Things Go Better With Coke. (1963) slogan

[Raymond]

When testifying before the Warren Commission, in 1964, Officer Baker
was asked by Representative Boggs:
"Let me ask you one other question. You later when you recognized
this man as Lee Oswald, is that right, saw pictures of him?"

Baker answered: "Yes sir, I had occasion to see him in the homicide
office later that evening...and I went up there and made this
affidavit." (Vol.3, p.251)

In the affidavit, Baker said: "As we reached the THIRD or FOURTH floor
I saw a man walking AWAY FROM THE STAIRWAY, I called to the man and he
turned around and came back towards me." The manager said, "I know
that man, he works here." then turned the man loose and went up to
the top floor.

There is no mention of a second floor encounter with Lee in the
lunchroom and Baker says that he went on up to the top floor. There is
no mention of a stop with Truly on the fifth floor where the two men
took the elevator to the seventh floor and then went to the roof for
several minutes of searching. In the affidavit. Baker never mentions
the roof.

On Sept. 23, 1964 Baker furnished a statement to SA Burnett. Part of
the statement reads: "On the second floor or the THIRD FLOOR (Or the
third floor is crossed out and initialed by Baker) where the
lunchroom is located, I saw a man STANDING IN THE LUNCHROOM DRINKING A
COKE (Drinking a coke is crossed out and a period is placed after
lunchroom and initialed by Baker) He was alone in the lunchroom at the
time." (Vol 26, CE 3076, p. 679)

Things Go Better With Coke. (1963)

In his Warren testimony, Baker said, "There is a door there with
glass.. there is another door... and there is a hallway entering into
a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could
see him he was WALKING AWAY FROM ME about 20 feet away from me in the
lunchroom. "
(Vol. 3, p.250)

2nd Floor
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce497.jpg

What Baker did not include in his testimony was the fact that the
hallway also leads to the men's room just a few feet from the
lunchroom and to the first floor where a witness, Mrs. R.E. Arnold ,
insisted she had seen Lee at 12:25 pm.

I would like to think that Lee had just watched the shooting from the
men's room window, which faced the knoll and the overpass bridge, and
decided to get himself a drink, and that Baker was confused on the
22nd. and was better programmed for his 1964 testimony, after reading
the papers and discussing his encounter with the "coke-head" Oswald
with other officers , reporters and FBI agents

Affidavit of Marrion L. Baker
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page592.php

Testimony of Marrion L. Baker
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page242.php

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dr-pepper-talk.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

[bigdog]

> 2nd Floorhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce497.jpg

>
> What Baker did not include in his testimony was the fact that the
> hallway also leads to the men's room just a few feet from the
> lunchroom and to the first floor where a witness, Mrs. R.E. Arnold ,
> insisted she had seen Lee at 12:25 pm.
>
> I would like to think that Lee had just watched the shooting from the
> men's room window, which faced the knoll and the overpass bridge, and
> decided to get himself a drink, and that Baker was confused on the
> 22nd. and was better programmed for his 1964 testimony, after reading
> the papers and discussing his encounter with the "coke-head" Oswald
> with other officers , reporters and FBI agents
>

> Affidavit of Marrion L. Bakerhttp://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page592.php

>
> Testimony of Marrion L. Bakerhttp://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page242.php

Don't you have anything better to offer than these old chestnuts. Yes
Baker was unsure what floor he was on. He was hurrying to the roof where
he initially thought he shots had originated from. He was in a strange
building and didn't remember precisely what floor the lunchroom was on,
but he did know the encounter occurred in the lunchroom.

The reference to the Coke is even more lame. Baker never told anybody he
saw Oswald with a Coke in his hand. He saw him walking toward the Coke
machine. Through the two sets of doors. He was interviewed and then a
statement was prepared for him. He was asked to read it and then sign it.
It was then that he noticed the erroneous reference to Oswald with a Coke
in his hand. He pointed out the error and was then asked to cross out that
reference and initial the correction before signing the statement which he
did. Both Baker and Truly were in a agreement that Oswald was empty handed
during the encounter. What is pathetic is that none of this is a secret.
It has been known from the beginning, yet CTs never tire of resurrecting
it to make a bogus point. I guess when you have no real evidence on your
side, this is what you come up with.

As the WCR pointed out, Baker could only have spotted Oswald if Oswald had
just entered the lunchroom and was only a short distance inside of it. I
recently obtained and watched the DVD Ruby and Oswald, a TV movie from the
1970s. While it is a dramatization, it was filmed at many of the actual
locations including the TSBD. The camera angle gives a very good feel for
what Baker would have seen as he reached the second floor landing and it
is quite obvious his sight line into the lunchroom was very restricted and
he could not have seen Oswald if he had already reached the Coke machine
and bought the Coke. Although we have no way of proving this, it is my
belief Oswald had no intention of entering the lunchroom, but as he
reached the second floor landing, he would have heard Truly and Baker
racing up the stairway toward him and he quickly detoured into the
lunchroom to avoid being spotted. It almost worked.

[Sean Smiley]

> lunchroom to avoid being spotted. It almost worked.- Hide quoted text -
>

I see all this crap about "lunchroom" but Baker did not mention a room at
all in his initial affidavit. Nor did he say one word about a "lunchroom"
in his LAST word on the subject, a pretty lengthy statement collected in
JFK First Day Evidence. This tells me that he was coached to talk about
the "lunchroom", then, in later years, forgot what he had been told to
tell the Commission....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

In some buildings you walk in the front door and you are on the ground
floor. Then you take the elevator to the first floor.

> The reference to the Coke is even more lame. Baker never told anybody he
> saw Oswald with a Coke in his hand. He saw him walking toward the Coke

Except the FBI who wrote down his statement.

> machine. Through the two sets of doors. He was interviewed and then a

You have no proof that Baker saw Oswald walking toward the Coke machine.

> statement was prepared for him. He was asked to read it and then sign it.
> It was then that he noticed the erroneous reference to Oswald with a Coke
> in his hand. He pointed out the error and was then asked to cross out that

He was TOLD it was an error and TOLD to cross it out.

> reference and initial the correction before signing the statement which he
> did. Both Baker and Truly were in a agreement that Oswald was empty handed
> during the encounter. What is pathetic is that none of this is a secret.
> It has been known from the beginning, yet CTs never tire of resurrecting
> it to make a bogus point. I guess when you have no real evidence on your
> side, this is what you come up with.
>
> As the WCR pointed out, Baker could only have spotted Oswald if Oswald had
> just entered the lunchroom and was only a short distance inside of it. I

Yeah, so what?

> recently obtained and watched the DVD Ruby and Oswald, a TV movie from the
> 1970s. While it is a dramatization, it was filmed at many of the actual
> locations including the TSBD. The camera angle gives a very good feel for
> what Baker would have seen as he reached the second floor landing and it
> is quite obvious his sight line into the lunchroom was very restricted and
> he could not have seen Oswald if he had already reached the Coke machine
> and bought the Coke. Although we have no way of proving this, it is my
> belief Oswald had no intention of entering the lunchroom, but as he
> reached the second floor landing, he would have heard Truly and Baker
> racing up the stairway toward him and he quickly detoured into the
> lunchroom to avoid being spotted. It almost worked.
>

As always you WC defenders will use any simple event that everyone does
every day as an indicator of guilt when Oswald does it.

[bigdog]

He specifically said the encounter happened in the lunchroom when he
testified in person to he WC and described the configuration of the
entryway.

> Nor did he say one word about a "lunchroom"
> in his LAST word on the subject, a pretty lengthy statement collected in
> JFK First Day Evidence.  This tells me that he was coached to talk about
> the "lunchroom", then, in later years, forgot what he had been told to
> tell the Commission....
>

This tells me you will make things up at the drop of a hat.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

He specifically said not one word, a few years later, re any "lunchroom",
in a rather lengthy recap of the event. He forgot the fabrications....

dcw

[David Von Pein]

Truly corroborates Baker -- they saw Oswald in the second-floor
lunchroom.

Do CTers really think Roy Truly was a liar too?

Geez, how silly.

[bigdog]

On Dec 30, 12:48 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Truly corroborates Baker -- they saw Oswald in the second-floor
> lunchroom.
>
> Do CTers really think Roy Truly was a liar too?
>

Sadly, David, I think many of them do. They have to believe most of the
witnesses were lying because the witnesses gave testimony that was so
damning to their poor little patsy, LHO. As Bugliosi observed, either
Oswald was guilty or thousands of people conspired to make him look that
way. It's amazing how many people believe the latter to be true.

> Geez, how silly.

That is putting it kindly.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why does it take thousands? Do you really think it took thousands to
frame Dreyfus?

[dklou...@comcast.net]

And CTers have to believe that all 5 witnesses were lying, or deluded,
when they said the shots came from a wide-open window (i.e., not the
"nest" window)....
dcw

[David Von Pein]

>>> "As Bugliosi observed, either Oswald was guilty or thousands of people conspired to make him look that way." <<<

Actually, bigdog, it was our very own Bud who made that statement. And
it's one of my favorite quotes too. Although, yes, I suppose it's
possible that Mr. Bugliosi said something similar as well. But I give
credit to Bud for that "thousands of people" gem, which was positively
uttered by Bud several months before Vince Bugliosi's JFK book was
released.

Below is a post I wrote in December 2009:

[Quote On:]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=31&cdPage=4&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxQVI6OGHQ4B9P#MxQVI6OGHQ4B9P

JAMES H. FETZER SAID THIS TO PAUL MAY:

>>> "Since anyone could have purchased a superior weapon on any corner store in Dallas without leaving any records, it should have occurred to you that the purchase of an inferior weapon by mail order was setting him up." <<<

DVP INTERJECTED:

So Mr. Fetzer thinks that a group of patsy-framers was "setting up"
Lee Oswald to take the fall for President John F. Kennedy's NOVEMBER
murder way back in MARCH of 1963 (which is positively when the rifle
was ordered).

And, not only does Fetzer have to believe in that MARCH/NOVEMBER fairy
tale, he also must believe that (somehow) Oswald tried to SET HIMSELF
UP...because we know for a fact that all of the paperwork involving
the ordering of Rifle C2766 through Klein's Sporting Goods was in
OSWALD'S VERY OWN HANDWRITING.

Obviously, Kook Fetzer must not trust any of the handwriting experts
who all testified that the order form for the rifle and the $21.45
money order for the rifle and the envelope that was used to mail the
order form and the money order for the rifle were ALL filled out by
Lee Harvey Oswald himself and no other person on Planet Earth (which
is a planet that Mr. Fetzer might like to visit sometime, instead of
living on Planet Conspiracy out in The Twilight Zone, which is a place
he currently calls home).

As another very astute LNer named Bud put it on January 19, 2007 (and
this is a great quote) -- "[It was] either Oswald alone, or thousands
working to make it look like Oz did it alone." [Original 2007 post by
Bud linked below.]

To conspiracy theorists like James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., apparently the
latter portion of the above statement makes infinitely more sense than
the former. But to a reasonable person, it's just the opposite.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bfe877d069a14595

[Quote off.]

---------------

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

[bigdog]

On Dec 31, 10:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "As Bugliosi observed, either Oswald was guilty or thousands of people conspired to make him look that way." <<<
>
> Actually, bigdog, it was our very own Bud who made that statement. And
> it's one of my favorite quotes too. Although, yes, I suppose it's
> possible that Mr. Bugliosi said something similar as well. But I give
> credit to Bud for that "thousands of people" gem, which was positively
> uttered by Bud several months before Vince Bugliosi's JFK book was
> released.
>

I first read it from Bugliosi but if Bud was the orignator, both my
apologies and kudos to him. Whoever said it first, it was a brilliant
observation.

> Below is a post I wrote in December 2009:
>
> [Quote On:]
>

> http://www.amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie...

The March purchase of the MC is just one of dozens of flies in the CT
ointment. I've never understood the argument that Oswald could have
bought a better weapon at a local gun store without any record of the
purchase. First of all, I believe that even back in 1963, all gun sales
were recorded. What changed after the JFK assassination was identification
had to be provided when purchasing a firearm which pretty much killed mail
order sales. As if that would stop anybody from doing what Oswald did.
Even if I am wrong about face-to-face sales being recorded, why would
anyone think Oswald would be the least bit concerned with whether the
weapon was traceable or not. Before both the Walker and JFK shootings, his
actions indicated he expected to be caught or killed after the deed. If
that was his mindset, I don't think he would be the least bit concerned
with whether there was a record of his purchase. I think it is safe to say
that Oswald was not the only man in the country to buy a mail order
firearm, and it is probably also safe to say he was not the only one to
buy an MC from Klein's.. All those other purchasers who did likewise could
also have bought a rifle from a local gun store but chose the mail order
route for their own reasons (price, convenience, etc.). Why couldn't those
same reasons apply to Oswald that applied to every other purchaser of an
MC from Klein's. The suggestion that the only reason for a mail order
purchase is that someone was trying to set up Oswald is just so much
nonsense, in light of the time of the purchase and as you pointed out, the
handwriting was all Oswald's so he would have been setting himself up.

[bigdog]

> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>

I don't suppose you'd like to cite specific quotes from those witnesses.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On Dec 30, 2:16 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just 'cause his name was "Truly"....
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/31/2011 2:59 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 31, 10:48 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "As Bugliosi observed, either Oswald was guilty or thousands of people conspired to make him look that way."<<<
>>
>> Actually, bigdog, it was our very own Bud who made that statement. And
>> it's one of my favorite quotes too. Although, yes, I suppose it's
>> possible that Mr. Bugliosi said something similar as well. But I give
>> credit to Bud for that "thousands of people" gem, which was positively
>> uttered by Bud several months before Vince Bugliosi's JFK book was
>> released.
>>
> I first read it from Bugliosi but if Bud was the orignator, both my
> apologies and kudos to him. Whoever said it first, it was a brilliant
> observation.

Yes, congratulations on a straw man argument and misrepresenting claims.
Does Bud think it took millions of people to frame Dreyfus?

[bigdog]

> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -

Well we can believe the witnesses were being truthful when almost
everything they told us points to Oswald's guilt, or we can believe
they were all lying just to frame poor little Lee Harvery Oswald.

It comes down to this:

LNs think that 2 + 2 = 4.

CTs thing that 2 + 2 = Q.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

I would like it. Robert Edwards: "The window was wide open all the
way" (11/22/63 statement)

Ronald Fischer: "The window looked to be... fully open. Yes, or I
wouldn't have been able to see... past the top of his head had it not
been--and his shoulders." (v6p199)

Malcolm Couch: "My impression was that [the window] was all the way
open." (v6p157)

Howard Brennan: "I believe that at the time he was firing, [the
window] was open just like this."
Counsel David Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor
immediately below?"
Brennan: "That is right". (v3p153)

Robert Jackson: "I would say that [the window] was open like that
window there, halfway."
Counsel Arlen Specter: "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the building, open halfway as you have
described it." (v2p159)
CE 348: Photo shows the westernmost windows on the sixth floor are
wide open.

Uniformity! But LNers must pick & choose, like all of us....
dcw

[Sean Smiley]

Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They
are pickers & choosers, too....

dcw

[bigdog]

On Jan 3, 9:55 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
> ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They
> are pickers & choosers, too....
>

It's kind of hard ignoring something that doesn't exist. Why don't you
give us something to ignore by listing the three best pieces of
evidence you have that somebody other than Oswald was involved in the
crime. I'm predicting you will ignore this challenge (as most others
have done in the past).

[dklou...@comcast.net]

Well, I'll do here just as you just did--I'll ignore what *you* say,
as you ignored what I wrote, even though it was in response to *your*
request. I would like to do what you ask, but, boy, it just doesn't
pay, minisculedog!
dcw

[bigdog]

The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found. The
presence of those shells validates his recollection of where he saw the
shots fired from. This illustrates how physical evidence can not only tell
us which witnesses are correct, but also which parts of their
recollections are correct. The physical evidence refutes one part of
Brennan's account while corroborating another part. It isn't an all or
nothing proposition. You seem to be taking that ludicrous position that
the investigators after going to the window where Brennan saw the shots
being fired and finding the spent shells should have looked at the window
and decided that couldn't be the correct place because the window was only
half way open.

So obviously you have no evidence that anyone except Oswald took part in
the assassination. I wonder if Smiley has any. Actually, I don't wonder. I
already know the answer. You guys are way to predictable. You huff and
puff about a conspiracy, but when asked to show your cards, all you can do
is fold your hand.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
Fritz picked up the hulls. We don't know where or exactly when. In
fact, we don't know anything about those hulls because Fritz picked
them up. Of course, he could have been on the up & up, but it takes a
leap of faith to believe that....
dcw

The
> presence of those shells validates his recollection of where he saw the
> shots fired from. This illustrates how physical evidence can not only tell
> us which witnesses are correct, but also which parts of their
> recollections are correct.

If you believe what you're told about the hulls, that's metaphysical
evidence....

The physical evidence refutes one part of
> Brennan's account while corroborating another part. It isn't an all or
> nothing proposition. You seem to be taking that ludicrous position that
> the investigators after going to the window where Brennan saw the shots
> being fired and finding the spent shells should have looked at the window
> and decided that couldn't be the correct place because the window was only
> half way open.
>
> So obviously you have no evidence that anyone except Oswald took part in
> the assassination. I wonder if Smiley has any. Actually, I don't wonder. I
> already know the answer. You guys are way to predictable. You huff and
> puff about a conspiracy, but when asked to show your cards, all you can do
> is fold your hand.

Yes, it would be a little harder for you to say that *five* witnesses
were in agreement and also wrong. It wasn't just Brennan, but also
Fischer, Edwards, Couch, & Jackson who said the window was wide open.
But not only did these five witnesses say it wasn't the "nest" window,
the shells found in that window were rendered useless (except
metaphysically) by Captain Homicide. What a coincidence!
dcw

[bigdog]

On Jan 5, 10:31 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

(snip)

>
> > The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
> > wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
> > could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
> > precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
> > sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
> > wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
> > physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
> > pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
> > no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>
> You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.

Of course I know that. Evidence is meaningless to most CTs. All they
want is an excuse to dismiss the evidence. Every last piece of it.

> Fritz picked up the hulls.  We don't know where or exactly when.  In
> fact, we don't know anything about those hulls because Fritz picked
> them up.  Of course, he could have been on the up & up, but it takes a
> leap of faith to believe that....

If that takes a leap of faith, what does it take to believe the shells
were never there in the first place.

> >  The
> > presence of those shells validates his recollection of where he saw the
> > shots fired from. This illustrates how physical evidence can not only tell
> > us which witnesses are correct, but also which parts of their
> > recollections are correct.
>
> If you believe what you're told about the hulls, that's metaphysical
> evidence....
>

In the CT universe it probably is. In the real world, that is tangible
evidence.

>  The physical evidence refutes one part of
>
> > Brennan's account while corroborating another part. It isn't an all or
> > nothing proposition. You seem to be taking that ludicrous position that
> > the investigators after going to the window where Brennan saw the shots
> > being fired and finding the spent shells should have looked at the window
> > and decided that couldn't be the correct place because the window was only
> > half way open.
>
> > So obviously you have no evidence that anyone except Oswald took part in
> > the assassination. I wonder if Smiley has any. Actually, I don't wonder. I
> > already know the answer. You guys are way to predictable. You huff and
> > puff about a conspiracy, but when asked to show your cards, all you can do
> > is fold your hand.
>
> Yes, it would be a little harder for you to say that *five* witnesses
> were in agreement and also wrong.  It wasn't just Brennan, but also
> Fischer, Edwards, Couch, & Jackson who said the window was wide open.

First of all, you don't know what they all meant when they said the window
was wide open. Your quote from Brennan indicates he did think the 6th
floor window was as wide open as the but the Dillard photo shows that
wasn't the case. The 6th floor window was only open about half as far and
that one photo trumps the eyewitness recollections. If the DPD
investigators who found the shells at the window where the witnesses saw
the gun and then dismissed that as the shooting location because the
window was not wide open, they should have been fired for incompetence.
You are allowed to dismiss that evidence because you are a CT and
competence is not a requirement for that. You think every little anamoly
is reason to dismiss rock solid evidence.

> But not only did these five witnesses say it wasn't the "nest" window,

No they did not say that. They were very specific about which window they
saw the shots fired from. Brennan even circled the window for the WC.

> the shells found in that window were rendered useless (except
> metaphysically) by Captain Homicide.  What a coincidence!

It's probably a real good thing that you aren't a judge where you would be
in position to rule on what is and is not valid evidence because you don't
seem to have a clue.

[bigdog]

Sean, are you still there? Can we conclude by your silence that you don't
have three pieces of evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved
in the assassination? Can we conclude you don't even have one.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2012 10:31 AM, dklou...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 4:01 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 6:23 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 3, 9:55 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
>>>>> ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They

>>>>> are pickers& choosers, too....

>>
>>>> It's kind of hard ignoring something that doesn't exist. Why don't you
>>>> give us something to ignore by listing the three best pieces of
>>>> evidence you have that somebody other than Oswald was involved in the
>>>> crime. I'm predicting you will ignore this challenge (as most others
>>>> have done in the past).
>>
>>> Well, I'll do here just as you just did--I'll ignore what *you* say,
>>> as you ignored what I wrote, even though it was in response to *your*
>>> request. I would like to do what you ask, but, boy, it just doesn't
>>> pay, minisculedog!
>>> dcw
>>
>> The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
>> wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
>> could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
>> precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
>> sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
>> wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
>> physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
>> pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
>> no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>
> You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
> Fritz picked up the hulls. We don't know where or exactly when. In
> fact, we don't know anything about those hulls because Fritz picked

> them up. Of course, he could have been on the up& up, but it takes a

> leap of faith to believe that....
> dcw
>

It was on the up and up, but it was a stupid thing to do. Tampering with
the crime scene. In the Alyea film we can see Lt. Day dusting a cartridge
looking for fingerprints. Just as bad picking up the rifle before the
fingerprint team could examine it. Fritz was a klutz.

> The
>> presence of those shells validates his recollection of where he saw the
>> shots fired from. This illustrates how physical evidence can not only tell
>> us which witnesses are correct, but also which parts of their
>> recollections are correct.
>
> If you believe what you're told about the hulls, that's metaphysical
> evidence....
>
> The physical evidence refutes one part of
>> Brennan's account while corroborating another part. It isn't an all or
>> nothing proposition. You seem to be taking that ludicrous position that
>> the investigators after going to the window where Brennan saw the shots
>> being fired and finding the spent shells should have looked at the window
>> and decided that couldn't be the correct place because the window was only
>> half way open.
>>
>> So obviously you have no evidence that anyone except Oswald took part in
>> the assassination. I wonder if Smiley has any. Actually, I don't wonder. I
>> already know the answer. You guys are way to predictable. You huff and
>> puff about a conspiracy, but when asked to show your cards, all you can do
>> is fold your hand.
>
> Yes, it would be a little harder for you to say that *five* witnesses
> were in agreement and also wrong. It wasn't just Brennan, but also

> Fischer, Edwards, Couch,& Jackson who said the window was wide open.

Which window? Maybe they were looking at the wrong window, as most
witnesses were. The photographic evidence shows that the sniper's nest
window was not wide open. BTW, new photographic evidence indicates to me
that Euins could NOT have seen anyone in the sniper's nest shooting.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On Jan 5, 1:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Euins, at least, was--he was looking at Williams' window probably when he
said "colored". But most certainly the rifle was in an *end* window. He
was just close to the source. Nobody thought it was in the half-closed
"nest" window....

dcw

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On Jan 5, 1:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:31 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > > The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
> > > wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
> > > could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
> > > precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
> > > sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
> > > wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
> > > physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
> > > pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
> > > no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>
> > You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
>
> Of course I know that. Evidence is meaningless to most CTs. All they
> want is an excuse to dismiss the evidence.

"Evidence" picked up by hand & removed from the scene, then later
returned to the (same or different) scene, cannot be considered valid
evidence...
dcw

You're writing as if they mistakenly thought that the "nest" window was
wide open. You're not considering a more likely alternative-- after all,
there are five of these "wide open" witnesses: that they were speaking of
a different window, as Euins obviously was when he said the man with the
rifle was "colored". That man, Williams, just happened to be the person
Euins saw who was closest to the shooter's window....

dcw

If the DPD
> investigators who found the shells at the window where the witnesses saw
> the gun and then dismissed that as the shooting location because the
> window was not wide open, they should have been fired for incompetence.
> You are allowed to dismiss that evidence because you are a CT and
> competence is not a requirement for that. You think every little anamoly
> is reason to dismiss rock solid evidence.
>
> > But not only did these five witnesses say it wasn't the "nest" window,
>
> No they did not say that. They were very specific about which window they
> saw the shots fired from. Brennan even circled the window for the WC.

Initially, Jackson did not indicate the "nest" window. And he used the
far-west 6th-floor window which was wide open to indicate how far open the
window was.... Euins said "colored man"--again, not the "nest", right? I
believe Couch said 5th or 6th floor. Fischer and/or Edwards said there
was no one in the windows *under* the window in which they saw their
suspect. So much for "very specific"....

[bigdog]

On Jan 5, 7:46 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jan 5, 1:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 10:31 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > > The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
> > > > wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
> > > > could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
> > > > precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
> > > > sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
> > > > wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
> > > > physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
> > > > pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
> > > > no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>
> > > You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
>
> > Of course I know that. Evidence is meaningless to most CTs. All they
> > want is an excuse to dismiss the evidence.
>
> "Evidence" picked up by hand & removed from the scene, then later
> returned to the (same or different) scene, cannot be considered valid
> evidence...
> dcw
>

Realy??? And what law school did you attend? Did they teach you that
if a cop handles evidence, it becomes invalid?

If they though it was as wide open as the 5th floor window, they were
mistaken as the Dillard photo proves conclusively.

> You're not considering a more likely alternative-- after all,
> there are five of these "wide open" witnesses: that they were speaking of
> a different window, as Euins obviously was when he said the man with the
> rifle was "colored".  That man, Williams, just happened to be the person
> Euins saw who was closest to the shooter's window....
>

So are you trying to move the shooter to the 5th floor? Euins said the
shots came from the window under the ledge. That is the 6th floor window.
CE477 is the photograph on which Brennan circled the the 6th floor window
as the source of the shots. There is no ambiguity in their statements. The
window they indicated was the 6th floor window. But you want us to believe
they really saw the shots fired from the 5th floor, and the spent shells
were magically transported to the 6th floor.

Beam me up, Scotty.

> dcw
>
>  If the DPD
>
> > investigators who found the shells at the window where the witnesses saw
> > the gun and then dismissed that as the shooting location because the
> > window was not wide open, they should have been fired for incompetence.
> > You are allowed to dismiss that evidence because you are a CT and
> > competence is not a requirement for that. You think every little anamoly
> > is reason to dismiss rock solid evidence.
>
> > > But not only did these five witnesses say it wasn't the "nest" window,
>
> > No they did not say that. They were very specific about which window they
> > saw the shots fired from. Brennan even circled the window for the WC.
>
> Initially, Jackson did not indicate the "nest" window.  And he used the
> far-west 6th-floor window which was wide open to indicate how far open the
> window was.... Euins said "colored man"--again, not the "nest", right?  I
> believe Couch said 5th or 6th floor.  Fischer and/or Edwards said there
> was no one in the windows *under* the window in which they saw their
> suspect.  So much for "very specific"....
>
>
>
>
>
> > > the shells found in that window were rendered useless (except
> > > metaphysically) by Captain Homicide.  What a coincidence!
>
> > It's probably a real good thing that you aren't a judge where you would be
> > in position to rule on what is and is not valid evidence because you don't

> > seem to have a clue.- Hide quoted text -
>

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:46 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 1:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 10:31 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > > The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
> > > > > wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
> > > > > could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
> > > > > precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
> > > > > sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
> > > > > wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
> > > > > physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
> > > > > pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
> > > > > no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>
> > > > You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
>
> > > Of course I know that. Evidence is meaningless to most CTs. All they
> > > want is an excuse to dismiss the evidence.
>
> > "Evidence" picked up by hand & removed from the scene, then later
> > returned to the (same or different) scene, cannot be considered valid
> > evidence...
> > dcw
>
> Realy??? And what law school did you attend? Did they teach you that
> if a cop handles evidence, it becomes invalid?
>

Fritz must have felt something was wrong with what he did, because he
denied touching the shells, in both an affidavit & his testimony. Ask
him why he was worried....
dcw

OK, then, who was the "colored man" in the "6th floor window"?

> CE477 is the photograph on which Brennan circled the the 6th floor window
> as the source of the shots. There is no ambiguity in their statements. The
> window they indicated was the 6th floor window. But you want us to believe
> they really saw the shots fired from the 5th floor, and the spent shells
> were magically transported to the 6th floor.
>

Well, if you insist on calling Fritz a magician....
dcw

[bigdog]

Euins wasn't sure whether the shooter was black or white. His
confusion may have been the result of taking several looks up at the
building and seeing Williams, Jarman, or Norman on one look and Oswald
on the other. This is why no witness can be trusted entirely because
our memories are not perfect and we tend to jumble things one we try
to piece them together. That is why witness testimony should only be
trusted to the extent it can be verified through other forms of
evidence. The three shells found on the 6th floor validate the
recollections of those who saw the shots fired from there. The Dillard
photo refutes anyone's recollection that the 6th floor window was wide
open.

It's really very simple. A number of witnesses placed the shooter in
the 6th floor window. They also described the window as wide open. The
Dillard photo proves that both of those were not true. The shells tell
us which one is true.

> > CE477 is the photograph on which Brennan circled the the 6th floor window
> > as the source of the shots. There is no ambiguity in their statements. The
> > window they indicated was the 6th floor window. But you want us to believe
> > they really saw the shots fired from the 5th floor, and the spent shells
> > were magically transported to the 6th floor.
>
> Well, if you insist on calling Fritz a magician....

Fritz was neither a magician or a conspirator. He was a cop doing his
job. Why don't you tell us what law enforcement training you've had
that qualifies you to pass judgement on the quality of his police
work. Or are you just a guy with an opinion hammering away at a
keyboard.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

Best evidence: Sgt. Gerald Hill admitting that he sent the "auto .38
hulls" transmission. In his WC testimony, he had denied this. But
his admission also cancels out the section of his testimony where he
says that Officer Poe told him a witness had seen the shooter tossing
down shells. "auto .38" contradicts this supposed "evidence" re a
shooter with a revolver. It also cancels out Poe's testimony, as well
as the supposed source, witness Domingo Benavides' testimony. Why
would three witnesses' testimony re a gunman with a supposed revolver
be so coordinated, so, uh, suborned? Obviously, because the gunman
had an automatic. Oswald was found with a revolver, hence he was not
Tippit's killer....
dcw

[bigdog]

The challenge was to provide evidence of someone else's involvement.
What you have offered is not evidence of anything, it was just a lame
argument. But I doubt you understand the difference between evidence
and argument.

The shells were not automatics. That was a mistaken belief when the
officer saw the shells on the ground. A semi-automatic pistol ejects
its shells. A revolver does not. The officer failed to consider the
possibility that the shooter had emptied his revolver in order to
reload. His mistake doesn't cancel any of the evidence against Oswald
nor does it provide evidence that someone else was involved, which was
the challenge that was made.

You are probably right about one thing. What you presented you called
"Best evidence" which in this case is no evidence at all.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

He was, at first, until he'd been debriefed.

His
> confusion may have been the result of taking several looks up at the
> building and seeing Williams, Jarman, or Norman on one look

Yes, that'd be part of it.

and Oswald
> on the other. This is why no witness can be trusted entirely because
> our memories are not perfect and we tend to jumble things one we try
> to piece them together. That is why witness testimony should only be
> trusted to the extent it can be verified through other forms of
> evidence. The three shells found on the 6th floor validate

Oh, the shells Fritz put there? (Or, as Tom Alyea says, the shells Fritz
gave Studebaker to put down.) Not a coincidence that Fritz has problems
with the shells & witnesses have problems with the window....

the
> recollections of those who saw the shots fired from there. The Dillard
> photo refutes anyone's recollection that the 6th floor window was wide
> open.
>
> It's really very simple. A number of witnesses placed the shooter in
> the 6th floor window. They also described the window as wide open. The
> Dillard photo proves that both of those were not true. The shells tell
> us which one is true.
>
> > > CE477 is the photograph on which Brennan circled the the 6th floor window
> > > as the source of the shots. There is no ambiguity in their statements. The
> > > window they indicated was the 6th floor window. But you want us to believe
> > > they really saw the shots fired from the 5th floor, and the spent shells
> > > were magically transported to the 6th floor.
>
> > Well, if you insist on calling Fritz a magician....
>
> Fritz was neither a magician or a conspirator. He was a cop doing his
> job. Why don't you tell us what law enforcement training you've had
> that qualifies you to pass judgement

He passed judgment on himself by denying he picked up the hulls.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

This was not what was presented to the WC. Benavides testified that he
saw someone throwing down hulls. Poe testified that a witness saw someone
throwing down hulls. Hill testified that Poe told him that a witness told
him that he saw someone throwing down hulls. Not one word about "shells
on the ground". As you know, Hill radioed "auto", so not one word of his
testimony or Poe's or Benavides' is true re the hulls. No one saw anyone
throwing down hulls. THis is obviously the suborned perjury of three
different witnesses, concocted to cover up the "auto" transmission....

dcw

[bigdog]

If it had been a semi-automatic pistol, then no one would have had to
throw the shells on the ground. They would already be on the ground. That
should tell you something about the type of gun that was used, but it
probably won't.

> As you know, Hill radioed "auto", so not one word of his
> testimony or Poe's or Benavides' is true re the hulls.  No one saw anyone
> throwing down hulls.  THis is obviously the suborned perjury of three
> different witnesses, concocted to cover up the "auto" transmission....
>

I love how you guys pretend to know things you couldn't possibly know even
if they were true. You have no evidence anyone suborned perjury. You have
no evidence anyone told Euins to change his story. You just make those
things up because it fits your theories which aren't based on any
evidence. Only the type of wild speculation you are demonstrating here.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

According to "Plausible Denial", the Euins family received threatening
phone calls. The caller probably did not identify himself.
dcw

You just make those
> things up because it fits your theories which aren't based on any
> evidence. Only the type of wild speculation you are demonstrating here.

I love how LNers accept, oh, yes, Sgt Hill admitted perjury re the "auto
.38" transmission, but forget the other half of his admission-- the
testimonies of Hill, Poe, & Benavides are canceled out re their
description of a gunman with a revolver....
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/6/2012 9:05 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:14 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 7:46 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 5, 1:01 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 5, 10:31 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>
>>>>>>> The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
>>>>>>> wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
>>>>>>> could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
>>>>>>> precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
>>>>>>> sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
>>>>>>> wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
>>>>>>> physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
>>>>>>> pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
>>>>>>> no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>>
>>>>>> You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
>>
>>>>> Of course I know that. Evidence is meaningless to most CTs. All they
>>>>> want is an excuse to dismiss the evidence.
>>

>>>> "Evidence" picked up by hand& removed from the scene, then later

>>>> returned to the (same or different) scene, cannot be considered valid
>>>> evidence...
>>>> dcw
>>
>>> Realy??? And what law school did you attend? Did they teach you that
>>> if a cop handles evidence, it becomes invalid?
>>
>> Fritz must have felt something was wrong with what he did, because he

>> denied touching the shells, in both an affidavit& his testimony. Ask

>> him why he was worried....
>> dcw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Every last piece of it.
>>
>>>>>> Fritz picked up the hulls. We don't know where or exactly when. In
>>>>>> fact, we don't know anything about those hulls because Fritz picked

>>>>>> them up. Of course, he could have been on the up& up, but it takes a

>>>>>> Fischer, Edwards, Couch,& Jackson who said the window was wide open.

Part of his confusion might be from not being able to see the TSBD
window when he was hiding behind the column.

[bigdog]

On Jan 6, 4:35 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jan 6, 12:30 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I love how you guys pretend to know things you couldn't possibly know even
> > if they were true. You have no evidence anyone suborned perjury. You have
> > no evidence anyone told Euins to change his story.
>
> According to "Plausible Denial",

Reading that was your first mistake. I made that mistake too.

> the Euins family received threatening
> phone calls.

Any reliable source for that?

> The caller probably did not identify himself.

You think?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2012 4:01 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:31 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
> (snip)
>
>>
>>> The Dillard photo shows us how wide open the 6th floor window was and it
>>> wasn't open all that far. We don't have to rely on what the witnesses
>>> could remember when a photo taken within seconds of the shooting tells us
>>> precisely how far that window was open. Brennan's recollection that the
>>> sixth floor window was open as far as the fifth floor window is obviously
>>> wrong because as the photo shows, it is only open half as far. The
>>> physical evidence refutes the eyewitness recollection. However, Brennan
>>> pointed to the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. He would have
>>> no way of knowing that is where the shells would later be found.
>>
>> You know that that piece of disinformation is meaningless to me.
>
> Of course I know that. Evidence is meaningless to most CTs. All they
> want is an excuse to dismiss the evidence. Every last piece of it.
>

I see. So that's why I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic?

>> Fritz picked up the hulls. We don't know where or exactly when. In
>> fact, we don't know anything about those hulls because Fritz picked

>> them up. Of course, he could have been on the up& up, but it takes a

>> Fischer, Edwards, Couch,& Jackson who said the window was wide open.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2012 4:02 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:23 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 9:55 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
>>> ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They

>>> are pickers& choosers, too....

>>
>> It's kind of hard ignoring something that doesn't exist. Why don't you
>> give us something to ignore by listing the three best pieces of
>> evidence you have that somebody other than Oswald was involved in the
>> crime. I'm predicting you will ignore this challenge (as most others
>> have done in the past).
>
> Sean, are you still there? Can we conclude by your silence that you don't
> have three pieces of evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved
> in the assassination? Can we conclude you don't even have one.
>

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

If I were a LNer, I too would flee from confronting the full implications
of Sgt Hill's admission that he did send the "auto .38" transmission. It
doesn't just discredit his Commission-testimony denial re sending it; it
discredits the testimony of Benavides, Poe, & Hill himself re the supposed
throwing down of hulls by the shooter. Obviously, the hulls were found on
the ground because the latter's gun ejected them *automatically*, as per
Hill's DPD-radio transmission.... Un derstandable behavior, bigdog....

dcw

[bigdog]

You're trying to make something out of nothing. A cop erroneously
reporting that automatic shells were found does not magically transform
those shells. They were what they were and the shells in evidence are not
automatics, despite the erroreous report. You CTs just can't fathom that
mistakes get made. You refuse to let those mistakes get corrected. To you,
those mistakes get set in stone. If a cop erroneously reports that the
revolver shells found on the ground were automatic shells, PRESTO, they
are now automatic shells. If another cop misdentifies the Carcano rifle as
a Mauser, PRESTO, it becomes a Mauser.

The silly part of your argument which you obviously haven't bothered to
think through is that if they had been automatic shells on the ground,
they would have been near the squad car where the witnesses said the shots
were fired. They would not have ended up where they were found. There
isn't an automatic pistol in the world which ejects shells that far. You
also ignore the fact that there were Remmington and Winchester .38 bullets
recovered from Tippits body which happens to be the same two makes of .38
cartridges that were found Oswald's REVOLVER. But we are supposed to
ignore all that other data simply because a cop got the wrong idea and
reported that automatic shells were found. Brilliant piece of
reasoning!!!???

[dklou...@comcast.net]

Again you're dancing around the WC testimonies of Benavides, Poe, & Hill
which supposedly led up to Hill's report re "auto" hulls. Saying that a
suspect saw the gunman toss down hulls manually does not lead to "auto".
That's a non sequitur, eh? In '64, it was all hunky dory here, because
Hill lied & said someone else sent the "auto" transmission. So the
testimonies of the three were safely preserved in perjury. But Hill has
now admitted he sent the transmission, & those testimonies are exposed as
all lies....

dcw

[David Von Pein]

DONALD WILLIS SAID:

>>> "Obviously, the hulls were found on the ground because the latter's

gun ejected them automatically." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, apparently Don Willis thinks that J.D. Tippit's murderer was firing
bullets from the corner of 10th & Patton, even though we know that Tippit
himself was found lying in the street beside his patrol car, which was
many yards down the road from the corner.

Would Willis now like to pretend that Tippit was really shot at the
corner, but after being shot four times at point-blank range, he managed
to stagger down the street before he finally crumpled to his death?

Awaiting Donald's brilliant explanation regarding his theory that a gunman
fired an automatic at Tippit FROM THE CORNER of Tenth and Patton.

It appears to me as if Donald Willis has really boxed himself into a
tricky and untenable corner when he said this---

"Obviously, the hulls were found on the ground because the latter's

gun ejected them automatically."

Via the above silly theory, Willis has no choice but to discount and
disregard the observations of ALL of the witnesses who saw the shooting
occur on Tenth Street. Willis has to now believe that Tippit's real killer
was shooting from a location where absolutely ZERO witnesses claim to have
seen a gunman.

Via Willis' loony theory, the real killer would have been located
practically right next to William Scoggins, who was sitting in his taxicab
at the corner of 10th & Patton. Yet Scoggins testified that the shooting
occurred many yards up Tenth Street, not right at the corner.

And the other witnesses (Markham and Benavides) also confirm that Tippit's
one and only killer shot Tippit from the sidewalk on 10th Street, with the
shooter firing from across the hood of Tippit's police car.

Or maybe Willis would like to add a new wrinkle to his theory -- maybe he
would like to now claim that Tippit's body and his police car were later
MOVED to a location further up Tenth Street, which is where Car No. 10 was
later photographed.

If a gunman had really fired at Tippit from the corner where two of the
bullet shells were found, here's how far away from Tippit that gunman
would have been (via CE523):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0128a.htm

Also:

Don Willis' theory has yet another insurmountable problem if he wants to
pretend that an "automatic" pistol was really used to kill Officer Tippit,
and that problem is the fact that two of the bullet shells that werer
later found near the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder were found by Barbara
Davis and Virginia Davis in the SIDE YARD of their apartment building--on
PATTON AVENUE, not on Tenth Street. See page 266 of Dale Myers' book "With
Malice" for an illustration that shows exactly where those two shells were
found.

Which would mean that if the shells were really being fired by an
automatic weapon, then the gunman was either running around the cornwer as
he was firing the gun, or he was somehow able to shoot Tippit from the
SIDE YARD of the Davises' residence, which would mean the killer would
have to shoot THROUGH THE APARTMENT BUILDING in order to hit Tippit, who
was located on Tenth Street.

Obviously what happened was this: Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit with
Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210, and after firing four (or perhaps five)
bullets at Tippit, Oswald ran (or walked briskly) toward the corner of
Tenth & Patton. When he reached the corner, Oswald began to unload the
empty shells from his revolver, with two of the shells falling to the
ground on Tenth Street (very near the corner itself), with the other two
shells coming out of the gun after Oswald had reached the side yard of the
Davis apartment building (again see page 266 of "With Malice").

The above scenario of Oswald's shell-dumping is also perfectly consistent
with the known characteristics of Lee Oswald's V510210 revolver, which is
a gun that would result in bulged (or slightly expanded) cartridge cases
after bullets were fired through the rechambered revolver. Which means the
shells would have a tendency to stick in the chamber, resulting in
additional effort being required by any gunman attempting to manually
remove the shells from the weapon (see page 258 of "With Malice").

This "sticky shells" situation was almost certainly the case with Oswald's
revolver on November 22, 1963, at 10th & Patton, with the shells being a
bit difficult for Oswald to remove from the gun all at once. Hence, there
were two shells found near the corner on Tenth Street, while the other two
shells were found around the corner in the Davises' side yard.

It's also quite possible that the "sticky" nature of Oswald's bullet
shells could be the reason that only four shells were recovered at the
Tippit murder scene (with the possibility exising that Oswald actually
fired five bullets at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing the target).

If Oswald did, indeed, fire five shots at Tippit (which can never be
proven, of course), instead of just four shots, then it's possible that
the fifth bullet shell was simply lost to history, never having been
recovered by anyone after the shooting.

The above scenario is somewhat buttressed by the testimony of eyewitness
Sam Guinyard, who watched Oswald flee the scene of Tippit's murder from
Ted Callaway's car lot.

Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Oswald "knocking empty
shells out of his pistol", although it's a little unclear as to exactly
where Oswald was located when Guinyard saw him removing the shells. It's
possible Guinyard was only referring to Oswald kicking out shells near the
corner of 10th & Patton. But it's also possible that Guinyard saw Oswald
still in the process of dumping shells out of the gun when Oswald was much
further down Patton Avenue. And if the latter situation is true, then it's
quite conceivable that Oswald could have removed at least one bullet shell
from his revolver when he was near the corner of Patton and Jefferson
Boulevard. And we know that no bullet shells were recovered that far away
from where J.D. Tippit was killed.

http://With--Malice.blogspot.com

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

[bigdog]

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...

Good reply, David. The expansion of shells happens with all types of ammo.
It is not unique to Oswald's revolver. For that reason, almost all
revolvers are made with some type of ejector. The old Peacemaker, a gun
commonly seen in westerns, had an ejector on the side of the barrel. The
disadvantage to this type of ejector is that it only ejected one shell at
a time. The shooter would have to rotate the cylinder and eject the shells
individually. This slowed the reloading time significantly. I'm not sure
when it was invented, but modern revolvers have an ejector that rests in
the middle of the cylinder and lifts all the shells out of the cylinder
together, greatly speeding up the process. Once lifted from the cylinder,
a shake or two is usually all it takes to dump the shells. It might take
several shakes to release all the shells which might explain why all the
shells were not found together. Another possible explaination is that if
Oswald fired 5 times and his revolver held 6 bullets, he would still have
one live round, so rather than just dumping them all on the ground, he
might dump them into his hand first, sift through them to get the live
round, dropping the empties as he was moving.

> It's also quite possible that the "sticky" nature of Oswald's bullet
> shells could be the reason that only four shells were recovered at the
> Tippit murder scene (with the possibility exising that Oswald actually
> fired five bullets at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing the target).
>
> If Oswald did, indeed, fire five shots at Tippit (which can never be
> proven, of course), instead of just four shots, then it's possible that
> the fifth bullet shell was simply lost to history, never having been
> recovered by anyone after the shooting.
>

I think this is the most likely explaination for the discrepancy in the
makes of the shells and the bullets. There were 3 Winchesters and one
Remmington recovered from Tippit's body. There were two each of the
shells. If one Remmington bullet missed and one Winchester was not
recovered, that would result in the mix of shells and bullets they ended
up with. If it was known that Tippit was hit 4 times and they recovered 4
shells, someone might well have concluded that they had recovered all the
shells. I don't know when the discrepancy was discovered and if anyone
thought of going back and looking for a fifth shell. As for the fifth
bullet, that could have ended up almost anywhere, the ground, a tree, the
siding of a house or garage. Good luck finding that.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

Or, rather, where they were said to have been found. [I answered this
with the rest of the post the other day, but it seems to have gone
missing.] Originally, the Davises said the shells were found in the front
yard right where they saw the suspect emptying his gun. No mention of
emptying the hulls into his other hand. Apparently, the conspirators
thought it might seem strange if two hulls were easily & early found on
the front lawn, *before* Hill's controversial radio message re "auto
.38"s. So they had the Davises find the *revolver* hulls *later*, after
1:40....

dcw

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On Jan 4, 6:23 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:55 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
> > ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They

> > are pickers & choosers, too....

>
> It's kind of hard ignoring something that doesn't exist. Why don't you
> give us something to ignore by listing the three best pieces of
> evidence you have that somebody other than Oswald was involved in the
> crime. I'm predicting you will ignore this challenge (as most others
> have done in the past).

Ah! I answered part 1 of this challenge, & no one could answer my first
"best piece of evidence", which was Sgt Hill admitting that he sent the
"auto .38" transmission, thus negating the testimonies of, respectively,
Hill, Poe, & Benavides re a gunman supposedly throwing down hulls. I
thank you, and truth, justice & the American way thank you!

dcw

[bigdog]

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes evidence. Whether Sgt.
Hill mistakenly reported shells on the ground were automatics, whether he
lied about them (it is hard to imagine why), or whether he lied about
having reported them, is in no way evidence that anyone other than Oswald
was involved in the assassination of JFK. First of all, Hill's mistatement
had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It was in regard to the
murder of a fellow police officer. Whether he misunderstood the facts or
even if he deliberatley lied about them, that still does not indicate
anyone other than Oswald was involved in the killing of either JFK or JDT.
It is just another fine example of a CT finding an anomaly and claiming it
indicates there was a conspiracy without ever bothering to explain how
that is evidence of someone else's involvement. And even if it were true
that no one could answer your question, that still would not constitute
evidence of someone else's guilt. You don't prove something by raising
questions. You prove something by answering questions. You whiffed.
AGAIN!!!

[dklou...@comcast.net]

Again is the word--again, minisculedog can't explain (even with
exclamation points) why three witnesses were directed to make up a
story re tossed hulls & tell it to the WC....
dcw

[bigdog]

> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>

Why do I need to explain your false pretense? A cop erroneously reports
that automatic shells were on the ground and from that you leap to the
conclusion that THREE people were lying rather than the simpler and more
mundane explaination that ONE person made an honest mistake. And even if
you were to come up with something of substance that I couldn't explain,
that still would not constitute evidence that someone other than Oswald
was involved in the assassination of JFK. You see, in order to prove
something, you have to come up with answers, not questions. And since you
probably haven't figured this part out either, your assumptions are not
answers.

What you think is evidence is nothing more than another silly conspiracy
theory based solely on assumptions and speculations. It couldn't be lamer
if it had rubber crutches. We can't even give you an F for your effort.
You get an incomplete.

[Sean Smiley]

Then, made false witness to the Commission *twice*--once re sending the
"auto 38" message, once re hearing from Poe re a witness throwing down
hulls, which Hill would not have heard, then radioed "auto 38". He could
not have heard Poe say that; in turn, Poe could not have heard Benavides
say that, unless perhaps you think Poe & Hill had no communication with
each other.

dcw

[bigdog]

It is ridiculous that you guys are trying to make something out of a
simple error. Misinformation is a fact of life. Somebody misunderstands
what someone else has said and then passes it along to somebody else. BFD.
You guys want to set these mistakes in stone. Once a mistake is made, in
the CT world, the mistake becomes a fact. If we applied the same thought
process to the Reagan assassination attempt, we would know two things.
Ronald Reagan escaped injury. Press Secretary Jim Brady died shortly after
the attack. That's how silly it is to assume that everything that gets
reported is factual. But I guess when you have no real evidence to support
your assumptions, you have to invent something.

[Sean Smiley]

On Jan 10, 8:18 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:32 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 11:08 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Then, made false witness to the Commission *twice*--once re sending the
> > "auto 38" message, once re hearing from Poe re a witness throwing down
> > hulls, which Hill would not have heard, then radioed "auto 38". He could
> > not have heard Poe say that; in turn, Poe could not have heard Benavides
> > say that, unless perhaps you think Poe & Hill had no communication with
> > each other.
>
> It is ridiculous that you guys are trying to make something out of a
> simple error. Misinformation is a fact of life. Somebody misunderstands
> what someone else has said and then passes it along to somebody else.

Your definition of "simple error" is hilarious. The Benavides-to-Poe-
to-Hill testimony is taken for granted by most people. It's not
considered "error". Because it supports a "revolver" scenario.
However, it breaks down when Hill radios, "auto 38". This triune
testimony is one of the clearest cases of conspiracy to cover-up....
dcw

[bigdog]

On Jan 11, 11:13 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:18 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 9:32 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 10, 11:08 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then, made false witness to the Commission *twice*--once re sending the
> > > "auto 38" message, once re hearing from Poe re a witness throwing down
> > > hulls, which Hill would not have heard, then radioed "auto 38". He could
> > > not have heard Poe say that; in turn, Poe could not have heard Benavides
> > > say that, unless perhaps you think Poe & Hill had no communication with
> > > each other.
>
> > It is ridiculous that you guys are trying to make something out of a
> > simple error. Misinformation is a fact of life. Somebody misunderstands
> > what someone else has said and then passes it along to somebody else.
>
> Your definition of "simple error" is hilarious.  The Benavides-to-Poe-
> to-Hill testimony is taken for granted by most people.  It's not
> considered "error".  Because it supports a "revolver" scenario.
> However, it breaks down when Hill radios, "auto 38".  This triune
> testimony is one of the clearest cases of conspiracy to cover-up....
> dcw
>

It was a simple error. Everything else points to the murder weapon being a
.38 revolver. Rather than accept that Hill's report that .38 auto shells
had been found was erroneous, you guys want to claim that ONE item is
accurate and every other piece of evidence, physical and eyewitness is
fraudulent. You have to claim, without any evidence, that these witnesses
were coerced into changing their stories to fit the finding that a
revolver was the murder weapon. You have to disregard the shells which are
in evidence, which are a combination of Remmington and Winchester shells
and which could only have been fired by Oswald's revolver. You have to
disregard the bullets recovered from Tippit's body, which were also a
combination of Remmington and Winchesters and which had all the same
characteristics as test bullets fired from Oswald's revolver. You have to
disregard that Joe Nicol of the Illinois state crime bureau determined
that one of the bullets could positively be matched to Oswald's revolver
despite the fact it was fired through an oversized barrel. You have to
disregard that the shells were found some distance from the location of
the shooting which would not have happened had they been ejected buy a
semi- automatic handgun. You have to disregard that Oswald was arrested
with the revolver about a half hour after the Tippit shooting with the
revolver in his possession and he tried to kill the arresting officers as
well. You have to disregard all of that, plus the eyewitnesses either saw
him shoot Tippit or leave the scene with revolver in hand, all because you
insist that the report that .38 autos were found on the ground was
accurate.

Of course, what you guys are arguing is nonsense, and I'd bet that even
most CTs would agree with that. There is no way anyone making such silly
arguments should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2012 2:08 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:49 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 7:01 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 5:18 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 4, 6:23 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 3, 9:55 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
>>>>>> ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They

>>>>>> are pickers& choosers, too....

>>
>>>>> It's kind of hard ignoring something that doesn't exist. Why don't you
>>>>> give us something to ignore by listing the three best pieces of
>>>>> evidence you have that somebody other than Oswald was involved in the
>>>>> crime. I'm predicting you will ignore this challenge (as most others
>>>>> have done in the past).
>>

>>>> Ah! I answered part 1 of this challenge,& no one could answer my first

>>>> "best piece of evidence", which was Sgt Hill admitting that he sent the
>>>> "auto .38" transmission, thus negating the testimonies of, respectively,

>>>> Hill, Poe,& Benavides re a gunman supposedly throwing down hulls. I
>>>> thank you, and truth, justice& the American way thank you!

>>
>>> You have a very strange idea of what constitutes evidence. Whether Sgt.
>>> Hill mistakenly reported shells on the ground were automatics, whether he
>>> lied about them (it is hard to imagine why), or whether he lied about
>>> having reported them, is in no way evidence that anyone other than Oswald
>>> was involved in the assassination of JFK. First of all, Hill's mistatement
>>> had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It was in regard to the
>>> murder of a fellow police officer. Whether he misunderstood the facts or
>>> even if he deliberatley lied about them, that still does not indicate
>>> anyone other than Oswald was involved in the killing of either JFK or JDT.
>>> It is just another fine example of a CT finding an anomaly and claiming it
>>> indicates there was a conspiracy without ever bothering to explain how
>>> that is evidence of someone else's involvement. And even if it were true
>>> that no one could answer your question, that still would not constitute
>>> evidence of someone else's guilt. You don't prove something by raising
>>> questions. You prove something by answering questions. You whiffed.
>>> AGAIN!!!
>>
>> Again is the word--again, minisculedog can't explain (even with
>> exclamation points) why three witnesses were directed to make up a

>> story re tossed hulls& tell it to the WC....

>> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Why do I need to explain your false pretense? A cop erroneously reports
> that automatic shells were on the ground and from that you leap to the
> conclusion that THREE people were lying rather than the simpler and more
> mundane explaination that ONE person made an honest mistake. And even if

Why is it an either/or? Sometimes someone can make a simple mistake and
then all his buddies lie to support him. Just like Craig lied about
Weitzman's simple misidentification of the rifle as a Mauser.

> you were to come up with something of substance that I couldn't explain,

That wouldn't be very hard to do.

> that still would not constitute evidence that someone other than Oswald
> was involved in the assassination of JFK. You see, in order to prove

I thought you were talking about the Tippit killing, not JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/11/2012 4:18 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:13 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 8:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 9:32 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 11:08 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Then, made false witness to the Commission *twice*--once re sending the
>>>> "auto 38" message, once re hearing from Poe re a witness throwing down
>>>> hulls, which Hill would not have heard, then radioed "auto 38". He could
>>>> not have heard Poe say that; in turn, Poe could not have heard Benavides

>>>> say that, unless perhaps you think Poe& Hill had no communication with

>>>> each other.
>>
>>> It is ridiculous that you guys are trying to make something out of a
>>> simple error. Misinformation is a fact of life. Somebody misunderstands
>>> what someone else has said and then passes it along to somebody else.
>>
>> Your definition of "simple error" is hilarious. The Benavides-to-Poe-
>> to-Hill testimony is taken for granted by most people. It's not
>> considered "error". Because it supports a "revolver" scenario.
>> However, it breaks down when Hill radios, "auto 38". This triune
>> testimony is one of the clearest cases of conspiracy to cover-up....
>> dcw
>>
>
> It was a simple error. Everything else points to the murder weapon being a
> .38 revolver. Rather than accept that Hill's report that .38 auto shells

So you claim it was not a .38 Special, just a regular .38? Do you have
any evidence to support this claim?
Can YOU tell just at a glance the difference between a .38 Special
bullet an a regular .38 bullet?
Can you tell the difference between the two different guns from 100 feet
away?

> had been found was erroneous, you guys want to claim that ONE item is
> accurate and every other piece of evidence, physical and eyewitness is
> fraudulent. You have to claim, without any evidence, that these witnesses
> were coerced into changing their stories to fit the finding that a
> revolver was the murder weapon. You have to disregard the shells which are
> in evidence, which are a combination of Remmington and Winchester shells

Which shells? You mean the ones which were not properly marked by the
police?

> and which could only have been fired by Oswald's revolver. You have to

Are you confident enough in the evidence to qualify it with "could ONLY
have been fired by Oswald's revolver"?

> disregard the bullets recovered from Tippit's body, which were also a
> combination of Remmington and Winchesters and which had all the same
> characteristics as test bullets fired from Oswald's revolver. You have to
> disregard that Joe Nicol of the Illinois state crime bureau determined
> that one of the bullets could positively be matched to Oswald's revolver
> despite the fact it was fired through an oversized barrel. You have to
> disregard that the shells were found some distance from the location of
> the shooting which would not have happened had they been ejected buy a
> semi- automatic handgun. You have to disregard that Oswald was arrested
> with the revolver about a half hour after the Tippit shooting with the
> revolver in his possession and he tried to kill the arresting officers as
> well. You have to disregard all of that, plus the eyewitnesses either saw
> him shoot Tippit or leave the scene with revolver in hand, all because you
> insist that the report that .38 autos were found on the ground was
> accurate.
>
> Of course, what you guys are arguing is nonsense, and I'd bet that even
> most CTs would agree with that. There is no way anyone making such silly
> arguments should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
>

Then how about people who claim they were .38 bullets and not .38
Special bullets?
What do we do when WC defenders make simple errors like that?
What are the odds that someone could just at random find .38 Special
Auto shells on the ground along that street? Were shootings so common
there that the streets were always littered with cartridges, like say
Detroit or Newark?

[Sean Smiley]

One witness in fact said the gunman had an automatic!
dcw

, all because you
> insist that the report that .38 autos were found on the ground was
> accurate.
>
> Of course, what you guys are arguing is nonsense, and I'd bet that even
> most CTs would agree with that. There is no way anyone making such silly
> arguments should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.

I guess I must resign myself to the fact that words pour out of you like
meat out of a meat grinder, & that those words will never address my main
point re Hill/Poe/Benavides. So, there's certainly no incentive for me to
offer two *other* pieces of evidence re your phony *challenge*....

dcw

[Gary Combs]

Big Dog,
You do know that driver Greer described the shots to be like a sonic
boom, don't you?

gc





"bigdog" wrote in message
news:18749ffa-4e84-4163...@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 3, 9:55 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Silence in the opposite corner verifies my point--LNers simply choose to
> ignore anything, any kind of evidence which does not go their way! They

> are pickers & choosers, too....

[bigdog]

You had a point? What you have offered is nonsense. You claimed Hill
reported .38 automatic shells had been found and that later Hill, Poe, and
Benavides were coerced to lie to support the shells being .38 Specials.
You have no evidence such a thing happened and your nonsensical theory is
not evidence of anything, On top of everything else, this all had to do
with the murder of Tippit, not the assassination of JFK. So contrary to
your claim, you haven't offered even one piece of evidence that anyone
other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK. Thanks for
playing.

[Sean Smiley]

No evidence that Hill lied to the Commisson??? He admitted that he lied
re the "auto" message; in order for that to fly, he also had to lie re
what Poe told him about the hulls that were found. Horse & carriage....
He had to have lied twice. And to support his twin lies, Poe & Benavides
had to lie to back him up.... Benavides was apparently pretty stubborn,
though, & said nothing until the day of his WC session.

dcw

and your nonsensical theory is
> not evidence of anything, On top of everything else, this all had to do
> with the murder of Tippit, not the assassination of JFK. So contrary to
> your claim, you haven't offered even one piece of evidence that anyone
> other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK. Thanks for
> playing.

The assassination of Tippit was part of the larger plot to assassinate
JFK. It was done to further implicate LHO.... Like the widow of Deputy
Sheriff Jack Faulkner told me, if he killed the cop, he killed the
President....

[bigdog]

On Jan 12, 8:13 am, "Gary Combs" <glcco...@charter.net> wrote:
> Big Dog,
>     You do know that driver Greer described the shots to be like a sonic
> boom, don't you?
>
> gc
>

A super sonic bullet can produce a shock wave similar to a sonic boom. A
bullet can produce multiple sounds that would be heard very close
together, like a sonic boom. So what does that have to do with evidence
that someone other than Oswald was involved in the assassination. I ask
for such evidence and this type of reply is the typical response. Does
anybody have any real evidence?

[bigdog]

How does Hill lying about something he reported regarding Tippit become
evidence that somebody other than Oswald was involved in the assassination
of JFK?

> Horse & carriage....

Well, your theory does have an equine connection, but it smells nothing
like a carriage.

> He had to have lied twice. And to support his twin lies, Poe & Benavides
> had to lie to back him up....

How does Hill lying once prove that he lied twice and that Poe and
Benavides lied too? How would any of this establish that somebody other
than Oswald was responsible for the JFK assassination? This is where
evidence ends and wild speculation begins.

> Benavides was apparently pretty stubborn,
> though, & said nothing until the day of his WC session.
>

Well its your story so I guess you get to make it up any way you
choose.

> dcw
>
>  and your nonsensical theory is
>
> > not evidence of anything, On top of everything else, this all had to do
> > with the murder of Tippit, not the assassination of JFK. So contrary to
> > your claim, you haven't offered even one piece of evidence that anyone
> > other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK. Thanks for
> > playing.
>
> The assassination of Tippit was part of the larger plot to assassinate
> JFK.

Keep that speculation coming. Since you require no evidence, you can
take this any place you want to go.

> It was done to further implicate LHO.... Like the widow of Deputy
> Sheriff Jack Faulkner told me, if he killed the cop, he killed the

> President....-

So these imaginary plotters of yours decided ahead of time to kill Tippit?
It sure was nice enough of Tippit and Oswald to go to the same
intersection where the murder would take place. It was also nice of Oswald
to let them borrow his gun to do the deed and then take possession of it
afterward so he would be caught red handed with the murder weapon. And
just to make it look good, Oswald tried to kill the cops that came to
arrest him. At least you haven't gone off the deep end with this fable of
yours.

Oswald did kill a cop and he did kill a president but one does not
logically follow the other. Theoretically, the murder of Tippit could have
been unrelated to the JFK assassination. However the hard evidence tells
us the same guy did both.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2012 2:03 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:13 am, "Gary Combs"<glcco...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Big Dog,
>> You do know that driver Greer described the shots to be like a sonic
>> boom, don't you?
>>
>> gc
>>
>
> A super sonic bullet can produce a shock wave similar to a sonic boom. A
> bullet can produce multiple sounds that would be heard very close

What are these multiple sounds that are not a shock wave? Aside from the
muzzle blast and its echoes? Wagner or Mozart? What?
What about the sound of the bullet hitting something like the chrome
topping or the windshield?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2012 1:05 PM, Sean Smiley wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:01 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 9:51 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 1:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 11, 11:13 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 10, 8:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 9:32 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 11:08 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Then, made false witness to the Commission *twice*--once re sending the
>>>>>>> "auto 38" message, once re hearing from Poe re a witness throwing down
>>>>>>> hulls, which Hill would not have heard, then radioed "auto 38". He could
>>>>>>> not have heard Poe say that; in turn, Poe could not have heard Benavides

>>>>>>> say that, unless perhaps you think Poe& Hill had no communication with

>>> meat out of a meat grinder,& that those words will never address my main

>>> point re Hill/Poe/Benavides. So, there's certainly no incentive for me to
>>> offer two *other* pieces of evidence re your phony *challenge*....
>>
>> You had a point? What you have offered is nonsense. You claimed Hill
>> reported .38 automatic shells had been found and that later Hill, Poe, and
>> Benavides were coerced to lie to support the shells being .38 Specials.
>> You have no evidence such a thing happened
>
> No evidence that Hill lied to the Commisson??? He admitted that he lied
> re the "auto" message; in order for that to fly, he also had to lie re

> what Poe told him about the hulls that were found. Horse& carriage....
> He had to have lied twice. And to support his twin lies, Poe& Benavides

> had to lie to back him up.... Benavides was apparently pretty stubborn,

> though,& said nothing until the day of his WC session.

>
> dcw
>
>
> and your nonsensical theory is
>> not evidence of anything, On top of everything else, this all had to do
>> with the murder of Tippit, not the assassination of JFK. So contrary to
>> your claim, you haven't offered even one piece of evidence that anyone
>> other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK. Thanks for
>> playing.
>
> The assassination of Tippit was part of the larger plot to assassinate
> JFK. It was done to further implicate LHO.... Like the widow of Deputy
> Sheriff Jack Faulkner told me, if he killed the cop, he killed the
> President....
>

Are you claiming that years before the assassination the conspirators
decided that just killing JFK would not be enough so they had to pick a
specific cop to kill and blame it on Oswald? What if Tippit had call in
sick that day? Would they kill him at home and still blame it on Oswald?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/11/2012 9:51 PM, Sean Smiley wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 11:13 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 8:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 9:32 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 10, 11:08 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Then, made false witness to the Commission *twice*--once re sending the
>>>>> "auto 38" message, once re hearing from Poe re a witness throwing down
>>>>> hulls, which Hill would not have heard, then radioed "auto 38". He could
>>>>> not have heard Poe say that; in turn, Poe could not have heard Benavides

>>>>> say that, unless perhaps you think Poe& Hill had no communication with

Details please. I assume you mean a semi-automatic pistol.
Can you tell the difference at just a glance?

> , all because you
>> insist that the report that .38 autos were found on the ground was
>> accurate.
>>
>> Of course, what you guys are arguing is nonsense, and I'd bet that even
>> most CTs would agree with that. There is no way anyone making such silly
>> arguments should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
>
> I guess I must resign myself to the fact that words pour out of you like

> meat out of a meat grinder,& that those words will never address my main

[Sean Smiley]

I don't know when it was decided to send a policeman to Oak Cliff, but
one was....
dcw

[Sean Smiley]

For whatever reason Hill radioed "auto", it was decided to have him deny
this. In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
hulls ejected from a revolver. We don't know what exactly led Hill to
radio "auto", but we know that no witness saw a suspect throwing down
hulls. Even Dale Myers writes that Benavides could not have seen such
discarding: ``Benavides may very well have been the first to spot the
shells & give them to police, but their location was apparently not based
on any personal knowledge.... If Benavides actually saw Tippit`s killer
drop the shells, why did he wait nearly 20 minutes, before telling police.

(With Malice p260) So, the Benavides to Poe to Hill story was a
complete fiction....

dcw

[bigdog]

Really??? And how do you know this? How do you know Hill didn't do
that just to cover his ass?

> In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.

Right. That makes a lot more sense than a guy screwed up and denied it
afterward. When does that ever happen?

> Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> hulls ejected from a revolver.

I don't suppose you considered the possibility that Poe discovered the
shells had been found near the shrubbery? Of course you haven't. That
explaination makes sense and doesn't fit in with the rest of your crazy
story. .

> We don't know what exactly led Hill to
> radio "auto", but we know that no witness saw a suspect throwing down
> hulls.

And just how do we know that?

> Even Dale Myers writes that Benavides could not have seen such
> discarding:  ``Benavides may very well have been the first to spot the
> shells & give them to police, but their location was apparently not based
> on any personal knowledge.... If Benavides actually saw Tippit`s killer
> drop the shells, why did he wait nearly 20 minutes, before telling police.
>

Benavides was hardly the only witness who saw Oswald fleeing the scene. It
is extremely unlikely the shells would have been found when they were had
a witness not seen the shooter dumping them.

> (With Malice p260)  So, the Benavides to Poe to Hill story was a
> complete fiction....
>

You invent this crazy story out of thin air and then claim somebody else's
story is fiction??? Amazing!!! Truly amazing!!!

I have just one question. Do you expect anybody to read what you have
written and not bust out laughing?

[bigdog]

> dcw-

Since you made up the rest of your story, why can't you fill in that
detail too?

[Sean Smiley]

On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> shells had been found near the shrubbery? Of course you haven't. That
> explaination makes sense and doesn't fit in with the rest of your crazy
> story. .
>
> > We don't know what exactly led Hill to
> > radio "auto", but we know that no witness saw a suspect throwing down
> > hulls.
>
> And just how do we know that?
>
> > Even Dale Myers writes that Benavides could not have seen such
> > discarding:  ``Benavides may very well have been the first to spot the
> > shells & give them to police, but their location was apparently not based
> > on any personal knowledge.... If Benavides actually saw Tippit`s killer
> > drop the shells, why did he wait nearly 20 minutes, before telling police.
>
> Benavides was hardly the only witness who saw Oswald fleeing the scene. It
> is extremely unlikely the shells would have been found when they were had
> a witness not seen the shooter dumping them.
>

The meat grinder grinds on.... You should familiarize yourself with the
testimonies of the Tippit witnesses. Benavides was the only witness who
said that he saw the gunman throwing hulls down near the bushes near
Tippit`s car. The Davises testified they did *not* see the gunman
throwing hulls on the ground at all. And Guinyard testified that he saw
the gunman throwing down hulls as he ran out onto Patton. That`s about 4
strikes for you--you`re out.... So much for your *authoritative*
èxtremely unlikely``.... Grind on, diminutivedog

dcw

[Bud]

How do you know this?

> it was decided to have him deny
> this.

Unsupportable assertion.

>  In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> impossible,

You`re creating, not showing.

>or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
> Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> hulls ejected from a revolver.

Witnesses said Oswald was dropping the shells. Others said he was
fiddling with the weapon.

> We don't know what exactly led Hill to
> radio "auto", but we know that no witness saw a suspect throwing down
> hulls.

We also know that the person who killed Tippit didn`t use an
automatic. We also know who shot Tippit.

>  Even Dale Myers writes that Benavides could not have seen such
> discarding:  ``Benavides may very well have been the first to spot the
> shells & give them to police, but their location was apparently not based
> on any personal knowledge.... If Benavides actually saw Tippit`s killer
> drop the shells, why did he wait nearly 20 minutes, before telling police.

Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, I started--I seen him throw the shells and I
started to stop and pick them up, and I thought I'd better not so when
I came back, after I had gotten back, I picked up the shells.

> (With Malice p260)  So, the Benavides to Poe to Hill story was a
> complete fiction....

Yah, the DPD immediately went to work to allow the real killer of
one of their own go free. Rest, dw.


> dcw

[bigdog]

And still your fantastic tale makes no sense whatsoever and still you
haven't provided a scrap of evidence that anyone except Oswald was
involved in the assassination of JFK.

[Sean Smiley]

On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.cut

> > > How does Hill lying once prove that he lied twice and that Poe and
> > > Benavides lied too?
>
> > For whatever reason Hill radioed "auto", it was decided to have him deny
> > this.
>
> Really??? And how do you know this? How do you know Hill didn't do
> that just to cover his ass?

Helluva lot of ass-covering then--Henslee altered the radio logs to
suggest Hill didn't send the "auto" message. Benavides & Poe & Hill
himself made up a story which would make it seem like Hill couldn't have
sent the "auto" message.. Multiple perjury & radio-log altering just to
cover up a simple ass...? Sure....

dcw

>
> > In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> > impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
>
> Right. That makes a lot more sense than a guy screwed up and denied it
> afterward. When does that ever happen?
>
> > Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> > hulls ejected from a revolver.
>
> I don't suppose you considered the possibility that Poe discovered the
> shells had been found near the shrubbery?

You're missing the point. Poe never suggested such a thing--the idea was
to create a *revolver* story so Hill could plausibly deny sending the
"auto" message. We don't know the real Poe story... unless it's "Murders
in the Rue Morgue" or "The Black Cat'....

[Sean Smiley]

And you're flailing about looking for something to support *your*
assertions. Oh, yes, maybe someone besides Benavides saw the gunman
throwing down shells. Poe mentioned Benavides by name. And you have
no answer for my actual references to Tippit witness testimony. You
can't answer Myers or me! bigdog vs the world....
dcw

[Sean Smiley]

Read With Malice page 260, first, bright boy

>
>
>
>
>
> > dcw

[bigdog]

On Jan 13, 4:32 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.cut
>
> > > > How does Hill lying once prove that he lied twice and that Poe and
> > > > Benavides lied too?
>
> > > For whatever reason Hill radioed "auto", it was decided to have him deny
> > > this.
>
> > Really??? And how do you know this? How do you know Hill didn't do
> > that just to cover his ass?
>
> Helluva lot of ass-covering then--Henslee altered the radio logs to
> suggest Hill didn't send the "auto" message.  Benavides & Poe & Hill
> himself made up a story which would make it seem like Hill couldn't have
> sent the "auto" message..  Multiple perjury & radio-log altering just to
> cover up a simple ass...?  Sure....
>

All those alleged purjuries are nothing more than a figment of your
imagination. One guy screwed up and reported auto shells had been found
and may have tried to cover up his mistake and from that you weave a
fantastic tale of everybody going into cover up mode. What you are
creating wouldn't even make a good dime store novel. Here's a few
questions to ponder. If Tippit was killed to make Oswald look guilty, why
didn't they just use a revolver? Oh no, that's too simple. We have to make
this as fantastic as possible by inventing a tale of shell switching. That
way we can make it look like everybody within three blocks of the Tippit
murder was in on the cover up. How did these guys know Oswald was going to
get his gun so he would have a weapon they could frame him with. For that
matter, how did they know that patsy Oswald would even leave work after
the assassination. What if he did what all the innocent employees and wait
until they were sent home? Let me guess. His handler told him do to all
those things. <snicker>

Here's what we do know. As Bud pointed out, we know Tippit was killed with
a revolver. We know that from the bullets recovered from his body which
were the same types of bullets Oswald had in his REVOLVER. They had the
same type of ballistic markings. For this alleged shell switching to work,
not only would the plotters have had to anticipate that Oswald would put
two different makes of .38 bullets in his revolver and put those in the
semi-automatic pistol they used to kill Tippit and made sure it had the
same grooves and twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver so the bullets
that killed Tippit would match Oswald's revolver. They would also have had
to know that Oswald's .38 revolver had a barrel which was oversized for
the .38 Special bullets he had in his gun so that a positive ballistic
match could not be made. For that matter, they would also have to have
used a .38 semi- auto that would fire bullets with the same caliber as the
.38 Special which has a true caliber of .357. And of course they would
have to put a mix of .357 Remmingtons and Winchesters into their .38
caliber semi- auto so that their bullets also had inconsistent markings.
You can believe all that or you can believe Hill just screwed up when he
reported the shells found were automatics. You're call.

>
> > > In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> > > impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
>
> > Right. That makes a lot more sense than a guy screwed up and denied it
> > afterward. When does that ever happen?
>
> > > Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> > > hulls ejected from a revolver.
>
> > I don't suppose you considered the possibility that Poe discovered the
> > shells had been found near the shrubbery?
>
> You're missing the point.  Poe never suggested such a thing--the idea was
> to create a *revolver* story so Hill could plausibly deny sending the
> "auto" message.  We don't know the real Poe story... unless it's "Murders
> in the Rue Morgue" or "The Black Cat'....
>

Of course I missed your point. Everything you have written doesn't make
the least bit of sense. How am I supposed to follow something this absurd.
It is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. Have you noticed how
much help you're getting from your fellow CTs on this one?

[bigdog]

No answer is needed because you haven't presented evidence of anything.
You've established nothing. You've taken a few loose threads, put them
together, and ended up with a pile of loose threads. From there, you've
concocted a fairy tale that doesn't make the least bit of sense to anyone.
Your ridiculous assertions make Lifton's body altering theory seem almost
rational by comparison. When you have something of substance, get back to
us.

[Sean Smiley]

Still looking for the Tippit witness who saw someone drop shells on
the ground? I'll give you uh let's say 5 years to find one....
dcw

[Sean Smiley]

On Jan 13, 4:45 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 4:32 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.cut
>
> > > > > How does Hill lying once prove that he lied twice and that Poe and
> > > > > Benavides lied too?
>
> > > > For whatever reason Hill radioed "auto", it was decided to have him deny
> > > > this.
>
> > > Really??? And how do you know this? How do you know Hill didn't do
> > > that just to cover his ass?
>
> > Helluva lot of ass-covering then--Henslee altered the radio logs to
> > suggest Hill didn't send the "auto" message.  Benavides & Poe & Hill
> > himself made up a story which would make it seem like Hill couldn't have
> > sent the "auto" message..  Multiple perjury & radio-log altering just to
> > cover up a simple ass...?  Sure....
>
> All those alleged purjuries are nothing more than a figment of your
> imagination. One guy screwed up and reported auto shells had been found
> and may have tried to cover up his mistake and from that you weave a
> fantastic tale of everybody going into cover up mode. What you are
> creating wouldn't even make a good dime store novel. Here's a few
> questions to ponder. If Tippit was killed to make Oswald look guilty, why
> didn't they just use a revolver?

Ah! Finally, that's the best point you could make. Honestly. And I
could only speculate, so I won't. All I can say is, there are some
other factors here. Score one for bigdog! (After a string of
losses....)
dcw

Oh no, that's too simple. We have to make
> this as fantastic as possible by inventing a tale of shell switching. That
> way we can make it look like everybody within three blocks of the Tippit
> murder was in on the cover up. How did these guys know Oswald was going to
> get his gun so he would have a weapon they could frame him with.

I have suggested (years ago here) that Annie didn't get his gun--he
had it on him already....

For that
> matter, how did they know that patsy Oswald would even leave work after
> the assassination.

Prearranged.

What if he did what all the innocent employees and wait
> until they were sent home?

Shelley apparently left, too. He said he left in the car with Williams,
but the latter said that Danny Arce was the only other person in the car
from the depository.... And Oswald had to have a role in the conspiracy,
so he was not entirely innocent....

Let me guess. His handler told him do to all
> those things. <snicker>
>
> Here's what we do know. As Bud pointed out, we know Tippit was killed with
> a revolver. We know that from the bullets recovered from his body which
> were the same types of bullets Oswald had in his REVOLVER. They had the
> same type of ballistic markings. For this alleged shell switching to work,
> not only would the plotters have had to anticipate that Oswald would put
> two different makes of .38 bullets in his revolver and put those in the
> semi-automatic pistol they used to kill Tippit and made sure it had the
> same grooves and twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver so the bullets
> that killed Tippit would match Oswald's revolver. They would also have had
> to know that Oswald's .38 revolver had a barrel which was oversized for
> the .38 Special bullets he had in his gun so that a positive ballistic
> match could not be made. For that matter, they would also have to have
> used a .38 semi- auto that would fire bullets with the same caliber as the
> .38 Special which has a true caliber of .357. And of course they would
> have to put a mix of .357 Remmingtons and Winchesters into their .38
> caliber semi- auto so that their bullets also had inconsistent markings.
> You can believe all that or you can believe Hill just screwed up when he
> reported the shells found were automatics. You're call.
>

Those who control the evidence control the assassinations....

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> > > > impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
>
> > > Right. That makes a lot more sense than a guy screwed up and denied it
> > > afterward. When does that ever happen?
>
> > > > Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> > > > hulls ejected from a revolver.
>
> > > I don't suppose you considered the possibility that Poe discovered the
> > > shells had been found near the shrubbery?
>
> > You're missing the point.  Poe never suggested such a thing--the idea was
> > to create a *revolver* story so Hill could plausibly deny sending the
> > "auto" message.  We don't know the real Poe story... unless it's "Murders
> > in the Rue Morgue" or "The Black Cat'....
>
> Of course I missed your point. Everything you have written doesn't make
> the least bit of sense. How am I supposed to follow something this absurd.
> It is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. Have you noticed how
> much help you're getting from your fellow CTs on this one?

Yes, I am touched how Bud supports you.... Marsh seems to be on both
our cases....

[bigdog]

And of course, the plotters would have known that. In advance. Why
would a patsy take a concealed handgun to work?

>  For that
>
> > matter, how did they know that patsy Oswald would even leave work after
> > the assassination.
>
> Prearranged.
>

Could you be more vague?

> What if he did what all the innocent employees and wait
>
> > until they were sent home?
>
> Shelley apparently left, too.  He said he left in the car with Williams,
> but the latter said that Danny Arce was the only other person in the car
> from the depository.... And Oswald had to have a role in the conspiracy,
> so he was not entirely innocent....
>

Even if other employees did leave, the point is the plotters would
need to know in advance that Oswald would leave the TSBD. Had Oswald
stayed at work and they tried to frame him for the Tippit murder at
about 1:15, he would have had an airtight alibi.

> Let me guess. His handler told him do to all
>
>
>
>
>
> > those things. <snicker>
>
> > Here's what we do know. As Bud pointed out, we know Tippit was killed with
> > a revolver. We know that from the bullets recovered from his body which
> > were the same types of bullets Oswald had in his REVOLVER. They had the
> > same type of ballistic markings. For this alleged shell switching to work,
> > not only would the plotters have had to anticipate that Oswald would put
> > two different makes of .38 bullets in his revolver and put those in the
> > semi-automatic pistol they used to kill Tippit and made sure it had the
> > same grooves and twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver so the bullets
> > that killed Tippit would match Oswald's revolver. They would also have had
> > to know that Oswald's .38 revolver had a barrel which was oversized for
> > the .38 Special bullets he had in his gun so that a positive ballistic
> > match could not be made. For that matter, they would also have to have
> > used a .38 semi- auto that would fire bullets with the same caliber as the
> > .38 Special which has a true caliber of .357. And of course they would
> > have to put a mix of .357 Remmingtons and Winchesters into their .38
> > caliber semi- auto so that their bullets also had inconsistent markings.
> > You can believe all that or you can believe Hill just screwed up when he
> > reported the shells found were automatics. You're call.
>
> Those who control the evidence control the assassinations....
>

At last. Sooner or later, every CT paints himself into a corner where
they have to play the all-the-evidence-was-phoney card. They usually
hold this card until confronted with questions that are unanswerable
otherwise, as you have just demonstrated.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> > > > > impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
>
> > > > Right. That makes a lot more sense than a guy screwed up and denied it
> > > > afterward. When does that ever happen?
>
> > > > > Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> > > > > hulls ejected from a revolver.
>
> > > > I don't suppose you considered the possibility that Poe discovered the
> > > > shells had been found near the shrubbery?
>
> > > You're missing the point.  Poe never suggested such a thing--the idea was
> > > to create a *revolver* story so Hill could plausibly deny sending the
> > > "auto" message.  We don't know the real Poe story... unless it's "Murders
> > > in the Rue Morgue" or "The Black Cat'....
>
> > Of course I missed your point. Everything you have written doesn't make
> > the least bit of sense. How am I supposed to follow something this absurd.
> > It is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. Have you noticed how
> > much help you're getting from your fellow CTs on this one?
>
> Yes, I am touched how Bud supports you.... Marsh seems to be on both

> our cases....-

Marsh disagrees with everybody no matter what their position is.. It's
in his DNA. What you are proposing is so over the top that no other CT
would want to go near it. You might want to commiserate with Bob
Harris. He knows that feeling all too well.

[bigdog]

> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You need to ask that question of Myers. It's his position that
Benavides could not have seen the shells being dumped. Benavides is on
record as having seen the shooter dump the shells in the bushes and I
have no reason to doubt that. But let's play it your way. Let's say
for the sake of argument no one saw the shooter dump the shells. That
doesn't change the fact that the shells were eventually found around
the bushes. No one except you seems to dispute that and since you
weren't a witness, your beliefs on that matter do not constitute
evidence. Shells were found on the path that the witnesses saw the
shooter take in leaving the scene and those shells were positively
matched to Oswald's revolver. It is hardly a unique event that
evidence would be found at or near the scene of the crime that no
witness saw being left there. That doesn't render the evidence
useless. So how does the presence of shells found near the scene of
the shooting which were positively matched to Oswald's revolver fit in
with your claim that Tippit was murdered by the plotters to frame
Oswald?

[Sean Smiley]

On Jan 13, 4:45 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You forgot to add that the ballistic experts "were unable to
positively state that the bullets that killed JD Tippit were fired
from O's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons".--With Malice
p252. Also, the slugs in evidence are not necessarily the ones found
in Tippit's body. They could have been fired from O's gun *after* the
fact.... Unless you absolutely trust the Dallas authorities....
dcw

[Bud]

Does Dale Myers contend that the DPD went immediately to work to
allow the the real killer of one of their own go free? That seems to
be your invention.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > dcw

[bigdog]

You are trying to dance away from the issues I raised by switching the
focus to the bullets recovered from Tippit's body. There was a very good
reason why those bullets could not be matched. The barrel had a larger
diameter than the bullets resulting in inconsistent markings. Two test
bullets fired from that same revolver couldn't be matched to each other
even though it was known they were both fired from the same gun. And once
again, you resort to the lame tactic of questioning the validity of the
evidence because you know the evidence won't support your theory. If your
theory is that Oswald was framed and all the evidence points to his guilt,
it's a safe bet that it is your theory that is all wet.

[Sean Smiley]

You were quoting Benavides re seeing someone throw hulls. No one
believes that now. Well, at least Myers & me.
dcw

>
>
> > > > dcw- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Sean Smiley]

Go no further. That's it. Hill's testimony verifies this--he had to
deny that he sent the "auto" message, & to make that fly, he, Poe, &
Benavides had to lie re what Hill was told. Why would so much perjury
be suborned unless the shells were actually automatic?
dcw

T

> doesn't change the fact that the shells were eventually found around
> the bushes.

If the story re the throwing down of the hulls was false, why would
the story of the hulls found near the bushes necessarily be true?

No one except you seems to dispute that and since you
> weren't a witness, your beliefs on that matter do not constitute
> evidence. Shells were found on the path that the witnesses saw the
> shooter take in leaving the scene

Mrs Markham testified that the shooter walked down the sidewalk
straight to Patton. That he did *not* run thru the bushes where
shells were supposedly found.

and those shells were positively
> matched to Oswald's revolver. It is hardly a unique event that
> evidence would be found at or near the scene of the crime that no
> witness saw being left there. That doesn't render the evidence
> useless. So how does the presence of shells found near the scene of
> the shooting which were positively matched to Oswald's revolver fit in
> with your claim that Tippit was murdered by the plotters to frame

> Oswald?- Hide quoted text -

[Sean Smiley]

You were the one who brought up the subject of the bullets from
Tippit's body, two posts back.... Nice try, b....
dcw

There was a very good
> reason why those bullets could not be matched. The barrel had a larger
> diameter than the bullets resulting in inconsistent markings. Two test
> bullets fired from that same revolver couldn't be matched to each other
> even though it was known they were both fired from the same gun. And once
> again, you resort to the lame tactic of questioning the validity of the
> evidence because you know the evidence won't support your theory. If your
> theory is that Oswald was framed and all the evidence points to his guilt,

> it's a safe bet that it is your theory that is all wet.- Hide quoted text -

[Sean Smiley]

I'm guessing that he didn't quite trust anyone. That maybe he'd heard
about CIA patsies in Central America in the 50s....

> >  For that
>
> > > matter, how did they know that patsy Oswald would even leave work after
> > > the assassination.
>
> > Prearranged.
>
> Could you be more vague?
>
> > What if he did what all the innocent employees and wait
>
> > > until they were sent home?
>
> > Shelley apparently left, too.  He said he left in the car with Williams,
> > but the latter said that Danny Arce was the only other person in the car
> > from the depository.... And Oswald had to have a role in the conspiracy,
> > so he was not entirely innocent....
>
> Even if other employees did leave, the point is the plotters would
> need to know in advance that Oswald would leave the TSBD. Had Oswald
> stayed at work and they tried to frame him for the Tippit murder at
> about 1:15, he would have had an airtight alibi.
>

He did anyway--he was on the first floor at 12:30

I have detailed how all the hull evidence is pretty phony, in Dealey &
Oak Cliff. Hull by Henry Hull....
dcw

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > In order to deny this, a story had to be made which would render it
> > > > > > impossible, or nearly so, to connect Hill with the radio transmission.
>
> > > > > Right. That makes a lot more sense than a guy screwed up and denied it
> > > > > afterward. When does that ever happen?
>
> > > > > > Hence, the story which Poe supposed told Hill, re a suspect tossing away
> > > > > > hulls ejected from a revolver.
>
> > > > > I don't suppose you considered the possibility that Poe discovered the
> > > > > shells had been found near the shrubbery?
>
> > > > You're missing the point.  Poe never suggested such a thing--the idea was
> > > > to create a *revolver* story so Hill could plausibly deny sending the
> > > > "auto" message.  We don't know the real Poe story... unless it's "Murders
> > > > in the Rue Morgue" or "The Black Cat'....
>
> > > Of course I missed your point. Everything you have written doesn't make
> > > the least bit of sense. How am I supposed to follow something this absurd.
> > > It is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. Have you noticed how
> > > much help you're getting from your fellow CTs on this one?
>
> > Yes, I am touched how Bud supports you.... Marsh seems to be on both
> > our cases....-
>
> Marsh disagrees with everybody no matter what their position is.. It's
> in his DNA.

I was beginning to think so....

What you are proposing is so over the top that no other CT
> would want to go near it. You might want to commiserate with Bob

> Harris. He knows that feeling all too well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[bigdog]

You keep making the illogical assumption that if Hill denied sending the
message about automatic shells that Poe and Benavides had to lie? Why? Why
couldn't Hill have simply been wrong about automatic shells being found
and Poe and Benavides told the truth. That they were revolver shells and
they were found around the bushes. Your logic on this point escapes me.

>  T
>
> > doesn't change the fact that the shells were eventually found around
> > the bushes.
>
> If the story re the throwing down of the hulls was false, why would
> the story of the hulls found near the bushes necessarily be true?
>

If you aunt had balls she's be your uncle. If doesn't mean shit. The
evidence tells us the shooter threw the shells down. A witness reported
that and the shells were found where he said they were dumped.

> No one except you seems to dispute that and since you
>
> > weren't a witness, your beliefs on that matter do not constitute
> > evidence. Shells were found on the path that the witnesses saw the
> > shooter take in leaving the scene
>
> Mrs Markham testified that the shooter walked down the sidewalk
> straight to Patton.  That he did *not* run thru the bushes where
> shells were supposedly found.
>

She also said that she covered her face with her hands as Oswald walked
away so she couldn't have been positive about that. Sorry. Your turkey
won't fly.

[bigdog]

The question was how could the plotters have anticipated everything they
would have needed to do to carry out this alleged frame up. You have no
answer for that so you choose to bring up the fact the bullets couldn't
positively be matched, which is exactly what we would expect when a .38
Special bullets are fired by a true .38 caliber revolver.

[bigdog]

On Jan 15, 11:52 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:45 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:13 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I have suggested (years ago here) that Annie didn't get his gun--he
> > > had it on him already....
>
> > And of course, the plotters would have known that. In advance. Why
> > would a patsy take a concealed handgun to work?
>
> I'm guessing that he didn't quite trust anyone.  That maybe he'd heard
> about CIA patsies in Central America in the 50s....
>

You're guessing at just about everything and rather badly.

>
> > Even if other employees did leave, the point is the plotters would
> > need to know in advance that Oswald would leave the TSBD. Had Oswald
> > stayed at work and they tried to frame him for the Tippit murder at
> > about 1:15, he would have had an airtight alibi.
>
> He did anyway--he was on the first floor at 12:30
>

But he didn't stay at work which is what we would expect an innocent
man to do. You're plotters would have needed to know Oswald would
leave. If he stays at work, what is the point of shooting Tippit?

>
>
> > > Those who control the evidence control the assassinations....
>
> > At last. Sooner or later, every CT paints himself into a corner where
> > they have to play the all-the-evidence-was-phoney card. They usually
> > hold this card until confronted with questions that are unanswerable
> > otherwise, as you have just demonstrated.
>
> I have detailed how all the hull evidence is pretty phony, in Dealey &
> Oak Cliff.  Hull by Henry Hull....

You have spun a tale full of assumptions, speculations, and complete
misstatements. You have presented no evidence. You have proved nothing.

If there is no evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved and there
is no evidence that the evidence of his guilt was tampered with, why would
anyone believe that there was a conspiracy?

[Bud]

I quoted Benavides because he answered your question about why Benevides
waited so long before telling police about the shells.

> No one
> believes that now.  Well, at least Myers & me.

Of the three of you Benavides has the advantage of actually having been
there at the time of the shooting.

> dcw
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/15/2012 11:52 AM, Sean Smiley wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:45 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 10:11 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 7:49 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 7:43 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 12:57 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 13, 11:15 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> shells had been found near the shrubbery? Of course you haven't. That
>>>>>>>> explaination makes sense and doesn't fit in with the rest of your crazy
>>>>>>>> story. .
>>
>>>>>>>>> We don't know what exactly led Hill to
>>>>>>>>> radio "auto", but we know that no witness saw a suspect throwing down
>>>>>>>>> hulls.
>>
>>>>>>>> And just how do we know that?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Even Dale Myers writes that Benavides could not have seen such
>>>>>>>>> discarding: ``Benavides may very well have been the first to spot the

>>>>>>>>> shells& give them to police, but their location was apparently not based

>>>>>>>>> on any personal knowledge.... If Benavides actually saw Tippit`s killer
>>>>>>>>> drop the shells, why did he wait nearly 20 minutes, before telling police.
>>
>>>>>>>> Benavides was hardly the only witness who saw Oswald fleeing the scene. It
>>>>>>>> is extremely unlikely the shells would have been found when they were had
>>>>>>>> a witness not seen the shooter dumping them.
>>
>>>>>>> The meat grinder grinds on.... You should familiarize yourself with the
>>>>>>> testimonies of the Tippit witnesses. Benavides was the only witness who
>>>>>>> said that he saw the gunman throwing hulls down near the bushes near
>>>>>>> Tippit`s car. The Davises testified they did *not* see the gunman
>>>>>>> throwing hulls on the ground at all. And Guinyard testified that he saw
>>>>>>> the gunman throwing down hulls as he ran out onto Patton. That`s about 4
>>>>>>> strikes for you--you`re out.... So much for your *authoritative*

>>>>>>> ?xtremely unlikely``.... Grind on, diminutivedog

> deny that he sent the "auto" message,& to make that fly, he, Poe,&

> Benavides had to lie re what Hill was told. Why would so much perjury
> be suborned unless the shells were actually automatic?
> dcw
>

Maybe for the same reason that they lied about the identification of the
rifle as a Mauser. Not because it really was which we can see for
ourselves, but because some dumb cop made a simple mistake and no one
wanted to admit that one of their own was a dummy.

> T
>> doesn't change the fact that the shells were eventually found around
>> the bushes.
>
> If the story re the throwing down of the hulls was false, why would
> the story of the hulls found near the bushes necessarily be true?
>

Which story. Pick you witness carefully and ignore all the rest.

> No one except you seems to dispute that and since you
>> weren't a witness, your beliefs on that matter do not constitute
>> evidence. Shells were found on the path that the witnesses saw the
>> shooter take in leaving the scene
>
> Mrs Markham testified that the shooter walked down the sidewalk
> straight to Patton. That he did *not* run thru the bushes where
> shells were supposedly found.
>

You mean when she had her hands covering her eyes?

[Bud]

Yah, either everyone was lying or you ideas just have no merit. Easy
call.

>  T
>
> > doesn't change the fact that the shells were eventually found around
> > the bushes.
>
> If the story re the throwing down of the hulls was false, why would
> the story of the hulls found near the bushes necessarily be true?

<snicker> Lucky you're so clever that you can see through the lies
of... well, just about everyone.

> No one except you seems to dispute that and since you
>
> > weren't a witness, your beliefs on that matter do not constitute
> > evidence. Shells were found on the path that the witnesses saw the
> > shooter take in leaving the scene
>
> Mrs Markham testified that the shooter walked down the sidewalk
> straight to Patton.  That he did *not* run thru the bushes where
> shells were supposedly found.

Four other witnesses said Oswald cut across the lawn. They even said
it was Oswald.

[Bud]

Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty
shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his
hand.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/14/2012 5:45 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Jan 14, 10:13 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 4:45 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 4:32 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.cut
>>
>>>>>>> How does Hill lying once prove that he lied twice and that Poe and
>>>>>>> Benavides lied too?
>>
>>>>>> For whatever reason Hill radioed "auto", it was decided to have him deny
>>>>>> this.
>>
>>>>> Really??? And how do you know this? How do you know Hill didn't do
>>>>> that just to cover his ass?
>>
>>>> Helluva lot of ass-covering then--Henslee altered the radio logs to

>>>> suggest Hill didn't send the "auto" message. Benavides& Poe& Hill

>>>> himself made up a story which would make it seem like Hill couldn't have

>>>> sent the "auto" message.. Multiple perjury& radio-log altering just to

>>>> cover up a simple ass...? Sure....
>>
>>> All those alleged purjuries are nothing more than a figment of your
>>> imagination. One guy screwed up and reported auto shells had been found
>>> and may have tried to cover up his mistake and from that you weave a
>>> fantastic tale of everybody going into cover up mode. What you are
>>> creating wouldn't even make a good dime store novel. Here's a few
>>> questions to ponder. If Tippit was killed to make Oswald look guilty, why
>>> didn't they just use a revolver?
>>
>> Ah! Finally, that's the best point you could make. Honestly. And I
>> could only speculate, so I won't. All I can say is, there are some
>> other factors here. Score one for bigdog! (After a string of
>> losses....)
>> dcw
>>
>> Oh no, that's too simple. We have to make
>>
>>> this as fantastic as possible by inventing a tale of shell switching. That
>>> way we can make it look like everybody within three blocks of the Tippit
>>> murder was in on the cover up. How did these guys know Oswald was going to
>>> get his gun so he would have a weapon they could frame him with.
>>
>> I have suggested (years ago here) that Annie didn't get his gun--he
>> had it on him already....
>>
> And of course, the plotters would have known that. In advance. Why
> would a patsy take a concealed handgun to work?

If he doesn't know he's being set up as the patsy then how would he know
to take his revolver to work?
If he does suspect he is being set up as the patsy then he would want to
take his revolver to work.
The fact that Oswald did not take his revolver to work indicates that he
did not know that he was set up to be the patsy.

>
>> For that
>>
>>> matter, how did they know that patsy Oswald would even leave work after
>>> the assassination.
>>
>> Prearranged.
>>
> Could you be more vague?
>
>> What if he did what all the innocent employees and wait
>>
>>> until they were sent home?
>>
>> Shelley apparently left, too. He said he left in the car with Williams,
>> but the latter said that Danny Arce was the only other person in the car
>> from the depository.... And Oswald had to have a role in the conspiracy,
>> so he was not entirely innocent....
>>
> Even if other employees did leave, the point is the plotters would
> need to know in advance that Oswald would leave the TSBD. Had Oswald

If Oswald was part of the plot he would be ordered to leave the TSBD. If
he didn't know about the plot he might hang around for a few minutes, then
get bored and leave. He had a habit of leaving work in his previous job.

> stayed at work and they tried to frame him for the Tippit murder at
> about 1:15, he would have had an airtight alibi.
>

Don't try to link the two.

[Sean Smiley]

Well, either Myers missed that or saw it & discounted it.
dcw

[Sean Smiley]

On Jan 15, 3:19 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:52 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2:45 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 14, 10:13 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have suggested (years ago here) that Annie didn't get his gun--he
> > > > had it on him already....
>
> > > And of course, the plotters would have known that. In advance. Why
> > > would a patsy take a concealed handgun to work?
>
> > I'm guessing that he didn't quite trust anyone.  That maybe he'd heard
> > about CIA patsies in Central America in the 50s....
>
> You're guessing at just about everything and rather badly.
>

Yes, this from the guy who stated that it was very likely that someone
besides Benavides said that he saw hulls thrown down, & told the police.
(I add the latter phrase because Guinyard said he saw hulls thrown down,
on Patton, but apparently never told the police!)

dcw

[Sean Smiley]

The problem, or one problem, is that not only was Hill supposedly wrong
about "auto" shells, he denied that he made that mistake. In order to
make good on that denial to the Commission he also had to fabricate what
he was told by Poe--that the suspect was seen throwing down hulls--i.e.,
"revolver". He couldn't tell the truth in this section of his testimony
either. Nor could Poe have told him something about thrown shells, or
Hill would not have radioed "auto". So Poe, too, had to join in the
thrown-hulls story.

In order for the Benavides-Poe portion of the story to hold up, you'd
have to say that Poe & Hill never spoke at the scene, & apparently
they did.
dcw

> > > doesn't change the fact that the shells were eventually found around
> > > the bushes.
>
> > If the story re the throwing down of the hulls was false, why would
> > the story of the hulls found near the bushes necessarily be true?
>
> If you aunt had balls she's be your uncle. If doesn't mean shit. The
> evidence tells us the shooter threw the shells down. A witness reported
> that and the shells were found where he said they were dumped.
>
> > No one except you seems to dispute that and since you
>
> > > weren't a witness, your beliefs on that matter do not constitute
> > > evidence. Shells were found on the path that the witnesses saw the
> > > shooter take in leaving the scene
>
> > Mrs Markham testified that the shooter walked down the sidewalk
> > straight to Patton.  That he did *not* run thru the bushes where
> > shells were supposedly found.
>
> She also said that she covered her face with her hands as Oswald walked
> away

Weak memory, b. She testified that she hid her face only *after* the
gunman had reached the intersection of 10th & Patton. Gobble your
turkey (see below)....

(Not sure of my memory here either--I think the "Davis" hulls were
supposedly found *beyond* the bushes.)

so she couldn't have been positive about that. Sorry. Your turkey

> won't fly.- Hide quoted text -
>