Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Tippit Shooting, 1:15  (Read 86365 times)

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #568 on: November 20, 2019, 09:15:57 PM »
Advertisement
No, an unfair lineup is 1 man holding a rifle with a sign saying "I did it" but the Dallas line-ups were anything but.
Anyway, I know I could in no way say a man was guilty if he was not, but if you reckon that your fellow Americans were so stupid to blindly send a Man to the Electric chair because they were mindlessly manipulated then it's no wonder your country is such a mess.
What a brilliantly stupid thing to write!--- JM...truly a legend in his own mind Thumb1:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #568 on: November 20, 2019, 09:15:57 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #569 on: November 21, 2019, 12:37:00 AM »
Well according to Bill "TypoSuck" Chapman, it was 12-15 feet.

I coined the word, and it is directed at the people who so unnecessarily and desparately point out other people's typos... and in a petty, childish manner, I might add.

Show us how mistaking a distance equates with being a typosuck, JudgeJohnny. And thanks so much for alerting me at my 12-15' distance-misremember*. Your posts are always so useful.

*I must have been channeling your boy Arnie at the time.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 12:45:23 AM by Bill Chapman »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #570 on: November 21, 2019, 01:20:57 AM »
All fillers shall have plastic surgery to look exactly like Oswald.
No fillers shall wear a wedding ring
All fillers shall look effeminate
All fillers shall have cold dead eyes
All fillers shall have a twisted-arse walk
All fillers shall learn to mutter-- twice-- 'poor dumb cop'
All fillers shall effect the look of a loser.
All fillers shall effect a permanent smirk

Somebody who posts nothing but ridiculous nonsense like this has no business whining about useful input.

But if you’re ignorant of the facts and have nothing to offer, then I suppose being the town clown keeps you occupied.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #570 on: November 21, 2019, 01:20:57 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #571 on: November 21, 2019, 01:22:46 AM »
But that's unimportant....  The point is.....The Killer was witnessed walking away after shooting Tippit and he was removing ONE - SHELL- AT-  A- TIME as he walked away.    The spent shells from an S&W are NOT removed ONE - AT- A- TIME.....Cunningham  demonstrated how the spent shells are removed from the old S&W that magically appeared at the Texas Theater.

I think you mean the old S&W that magically appeared in Gerald Hill’s pocket 2 hours later.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #572 on: November 21, 2019, 01:24:57 AM »
Okay, I think I found the source of what I had read before making that assertion. Here is a quote from a Dale Myers webpage:

The .38 Smith & Wesson revolver used in the Tippit murder was originally purchased by Seaport Traders from Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd., on October 13, 1962. Seaport Traders received it on January 3, 1963 and had it modified. [30]

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html

footnote [30]: 7H375

If you read the testimony of Mr. Michaelis, he states the actual modifications were done for them by a Mr. M.L. Johnson of 13440 Burbank Boulevard, Van Nuys, California.

I read Michaelis before I asked, but all I saw was that Seaport shortened the barrel.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #572 on: November 21, 2019, 01:24:57 AM »


Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #573 on: November 21, 2019, 05:06:50 AM »
If Markam left her house about 1:04, then at 1:06 she is almost halfway to where the bus stop is, then she would have had arrived  at about 1:08, about 4 minutes before the 1:12 bus arrives "on time" as McWatters WC testimony suggests the protocol for bus was to arrive not too early nor late, but "on time" as scheduled.

Markam is a routine bus rider and she is dependent on a bus arriving if she is to get to work, so she could opt to take either the earlier 1:12 bus or the later 1:22 bus. (presuming these 2 bus time are actually correct?)

The safe bet, to MAKE SURE she gets to work is to opt for the earlier bus, since that way, if that 1:12 bus does not arrive, then she will not miss work, since she can then wait still at the same bus stop and catch the 1:22 bus.

If it is the 1:22 bus , then either Markam has opted to wait for a rather long period of 14 minutes for this bus to arrive, or her clock is out of sync with both DPD official clock time AND the Bus company official time and probably her place of work clock too, by about 6 minutes. Her watch is set 6 minutes slow.

She has also opted to take risk of MISSING work altogether that day, should the 1:22 bus no arrive due to mechanical failure, flat tire, etc.

Bowleys watch must be set 6 minutes slow, if Markams bus is the 1:22 bus.

The more probable scenario, imo, is that both Bowley and Markam, being routine regular workers at workplaces that most likely had their clocks set by "official time" thus in sync with DPD clock, Bus Comany clock, TSBD Roof Top Clock, would NOT LIKELY have their own clocks runnng 6 minutes slow.

Also, imo, its more probable that Markam would opt to take the earlier 1:12 bus, and arrive at that bus stop about 1:08 having to wait only about 4 minutes if its on time and only 3 more minutes if its a little late arriving at 1:15, which it may occasionally have done.

Also, its a safer option, just in case the 1:12 bus breaks down  and never arrives at all, Markam can still take the 1:22 bus, still make it to work, albeit possibly a little late, but better than missing work altogether for that day.







« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 05:12:27 AM by Zeon Mason »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #574 on: November 21, 2019, 12:53:37 PM »
I read Michaelis before I asked, but all I saw was that Seaport shortened the barrel.

Yes, he was only asked about the barrel length modification. However, the cylinder was re-chambered:

Some Lend-Lease Victory Model revolvers originally chambered for the British .38/200 were returned to the United States and rechambered to fire the more popular and more powerful .38 Special ammunition, and such revolvers are usually so marked on their barrels. Rechambering of .38-200 cylinders to .38 Special results in oversized chambers, which may cause problems. Lee Harvey Oswald was carrying a re-chambered Victory Model when he was apprehended on November 22, 1963.[10]

10. Martin, Orlando (January 2010). JFK. Analysis of a Shooting: The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed. Dog Ear Publishing. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-1-60844-315-4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_10


In the absence of evidence that it was re-chambered elsewhere, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that this was done at the same time the barrel was shortened. Seaport Traders apparently purchases these surplus guns (by the case) for relatively inexpensive amounts. And sends some of them to a gunsmith for modifications. Then sells them for significantly less ($10) than a similar gun that is factory made for the .38 special ammunition (see mail order coupon). The potential problems caused by the oversized chambers would likely be the reason for the lower price.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #574 on: November 21, 2019, 12:53:37 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Tippit Shooting, 1:15
« Reply #575 on: November 21, 2019, 03:31:23 PM »
Yes, he was only asked about the barrel length modification. However, the cylinder was re-chambered:

Some Lend-Lease Victory Model revolvers originally chambered for the British .38/200 were returned to the United States and rechambered to fire the more popular and more powerful .38 Special ammunition, and such revolvers are usually so marked on their barrels. Rechambering of .38-200 cylinders to .38 Special results in oversized chambers, which may cause problems. Lee Harvey Oswald was carrying a re-chambered Victory Model when he was apprehended on November 22, 1963.[10]

10. Martin, Orlando (January 2010). JFK. Analysis of a Shooting: The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed. Dog Ear Publishing. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-1-60844-315-4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_10


In the absence of evidence that it was re-chambered elsewhere, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that this was done at the same time the barrel was shortened. Seaport Traders apparently purchases these surplus guns (by the case) for relatively inexpensive amounts. And sends some of them to a gunsmith for modifications. Then sells them for significantly less ($10) than a similar gun that is factory made for the .38 special ammunition (see mail order coupon). The potential problems caused by the oversized chambers would likely be the reason for the lower price.

 You have never explained how Tippit's Killer removed  ONE- SHELL - AT-A-TIME as he walked away from the murder scene.....The most logical explanation is: The killer was NOT using a S&W revolver. 

As far as I know....Nobody has ever proved that the spent shells entered into evidence are in fact the same shells that were found at the murder scene....

Lee Harvey Oswald was carrying a re-chambered Victory Model when he was apprehended on November 22, 1963.

Maybe, or maybe not....  Can you prove that Lee was in possession of the S&W Victory when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.  And  yes,  I know that is a commonly accepted factoid.... But is it true?     If Lee had that S&W on him at the theater it certainly should have his prints all over it.    Were his prints found on the revolver?