JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dan DAlimonte on January 11, 2018, 02:38:42 AM
-
Yes? No? You'd think if it was detected it would have been mentioned somewhere.
-
Yes? No? You'd think if it was detected it would have been mentioned somewhere.
Maybe the DNA of Tippit's blood still exists on Oswald's pants? And I reckon that Oswald could have easily washed any blood from his shoes.
JohnM
-
Also, it should be remembered that Oswald?s revolver was pretty low powered. It had been re-bored for slightly larger ammunition, but Oswald used the standard ammunition. So, a lot of the gas went around the bullet and the bullet had a slower than typical speed for a handgun bullet.
As I recall, one bullet barely penetrated the skin and travelled around Tippit?s body, not straight across.
Would such bullet produce less back-splash? I don?t know. But it sounds possible.
And do we know how close Oswald was when he fired the final shot?
Maybe that is why he went into the shoe store.
:)
-
Maybe the DNA of Tippit's blood still exists on Oswald's pants? And I reckon that Oswald could have easily washed any blood from his shoes.
That must be why Tippit's shooter was unaccounted for for 15-20 minutes after the shooting. He went to Markham's washateria to wash his shoes.
-
And do we know how close Oswald was when he fired the final shot?
Depends on whether you believe that Jack Tatum was actually there or not.
-
Policeman Tippit was likely killed by an Oswald lookalike to conclude the framing of LHO. They now would have a reason to look for him and shoot him on sight. He was a cop killer. It was hoped that the police would take revenge and kill him on sight rather than arrest him. That would make getting rid of the patsy and framed Oswald much easier than having to send Jack Ruby into make sure his side of the story never came out. Does this man's youtube video lend any credibility to this argument? It sure seems plausible.
-
Maybe the DNA of Tippit's blood still exists on Oswald's pants? And I reckon that Oswald could have easily washed any blood from his shoes.
JohnM
When did he have the opportunity of washing his shoes, John?
In the Texas Theater, The DPD police car or in DPD headquarters?
-
Maybe the DNA of Tippit's blood still exists on Oswald's pants? And I reckon that Oswald could have easily washed any blood from his shoes.
JohnM
When would Lee have washed the blood that you imagine ..??
-
Well now three of us have asked. I wonder if he's going to answer...
-
Policeman Tippit was likely killed by an Oswald lookalike to conclude the framing of LHO. They now would have a reason to look for him and shoot him on sight. He was a cop killer. It was hoped that the police would take revenge and kill him on sight rather than arrest him. That would make getting rid of the patsy and framed Oswald much easier than having to send Jack Ruby into make sure his side of the story never came out. Does this man's youtube video lend any credibility to this argument? It sure seems plausible.
Yes, killing the president wasn't enough that day. They needed Oswald to kill someone else before the police really looked for him. And shoot him on sight? I guess they screwed that one up too since they arrested Oswald and freely allowed him to talk to the press. Whew. That is far out. Imagine how many people would have to be involved in arranging an Oswald "double", a police officer to murder, getting the "real" Oswald into that same area so that he could be arrested/shot, getting the fake "Oswald" away undetected, silencing the fake Oswald for the rest of his life etc. What a fantasy.
-
Well now three of us have asked. I wonder if he's going to answer...
Really??? You answered this yourself, Oswald was unaccounted for 15-20 minutes. DUH!
JohnM
-
Yes, killing the president wasn't enough that day. They needed Oswald to kill someone else before the police really looked for him. And shoot him on sight? I guess they screwed that one up too since they arrested Oswald and freely allowed him to talk to the press. Whew. That is far out. Imagine how many people would have to be involved in arranging an Oswald "double", a police officer to murder, getting the "real" Oswald into that same area so that he could be arrested/shot, getting the fake "Oswald" away undetected, silencing the fake Oswald for the rest of his life etc. What a fantasy.
It's not as far fetched as you try to make it to be...... They knew that Lee would be in the theater because he had been told to met his handler there after the hoax attempt to shoot JFK.
Tippit had been picked as the gullible pawn who was lead to believe that he was going to be the hero who captured the assassin single handed......The conspirators knew that the cops would gun Oswald down on sight in the theater after Tippit's killer lead the cops to the theater. Lee probably would have been killed by his own gun if it hadn't misfired and merely made a small dent in the primer of one of the cartridges in the gun.
-
Really??? You answered this yourself, Oswald was unaccounted for 15-20 minutes. DUH!
Yes, I want to know where you think he washed his shoes in the alley that ran between Patton and Crawford. In a puddle?
-
Idk if there was any blood spatter on Oswalds light gray jacket, or any gunpowder residue either, nor any oil or dirt from being under a car either, its actually a pretty clean jacket when "found" by a mystery cop, under a car.
-
Idk if there was any blood spatter on Oswalds light gray jacket, or any gunpowder residue either, nor any oil or dirt from being under a car either, its actually a pretty clean jacket when "found" by a mystery cop, under a car.
"it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars." --Westbrook
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/54_oldsmobile.jpg)
-
Yes, I want to know where you think he washed his shoes in the alley that ran between Patton and Crawford. In a puddle?
Oswald was last seen at the Ballew's Texaco Service Station and was next seen 15-20 minutes later half a mile away by Johnny Brewer, so obviously Oswald stopped somewhere, gathered his thoughts and if needed he cleaned himself up, Oswald did what was necessary to not look like a suspect just like when he discarded his jacket.
JohnM
-
It's not as far fetched as you try to make it to be...... They knew that Lee would be in the theater because he had been told to met his handler there after the hoax attempt to shoot JFK.
There are three or four sensible routes to travel from the rooming house on North Beckley to the Texas Theater, if one was instructed to meet his handler inside the theater upon leaving the rooming house. To end up over on Tenth Street at a point east of Patton is absolutely NOT one of those routes.
Translation: After leaving the rooming house, if Oswald's destination was the theater, he would not have been at Tenth and Patton.
-
Oswald was last seen at the Ballew's Texaco Service Station and was next seen 15-20 minutes later half a mile away by Johnny Brewer, so obviously Oswald stopped somewhere, gathered his thoughts and if needed he cleaned himself up, Oswald did what was necessary to not look like a suspect just like when he discarded his jacket.
...or it wasn't the same guy.
-
Oswald was last seen at the Ballew's Texaco Service Station and was next seen 15-20 minutes later half a mile away by Johnny Brewer, so obviously Oswald stopped somewhere, gathered his thoughts and if needed he cleaned himself up, Oswald did what was necessary to not look like a suspect just like when he discarded his jacket.
...or it wasn't the same guy.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 1/22/64
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
-
I must admit the amount of people who identified Oswald from a photo or ID parade AFTER seeing him on TV or newspapers is disturbing.
-
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Yes, I know Mary Brock was shown a mugshot of Oswald months later and thought it was the guy she saw walking by the gas station. But that doesn't mean it was. That's not even a valid way to do a photo showup. Her husband couldn't identify him.
And that still doesn't account for where he had been for the previous 15-20 minutes if the guy Brock saw was the same guy Callaway saw.
-
Yes, I know Mary Brock was shown a mugshot of Oswald months later and thought it was the guy she saw walking by the gas station. But that doesn't mean it was. That's not even a valid way to do a photo showup. Her husband couldn't identify him.
And that still doesn't account for where he had been for the previous 15-20 minutes if the guy Brock saw was the same guy Callaway saw.
Why do you feel that Oswald's missing "15-20 minutes" need to be accounted for? He was hiding somewhere (even though not for 15-20 minutes). So what?
-
You always skip what her husband told the FBI.
"ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station."
Robert Brock wouldn't positively identify the man as being Oswald. This has nothing to do with Mary Brock's positive identification. Maybe Robert Brock simply didn't pay as much attention to the man as Mary did. What's your point?
-
He was hiding somewhere (even though not for 15-20 minutes). So what?
How do you know that? Circular argument.
-
How do you know that? Circular argument.
Okay. Oswald didn't hide anywhere. So what?
-
What it means is that she had no corroboration, thus, she could have been....mistaken.
Yes, she could have been mistaken. Did you come up with that all on your own?
As for corroboration, Mary Brock was at the Texaco station. The man who Reynolds and Patterson followed and then watched go into the lot behind the Texaco station was, according to both of them, Lee Oswald.
-
Blood is one of the hardest things to get rid of. You can't just wash it away.
Exactly, so tell us again why any agents wiping away any blood from the Limo at Parkland has you so concerned?
JohnM
-
How do you know that? Circular argument.
Oswald's observable behavior was clearly desperate acts of avoiding contact, first of all when a Police car came along Jefferson, Oswald hid in the front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store and then next Oswald goes into a dark theater.
JohnM
-
You mean the man that Reynolds said wasn't LHO UNTIL he was shot in the head? That guy?
You're so full of it.
Cite for Warren Reynolds ever saying that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.
-
Oswald's observable behavior was clearly desperate acts of avoiding contact, first of all when a Police car came along Jefferson, Oswald hid in the front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store and then next Oswald goes into a dark theater.
JohnM
You're so full of it.
-
Okay. Oswald didn't hide anywhere. So what?
Why would a guy who just shot a cop loiter in an alley for 15 minutes? And if that guy was hiding somewhere (where?), why did he stop hiding?
-
You mean the man that Reynolds said wasn't LHO UNTIL he was shot in the head? That guy?
And Patterson who embarrased the FBI when they claimed he identified Oswald from a photo in January 1964 and he said that wasn't true.
-
Exactly, so tell us again why any agents wiping away any blood from the Limo at Parkland has you so concerned?
After all, it's just tampering with a crime scene. No biggie. Lots of people were allowed to do that in the TSBD and at 10th and Patton.
-
Why would a guy who just shot a cop loiter in an alley for 15 minutes? And if that guy was hiding somewhere (where?), why did he stop hiding?
Why would a guy who just shot a cop loiter in an alley for 15 minutes?
I don't believe Oswald loitered in an alley for 15 minutes.
Okay. Oswald hid for some time. So what?
-
Oswald's observable behavior was clearly desperate acts of avoiding contact, first of all when a Police car came along Jefferson, Oswald hid in the front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store
Clearly. ::)
or he was looking at shoes.
and then next Oswald goes into a dark theater.
Or he was already there at 1:07 when Burroughs sold him popcorn and Brewer (who didn't see anyone enter a theater) misidentified him.
-
Clearly. ::)
or he was looking at shoes.
Or he was already there at 1:07 when Burroughs sold him popcorn and Brewer (who didn't see anyone enter a theater) misidentified him.
No leap is too great if it gets a cop-killer off the hook. Right?
-
I don't believe Oswald loitered in an alley for 15 minutes.
Okay. Oswald hid for some time. So what?
Make up your mind.
But as long as we're just making stuff up that there is no evidence for, we can just as easily just declare that the guy who Reynolds saw was not the same guy that Brock saw. Neither one of them witnessed any crime anyway.
-
After all, it's just tampering with a crime scene. No biggie. Lots of people were allowed to do that in the TSBD and at 10th and Patton.
After all, it's just tampering with a crime scene.
According to Caprio, washing blood makes no difference, so ask him what's the problem.
Lots of people were allowed to do that in the TSBD and at 10th and Patton.
Go on John, tell us who, how and why the crime scenes were tampered with
JohnM
-
No leap is too great if it gets a cop-killer off the hook. Right?
No leap is too great as long as you get to accuse whoever you want to. Right?
-
No leap is too great as long as you get to accuse whoever you want to. Right?
I go with the evidence. In the Tippit case, all of the available evidence points to Oswald. Feel free to post any evidence which points anywhere other than Oswald.
-
Oswald's observable behavior was clearly desperate acts of avoiding contact, first of all when a Police car came along Jefferson, Oswald hid in the front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store and then next Oswald goes into a dark theater.
JohnM
you mean banging on door of bus, and then asking bus driver for transfer ticket, and then sitting in front seat with a cab driver, and then go to his boarding room where he knows he will be seen by his landlady, then taking a jog along a main road with pistol, then shooting a police officer, then waving the gun in the air, then stopping to stare at Calloway, then stopped in to visit Johnny Brewer, is someone avoiding contact?
-
I go with the evidence. In the Tippit case, all of the available evidence points to Oswald. Feel free to post any evidence which points anywhere other than Oswald.
I go with the evidence. In the Tippit case, all of the available evidence points to Oswald.
What evidence do you have that the Killer walked to Tippit's body ( That was face down on the street) and shot him in the forehead?
Domingo Benavides reported no such action by Tippit's killer....Nor did Helen Markham.....
-
I go with the evidence. In the Tippit case, all of the available evidence points to Oswald. Feel free to post any evidence which points anywhere other than Oswald.
And by "all the available evidence" you mean an identification by an utter screwball in an unfair lineup.
-
I go with the evidence. In the Tippit case, all of the available evidence points to Oswald.
What evidence do you have that the Killer walked to Tippit's body ( That was face down on the street) and shot him in the forehead?
Domingo Benavides reported no such action by Tippit's killer....Nor did Helen Markham.....
Tippit wasn't shot in the forehead.
-
I go with the evidence. In the Tippit case, all of the available evidence points to Oswald. Feel free to post any evidence which points anywhere other than Oswald.
And by "all the available evidence" you mean an identification by an utter screwball in an unfair lineup.
Again, feel free to post any evidence which points anywhere other than Oswald. Fair enough?
-
You are playing games again. The issue is whether Reynolds ever identified LHO as the man he saw running after the JDT murder, and until he was shot in the head the answer was no.
This is from my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series.
Quote on
REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual. (FBI Interview with Warren Reynolds on January 21, 1964, Commission Exhibit (CE) 2523, p. 731)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0381a.htm
Quote off
But, you said that Warren Reynolds said that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.
You lied and misrepresented. Typical.
-
Again, feel free to post any evidence which points anywhere other than Oswald. Fair enough?
Guilty until proven innocent?
-
Guilty until proven innocent?
Of course not.
Am I to assume that you cannot post evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald? If you could, you would.
-
Of course not.
Am I to assume that you cannot post evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald? If you could, you would.
So what if I cannot? How does that prove that Oswald did it?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)
-
Of course not.
Am I to assume that you cannot post evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald? If you could, you would.
I to assume that you cannot post evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald? If you could, you would.
That evidence is posted nearly every day ......You don't know it because of the location of your head.
-
I to assume that you cannot post evidence which points somewhere other than Oswald? If you could, you would.
That evidence is posted nearly every day ......You don't know it because of the location of your head.
I haven't seen any, either. And I extract my head in order to read the Forum.
-
I haven't seen any, either. And I extract my head in order to read the Forum.
Mr Organ wrote...."My first thought is Oswald was trying to alter his appearance, or have on different clothes should he end up in a line-up".
You extract your head...Really??? So you think that lee was preparing himself for the police line up before he was arrested??
-
So what if I cannot?
Exactly. You cannot.
-
Exactly. You cannot.
So what? Are you ever going to get to the point?
-
So what? Are you ever going to get to the point?
I already have.
The point is simple, that you cannot cite any evidence which points to anyone other than Lee Oswald in the death of J.D. Tippit.
-
All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts. This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.
If someone's theory cannot be refuted, then they are ignored, misrepresented and/or attacked in the media on a personal level, i.e., according to Posner and Bugliosi, 3/4 of the citizens of Dallas must be both drunk and insane publicity seekers. If you are as yet undecided on JFK assassination, I would recommend you look for the points that the various theories have in common. Think about how outlandish and improbable the Lone Nut THEORY is.
1) Did Oswald screw up the autopsy of the president?
2) Did Oswald cause forty different doctors and nurses at Parkland to describe wounds entirely inconsistent with the official autopsy?
3) Did Oswald appoint the Warren Commission?
4) Did Oswald harass/buy off/kill off the witnesses? Did Oswald alter the Zapruder film?
5) Did Oswald damage all of the existing assassination films at the exact same spot?
6) Did Oswald confiscate all of the other films that were never returned? In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?
7) Did Oswald sequester the evidence for 75 years? Why would National Security concerns require them to withhold the tax returns of a minimum wage lone nut malcontent? The truth is somewhere in there.
The media learned a lesson in 1963, so much so that they barely even questioned the official party line when MLK and RFK were assassinated, and by 9/ll they just read the script they were given like they couldn't see in their own video that there was neither a plane or any human remains in Shanksville. ....wake up...
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jDJIxHVWxzk/VYSLt_xtYYI/AAAAAAAAFfE/OcEjPUbQBdY/s1600/PGF%2BF364.jpg)
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2009/07/21/01/221861.bin)
The images above aren't holding up well to online scrutiny. They have their passionate defenders but I believe both were staged events.
-
You are playing games again. He would NOT positively identify the man he saw as being LHO. Period. Thus, legally he never said it was LHO UNTIL he was shot in the head.
But how does that qualify as Warren Reynolds saying that the man was NOT Lee Oswald?
-
What evidence points to LHO? <Head Scratch>
What evidence points anywhere other than Oswald?
-
All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts. This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.
If someone's theory cannot be refuted, then they are ignored, misrepresented and/or attacked in the media on a personal level, i.e., according to Posner and Bugliosi, 3/4 of the citizens of Dallas must be both drunk and insane publicity seekers. If you are as yet undecided on JFK assassination, I would recommend you look for the points that the various theories have in common. Think about how outlandish and improbable the Lone Nut THEORY is.
1) Did Oswald screw up the autopsy of the president?
2) Did Oswald cause forty different doctors and nurses at Parkland to describe wounds entirely inconsistent with the official autopsy?
3) Did Oswald appoint the Warren Commission?
4) Did Oswald harass/buy off/kill off the witnesses? Did Oswald alter the Zapruder film?
5) Did Oswald damage all of the existing assassination films at the exact same spot?
6) Did Oswald confiscate all of the other films that were never returned? In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?
7) Did Oswald sequester the evidence for 75 years? Why would National Security concerns require them to withhold the tax returns of a minimum wage lone nut malcontent? The truth is somewhere in there.
The media learned a lesson in 1963, so much so that they barely even questioned the official party line when MLK and RFK were assassinated, and by 9/ll they just read the script they were given like they couldn't see in their own video that there was neither a plane or any human remains in Shanksville. ....wake up...
This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.
WHO ?? Would benefit from discrediting the critics of the officially approved tale? Who controls the information that is broadcast by he mainstream media as the truth?
If you doubt and criticize the officially approved tale, you're simply a Kook......
-
All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts. This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.
If someone's theory cannot be refuted, then they are ignored, misrepresented and/or attacked in the media on a personal level, i.e., according to Posner and Bugliosi, 3/4 of the citizens of Dallas must be both drunk and insane publicity seekers. If you are as yet undecided on JFK assassination, I would recommend you look for the points that the various theories have in common. Think about how outlandish and improbable the Lone Nut THEORY is.
1) Did Oswald screw up the autopsy of the president?
2) Did Oswald cause forty different doctors and nurses at Parkland to describe wounds entirely inconsistent with the official autopsy?
3) Did Oswald appoint the Warren Commission?
4) Did Oswald harass/buy off/kill off the witnesses? Did Oswald alter the Zapruder film?
5) Did Oswald damage all of the existing assassination films at the exact same spot?
6) Did Oswald confiscate all of the other films that were never returned? In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?
7) Did Oswald sequester the evidence for 75 years? Why would National Security concerns require them to withhold the tax returns of a minimum wage lone nut malcontent? The truth is somewhere in there.
The media learned a lesson in 1963, so much so that they barely even questioned the official party line when MLK and RFK were assassinated, and by 9/ll they just read the script they were given like they couldn't see in their own video that there was neither a plane or any human remains in Shanksville. ....wake up...
Hey, Allan. This should be a thread onto itself. Why don't you post it as such?
What questionable evidence (which was out of Oswald's control) which supports
the lone gunman theory?
There would be fireworks, no doubt. But the odds that there's way too much of it
would support something must have happened other than the conclusion we were given.
-
All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts.
Some prefer it being rocket-propelled flechettes.
This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.
Where's the justice when shade gets thrown over a gem like this?
(http://i62.tinypic.com/1z6tj5c.jpg)
... In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?
-
Nowt queer as folk.
-
Mr. BALL. The jacket was underneath a car?
Mr. WESTBROOK. But, I am guessing on this--slightly underneath a car.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean you are guessing on this--what are you guessing about?
Mr. WESTBROOK. About where the jacket was found in this picture.
Seems to me they're asking the wrong guy what do you think?
Still "slightly underneath" the car.
You implied it was under a part of the car that dripped oil.
"nor any oil or dirt from being under a car either,
its actually a pretty clean jacket when "found"
by a mystery cop, under a car."
-
I didn't intend to imply that, the oil drip. I was more like pointing you in this direction:
Mr. BALL. It might have been under one or the other of the cars, you couldn't swear which?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, it could have been under any of the other cars, but I think it was kind of along in the middle of the parking lot.
Although the caption on the picture said "38. Place where jacket found behind Oldsmobile, License No. NL 95."
How could Westbrook be more sure? He didn't pitch a tent in the parking lot and stay there all day.
Someone else took the license number. You can't fault the Dallas police for not having that.
Westbrook seems pretty sure that the jacket was "laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars" which counters your claim the jacket should have a more appropriate amount of oil and dirt than the jacket recovered.
-
A photo of a parking lot with no jacket in it is about as useful as a photo of a corner of the TSBD with no paper bag in it.
-
You beat me to it ... what a striking similarity.
The case is chock full of "evidence" based on the same principal ...... Which is: ..introduce information in a sneaky, wily, manner that allows the sucker to perceive what is being suggested but not specifically stated is his idea..... Thus the sucker believes that he has reached a conclusive solution through his own reasoning.
There was no paper bag there in the SE corner.....But many folks will argue that the was as if it's as elementary as 2+2=4.
But taking that idea just a step further....There was no "Sniper's Nest" in that SE corner and there were NO SHOTS fired from that SE corner window....and WHOA.....Now that is a nutty idea......
-
Did you miss the "guessing" and "any other car" part while "NL 95" was right under his nose?
Don't go down the Billy Brown path -- he's flat down on his face now.
Why don't you quote the police officer who picked up the jacket and took down the license number?
Don't go down the Billy Brown path -- he's flat down on his face now.
This may mean something... if you had any credibility at all.
-
BUMP
======================
You mean the man that Reynolds said wasn't LHO UNTIL he was shot in the head? That guy?
You're so full of it.
Cite for Warren Reynolds ever saying that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.
You are playing games again. The issue is whether Reynolds ever identified LHO as the man he saw running after the JDT murder, and until he was shot in the head the answer was no.
This is from my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series.
Quote on
REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual. (FBI Interview with Warren Reynolds on January 21, 1964, Commission Exhibit (CE) 2523, p. 731)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0381a.htm
Quote off
But, you said that Warren Reynolds said that the man was NOT Lee Oswald.
You lied and misrepresented. Typical.
-
Yes, killing the president wasn't enough that day. They needed Oswald to kill someone else before the police really looked for him. And shoot him on sight? I guess they screwed that one up too since they arrested Oswald and freely allowed him to talk to the press. Whew. That is far out. Imagine how many people would have to be involved in arranging an Oswald "double", a police officer to murder, getting the "real" Oswald into that same area so that he could be arrested/shot, getting the fake "Oswald" away undetected, silencing the fake Oswald for the rest of his life etc. What a fantasy.
Good post Richard. Most of these CTers have never had any firearm experience. When shot the wound doesn't always splatter all over the place. Especially when small caliber weapons are used and the type of ammo. It's not Hollywood,or a John Wayne western. The wound to JD's head did not exit so there would not have been any splatter from an exit wound.
-
Good post Richard. Most of these CTers have never had any firearm experience. When shot the wound doesn't always splatter all over the place. Especially when small caliber weapons are used and the type of ammo. It's not Hollywood,or a John Wayne western. The wound to JD's head did not exit so there would not have been any splatter from an exit wound.
Did they find a bullet in his head, then, Wes?
-
Good post Richard. Most of these CTers have never had any firearm experience. When shot the wound doesn't always splatter all over the place. Especially when small caliber weapons are used and the type of ammo. It's not Hollywood,or a John Wayne western. The wound to JD's head did not exit so there would not have been any splatter from an exit wound.
Hey, Wesley. Way back before the crash I presented this topic here and the only other
person I found on the web with the same thought came from a former police officer, Gil Jesus.
Posted September 17, 2011 (edited)
On 9/15/2011 at 5:04 PM, Craig Lamson said:
Osswald? Who cares? Not me.
The jacket? Who cares? Not me.
Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.
Holding the feet of the photographically ignorant to the fire....priceless.
You are yet another predictable e CT. Thanks for the grins Gil.
ROFLMAO.....you're a legend in your own mind.
But here's the problem.... if the jacket in the video IS the jacket found in the lot and worn by the Tippit killer, then there would have been gunpowder residue and blood splatter on it. And it would have been completely understandable for a killer escaping in public and in broad daylight, to attempt to avoid drawing attention to himself by discarding a jacket splattered with the blood of a victim.
That I have no problem with. Makes complete sense to me.
But if that jacket in the video is the GREY jacket, as you claim, there should be gunpowder residue and blood splatter on that as well. Yet, the color photographs supplied by Mr. Backes from NARA earlier in this thread show no such blood splatter on the jacket.
In addition, there is no report of Tippit's blood being found on Oswald's pants or shoes.
This is considered PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and it simply isn't there.
Absent any PHYSICAL evidence that Tippit's killer was wearing the GREY jacket at the time of the murder, the GREY jacket can't possibly be the jacket we see in the video.
And absent any PHYSICAL evidence of Tippit's blood on Oswald's clothing at the time of his arrest the likelihood that Oswald was Tippit's killer is greatly diminished.
Yeah, we know, you don't care who did it. That's your excuse everytime you're faced with evidence you can't explain.
BTW, Holding the feet of the evidentiary ignorant to the fire....that's REALLY priceless.
Grins ? You supply more grins to more people than most posters.
Edited September 17, 2011 by Gil Jesus
-
Did they find a bullet in his head, then, Wes?
The autopsy was performed on J.D. Tippit at 3:15 pm CST, on 22 November 1963. It was performed by Dr. Earl Rose at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Dr. Rose was the medical examiner at Parkland and had protested the President's body being flown back to Washington DC. A side note on Dr. Rose, he served on the medical panel for the HSCA in the 70's and concluded that the president was struck by two bullets fired from behind and above the president. To answer your question. Yes the bullet was recovered from Tippit's head. It had entered just to the right of Tippit's right eye an took a slightly, upward, backward and left lodging against the skull.
-
The autopsy was performed on J.D. Tippit at 3:15 pm CST, on 22 November 1963. It was performed by Dr. Earl Rose at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Dr. Rose was the medical examiner at Parkland and had protested the President's body being flown back to Washington DC. A side note on Dr. Rose, he served on the medical panel for the HSCA in the 70's and concluded that the president was struck by two bullets fired from behind and above the president. To answer your question. Yes the bullet was recovered from Tippit's head. It had entered just to the right of Tippit's right eye an took a slightly, upward, backward and left lodging against the skull.
"It had entered just to the right of Tippit's right eye an took a slightly, upward, backward and left lodging against the skull." Rather similar to the wound that the President got. i.e right temple area and back of head blown out, just exactly how some CT think the President died.
-
"It had entered just to the right of Tippit's right eye an took a slightly, upward, backward and left lodging against the skull." Rather similar to the wound that the President got. i.e right temple area and back of head blown out, just exactly how some CT think the President died.
Good point. Let's look at it. If you say it is similar to what the president got, then why was a bullet not found in the left rear portion of the president's skull, or blow out the left, rear part of his skull?
-
Good point. Let's look at it. If you say it is similar to what the president got, then why was a bullet not found in the left rear portion of the president's skull, or blow out the left, rear part of his skull?
Because of the autopsy was so poorly conducted.
The reason why no bullet was found was because it blew the back of the President's head off.
It seems it was never recovered.
Tippet was shot by a revolver...JFK by a high powered rifle. that's the reason for the difference.
-
Because of the autopsy was so poorly conducted.
The reason why no bullet was found was because it blew the back of the President's head off.
It seems it was never recovered.
Tippet was shot by a revolver...JFK by a high powered rifle. that's the reason for the difference.
Ray we are starting off on a different direction from this thread. But you are wrong. The back of the president's head was not blown off. The Zapruder film clearly shows the right side of the president's head blow out. I'll just ask ahead of time because I know you will come back and say the film was altered. Zapruder had three copies made, he gave one to the FBI and one to the Secret Service and he sold one to Life Magazine. So, when, where, how and by whom were all 3 films altered? Zapruder never said his film was altered.
-
Ray we are starting off on a different direction from this thread. But you are wrong. The back of the president's head was not blown off. The Zapruder film clearly shows the right side of the president's head blow out. I'll just ask ahead of time because I know you will come back and say the film was altered. Zapruder had three copies made, he gave one to the FBI and one to the Secret Service and he sold one to Life Magazine. So, when, where, how and by whom were all 3 films altered? Zapruder never said his film was altered.
Tom Robinson was part of the funeral home team who prepared JFK's body for burial. He worked on Kennedy's head for several hours and he saw the wound up close and placed it clearly at the back of the head. There is a video interview with him on YouTube where he shows the exact location of the wound.
Could it be this guy worked on a wound that really wasn't there? What do you think?
-
Tom Robinson was part of the funeral home team who prepared JFK's body for burial. He worked on Kennedy's head for several hours and he saw the wound up close and placed it clearly at the back of the head. There is a video interview with him on YouTube where he shows the exact location of the wound.
Could it be this guy worked on a wound that really wasn't there? What do you think?
Okay Martin, first do you believe the Zapruder film was altered? Because if you do then I ask you to explain by saying, When, where, how and by whom, altered it. Now as to the head wound. I would believe Dr. Marion "Pepper" Jenkins, and Dr. Kemp Clark, and Dr. Humes, and the autopsy team, over a funeral home guy that was looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Dr. Jenkins was the anesthesiologist that was right at the president's head. I think I will believe him over Robinson any day.
-
Tom Robinson was part of the funeral home team who prepared JFK's body for burial. He worked on Kennedy's head for several hours and he saw the wound up close and placed it clearly at the back of the head. There is a video interview with him on YouTube where he shows the exact location of the wound.
Could it be this guy worked on a wound that really wasn't there? What do you think?
Did Robinson work on the skull? Are you sure about that?
-
Okay Martin, first do you believe the Zapruder film was altered? Because if you do then I ask you to explain by saying, When, where, how and by whom, altered it. Now as to the head wound. I would believe Dr. Marion "Pepper" Jenkins, and Dr. Kemp Clark, and Dr. Humes, and the autopsy team, over a funeral home guy that was looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Dr. Jenkins was the anesthesiologist that was right at the president's head. I think I will believe him over Robinson any day.
All I see is all sorts of questions, but no answer to my very simple question, except for "he's a liar". Why is that?
over a funeral home guy that was looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
What guy would that be? Certainly not Robinson, because he refused to give interviews and stayed well clear of publicity for most of his life. The video I talked about earlier was one of the rare occassions that he talked about it.
I think I will believe him over Robinson any day.
Sure you do... no surprise there.
Just add him to the long list of people (who had nothing to gain and gained nothing from telling his story) who you don't want to believe because what he says doesn't fit with your pre-determined conclusion. You haven't seen the video (for Dutch TV btw) and you don't know the first thing about Robinson, yet you instantly have a baseless negative opinion about him.
The problem is that Robinson isn't the only person who was in the autopsy room and saw the wound at the back of the head. But they are all liars looking for 15 minutes of fame as well, right?
-
The problem is that Robinson isn't the only person who was in the autopsy room and saw the wound at the back of the head. But they are all liars looking for 15 minutes of fame as well, right?
I realize your above comments were directed at Wesley Johnson, but me personally, I am not calling Robinson a liar as much as I am calling you wrong. Cite for your claim that Robinson "worked on the head for several hours".
-
All I see is all sorts of questions, but no answer to my very simple question, except for "he's a liar". Why is that?
over a funeral home guy that was looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
What guy would that be? Certainly not Robinson, because he refused to give interviews and stayed well clear of publicity for most of his life. The video I talked about earlier was one of the rare occassions that he talked about it.
I think I will believe him over Robinson any day.
Sure you do... no surprise there.
Just add him to the long list of people (who had nothing to gain and gained nothing from telling his story) who you don't want to believe because what he says doesn't fit with your pre-determined conclusion. You haven't seen the video (for Dutch TV btw) and you don't know the first thing about Robinson, yet you instantly have a baseless negative opinion about him.
The problem is that Robinson isn't the only person who was in the autopsy room and saw the wound at the back of the head. But they are all liars looking for 15 minutes of fame as well, right?
It only happened one way.
(https://s28.postimg.org/m2xipruml/JFKBOHlatest_HD4_zps1159966c.gif)
(https://s28.postimg.org/ahnci2959/alotofevidence2_zpsri8gm5gr.jpg)
JohnM
-
BUMP
===========================
Tom Robinson was part of the funeral home team who prepared JFK's body for burial. He worked on Kennedy's head for several hours and he saw the wound up close and placed it clearly at the back of the head. There is a video interview with him on YouTube where he shows the exact location of the wound.
Could it be this guy worked on a wound that really wasn't there? What do you think?
Did Robinson work on the skull? Are you sure about that?
-
Tom Robinson to the ARRB.
"-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President?s head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that this wound in the back of the President?s head was an entry wound occuring from a bullet fired from behind, based on conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President?s head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)"