Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
I picked this up from one of my old posts at City Data Forum. I had forgotten about it.

Stanislau Shushkevich, who became the first President of Belarus after the collapse of the USSR, had been assigned to teach Russian to Oswald at the radio factory in Minsk (where my wife's sister and brother-in-law worked at the same time).

This is a long and pretty interesting interview from 2013 by Radio Free Europe. Shushkevich and the other instructor were, for some reason, under unbelievably strict orders as to what they could discuss with Oswald. Nevertheless, it sounds like they had a fairly informal and pleasant relationship. It sounds like he found Oswald a pretty dull and uninteresting/uninterested character.

When Norman Mailer visited Belarus and asked to see the KGB files, he (as President) asked the chairman of the KGB if he needed to be careful. The answer: "Absolutely not. Show him everything."

After the JFKA, he visited the Dallas area for other reasons. He's a CTer! "It is my absolute conviction that they found a passive, calm, compliant boy, and used him as the guilty one. As for the conclusions of the Warren Commission, I don't believe them one bit. I have studied them and I don't think [the assassination] was the work of my student."

https://www.rferl.org/a/interview-transcript-oswald-shushkevich-belarus-soviet/25172632.html
32
KB--

IMHO, you are correct, that JBC's wound-shape and the small round bullet-hole in his shirt suggest he was largely facing forward when shot by a non-tumbling bullet from behind. That is what the evidence shows. That is what Dr. Robert Shaw, his surgeon, thought most likely.

We know what the Connallys testified to, and Nellie had a ringside seat, and was uninjured, and was remarkably cool in a same-day press conference.

So, if the Connallys are correct, when was JBC struck?

My best guess is sometime after Z-295, but before Z-313.

Of course, many, many witnesses described the "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots.

That cadence lines up with JFK hit ~Z-221, JBC at ~Z-295+ and JFK at Z-313.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.




33
With all this in mind, if we are doubtful about the times given by Markham and Bowley, shouldn't we also question the accuracy of the DPD radio time stamps?

Well, sure. The whole "time thing" seems to me like a quest for certainty that just isn't possible.
34
Is it relevant that we have about ten clocks in our house, at least half of which are digital, and my wife and I go practically nuts trying to keep them within 10 minutes of each other for three weeks at a stretch? (To be honest, we've simply given up. Knowing that it's "roughly ten o'clock" is good enough.) Or that I have three watches, two of which are digital and one of which is connected to GPS, that likewise never agree? It's interesting to me, but perhaps to no one else, how often these "JFKA mysteries" seem to have folksy little real-world explanations. I've mentioned previously that the location of my house is an uncanny approximation of Dealey Plaza, and I can't tell you how many times I've been sure that sounds were coming from the "Grassy Knoll" when they in fact were coming from the "TSBD."

Is it relevant that we have about ten clocks in our house, at least half of which are digital, and my wife and I go practically nuts trying to keep them within 10 minutes of each other for three weeks at a stretch?

Agreed, but let's apply this to the clocks in 1963. The LNs constantly claim that it was impossible for time stamps called out by the DPD operators to be six minutes of.

J.C. Bowles, who was in charge of the DPD dispatchers, said that a master clock on the telephone room's wall was connected to the City Hall system and reported "official time" (whatever that means). In the dispatcher's office there were numerous other clocks that were not synchronized. He also stated that the Simplex clocks frequently indicated an incorrect time, which wasn't a big problem as the main purpose was to stamp the day, date and time on incoming calls. I understand this to mean that, under normal circumstances, nobody would care if an incoming call at 10:10 (real time) would be time stamped at 10:12. Bowles continued to say that clocks could be "a minute or so" out of synchronization and that the normal procedure was to make the needed adjustments, although this was no readily done during busy periods. And finally, Bowles stated that radio operators were using digital clocks that were not synchronized with any time standard and that a dispatched could delay calling a time stamp when there was heavy radio communication. His words were: "the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.

With all this in mind, if we are doubtful about the times given by Markham and Bowley, shouldn't we also question the accuracy of the DPD radio time stamps?
35
Westbrook testified that he returned directly to the police station after Oswald was arrested in the theater (he didn’t arrive in his own car). So Barret’s account of Westbrook flipping through the wallet and asking him if he knew Hidell or Oswald couldn’t have happened at 10th and Patton.

Mr. BALL. Now, what did you do after that [arrest at theater]?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I went back to the city hall and resumed my desk.

This doesn't make any sense. Westbrook was at the Tippit scene before he went to the Texas Theater. So, if Barrett was indeed asked, by Westbrook, if he knew Hidell or Oswald it would have been before the arrest and it would have to involve another wallet than the one that was taken from Oswald in the car by Bentley.

But there is more to this story!

After Bentley took Oswald's wallet, he did not mention Hidell at all, which is strange because Gerald Hill testified that he told Bentley to grab the suspect's wallet for the purpose of identification. During a television interview Bentley was asked about the content of the wallet and he basically said there were only items in it that one would expect. I believe he mentioned a driver's license and a credit car, which by itself is strange. Also, there isn't any contemporary report by any of the officers in the car with Oswald that mentions finding a Hidell ID. Only during his WC testimony did Gerald Hill, who was sitting with Bentley (who was never asked to testify) on either side of Oswald on the rear seat of the car - say something like that he vaguely remembered hearing the name Hidell.

When Bentley arrived at the police station with Oswald, he was instantly taken to the hospital because of an injury to his leg. There isn't a single person in the police station that we know of, who confirmed or could confirm what happened to the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald. And this is where it gets complicated, because soon after Oswald was brought into the station, Gus Rose arrived after having been called in. He was the first DPD officer to speak to Oswald and just before that conversation took place an unidentified officer gave Rose a wallet and said it belonged to the suspect. And guess what, in that wallet there were two ID's, one for Oswald and one for Hidell.

So what's a possible explanation for this confusion? Could it be that Westbrook, after being present at Oswald's arrest, returned to the police station and told this unidentified officer to give the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene to Detective Rose? Obviously, in this scenario, the wallet Bentley took from Oswald would have to disappear and Bentley could never testify.

I believe it is possible that this is way the wallet with the Hidell ID was introduced as evidence, but if somebody can give be a better explanation or - even better - a solid chain of custody for the Bentley wallet, I'll gladly reconsider my opinion.
36
Is it relevant that we have about ten clocks in our house, at least half of which are digital, and my wife and I go practically nuts trying to keep them within 10 minutes of each other for three weeks at a stretch? (To be honest, we've simply given up. Knowing that it's "roughly ten o'clock" is good enough.) Or that I have three watches, two of which are digital and one of which is connected to GPS, that likewise never agree? It's interesting to me, but perhaps to no one else, how often these "JFKA mysteries" seem to have folksy little real-world explanations. I've mentioned previously that the location of my house is an uncanny approximation of Dealey Plaza, and I can't tell you how many times I've been sure that sounds were coming from the "Grassy Knoll" when they in fact were coming from the "TSBD."
37
I doubt that. They would be taking out sites holy to Islam and would kill many fellow muslims. When the US accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner during the tanker escort operation in the 1980s, Iran dod not retaliate via terrorism. They agreed to international mediation and agreed to compensation.

Iranian nukes would likely be used as a deterrent to Israeli aggression as well as aggression from Sunni Arab states. At least they enrich their own uranium, rather than stealing it from the US and leaving a toxic mess that US taxpayers are still paying to clean up.

If Iran was the big boogyman, why did Israel sell them F-14 parts when Iran held our embassy hostage. Why did Israel agree to provide weapons to Iran during Iran-Contra?

Iran just murdered approximately 40K of its own citizens.  I'm pretty sure most of those were Muslims.  They have no regard for human life.   A throwback to ancient barbarians.  Allowing them to obtain a nuclear weapon and hoping for the best is not an acceptable plan.
38
On the Zionism post at the Ed Forum with which Ben started this thread, Greg Doudna said a very wise thing yesterday:

On antisemitism. It must be condemned and repudiated, no less than any toxic racism. Here is one sure “tell” of antisemitism, which I know a little about in my field. When one hears invocation of the Gospels’ anti-Jewish tropes. This is the terrible hidden secret and burden of Christianity, that its very Passion salvation foundation origin myth [that demonizes] Jews, is antisemitic, scapegoating Jews for killing God. If you see or hear that, even as allusion from otherwise secular people, then you can KNOW antisemitism is going on.

This "Jews killed Jesus" thing really is the root of antisemitism, as opposed to legitimate questioning of the policies and practices of the political state of Israel. The error in the opposite direction that we hear all the time is that the political state of Israel must receive blind, unwavering support because "the Jews are God's chosen people." (Even if they actually are, equating the Jews with the political state of Israel is a category mistake.)

As you may or may not know, the Second Temple and the city of Jerusalem were razed and the Jews were driven out and enslaved by the Romans in 70 AD as a result of the First Jewish Revolt that began in 66 AD and ended at Masada in 73. The four Gospels and Acts were all written after 70 AD, when being a Jew was a risky and dangerous thing to be. Conversely, being pro-Roman was an entirely unrisky and non-dangerous thing to be. Not unsurprisingly, the Gospels and Acts and even some of the epistles have a distinct pro-Roman and anti-Jewish slant, going so far as to portray Pilate (who was finally recalled by Rome because his cruelty threatened peace in the region) as not such a bad guy and really kind of a philosophical sort - and even putting anti-Jewish and pro-Roman statements into the mouth of Jesus. Historians are in pretty much unanimous agreement that the Romans would not have hesitated a moment to crucify Jesus (probably precipitated by his outburst in the Temple) and that there is no way the Jewish populace would have been screaming for his death (after supposedly welcoming him into the city with cries of "Hosanna!" days earlier). Some members of the Sanhedrin may have been complicit, but certainly not "the Jews."

In short, the whole "Jews killed Jesus" (or "Jews killed God") thing is, as Greg says, a myth that has haunted and demonized the Jews for 2,000 years. I have relatives who care less about Jesus than I care about Scientology but who nevertheless "hate the Jews" for this bogus reason as though "hating the Jews" were simply what all decent people should do. It's completely ridiculous.
39
Humm, well, the previous supposedly definitive analysis of the timing of the Tippit shooting, i.e., Dale Myers' "stop-watch" analysis in his book With Malice, says that Oswald did not have time to walk to 10th and Patton in time to shoot Tippit and theorizes that Oswald got a ride from an unknown person. Myers says Tippit was shot at 1:14:30, but you say he was shot between 1:15 and 1:16.

Is there a reason you failed to mention that T. F. Bowley said he arrived at the Tippit scene at 1:10 and that he knew this because he checked his watch when he got there? That's an important fact to omit, wouldn't you say?

Is there a reason you failed to mention that Helen Markham said she got to the Tippit scene no later than 1:08 and that Tippit had already been shot when she arrived? This is why she was certain Tippit was shot at 1:06 or 1:07. Markham said she always left her apartment at 1:00 to catch her regular 1:12-1:15 bus. She said she glanced at the laundry room clock after she left her apartment and that it read 1:04. She said it took her about two minutes to reach 10th and Patton.

Is there a reason you failed to mention that Domingo Benavides said that he did not try to use the police car's radio until "a few minutes" after Tippit had been shot because he was (quite understandably) afraid for his life?

You guys claim that Benavides waited in his truck for only a matter of seconds and not for a few minutes. But this flies in the face of common sense and ignores what Benavides himself initially said. If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open? Nobody in their right mind would have come out of hiding so quickly in that situation.

Benavides told the WC he waited in his truck for "a few minutes" after he heard the shots and before he tried to use the police car's radio. Moreover, according to fellow witness Ted Calloway, Benavides told him the day after the shooting that

When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there. It scared me to death.

Years later, Benavides changed his story and told CBS he only waited a few seconds, not a few minutes. Predictably, you guys choose to accept Benavides' belated change of story and reject his original statements.

Two witnesses at the Texas Theatre, Butch Borroughs and Jack Davis, independently said that Oswald entered the theater before 1:10, and that he remained in the theater until he was arrested.

You place great emphasis on the police dispatch transcripts, but even Dr. Paul Hoch, one of the most careful scholars in the JFKA research community, acknowledged there is evidence the police dispatch tapes were edited, which renders the transcripts useless for determining when Tippit was shot. BTW, Dr. Hoch doubted the authenticity of the transmissions that supposedly explain why Tippit was in Oak Cliff in the first place, far out of his area.

I discuss Dr. Hoch's research at length in my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?," available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view.

Is there a reason you failed to mention that Helen Markham said she got to the Tippit scene no later than 1:08 and that Tippit had already been shot when she arrived? This is why she was certain Tippit was shot at 1:06 or 1:07.

I don't think this is correct. When Markham arrived at the corner of 10th street and Patton she stopped to let a police car pass by. She then saw the officer call over his killer to the car window and had a conversation with him.
So, Tippit was not killed before Markham's arrival at the scene.

Is there a reason you failed to mention that Domingo Benavides said that he did not try to use the police car's radio until "a few minutes" after Tippit had been shot because he was (quite understandably) afraid for his life?

You guys claim that Benavides waited in his truck for only a matter of seconds and not for a few minutes. But this flies in the face of common sense and ignores what Benavides himself initially said. If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open? Nobody in their right mind would have come out of hiding so quickly in that situation.


Benavides did indeed say he waited "a few minutes" but that can't be right, for one simple reason. Callaway, who wasn't far from the scene of the shooting, testified that he heard the shots and after watching the suspect come down the street ran to 10th street. The distance he needed to cover would have taken him approx a minute. So, if Benavides did indeed stay in his car for a few minutes, Callaway would have arrived at the scene before Benavides was able to get to the police car to use the radio.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10