Oh, Jack Tatum's tale again?

Leaving side the other problems with Tatum's story, Tatum is also Dale Myers' last change-in-direction witness. Tatum said the killer was walking east. This claim is strongly contradicted by the available evidence. Moreover, Tatum did not say the man suddenly turned around. He simply said he thought the man was walking east. The initial police and Secret Service reports on the shooting said the killer was walking west, toward the patrol car, not away from it. Scoggins said the same thing in his first sworn statement. It would appear that Mrs. Markham said the same thing when she spoke with police right after the shooting. Two other witnesses likewise said the killer was walking west, not east, and thus toward the patrol car, not away from it. If the police or the Secret Service found a single witness who said the killer was walking away from the patrol car, they failed to say a word about it in any of their reports. Additionally, not one of the initial sworn statements from any of the eyewitnesses says the killer was walking east or that he suddenly changed direction as the patrol car approached.

But Myers needs this change in direction in order to try to explain why Tippit would have stopped the assailant, especially if the assailant was in fact Oswald. By all accounts, the man was walking along normally. And Myers admits it is unlikely Tippit would have stopped the man on the basis of the vague description that went out over the police radio.

"Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view

Just one more case in which witnesses observing the same event describe it differently. BFD. It doesn't change the fact Oswald gunned down Tippit and there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.

Based on the multiple Dan Rather broadcasts describing the Z Film he viewed the weekend of the assassination, there is [sic] conflicting Z Film Copies.

Dear Stormtrooper Storing,

You have a disconcerting habit of believing any eyewitness statement, no matter how implausible, that seems to suggest that the Zapruder film was altered.

Why is that?

-- Tom

I see the figure clapping his hands. The line down his back is not a camera strap. It extends almost straight down the center of the back, goes below the belt/waistline and down to the crotch. No camera strap would do this. I also see a suited man, wearing a hat, somewhere on the other side of Elm St. This man is being mistaken as being something in the lap of the figure sitting on the pedestal.

Dear Stormtrooper Storing,

The strap goes almost straight down because Euins was quite short.

You can see a shiny spot (not the really bright spot which is the sunlight shining through) on the camera's leather case which is lying semi-suspended behind him on the pedestal.

The thing in his lap may very well be his "pork pie" hat.

-- Tom

I'm sorry Brian, but you clearly live in some kind of dream world where you believe you can just spin your yarns and that's enough...everyone else has to fall in line.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
Provide the image you are referring to.
Cite the thread you are talking about.
Provide a link to this thread.
Do something!
Do something that demonstrates you are a credible researcher and not just some dreamer talking nonsense.

I will gladly accept any genuine evidence that is contrary to what I currently believe because that brings me closer to truly understanding.
Please provide some kind of evidence.
Your recollections are not evidence.
For all I know, you could be talking complete sh!t.
How can I know otherwise if you don't actually provide any evidence.

Start with this very simple question - what was the origin of the image Sandy Larsen enhanced?
And provide some kind of link to this thread.

hey, Dan………. let me give you a little advice on how to read Mssr. Doyle’s uh, posts…..  pick a paragraph…….. any paragraph (chortle)……… then stare at the middle of said paragraph (the larger the better), then lo and behold all these words start jumping out at you, à la Bill Burroughs cut-out technique. try it sometime, ‘‘tis like reading strange poetry…….. yes, very strange poems, you see.  but that’s just me.

I'm sorry Brian, but you clearly live in some kind of dream world where you believe you can just spin your yarns and that's enough...everyone else has to fall in line.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
Provide the image you are referring to.
Cite the thread you are talking about.
Provide a link to this thread.
Do something!
Do something that demonstrates you are a credible researcher and not just some dreamer talking nonsense.

I will gladly accept any genuine evidence that is contrary to what I currently believe because that brings me closer to truly understanding.
Please provide some kind of evidence.
Your recollections are not evidence.
For all I know, you could be talking complete sh!t.
How can I know otherwise if you don't actually provide any evidence.

Start with this very simple question - what was the origin of the image Sandy Larsen enhanced?
And provide some kind of link to this thread.

   He thinks this is the Ed Forum. The "Nut House" had an extremely low bar. Just claim something and then glom a recognizable name to the discussion. Total