Time for Truth

[Fergus O'Brien]

"As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm." dean o meara

you demonstrated ? just how did you do that ? . claiming and proving are not the same thing . your demonstration starts with the official OSWALD LEFT THE DEPOSITORY VIA THE FRONT DOOR AT 12.33 scenario of which there is no proof . in fact the evidence IE known witnesses on the steps and outside the building etc would tend to dispute such a notion .i asked you already about this , and you did not answer . what proof can you provide ? .

as i have said now several times i am going by what roberts said and by looking at all the evidence post 12.30 , and the warren commissions time trials etc .

yes its not unreasonable for you to say ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that he can have arrived pre 1pm .but how probable is it ? . and does such an assertion go with facts and evidence ? .

[Dan O'meara]

"As I have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for Oswald to have arrived back at the rooming house before 1pm." dean o meara

you demonstrated ? just how did you do that ? . claiming and proving are not the same thing . your demonstration starts with the official OSWALD LEFT THE DEPOSITORY VIA THE FRONT DOOR AT 12.33 scenario of which there is no proof . in fact the evidence IE known witnesses on the steps and outside the building etc would tend to dispute such a notion .i asked you already about this , and you did not answer . what proof can you provide ? .

as i have said now several times i am going by what roberts said and by looking at all the evidence post 12.30 , and the warren commissions time trials etc .

yes its not unreasonable for you to say ITS NOT IMPOSSIBLE that he can have arrived pre 1pm .but how probable is it ? . and does such an assertion go with facts and evidence ? .

claiming and proving are not the same thing

I've never claimed to have proved anything. You are introducing this concept of proof.
I posted a "thought experiment", a series of reasonable assumptions based on Oswald leaving the TSBD as a desperate man on the run. He may have been an innocent man going to watch the movies but that is not what my thought experiment was about.
There is zero proof for what time Oswald left the TSBD building, or for what time he might have caught the bus or the taxi [if he did].
Equally, there is zero proof that Oswald reached the rooming house after 1pm as you keep asserting.
Roberts was guessing at the time and she says as much.
I have not proven anything but I have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible that Oswald reached the rooming house before 1pm.

You might not accept this as it may suit you not to do so. That's none of my business.
But at least you now concede that it is possible Oswald reached the rooming house before 1pm.
That's all I was trying to illustrate.

[John Mytton]

to mr mytton

Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, Sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

quite extraordinary testimony above from a woman you say identified oswald . how does a woman not identify a man , not identify them by clothing ,  not identify their face , in fact not recognize or know anyone of 4 men in a line up AND STILL BE LISTED AS A WITNESSES WHO IDENTIFIED OSWALD ?. now ok i know ball then led her and got her to remember what he needed her to say and say she picked a number 2 man . but how can any witness be asked such simple and clear questions and answer NO to all of them ? . i mean if she had indeed seen oswald ? . she is on film saying tippits killer STOOD IN FRONT OF HER LOOKING HER IN THE EYE . so its amazing she replied NO to not knowing any one of 4 men by their faces .

Seriously?

Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
Markham does go on to confirm that a few hours later she identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.

Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.

"clearly".  LOL.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Seriously?

Markham is clearly meaning that she never saw any of the men before that day.
Markham does go on to confirm that a few hours later she identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.

Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.



JohnM

she said there was a number two man only after she was led  by mr ball , a man who would later call her an utter screwball . the questions were very clear , she attended a line up  , what did she do that for ? to see if she could identify anyone .she appeared at the commission , why ? , to be deposed about what she said she saw and naturally also about the line up . and still this woman says NO NO NO NO , i didnt recognize nor know anyone in the line up , not even by their clothes , not by their face NOTHING . i am certain given that she was caught in deception in her testimony (saying she never spoke to mark lane when she did , even denying her own voice on a tape played to her ) that ball and the commission would not have relied upon her word if they had had another better witness . well that is one that would point the finger at oswald , that they would never have relied on her and possibly never even called her .

this is the same woman that gave hug aynesworth a description of the killer on or near the scene , a description that did not fit oswald . this is the very reason lane called her , so speak to her about this description . a description lone nutters say LANE OUT IN HER MOUTH . no he did not , that description came from her own mouth to aynesworth . she would give agent odum a description very different again , of a young man about 18 with dark or black hair .

so you think she is an honest and reliable witness and this credible ? . well i would think the above would say otherwise . she said the shooting took place in and around about 1.07 or 1.08 . she said so based on leaving home at her normal time for work and walking her usual route having walked about a block when she arrived at the corner of 10th and patton . and in addition based on the time she got her usual  bus to work on jefferson . do you agree with her about this time ? , or is she now suddenly unreliable ? . even the man whos photo you have as an avatar had the good sense to back away from citing or relying upon  a nutty witness .

[John Iacoletti]

The LN-evangelist credo:  witnesses are unreliable, except for those times when we want to rely on them.

[Zeon Mason]

Well just to make things interesting, Markam could NOT ID the light gray Jacket as the one she saw the Tippit shooter wearing. Just like the landlady Earlene Roberts could NOT  ID the light gray jacket either, as the one Oswald was wearing when he left the boarding house.

Mr.Mytton has previously suggested that light gray could be seen as almost white or a darker shade of gray given the intensity of light or lack thereof.

What was the level of illumination inside the boarding house that Earlene Roberts experienced vs what the level of illumination was for Markam OUTSIDE at 1:07 pm , (including shade from trees and was it  cloudy or sunny at 1:07 pm Nov 22/63?)

Imo if Myttons variable range gray scale idea is correct then the outside area at the Tippit police car would have to have   tree shade plus overcast sky to produce the equivalent level of lower illumination as in the boarding house so that Markam and Roberts both saw  approx same darker gray hue or causing Markam to see “tan” rather that light gray hue.