked by Fritz.
What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven?
I would like to see a best guess of the conversation between Fritz and Oswald that you guys think happened that day.......give it a shot.
-
The WC defender argument is that Oswald stated he ate his lunch in the domino room with Jr and a short guy, believed to be Jarman and Norman, when asked by Fritz.
What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven?
I would like to see a best guess of the conversation between Fritz and Oswald that you guys think happened that day.......give it a shot.
What possible reason would Oswald have to say that he did not own a rifle when it was so easily disproven? What possible reason would Oswald to say that he purchased his revolver in Texas when it was so easily disproven? What possible reason would Oswald have to say that he never brought a lengthy package to work with him that day when it was so easily disproven? What possible reason would Oswald have to say that he never lived on Neely street when it was so easily disproven? And on and on and on.....
-
What possible reason would Oswald have to say that he did not own a rifle when it was so easily disproven? What possible reason would Oswald to say that he purchased his revolver in Texas when it was so easily disproven? What possible reason would Oswald have to say that he never brought a lengthy package to work with him that day when it was so easily disproven? What possible reason would Oswald have to say that he never lived on Neely street when it was so easily disproven? And on and on and on.....
I do not dispute that he lied about purchasing the weapons, or anything that related to his possession of them eg the photos and Neely St. One could argue that he might have believed that it would not be possible to trace them to him so easily. The package is not so clear cut as you know. However if you are correct....
all this stuff is so obviously indisputable......why not simply confess? Why try and make such an obviously disprovable claim? One that just so happens to have been possible if the wording of his answer was "pass by" the lunchroom and not "pass through".
Then again no verbatim transcript exists so we were never afforded the opportunity to determine for ourselves.
-
Colin, what theory do you believe?
"How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the
shots?"
The short man was probably Charles Givens.
I don?t believe you. ;D
-
Yes, old Lee took his over two-foot long lunch bag to the lunchroom and had a leisurely meal while the motorcade drove by. He, the most politically minded person in the entire workforce who had read JFK's book, had no interest whatsoever in the president driving by that day. And his fingerprints showing up on the SN boxes by the very window from which the shots were fired, just another wild streak of bad luck. And after going to the considerable risk to frame Oswald for this crime, of course the conspirators would just let him roam about in the public parts of the building like a lunchroom where he could very well have been seen (as CTers allege here) and been given an alibi. Thankfully the person who did see him decided to hold off a decade or so to tell her story. That is the kind of lunacy that you are dealing with here.
-
Yes, old Lee took his over two-foot long lunch bag to the lunchroom and had a leisurely meal while the motorcade drove by. He, the most politically minded person in the entire workforce who had read JFK's book, had no interest whatsoever in the president driving by that day. And his fingerprints showing up on the SN boxes by the very window from which the shots were fired, just another wild streak of bad luck. And after going to the considerable risk to frame Oswald for this crime, of course the conspirators would just let him roam about in the public parts of the building like a lunchroom where he could very well have been seen (as CTers allege here) and been given an alibi. Thankfully the person who did see him decided to hold off a decade or so to tell her story. That is the kind of lunacy that you are dealing with here.
That is the kind of lunacy that you are dealing with here.
Nobody is asking you to deal with anything here and nobody is forcing you to stay.
-
The WC defender argument is that Oswald stated he ate his lunch in the domino room with Jr and a short guy, believed to be Jarman and Norman, when asked by Fritz.
What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven?
I would like to see a best guess of the conversation between Fritz and Oswald that you guys think happened that day.......give it a shot.
So are you saying Oswald never said he had lunch on the first floor? Really? If you do Colin then my next question for you is, "Are you saying all of the men that were in the interrogation room were part of a conspiracy?" LOL That would include Capt. Fritz who was a fine lawman. So are you claiming Capt. Fritz was part of a conspiracy?
-
That is the kind of lunacy that you are dealing with here.
Nobody is asking you to deal with anything here and nobody is forcing you to stay.
Nice substantive contribution as usual. How about you start with explaining a plan that involves considerable risk and preparation to frame Oswald as the assassin but then allows him to wander the building freely and eat lunch at the crucial moment. In which location, he might encounter and be given an alibi by anyone. Does this sound to you like something your fantasy conspirators would just leave to chance? The most critical part of the plan. Oswald's location at the moment of the assassination. Suppose Oswald had done the obvious thing like most of his co-workers and gone outside to watch the motorcade pass? And been photographed or yucked it up with Buell on the steps and have an iron clad alibi while his prints and gun are planted on the 6th floor. Ridiculous. You should be ashamed.
-
That is the kind of lunacy that you are dealing with here.
Nobody is asking you to deal with anything here and nobody is forcing you to stay.
And nobody is asking you to deal with anything, or stay either Martin. And if my "open ended questions" as you call them, bother you don't respond. The question on here is "Who do you believe? Oswald or Arnold?" And typical of you, you never answer anything. All you are is "woulda, shouda, couda."
-
Nice substantive contribution as usual. How about you start with explaining a plan that involves considerable risk and preparation to frame Oswald as the assassin but then allows him to wander the building freely and eat lunch at the crucial moment. In which location, he might encounter and be given an alibi by anyone. Does this sound to you like something your fantasy conspirators would just leave to chance? The most critical part of the plan. Oswald's location at the moment of the assassination. Suppose Oswald had done the obvious thing like most of his co-workers and gone outside to watch the motorcade pass? And been photographed or yucked it up with Buell on the steps and have an iron clad alibi while his prints and gun are planted on the 6th floor. Ridiculous. You should be ashamed.
Who are those "fantasy conspirators" you keep rambling on about?
-
And nobody is asking you to deal with anything, or stay either Martin. And if my "open ended questions" as you call them, bother you don't respond. The question on here is "Who do you believe? Oswald or Arnold?" And typical of you, you never answer anything. All you are is "woulda, shouda, couda."
I don't call your questions "open ended" and I did answer your question.... but I did so in a way that you don't like and so you ignore it... Go and play chess with Richard Smith. The two of you should get on like a house on fire.
-
I don't call your questions "open ended" and I did answer your question.... but I did so in a way that you don't like and so you ignore it... Go and play chess with Richard Smith. The two of you should get on like a house on fire.
What's up with the chess deal with you? I told you I will play you anytime you like. You didn't really answer the question. You walked the fence just like so many CTers do on here.
-
So are you saying Oswald never said he had lunch on the first floor? Really? If you do Colin then my next question for you is, "Are you saying all of the men that were in the interrogation room were part of a conspiracy?" LOL That would include Capt. Fritz who was a fine lawman. So are you claiming Capt. Fritz was part of a conspiracy?
You seem to have trouble intepreting what I wrote. Go back and read again.
-
You seem to have trouble intepreting what I wrote. Go back and read again.
"The WC defender argument is that Oswald stated he ate his lunch in the domino room with Jr and a short guy, believed to be Jarman and Norman, when asked by Fritz.
What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven? "
It seems you have difficulty in making clear statements. Are you saying he didn't tell Fritz he had lunch with Jr and a short guy on the first floor or are you saying he didn't tell Fritz he had lunch on the first floor at all? Be clear man. ;D
"What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven? "
What part is so easily disproven for you? I'm glad to see you admit that Oswald's lies were so easily disproven.
-
"The WC defender argument is that Oswald stated he ate his lunch in the domino room with Jr and a short guy, believed to be Jarman and Norman, when asked by Fritz.
What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven? "
It seems you have difficulty in making clear statements. Are you saying he didn't tell Fritz he had lunch with Jr and a short guy on the first floor or are you saying he didn't tell Fritz he had lunch on the first floor at all? Be clear man. ;D
"What possible reason would Oswald have do such a thing when it was so easily disproven? "
What part is so easily disproven for you? I'm glad to see you admit that Oswald's lies were so easily disproven.
How much clearer do you need. How's this?
If Oswald claimed to be in the lunchroom eating his lunch with Jarman and Norman (not the short 6?2? Givens).
According to Fritz Oswald said he was having lunch with them when the President was shot.
What was the question he was responding to?
-
I do not dispute that he lied about purchasing the weapons, or anything that related to his possession of them eg the photos and Neely St. One could argue that he might have believed that it would not be possible to trace them to him so easily. The package is not so clear cut as you know. However if you are correct....
all this stuff is so obviously indisputable......why not simply confess? Why try and make such an obviously disprovable claim? One that just so happens to have been possible if the wording of his answer was "pass by" the lunchroom and not "pass through".
Then again no verbatim transcript exists so we were never afforded the opportunity to determine for ourselves.
What makes the package any less clear cut than the rest of the stuff? Frazier and Linnie Mae both said that Oswald carried a long package with him that morning. Oswald denied it.
-
This has nothing to do with what you're asking, but I believe that LBJ and his associates hired Oswald to be the decoy and that Mac Wallace was the one who really shot JFK. In 1998 I believe was the year they found the fingerprint of Wallace in the Depository of where Oswald supposedly shot Kennedy.
-
For the record, at the time he attended the lineup, Brennan did pick Oswald as most resembling the man (of all the lineup "suspects") who he saw in the window.
While this may not be a proof positive identification, it is also inaccurate to state that Brennan did not identify Oswald in the lineup.
Not inaccurate at all. The one of the four who "most resembled" who he saw is NOT the same as identifying Oswald as the one he saw.
Besides, that is specifically not what you're supposed to be instructed to do in a lineup.
-
Yes, old Lee took his over two-foot long lunch bag to the lunchroom and had a leisurely meal while the motorcade drove by. He, the most politically minded person in the entire workforce who had read JFK's book, had no interest whatsoever in the president driving by that day.
Only in Richard's fantasy world is this somehow "evidence" of murder.
And his fingerprints showing up on the SN boxes by the very window from which the shots were fired, just another wild streak of bad luck.
A guy whose job was to get books out of boxes left fingerprints on book boxes. How unlikely.
And after going to the considerable risk to frame Oswald for this crime, of course the conspirators would just let him roam about in the public parts of the building like a lunchroom where he could very well have been seen (as CTers allege here) and been given an alibi. Thankfully the person who did see him decided to hold off a decade or so to tell her story. That is the kind of lunacy that you are dealing with here.
And there you go again with the "fantasy conspirators" strawman.
-
And nobody is asking you to deal with anything, or stay either Martin. And if my "open ended questions" as you call them, bother you don't respond. The question on here is "Who do you believe? Oswald or Arnold?"
This is another loaded question. What Oswald supposedly said and what Arnold said are not mutually exclusive. That was explained to you several pages back.
-
Only in Richard's fantasy world is this somehow "evidence" of murder.
A guy whose job was to get books out of boxes left fingerprints on book boxes. How unlikely.
And there you go again with the "fantasy conspirators" strawman.
Fingerprints that reveal he pushed the box forward, pointing right down Broadway. How likely.
-
Fingerprints that reveal he pushed the box forward, pointing right down Broadway. How likely.
How exactly do fingerprints reveal that?
-
Fingerprints that reveal he pushed the box forward, pointing right down Broadway. How likely.
Broadway? Where do you think this murder happened?
-
Wow. You really subscribed to the LNer talking book, didn't you? For someone who is new here you sure make a lot of broad generalizations about CTers. It's almost as if you were here for years.
Of course I get no replies as you LNers have NO SUPPORTING evidence at all to counter with. You can't even cite any evidence showing that LHO was guilty.
Blah, blah, blah. All you do is repeat the same old crap. If there is no evidence in the case then what are you going on about and trying to dispute? Hilarious. I do enjoy a good laugh and you guys never fail.
-
Blah, blah, blah. All you do is repeat the same old crap. If there is no evidence in the case then what are you going on about and trying to dispute? Hilarious. I do enjoy a good laugh and you guys never fail.
Storing is one of the brainiacs who claim that the DPD rushed the TT solely to arrest a man who didn't buy a ticket.
-
This is another loaded question. What Oswald supposedly said and what Arnold said are not mutually exclusive. That was explained to you several pages back.
Oswald told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor. She said she saw him in the second floor lunchroom. Name one other person at work in the building that day that claims either one. You and I know John that I will be waiting a long time for an answer. No one else claimed to see him having lunch on the first floor or in the second floor lunchroom, mutually exclusive or not. LMAO. You guys always crack me up in your desperation to dispute every little detail. Do you have much experience with rifles John? I have a reason for asking. Old Rob there is always claiming there is no evidence in the case. Then what is he disputing? He must be insane then to try so hard to dispute something that doesn't exist. Are you the same John? Do you claim there is no evidence against Oswald? If you have experience with rifles we can discuss some things on that subject.
-
Blah, blah, blah. All you do is repeat the same old crap. If there is no evidence in the case then what are you going on about and trying to dispute? Hilarious. I do enjoy a good laugh and you guys never fail.
Speaking of repeating the same old crap, how many times now have you demanded that people provide evidence to indicate a different shooter than Oswald?
-
Storing is one of the brainiacs who claim that the DPD rushed the TT solely to arrest a man who didn't buy a ticket.
I doubt you can actually provide a link to him ever saying that either...
Wait a minute, how is Storing even involved in this thread?
-
Oswald told Fritz he had lunch on the first floor. She said she saw him in the second floor lunchroom. Name one other person at work in the building that day that claims either one. You and I know John that I will be waiting a long time for an answer. No one else claimed to see him having lunch on the first floor or in the second floor lunchroom, mutually exclusive or not. LMAO.
Name even one person who claimed on Nov 22 to have seen Oswald shooting at the president. LMAO.
You guys always crack me up in your desperation to dispute every little detail. Do you have much experience with rifles John? I have a reason for asking. Old Rob there is always claiming there is no evidence in the case. Then what is he disputing? He must be insane then to try so hard to dispute something that doesn't exist. Are you the same John? Do you claim there is no evidence against Oswald? If you have experience with rifles we can discuss some things on that subject.
We can discuss it either way. I'm still waiting for you to actually specify what evidence you are talking about.
-
Name even one person who claimed on Nov 22 to have seen Oswald shooting at the president. LMAO.
Euins saw (...............*) squeeze off the second shot with a rifle aimed downrange through which an open limo was passing at 12:30
* feel free to suggest someone else
-
Euins heard FOUR shots... lolz
-
You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said that there was no evidence in this case. The WC provided us with twenty-six volumes and CDs. What I said was -- there is NO supporting evidence for the WC claims made in the WCR that YOU support.
Proof of this is your inability to cite any to support your belief that LHO killed JFK and JDT.
I have no problem stating what evidence Rob. The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the prints found in the sniper's nest, the bag he said he had curtain Rods in. Now you can post some big long tirade trying to prove it all wrong. I already know all of the lame arguments you will present. You are not even brave enough to say which conspiracy you believe happened. You and guys like Martin and John never really present any evidence to show a conspiracy happened or one piece of evidence to indicate a second shooter or anyone else that fired shots from the 6th floor window. Since you claim no supporting evidence exits, why don't you tell me what you think happened? If all of the evidence presented that points to Oswald is fake, tell me what happened Rob. Got anything?
-
I doubt you can actually provide a link to him ever saying that either...
Wait a minute, how is Storing even involved in this thread?
Oops... my good.
I meant to say Caprio. It's just that y'all seem the same, somehow... oh yeah, standard-of-proof pole vaulters. Catch 22ers.
-
Name even one person who claimed on Nov 22 to have seen Oswald shooting at the president. LMAO.
We can discuss it either way. I'm still waiting for you to actually specify what evidence you are talking about.
John your posts are getting weaker and weaker. Let's try this John. Let's say that you have convinced me that all of the evidence indicating Oswald did it is all fake. It's all a charade to frame little Ozzie. Okay, you have me, now would you explain to me what happened? The president was killed that day. Tell me what happened and who was behind the killing and frame up of Oswald. Got anything John? Anything at all? ;D
-
I have no problem stating what evidence Rob. The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the prints found in the sniper's nest, the bag he said he had curtain Rods in.
That's not evidence that Oswald committed a murder, it's a list of items.
You and guys like Martin and John never really present any evidence to show a conspiracy happened or one piece of evidence to indicate a second shooter or anyone else that fired shots from the 6th floor window.
There's a good reason for that, Wesley. I don't believe a conspiracy happened or that there was a second shooter or that anyone else fired shots from the 6th floor window.
I'm asking you why you believe Oswald shot JFK from the 6th floor window. So far you've given us squat.
-
Oops... my good.
I meant to say Caprio. It's just that y'all seem the same, somehow... oh yeah, standard-of-proof pole vaulters. Catch 22ers.
I'm still waiting for you to provide a link of anyone ever saying that the DPD rushed the TT solely to arrest a man who didn't buy a ticket.
-
John your posts are getting weaker and weaker. Let's try this John. Let's say that you have convinced me that all of the evidence indicating Oswald did it is all fake.
What evidence? You have yet to actually provide any.
It's all a charade to frame little Ozzie. Okay, you have me, now would you explain to me what happened? The president was killed that day. Tell me what happened and who was behind the killing and frame up of Oswald. Got anything John? Anything at all? ;D
Are you Hank Sieznant?
I don't know who killed JFK. "I don't know" doesn't mean "I do know and it was Oswald". Stop shifting the burden and actually prove your case.
-
I did NOT ask you to state it, but rather CITE it so everyone can view it. Why won't you cite the evidence for your claims? What are you afraid of?
How about you practice what you preach and maybe one day you will finally cite evidence that actually supports your multiple contradictory theories.
JohnM
-
Euins heard FOUR shots... lolz
Yet he only described three.
-
Yet he only described three.
Euins to the WC.
"Mr. SPECTER. Where were you when you heard what you described as the fourth shot?
Mr. EUINS. The first shot I was standing here.[Shot 1]
Mr. SPECTER. Now you are referring to 366. Put an "L" on 366 where you were standing at the first shot.
Mr. EUINS. Right here.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot,[shot 2] you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B.
Mr. SPECTER. At point B, on 365?
Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. [shot 3]Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.[shot 4]
Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for you now is where were you when he fired on that fourth time.
Mr. EUINS. I was still behind point B.
Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
-
Euins to the WC.
"Mr. SPECTER. Where were you when you heard what you described as the fourth shot?
Mr. EUINS. The first shot I was standing here.[Shot 1]
Mr. SPECTER. Now you are referring to 366. Put an "L" on 366 where you were standing at the first shot.
Mr. EUINS. Right here.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot,[shot 2] you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B.
Mr. SPECTER. At point B, on 365?
Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. [shot 3]Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.[shot 4]
Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for you now is where were you when he fired on that fourth time.
Mr. EUINS. I was still behind point B.
Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
Ray, when I posted that, I was working at moving a bunch of spam off of the first page of the General Discussion area. I never took the time to review Euins' testimony but I did recall this:
Mr. EUINS. After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.
-
Ray, when I posted that, I was working at moving a bunch of spam off of the first page of the General Discussion area. I never took the time to review Euins' testimony but I did recall this:
Mr. EUINS. After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.
Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
I believe that Euins didn't identify the object as "a gun" in his report to the police on 11/22/63. Didn't he say he saw a "pipe like thing" sticking out of a window?
-
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10490/images/img_10490_268_300.png)
-
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_13_300.png)
-
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_15_300.png)
-
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_13_300.png)
Thanks for posting the information.....
So Amos Euins saw the gun as it was being fired....and he said he thought it was an automatic because of the rapidity of the shots...
Euins was probably right ..... He said he saw the rifle fire twice and he thought it was an automatic....If the rifle had been a bolt action Euins should have noticed the man operating the bolt.
-
No, somebody was actually spamming the site with ads for sunglasses or whatever.
-
No, somebody was actually spamming the site with ads for sunglasses or whatever.
Caprio's paranoia on full display.