Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
You are a damned simple minded fool Lil Chappie..... It's not "MY" Film Clip... it is from Tom Alyea's film of the activities that took place on the sixth floor that afternoon....   Unfortunately most of his film was destroyed ( deliberately to destroy the evidence)

If you didn't have your head inserted you may able to see that the photo of the rifle jammed between the boxes is a fake....

But asking you to open your eyes and SEE is akin to trying to get a jackass to drink.  You can lead the jackass to water but you can't make him drink.

Now... returning to the topic of the thread....."Was Lee Oswald questioned about the murder of JD Tippit?"

And the answer is:..... No, he was not questioned about the Tippit murder during the Friday interrogation session. And here's why  Fritz never asked him about the Tippit murder.....

"The first news flashes out of Dallas on the Tippit shooting said that he had been shot to death when he and another policeman pursued a suspect in the assassination into the Texas Theater following a tip.  The suspect -Lee Harvey Oswald- had shot Tippit.   He was subdued and arrested by other policemen.
By the next day , newspapers reported that Tippit had actually been shot and killed some blocks away from the theater and  that Oswald had been arrested for Tippitt's murder,  not for the assassination of the President."


So Fritz assumed that Lee had shot Tippit at the Texas Theater,,,,So there was no need to ask Lee any questions about that.
Lee had told Fritz that he had rode in a bus to the theater and that confirmed that Lee was in fact at the theater when Fritz assumed that Tippit was shot.

So we have Lee telling Fritz that he had rode in a bus to the theater, and we have Fritz assuming that Lee had shot Tippit at the theater.  Case closed...no need to ask questions about that....And that's why Fritz did not ask Lee about the Tippit murder.

You are a damned simple minded fool Lil Chappie..... It's not "MY" Film Clip... it is from Tom Alyea's film of the activities that took place on the sixth floor that afternoon
Well, DUH

Unfortunately most of his film was destroyed ( deliberately to destroy the evidence)
Prove it

If you didn't have your head inserted
Please stop including me in your sick fantasies

you may able to see that the photo of the rifle jammed between the boxes is a fake.
 ::)
22
I've provided an image of the rifle on the floor + between boxes. And proving quantum theory as a bonus: An object
can appear in two places at the same time.. in this case on the floor AND between boxes!



HMMMM...Excuse me little Chappie perhaps you have a vision problem like Cranialrectalitus  and you can't see that in the fake official DPD photo the butt plate of rifle is VERTICAL...... Whereas Tom Alyea's film clip shows that the butt plate is HORIZONTAL when Day picks up the rifle.


This fake DPD photo apparently was taken at a time when that weren't sure that they make a case against Lee oswald and the Carcano.... 
 

The stock on the rifle in this photo appears to be a mauser stock.....It does not look like a mannlicher carcano stock....
The fake photo may have been staged at a time when the carcano wasn't available  (in FBI lab i Wash. DC)  so they used a mauser to create the fake.
23
I've provided an image of the rifle on the floor + between boxes. And proving quantum theory as a bonus: An object
can appear in two places at the same time.. in this case on the floor AND between boxes! Hey, I'm here to teach  ;)

The overhead angle provided by the photographer reveals the strap would be concealed by the rifle itself

Now kindly present images of your 'genuine scene'

I've provided an image of the rifle on the floor + between boxes. And proving quantum theory as a bonus: An object
can appear in two places at the same time.. in this case on the floor AND between boxes!



HMMMM...Excuse me little Chappie perhaps you have a vision problem like Cranialrectalitus  and you can't see that in the fake official DPD photo the butt plate of rifle is VERTICAL...... Whereas Tom Alyea's film clip shows that the butt plate is HORIZONTAL when Day picks up the rifle.
24

We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Benevides watched as the killer removed a shell from the revolver and tossed the shell aside ( THAT'S  ONE SHELL REMOVED FROM THE REVOLVER )    Then he watched the killer take a few steps and remove another spent shell..( THAT TWO SHELLS REMOVED)   Then .....We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

Clearly the killer was NOT removing spent shells from a S&W revolver.....   He was using some other brand of revolver and the revolver that allegedly was in Lee's possession was a SMITH & WESSON.    And the spent shells are removed all at the same time from a S&W.    Which raises a question in my mind.....   Any competent cop could determine at a glance if that old S&W had been fired that day.    The revolver that was allegedly in Lee's possession  was not designed to fire the .38 special cartridge.
The .38 special cartridge is smaller diameter and longer and more powerful that the old 38 cartridge that the revolver was designed for.   

The Point is:....That old revolver would have leaked the burning gasses and it would have been covered with a bluish gray substance ( The burned gun powder residue )    I know this from experience---- and If I had been at the theater when the cop carried the S&W revolver out of the theater I would have known at a glance if that revolver had been fired that day.

Are there any good photos of the gun being carried out of the theater?.....

Since I'm sure the old S&W revolver that was carried from the theater would have been covered with burned gun powder residue.... If Lee had handled that revolver and it had been covered with the residue his hands would have been coated with the residue....  Now, since Lee's hands were NOT coated with a liberal coating of gunpowder residue we can deduce at least two things..... He had not fired that old S&W ..... and the old S&W hadn't been fired that day....
25
Your blurry film clip reveals that Day was bending down long enough to both move the box out of the way and pick up the rifle.

The WC overhead photo reveals that using the word 'jammed' to describe the placement of the rifle against the box is yet another sample of the desperate exaggeration you lot employ in your madcap attempts to cast doubt on LNer claims.

And you are the fool:



You are a damned simple minded fool Lil Chappie..... It's not "MY" Film Clip... it is from Tom Alyea's film of the activities that took place on the sixth floor that afternoon....   Unfortunately most of his film was destroyed ( deliberately to destroy the evidence)

If you didn't have your head inserted you may able to see that the photo of the rifle jammed between the boxes is a fake....

But asking you to open your eyes and SEE is akin to trying to get a jackass to drink.  You can lead the jackass to water but you can't make him drink.

Now... returning to the topic of the thread....."Was Lee Oswald questioned about the murder of JD Tippit?"

And the answer is:..... No, he was not questioned about the Tippit murder during the Friday interrogation session. And here's why  Fritz never asked him about the Tippit murder.....

"The first news flashes out of Dallas on the Tippit shooting said that he had been shot to death when he and another policeman pursued a suspect in the assassination into the Texas Theater following a tip.  The suspect -Lee Harvey Oswald- had shot Tippit.   He was subdued and arrested by other policemen.
By the next day , newspapers reported that Tippit had actually been shot and killed some blocks away from the theater and  that Oswald had been arrested for Tippitt's murder,  not for the assassination of the President."


So Fritz assumed that Lee had shot Tippit at the Texas Theater,,,,So there was no need to ask Lee any questions about that.
Lee had told Fritz that he had rode in a bus to the theater and that confirmed that Lee was in fact at the theater when Fritz assumed that Tippit was shot.

So we have Lee telling Fritz that he had rode in a bus to the theater, and we have Fritz assuming that Lee had shot Tippit at the theater.  Case closed...no need to ask questions about that....And that's why Fritz did not ask Lee about the Tippit murder.
26

The overhead angle provided by the photographer reveals the strap would be concealed by the rifle itself


Yes the overhead angle reveals that the sling isn't visible...But in Tom Alyea's genuine scene film of Day picking up the rifle FROM TRHE FLOOR even a person like you with his head inserted can see that Day simply reaches out and grabs the leather sling and picks up the rifle.     Please continue to argue and make a bigger fool of yourself.

Your blurry film clip reveals that Day was bending down long enough to both move the box out of the way and pick up the rifle.

The WC overhead photo reveals that using the word 'jammed' to describe the placement of the rifle against the box is yet another sample of the desperate exaggeration you lot employ in your madcap attempts to cast doubt on LNer claims.

And you are the fool:

27
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Oswald: No power lunch
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on September 28, 2021, 07:30:06 PM »
Let me put it this way:
Barry Ernst say's that she signed it and that it's her handwriting on the document. From what I see, the handwriting for "there" was made by the same had as the signature on the last page. As such, there is no reason not assign "there" and the signature and the other writing as Adams'. If you want to argue that it's not Adams' writing on that page, or any other, you're free to do so. But don't think anyone else is going to notice unless you can provide any evidence.
 

Remember this?

And finally it should be noted that on 04/04/64 WC assistant counsel Leon Hubert wrote a remarkable memo in which he refered to a recent staff meeting in which he had objected to what he called "editing of the transcripts of depositions". In the same memo he also complains about the practice of waiving signatures by the witnesses and advocates to have witnesses read and sign the transcript even if it contains errors, which according to him can later be rectified.

Now, isn't it just remarkable that Victoria Adams initially waived signing her testimony, as that would save her from having to return to sign it, only to be confronted by somebody at work a few days later who insisted she would sign after all. And isn't it just as remarkable that Victoria Adams told Barry Ernest that she never testified that she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor?


Btw, How do you reconcile these two statements?;

Adams handwritten corrections and signature on the original transcript trump any objection that you or Ernst can come up with. If she signed off on it, that's what she said that she said. BTW, Lovelady did mention seeing a woman on the first floor. While he said he couldn't swear that it was Adams, but he didn't say that it wasn't have been her. Just because Adams saw and recognized Lovelady and Shelly on the first floor doesn't mean that they were looking in the right direction or paying attention at the right time.

Barry Ernst say's that she signed it and that it's her handwriting on the document.

Amazing, isn't it? You rely on Ernest for confirming that Adams signed the document, yet at the same time you dismiss whatever else Adams told Ernest....

If she signed off on it, that's what she said that she said.

Sure about that? Perhaps you should have a closer look at WC assistant counsel Leon Hubert's memo.....


And you seem to be struggling to make up your mind about Dorothy Garner as well;

First you dismiss what Garner said by qualifying a letter from the office of a United States Attorney to the Chief Counsel of a Presidential Commission as "hearsay"


The one thing that's clear about the Stroud letter is that it's hearsay. We don't really know exactly what she said to Stroud. We know that Truly said he ran into an officer on the 4th floor as he was descending. 

Then you have the ladies (by which I pressume you mean Adams, Styles and Garner) nowhere near the stairs, implying that Garner made up what she told Stroud (and Barry Ernest)


As for what Our Ladies of the Fourth Floor would have heard, it may not have been anything from near the stairs if they were still at the window in the office and so attuned to the activity on the ground below and/or their own chatter.

And then you have Garner simply misinterpreting what she saw, when she was at the stairs;

For my "alternative timeline" to work, all I need are two things:

1.) For Adams to have left later than she remembered (IIRC, Styles thought it was minutes, not seconds, after the last shot was fired)
2.) for Garner to have misinterpreted seeing a later pairing of Truly and a DPD officer with the original Truly/Baker stairmaster episode.
 

So, what is it? Was Garner not near the stairs? Or was she near the stairs but lied to Stroud, or did Stroud perhaps lie to Rankin? Or was she near the stairs and saw Truly coming down and somehow figured he was coming up?


And how about this beauty;

For my "alternative timeline" to work, all I need are two things:

1.) For Adams to have left later than she remembered (IIRC, Styles thought it was minutes, not seconds, after the last shot was fired)
2.) for Garner to have misinterpreted seeing a later pairing of Truly and a DPD officer with the original Truly/Baker stairmaster episode.


Only to say a little bit later;


I don't think you can really make a simple timeline out of all this.

So, on the one hand you claim your timeline would work, and on the other hand you say you can't make a simple timeline. Pray tell, how can a timeline, you say you can't make, still work?

Apart from the obvious fact that you are making a number of erroneous assumptions - the main one being that the officer who told Adams to return to the building was Harkness - the real reason why you can't make a simple timeline is that the parts you've challenged in my timeline don't compute with the other known facts making it impossible to make a conclusive timeline.

Btw, the officer that told Adams to return to the building would IMO never have allowed her to run to the front of the building, if he was indeed locking down the building. Instead he would have told her to go back in the same way she came out (at the back) where he could have seen her go in, rather than risking she would not re-enter, out of his sight, at the front entrance.

28
didn't notice any of his fellow conspirators in the building setting up the SN, hiding the gun, planting bullet casings?

Mr "Smith"....  Where do you gat these goofy ideas?  Fellow conspirators???

How exactly would Oswald's opportunity to flee to Cuba be promoted by an assassination attempt occurring at the Trade Mart?

Duh..... Le assumed that the attempt to assassinate JFK would happen at the Trade Mart.....   If he assumed that to be true, then his staged attempt would would probably foil the real attempt at the Trade Mart.

You really should retire from this discussion Mr. "Smith" ....you simply don't have the reasoning ability for it.

You don't qualify for having any reasoning ability at all.
You are totally out-of-touch with reality.

To wit:

29
So Oswald who worked in the TSBD and spent the entire morning there didn't notice any of his fellow conspirators in the building setting up the SN, hiding the gun, planting bullet casings?  How exactly would Oswald's opportunity to flee to Cuba be promoted by an assassination attempt occurring at the Trade Mart?  I thought in this fantasy that Oswald was supposed to be implicated as the assassin and escape to Cuba under that pretext but if they assassination attempt is to occur somewhere else that goes out the window.

didn't notice any of his fellow conspirators in the building setting up the SN, hiding the gun, planting bullet casings?

Mr "Smith"....  Where do you gat these goofy ideas?  Fellow conspirators???

How exactly would Oswald's opportunity to flee to Cuba be promoted by an assassination attempt occurring at the Trade Mart?

Duh..... Le assumed that the attempt to assassinate JFK would happen at the Trade Mart.....   If he assumed that to be true, then his staged attempt would would probably foil the real attempt at the Trade Mart.

You really should retire from this discussion Mr. "Smith" ....you simply don't have the reasoning ability for it.
30
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Perception of Reality
« Last post by Jon Banks on September 28, 2021, 06:57:10 PM »
Do you believe that the mediaís political partisanship factor (portraying the other side as evil, etc.) has an effect on peopleís trust (or rather lack of trust) of the government? If so, then donít you believe that that distrust helps promote the conspiracy theories? In may be an indirect result of the political bias that exists in the media. But I think there is a correlation.

JFK conspiracy theories have existed for 50+ years while the political polarization of the Media that we are experiencing today is a relatively recent phenomenon. Arguably, Talk Radio and Fox News started the trend but by the 2010s, promoting news that targets partisan audiences became a widespread trend in the news industry.

And thatís exactly why thereís no partisan divide on views of the JFK assassination. Itís one of the few political controversies that breakdown evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Media influence hasnít really been a factor.

I totally blame the media for more recent partisan conspiracy theories but donít see the media as having been a big factor in the persistence of JFK assassination theories.

I remember 2013 very well. During the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, most news outlets downplayed or ignored JFK CTís almost entirely, except for the theories that blamed Fidel Castro.

The news media for the most part since 1963, has dismissed or attempted to debunk, JFK assassination theories. So I donít see how they can be blamed for the persistence of a majority of Americans believing there was a conspiracy.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Mobile View