Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Et tu, Bonnie?  (Read 53598 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2021, 06:11:27 AM »
Advertisement
Who were these "18 or 19 others" who left the building right after the shooting?

I've never heard about a single person who was in the building who left shortly after the shooting. And certainly not "18 or 19".

The only person that I am aware of who was in the building at the time of the shooting and left afterwards - without permission from the police hours later - was Oswald.

Oswald's prompt departure may have simply been the result of a 'been there, done that' attitude.
 ;)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 06:46:50 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2021, 06:11:27 AM »


Offline Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2021, 11:18:17 AM »
It apparently is hard for you to figure out.  Alan stupidly suggested Truly and Baker lied about going to the roof.  And his evidence for this is that they couldn't flip the latch.  Obviously, they could unlock the latch and go to the roof.  And then latch it back after they came down.  To suggest Truly and Baker lied about this for some unknown reason is laughable.

Why would Truly and Baker lie?  Revisionists, that's why !!!  This is so ghoulish

Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • RFK's Final Journey
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2021, 06:02:40 PM »
You are now suggesting that Truly and Baker lied about going to the roof?  Wow.  Was everyone in Dallas in on this conspiracy?   And why would a "gate type hook latch" preclude anyone from going to the roof?  Flip the hook latch and go up.  It would only seem to preclude someone from entering the 7th floor from the roof.

On the contrary, Mr. Smith, I'm not making a mere suggestion at all. They outright lied about being atop an otherwise locked roof. Period. The question here now becomes Why?

Was it to account for why no one else travelling along on their "official" path (the backstairs) saw them there together; and/or Did Roy Truly need an excuse to draw suspicion away from why he was in the "sniper's nest" before the incriminating "evidence" was found? ---->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.

*Sidebar: Though I don't have my notes handy...am using a public computer at the moment...my research notes bear evidence of someone else other than Deputy-Sheriff John Wiseman who also legitimately attempts to gain access to that otherwise locked roof from the inside, and per that instance he all but reveals what he experienced, which is something both the lying rooftop tandem failed to exhibit in their respective testimonies. Will try to get this info on here sometime next week G-d willing.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2021, 06:02:40 PM »


Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • RFK's Final Journey
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2021, 06:04:58 PM »
It's not hard to figure out, Dick. There are numerous incidents where witnesses were coerced behind closed doors to change their statements so it dovetailed nicely with the running narrative. It doesn't mean that these people here were "conspirators." You should know better than this, but then I guess this is your way of offering a rebuttal to what Alan is saying here.

What an astute, sensible response there, Mr. Walton, well said sir so indicative of the wisdom of a genuine sage.

Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • RFK's Final Journey
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2021, 06:08:01 PM »
The eventual "story" that evolved with many key witnesses (but not all) was developed by Belin and Ball in their March 64 visit to Dallas. This included the troubling conflicting statements of Williams, Jarman and Norman. They
developed the sequence of events that would play out for the various testimonies. Some problematic witnesses like Dougherty could never be resolved (ref Eisenberg memo). These guys all testified just days after the "re-enactments" were decided upon, four months after the real events. Many original statements vary considerably from the final versions.

A fair assessment there, Mr. Crow, no great surprise considering the exemplary researcher making the statement.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2021, 06:08:01 PM »


Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • RFK's Final Journey
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #37 on: April 05, 2021, 06:11:20 PM »
The reason he left work shortly after the assassination

There are at least three different accounts of him leaving....

So, how do you know when he actually left the TSBD?

A response so indicative of more exemplary evidence being shared here to hold the "official" account accountable to much closer examination. Well, said there, Mr. Weidmann, bravo!

Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • RFK's Final Journey
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2021, 06:13:03 PM »
Oswald was dead within three days of the crime. As I said Ball and Belin spent time in Dallas in March 64 trying to sort out the reconstruction of Oswald's movements with the underlying presumption that he was the assassin. They did reconstructions of the staircase and lunchroom encounter, shell casings dropping etc. but not all witnesses and events were used. Inconvenient events were omitted, particularly those of Dougherty, Adams, Lovelady and Shelley.

So worthy of a rousing round of applaud. Hear! hear!

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2021, 06:13:03 PM »


Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • RFK's Final Journey
Re: Et tu, Bonnie?
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2021, 06:15:11 PM »
He didn't flee the scene, he just left as did (at least) 18 or 19 others.

Oswald's rifle lol. Explain why his fingerprints weren't on the shell casings, nor on the clip, nor on the bolt or trigger. Explain how Oswald or anyone else could have fired an accurate shot using the telescopic sight which was broken, needed shims to stabilize (not found or present when the rifle was discovered)  and after the rifle was re-assembled using a dime.

Explain why the rifle supposedly ordered by Oswald is a different one than the rifle found on the sixth floor and now located at the NARA.

The bullets recovered from officer Tippit's body couldn't be matched to the barrel of "Oswald's revolver."

There is no "stone cold case" against Oswald. Not a single prosecutorial fact is undisputed, and with good reason. You probably think a man can not be framed for murder or any other crime. Think again bubba, it happens.

Cheers!, Mr. van de Wiel, just like a sharp lawyer to possess keen, critical-thinking skills.