Acquilla Clemmons

[David Von Pein]

MITCH TODD SAID:

[Acquilla Clemmons] said that, after hearing the shots, she left the house
she was working in and started towards the source of the shots up the
block. She said she then saw a man with a gun reloading his weapon and
leave the scene. This man has some verbal communication with a man going
the opposite direction on the other side of the street, which she
remembered as "go on." Then the gunman continued on his way and the other
man proceeded east on 10th.

Ted Callaway was at a used car lot on the corner Jefferson and Patton, one
block south of Tenth. He started North on Patton, where he sees a man with
a gun coming down Patton on the opposite side of the street. Callaway
called out to the guy "what's going on?" but didn't understand the other
man's response. The other man continued down Patton, and Callaway
continued on to 10th, then turned East to get to Tippit's squad car.

From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
Oswald.

The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
later rememberences.

Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.

~big shrug~


MITCH TODD SAID:

She said that, after she heard the shots, she left the house and made her
way down 10th to the intersection with Patton. The closer she got, the
further down Patton she would have been able to see.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay, Mitch. Thanks. I haven't done any in-depth study of Acquilla
Clemmons or her statements. I didn't realize she even said she left her
front porch that afternoon (actually, it would have been the house of her
employer at 327 East Tenth Street, which was not her own dwelling). I
thought she said she observed everything from the front porch of the
house. (You don't think I've been brainwashed by watching Oliver Stone's
version of events, do you? Oh God, no!! Anything but that.)

I'm ashamed to admit that even though I have Mark Lane's "Rush To
Judgment" film in my video collection (and I've watched the film MANY
times), I was under the (false) impression (until today) that Mrs.
Acquilla Clemmons did all of her "witnessing" on 11/22/63 from the front
porch of the house. I *must* have been erroneously influenced by Oliver
Stone's filmed re-creation featuring Mrs. Clemmons, which shows Clemmons
never leaving the front porch, as I recall.

But after watching Clemmons' interview with Mark Lane in "RTJ" again just
now, I can see where I was mistaken in that "Only From The Front Porch"
belief. She clearly says in the Lane interview that she left her
employer's house and then "ran back down the street". (See video below.)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxIOFRDYldpdEwtaDA/view

The same information about Clemmons leaving the front porch of her
employer's house can also be found in Dale Myers' book "With Malice"
(which apparently I also had forgotten completely about, too).

After re-evaluating Clemmons' statements in the Mark Lane film, I can see
that what you (Mitch Todd) have said about her possibly seeing the
"Oswald/Callaway" encounter is certainly possible and makes a lot of
sense.

Apart from her observation about the "other man" (who didn't have a gun)
being rather "thin" (which, as you pointed out, does not really fit
Callaway's physique as of 1963 or 1964), there are several things in
Clemmons' story that fit perfectly with Callaway being part of the
"encounter" that Acquilla talked about in her 1966 interview with Mark
Lane.

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

Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:33:25 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> MITCH TODD SAID:
>
> [Acquilla Clemmons] said that, after hearing the shots, she left the house
> she was working in and started towards the source of the shots up the
> block. She said she then saw a man with a gun reloading his weapon and
> leave the scene. This man has some verbal communication with a man going
> the opposite direction on the other side of the street, which she
> remembered as "go on." Then the gunman continued on his way and the other
> man proceeded east on 10th.
>
> Ted Callaway was at a used car lot on the corner Jefferson and Patton, one
> block south of Tenth. He started North on Patton, where he sees a man with
> a gun coming down Patton on the opposite side of the street. Callaway
> called out to the guy "what's going on?" but didn't understand the other
> man's response. The other man continued down Patton, and Callaway
> continued on to 10th, then turned East to get to Tippit's squad car.
>

That meeting was further on than where Clemmons saw the man reloading
his revolver. That was a different person, not the chunky short person
Clemmons saw.

> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
> Oswald.
>

Callaway looks to be taller than you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM

But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.

> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
> later rememberences.
>

"may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.

> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
>
> ~big shrug~
>

Good thinking for a change from DVP.

>
> MITCH TODD SAID:
>
> She said that, after she heard the shots, she left the house and made her
> way down 10th to the intersection with Patton. The closer she got, the
> further down Patton she would have been able to see.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Okay, Mitch. Thanks. I haven't done any in-depth study of Acquilla
> Clemmons or her statements. I didn't realize she even said she left her
> front porch that afternoon (actually, it would have been the house of her
> employer at 327 East Tenth Street, which was not her own dwelling). I
> thought she said she observed everything from the front porch of the
> house. (You don't think I've been brainwashed by watching Oliver Stone's
> version of events, do you? Oh God, no!! Anything but that.)
>
> I'm ashamed to admit that even though I have Mark Lane's "Rush To
> Judgment" film in my video collection (and I've watched the film MANY
> times), I was under the (false) impression (until today) that Mrs.
> Acquilla Clemmons did all of her "witnessing" on 11/22/63 from the front
> porch of the house. I *must* have been erroneously influenced by Oliver
> Stone's filmed re-creation featuring Mrs. Clemmons, which shows Clemmons
> never leaving the front porch, as I recall.
>

Clemmons said that she walked down to where Tippit was laying on the
ground.

> But after watching Clemmons' interview with Mark Lane in "RTJ" again just
> now, I can see where I was mistaken in that "Only From The Front Porch"
> belief. She clearly says in the Lane interview that she left her
> employer's house and then "ran back down the street". (See video below.)
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxIOFRDYldpdEwtaDA/view
>
> The same information about Clemmons leaving the front porch of her
> employer's house can also be found in Dale Myers' book "With Malice"
> (which apparently I also had forgotten completely about, too).
>
> After re-evaluating Clemmons' statements in the Mark Lane film, I can see
> that what you (Mitch Todd) have said about her possibly seeing the
> "Oswald/Callaway" encounter is certainly possible and makes a lot of
> sense.
>

It's very doubtful. Too many things made up in the description of what
happened.

[Mitch Todd]

On 5/12/2017 8:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:33:25 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> MITCH TODD SAID:
>>
>> [Acquilla Clemmons] said that, after hearing the shots, she left the house
>> she was working in and started towards the source of the shots up the
>> block. She said she then saw a man with a gun reloading his weapon and
>> leave the scene. This man has some verbal communication with a man going
>> the opposite direction on the other side of the street, which she
>> remembered as "go on." Then the gunman continued on his way and the other
>> man proceeded east on 10th.
>>
>> Ted Callaway was at a used car lot on the corner Jefferson and Patton, one
>> block south of Tenth. He started North on Patton, where he sees a man with
>> a gun coming down Patton on the opposite side of the street. Callaway
>> called out to the guy "what's going on?" but didn't understand the other
>> man's response. The other man continued down Patton, and Callaway
>> continued on to 10th, then turned East to get to Tippit's squad car.
>
> That meeting was further on than where Clemmons saw the man reloading
> his revolver. That was a different person, not the chunky short person
> Clemmons saw.

Clemons didn't say that the interaction between the gunman and the guy
across the street while the gunman was reloading. Clemons, Benavides,
Markham, Davis, Davis-nee-something-else, and Scoggins all saw Oswald
reload his gun. None of them said that he was talking to anyone else, much
less anyone across the street. It had to have happened after that. The
only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
talking about him.

>> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
>> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
>> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
>> Oswald.
>
> Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
>
> But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.

He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.

>> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
>> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
>> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
>> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
>> later rememberences.
>
> "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.

It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.

>> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
>> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
>> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
>> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
>> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
>>
>> ~big shrug~
>
> Good thinking for a change from DVP.

As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
and would have been able to see further and further down
Patton as she closed on the intersection.

>> MITCH TODD SAID:
>>
>> She said that, after she heard the shots, she left the house and made her
>> way down 10th to the intersection with Patton. The closer she got, the
>> further down Patton she would have been able to see.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Okay, Mitch. Thanks. I haven't done any in-depth study of Acquilla
>> Clemmons or her statements. I didn't realize she even said she left her
>> front porch that afternoon (actually, it would have been the house of her
>> employer at 327 East Tenth Street, which was not her own dwelling). I
>> thought she said she observed everything from the front porch of the
>> house. (You don't think I've been brainwashed by watching Oliver Stone's
>> version of events, do you? Oh God, no!! Anything but that.)
>>
>> I'm ashamed to admit that even though I have Mark Lane's "Rush To
>> Judgment" film in my video collection (and I've watched the film MANY
>> times), I was under the (false) impression (until today) that Mrs.
>> Acquilla Clemmons did all of her "witnessing" on 11/22/63 from the front
>> porch of the house. I *must* have been erroneously influenced by Oliver
>> Stone's filmed re-creation featuring Mrs. Clemmons, which shows Clemmons
>> never leaving the front porch, as I recall.
>
> Clemmons said that she walked down to where Tippit was laying on the
> ground.

See what I mean? Not good thinking on your part.

>> But after watching Clemmons' interview with Mark Lane in "RTJ" again just
>> now, I can see where I was mistaken in that "Only From The Front Porch"
>> belief. She clearly says in the Lane interview that she left her
>> employer's house and then "ran back down the street". (See video below.)
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxIOFRDYldpdEwtaDA/view
>>
>> The same information about Clemmons leaving the front porch of her
>> employer's house can also be found in Dale Myers' book "With Malice"
>> (which apparently I also had forgotten completely about, too).
>>
>> After re-evaluating Clemmons' statements in the Mark Lane film, I can see
>> that what you (Mitch Todd) have said about her possibly seeing the
>> "Oswald/Callaway" encounter is certainly possible and makes a lot of
>> sense.
>
> It's very doubtful. Too many things made up in the description of what
> happened.

So many of them that you can't name a-one of 'em.

[mainframetech]

Clemons said clearly that she saw a guy reloading his revolver. She
also saw the guy signaling to Oswald to 'go on'. Changing her statement
around won't do.

> It had to have happened after that. The
> only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
> Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
> while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
> talking about him.
>

Clemons saw the guy talking to the Oswald looking fellow. Mostly
telling him to 'go on'.

>
> >> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
> >> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
> >> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
> >> Oswald.
> >
> > Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
> >
> > But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
>
> He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
> video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
> how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
> Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
> the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
> matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
>
>

Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.

> >> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
> >> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
> >> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
> >> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
> >> later rememberences.
> >
> > "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.
>
> It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
> pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
> like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
> it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.
>

You forget that Clemons is a witness. And she wasn't the only one.
Here's t he statement of Frank White who lived in the ara:

"Frank Wright lived along the street from the spot where Tippit was
killed, and heard the shots as he sat in his living room. While his wife
telephoned for help, Wright went straight to his front door. He later told
researchers: "I was the first person out," and caught sight of Tippit in
time to see him roll over once and then lie still. Wright also said, "I
saw a man standing in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on
the ground. I couldn't tell who the man was on the ground. The man who was
standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat.
It ended just above his hands. I didn't see any gun. He ran around on the
passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go, and he
got into his car... He got in that car and he drove away as fast as you
could see...."

From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm

And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
much to check on the Tippit killing.

>
> >> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
> >> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
> >>
> >>
> >> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >>
> >> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
> >> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
> >> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
> >> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
> >>
> >> ~big shrug~
> >
> > Good thinking for a change from DVP.
>
> As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
> this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
> and would have been able to see further and further down
> Patton as she closed on the intersection.
>

Anything to make it work.

WRONG! There's a list of them in the link I provided.

> >> Apart from her observation about the "other man" (who didn't have a gun)
> >> being rather "thin" (which, as you pointed out, does not really fit
> >> Callaway's physique as of 1963 or 1964), there are several things in
> >> Clemmons' story that fit perfectly with Callaway being part of the
> >> "encounter" that Acquilla talked about in her 1966 interview with Mark
> >> Lane.
> >>
> >> --------------------
> >>
> >> Also See:
> >> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

Chris

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't change anything in her statement. She never said
that the gunman was signalling the other guy *while* he was
reloading. You can construe it that way, I guess, but then
you also have to explain why no one else who saw the gunman
talking to the guy across the street while unloading and
reloading his pistol. Not Markham, or Scoggins, or Benavides,
or the Davis women. BTW, Clemons also didn't say he other guy
was Oswald. You're already folding your imagination into her
testimony.

>> It had to have happened after that. The
>> only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
>> Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
>> while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
>> talking about him.
>
> Clemons saw the guy talking to the Oswald looking fellow. Mostly
> telling him to 'go on'.

Where did you get "mostly" from, Chris? The *only* thing that
she claimed was that he told the other guy, "go on." Compare
that to Callaway's testimony that he told the man that he
identified as Oswald "What's going on?" And keep in mind that
Callaway is the *only* other witness who had the gunman verbally
interact with another man, and that it happened across Patton.

>>>> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
>>>> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
>>>> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
>>>> Oswald.
>>>
>>> Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
>>>
>>> But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
>>
>> He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
>> video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
>> how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
>> Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
>> the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
>> matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
>
> Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
> Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.

She said he was "very dark complected," like Craig described
the Rambler driver?

>>>> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
>>>> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
>>>> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
>>>> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
>>>> later rememberences.
>>>
>>> "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.
>>
>> It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
>> pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
>> like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
>> it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.
>
> You forget that Clemons is a witness.

So, you're trying to tell us that your take on Clemons'
testimony is corroborated by...Clemons? That's some really
dim logic there. Next you'll be telling us that Abraham
Lincoln is buried Grant's tomb because it's Grant's tomb.

> And she wasn't the only one.
>
> Here's t he statement of Frank White who lived in the ara:
>
> "Frank Wright lived along the street from the spot where Tippit was
> killed, and heard the shots as he sat in his living room. While his wife
> telephoned for help, Wright went straight to his front door. He later told
> researchers: "I was the first person out," and caught sight of Tippit in
> time to see him roll over once and then lie still. Wright also said, "I
> saw a man standing in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on
> the ground. I couldn't tell who the man was on the ground. The man who was
> standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat.
> It ended just above his hands. I didn't see any gun. He ran around on the
> passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go, and he
> got into his car... He got in that car and he drove away as fast as you
> could see...."

So, did Wright claim that the gunman signaled to another man
across the street, as Clemons said, and did it while reloading
as you claim she said? No. Did Clemons or any other witness at
the scene describe a man near Tippit's cruiser running to a car,
getting in, and driving away as Wright claimed? No. For that
matter, how could Wright claim that he was the "first person
out" when Markham, Benavides, and Scoggins were outside before
the shooting and saw it?

> From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
>
> And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
> much to check on the Tippit killing.

Yeah, like I never heard of Simkin's website?! ;-P

Instead of just passively soaking up Simkin's presentation,
why not track down the underlying testimony on your own at
Mary Ferrell or History Matters or McAdams site?

>>>> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
>>>> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>>
>>>> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
>>>> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
>>>> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
>>>> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
>>>>
>>>> ~big shrug~
>>>
>>> Good thinking for a change from DVP.
>>
>> As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
>> this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
>> and would have been able to see further and further down
>> Patton as she closed on the intersection.
>
> Anything to make it work.

What sour grapes you have! You're the guy who said
that DVP was "good thinking" when he questioned
whether Clemons would have been able to see Callaway
and Oswald pass each other on 10th. You're also the
guy who pointed out that Clemons said she went over
to where the murder occurred, and would then have
easily been able to see down Patton all the way to
Jefferson.

What link? The one one to Spartacus? You didn't post that
until after I'd dinged you, so your your "WRONG" is totally,
well, wrong. And it doesn't address what I've been saying
about Clemons and Callaway, anyway.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:33:25 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

David, here is some other information to consider. Apparently Clemmons
surfaced as a witness when she was found by two newspaper reporters
canvassing the area around 11 months after the shooting. The article can
be found here....

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Support_from_center/The_other_witnesses--Nashes.html

There is one major discrepancy between the information contained in the
article and her later accounts.

"We interviewed this “other witness,” whose name is
Acquilla Clemmons. She claims to have seen two men near the police car, in
addition to Tippit, just before the shooting. The woman said the fbi did
question her briefly but decided not to take a statement because of her
poor physical condition (she is a diabetic). Her version of the slaying
was rather vague, and she may have based her story on second-hand accounts
of others are the scene. It seems probably, however, that she is known to
some investigative agency if not to the Commission itself."

The article has Clemmons observing the scene before the shooting, not
coming out after hearing shots as she later related.

[mainframetech]

True as far as his name. But the description fit Oswald a lot better
than the chunky short one. Which matched the man driving the Nash Rambler
at the TSBD that an Oswald ran into and entered.

> >> It had to have happened after that. The
> >> only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
> >> Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
> >> while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
> >> talking about him.
> >
> > Clemons saw the guy talking to the Oswald looking fellow. Mostly
> > telling him to 'go on'.
>
> Where did you get "mostly" from, Chris? The *only* thing that
> she claimed was that he told the other guy, "go on."

One had to use their intelligence. The man reloading his revolver did
not say just 'go on' in their whole conversation. They obviously knew
each other, and surely must have said more than 'go on'. Clemons happened
to see the 'go on' gesture.

> Compare
> that to Callaway's testimony that he told the man that he
> identified as Oswald "What's going on?" And keep in mind that
> Callaway is the *only* other witness who had the gunman verbally
> interact with another man, and that it happened across Patton.
>

Or so he says. Perhaps you mixed him up with another?

>
>
> >>>> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
> >>>> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
> >>>> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
> >>>> Oswald.
> >>>
> >>> Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
> >>>
> >>> But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
> >>
> >> He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
> >> video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
> >> how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
> >> Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
> >> the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
> >> matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
> >
> > Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
> > Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.
>
> She said he was "very dark complected," like Craig described
> the Rambler driver?

True. I got the impression he was Hispanic, but that's no guarantee.

>
>
> >>>> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
> >>>> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
> >>>> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
> >>>> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
> >>>> later rememberences.
> >>>
> >>> "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.
> >>
> >> It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
> >> pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
> >> like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
> >> it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.
> >
> > You forget that Clemons is a witness.
>
> So, you're trying to tell us that your take on Clemons'
> testimony is corroborated by...Clemons? That's some really
> dim logic there. Next you'll be telling us that Abraham
> Lincoln is buried Grant's tomb because it's Grant's tomb.
>

Use your head. Clemons speaks directly and I don't see any reason to
simply dismiss her statement and insert another guy and change them around
as to who is speaking. Until we have a specific reason for what she said,
I'm holding her statement in abeyance. There is another woman that was on
that street and she also saw what Clemons saw, but I'm still tracking her
down. I gave you the info that shows complication in the Tippit killing,
right?

>
>
> > And she wasn't the only one.
> >

> > Here's the statement of Frank White who lived in the area:

> >
> > "Frank Wright lived along the street from the spot where Tippit was
> > killed, and heard the shots as he sat in his living room. While his wife
> > telephoned for help, Wright went straight to his front door. He later told
> > researchers: "I was the first person out," and caught sight of Tippit in
> > time to see him roll over once and then lie still. Wright also said, "I
> > saw a man standing in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on
> > the ground. I couldn't tell who the man was on the ground. The man who was
> > standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat.
> > It ended just above his hands. I didn't see any gun. He ran around on the
> > passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go, and he
> > got into his car... He got in that car and he drove away as fast as you
> > could see...."
>
> So, did Wright claim that the gunman signaled to another man
> across the street, as Clemons said, and did it while reloading
> as you claim she said? No. Did Clemons or any other witness at
> the scene describe a man near Tippit's cruiser running to a car,
> getting in, and driving away as Wright claimed? No. For that
> matter, how could Wright claim that he was the "first person
> out" when Markham, Benavides, and Scoggins were outside before
> the shooting and saw it?
>

Well, the cab driver saw a lot less than he said. I checked his story
out a long time ago and he was looking through a bush at what was
happening, and he was also ducking behind his cab at various times to
avoid being seen and shot at. Not a very good situation for viewing the
scene, but he's always noted as seeing everything perfectly. To me, the
whole Tippit scene needs further clarification. There is also many
indications that many of these people, including cops were in on the
goings on during the killing of JFK, and some were even named as shooters
in Dealey Plaza by one of the authors of books on the subject.

The LNs are often telling me that certain witnesses were mistaken, and
I need to realize that, now I'm saying it and no one wants to allow for
it.

>
> > From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
> >
> > And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
> > much to check on the Tippit killing.
>
> Yeah, like I never heard of Simkin's website?! ;-P
>

I'm sure you have, I just was unaware whether you had checked out this
particular part. Relax. We're not having some kind of fight.

> Instead of just passively soaking up Simkin's presentation,
> why not track down the underlying testimony on your own at
> Mary Ferrell or History Matters or McAdams site?
>

I've found that McAdams site varies too much. Sometimes it's giving
straight info, and sometimes it's got 'hit pieces', which are irritating
to read.

>
> >>>> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
> >>>> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.

I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that. And
her testimony when being questioned was something out of Alice in
Wonderland.

> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >>>>
> >>>> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
> >>>> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
> >>>> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
> >>>> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~big shrug~
> >>>
> >>> Good thinking for a change from DVP.
> >>
> >> As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
> >> this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
> >> and would have been able to see further and further down
> >> Patton as she closed on the intersection.
> >
> > Anything to make it work.
>
> What sour grapes you have! You're the guy who said
> that DVP was "good thinking" when he questioned
> whether Clemons would have been able to see Callaway
> and Oswald pass each other on 10th. You're also the
> guy who pointed out that Clemons said she went over
> to where the murder occurred, and would then have
> easily been able to see down Patton all the way to
> Jefferson.
>

How easily she could see down the other street doesn't mean she was
watching someone on that street, or getting mixed up with people there.

[John McAdams]

On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
>
>
> I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
>her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
>dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.

Wrong.

In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."

You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.

As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
being asked.

And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
assassination.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

More of your double standards. You change witness statements all the time
but that's OK when you do it.

>
>
>
> > It had to have happened after that. The
> > only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
> > Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
> > while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
> > talking about him.
> >
>
>
> Clemons saw the guy talking to the Oswald looking fellow. Mostly
> telling him to 'go on'.
>
>
>
> >
> > >> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
> > >> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
> > >> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
> > >> Oswald.
> > >
> > > Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
> > >
> > > But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
> >
> > He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
> > video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
> > how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
> > Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
> > the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
> > matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
> >
> >
>
>
> Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
> Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.
>

How could a Nash Rambler pick up Oswald in front of the TSBD when two
witnesses saw him board Cecil McWatters bus. His former landlady, Mary
Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
want to believe. That trumps all else.

Never do you show your desperation to believe in Oswald's innocence more
than when the Tippit murder is being discussed. Numerous witnesses IDed
him and they are supported by the fact that when arrested, Oswald held the
only gun in the world that could have fired the shells found on the ground
where the gunman discarded them. But you'll dismiss all those witnesses
and the physical evidence that supports them because you found a witness
who tells a story you would rather believe.

>
>
> >
> > >> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
> > >> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >>
> > >> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
> > >> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
> > >> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
> > >> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
> > >>
> > >> ~big shrug~
> > >
> > > Good thinking for a change from DVP.
> >
> > As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
> > this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
> > and would have been able to see further and further down
> > Patton as she closed on the intersection.
> >
>
>
> Anything to make it work.
>

The only explanation that works is Oswald killed Tippit just as he killed
JFK about 45 minutes earlier.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
> >her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
> >dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.
>
> Wrong.
>
> In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
> day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
> a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
> of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
> approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
> and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."
>
> You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.
>

Are you now ordering me not to post things that I believe about the
crime? I appreciate that you're an LN, but that's not very helpful.
Many stories related about the Tippit scene allow that the body did NOT
groan or do anything that might seem like it was still alive. So I went
with those stories. I'm sure a poll of how many said there was no action
vs. how many said Tippit groaned and such would come out that the body was
killed instantly as the stories said.

> As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
> being asked.
>

And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.


Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.

> And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
> assassination.
>

As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
Markham?

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 20 May 2017 10:40:44 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
>> >her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
>> >dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
>> day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
>> a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
>> of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
>> approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
>> and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."
>>
>> You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.
>>
>
>
> Are you now ordering me not to post things that I believe about the
>crime?

The fact that you "believe it" isn't evidence.

I posted a cite to a primary source as to what she said.

Do you have a *primary source* saying that she said she was "talking
to Tippit?"

You need to start understanding that the conspiracy books you read are
unreliable.

>I appreciate that you're an LN, but that's not very helpful.
>Many stories related about the Tippit scene allow that the body did NOT
>groan or do anything that might seem like it was still alive.

Huh? Post an account from a witness who said that they saw Tippit the
entire time Markham and Cimino were on the scene and Tippit made no
movements and uttered no sound.

You can't.

And even if you could, you would lack any source for Markham claiming
to have "talked to" Tippit.

>So I went
>with those stories.

No, you went with some unreliable conspiracy book.

>I'm sure a poll of how many said there was no action
>vs. how many said Tippit groaned and such would come out that the body was
>killed instantly as the stories said.
>

You are thrashing around tying to wiggle out of the fact that you
quoted some unreliable conspiracy book.

>
>
>> As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
>> being asked.
>>
>
>
> And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
>completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.
>

It's not "mental problems" to be a bit intimidated and confused
talking to the WC. Especially when you are not particularly well
educated or used to dealing with government officials.

Markham was not Ruth Paine.

>
> Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
>statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.
>

Yes, Clemons was mixed up. No other witness puts a pair of people
shooting Tippit.

>
>
>> And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
>> assassination.
>>
>
> As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
>criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
>which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
>that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
>Markham?
>
>http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html

Mark Lane tried to get Markham to say the cops had told her whom to
ID.

<Quote on>

Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
replied, "They didn't tell me one thing."

<End quote>

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

You need to start understanding that the stuff you have been reading
is unreliable.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

So, because you call her a kook you think that disqualifies her
identification of Oswald? Sorry, but the Pope wasn't around to be a
witness. You takem like you findem.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[mainframetech]

FALSE! When will you get it right? There is only ONE instance that I
corrected a witness comment because of the obvious mistake she made.
Your statement is WRONG as usual when you say I change statements "all the
time".

> > > It had to have happened after that. The
> > > only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
> > > Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
> > > while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
> > > talking about him.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Clemons saw the guy talking to the Oswald looking fellow. Mostly
> > telling him to 'go on'.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
> > > >> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
> > > >> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
> > > >> Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
> > > >
> > > > But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
> > >
> > > He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
> > > video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
> > > how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
> > > Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
> > > the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
> > > matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
> > Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.
> >
>
> How could a Nash Rambler pick up Oswald in front of the TSBD when two
> witnesses saw him board Cecil McWatters bus.

Weell, there has been talk of 2 Oswalds, that might solve your problem.

> His former landlady, Mary
> Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
> The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
> McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
> from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
> witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
> grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
> the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
> want to believe. That trumps all else.
>

WRONG! I don't believe to the exclusion of other statements that the
Nash Rambler story is the only one. That's more of your foolishness when
you don't think it through. The possibility of 2 Oswalds is in evidence,
and I haven't seen reason to throw it away. The Nash Rambler story has a
number of witnesses to it, so it stays until something resolves the
problem.

> >
> >
> > > >> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
> > > >> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
> > > >> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
> > > >> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
> > > >> later rememberences.
> > > >
> > > > "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.
> > >
> > > It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
> > > pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
> > > like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
> > > it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You forget that Clemons is a witness. And she wasn't the only one.

> > Here's the statement of Frank White who lived in the area:

> >
> > "Frank Wright lived along the street from the spot where Tippit was
> > killed, and heard the shots as he sat in his living room. While his wife
> > telephoned for help, Wright went straight to his front door. He later told
> > researchers: "I was the first person out," and caught sight of Tippit in
> > time to see him roll over once and then lie still. Wright also said, "I
> > saw a man standing in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on
> > the ground. I couldn't tell who the man was on the ground. The man who was
> > standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat.
> > It ended just above his hands. I didn't see any gun. He ran around on the
> > passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go, and he
> > got into his car... He got in that car and he drove away as fast as you
> > could see...."
> >
> > From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
> >
> > And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
> > much to check on the Tippit killing.
> >
>
> Never do you show your desperation to believe in Oswald's innocence more
> than when the Tippit murder is being discussed. Numerous witnesses IDed
> him and they are supported by the fact that when arrested, Oswald held the
> only gun in the world that could have fired the shells found on the ground
> where the gunman discarded them. But you'll dismiss all those witnesses
> and the physical evidence that supports them because you found a witness
> who tells a story you would rather believe.
>

WRONG! It sure sounds cut and dried when stated by you. But I've
shown you some of the alternate stories that were generated by people that
lived on that block and it's clear that your bias won't let you think of
anything else. And again I have to advise you that I do NOT throw out
evidence, but I may use it differently than you. BTW, do you still hold
with Helen markham as a good witness?

> > >
> > > >> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
> > > >> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >>
> > > >> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
> > > >> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
> > > >> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
> > > >> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
> > > >>
> > > >> ~big shrug~
> > > >
> > > > Good thinking for a change from DVP.
> > >
> > > As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
> > > this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
> > > and would have been able to see further and further down
> > > Patton as she closed on the intersection.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Anything to make it work.
> >
>
> The only explanation that works is Oswald killed Tippit just as he killed
> JFK about 45 minutes earlier.

Naah.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 10:40:45 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
> > >her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
> > >dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
> > day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
> > a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
> > of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
> > approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
> > and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."
> >
> > You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.
> >
>
>
> Are you now ordering me not to post things that I believe about the
> crime? I appreciate that you're an LN, but that's not very helpful.
> Many stories related about the Tippit scene allow that the body did NOT
> groan or do anything that might seem like it was still alive. So I went
> with those stories. I'm sure a poll of how many said there was no action
> vs. how many said Tippit groaned and such would come out that the body was
> killed instantly as the stories said.
>

JFK had his brains blown out by a rifle shot to the head and yet he was
still alive and gasping for air when he arrived at Parkland. I have a hard
time believing Tippit died instantly.

>
>
> > As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
> > being asked.
> >
>
>
> And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
> completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.
>

Markham's identification of Oswald as the shooter was confirmed by the
fact he still had the murder weapon in his hands when arrested roughly a
half hour later. What is there to confirm Clemmons' version?

>
> Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
> statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.
>

The physical evidence tells us which one to believe.

>
>
> > And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
> > assassination.
> >
>
> As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
> criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
> which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
> that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
> Markham?
>
> http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
>

You can't get around the fact that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in
his possession when arrested a short time later. On top of that the were
numerous witnesses who IDed Oswald. The physical evidence backs up all of
them.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 10:53:59 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 May 2017 10:40:44 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
> >> >her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
> >> >dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
> >> day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
> >> a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
> >> of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
> >> approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
> >> and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."
> >>
> >> You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Are you now ordering me not to post things that I believe about the
> >crime?
>
> The fact that you "believe it" isn't evidence.
>

Now that we have your opinion, where's the evidence that my beliefs
are not valid to be stated for this forum? Considering the things you
post from many LNs here with no comment, I'm surprised you take a shot at
me, who generally follows the rules. There's a huge amount of statements
here that have no evidence whatsoever behind them.

> I posted a cite to a primary source as to what she said.
>
> Do you have a *primary source* saying that she said she was "talking
> to Tippit?"
>

No, but many have said that she had said that she spoke with the body.
So I have said that. Not having a primary source does not invalidate an
utterance.

> You need to start understanding that the conspiracy books you read are
> unreliable.
>

You need to understand that there are books out there that speak a
helluva lot more truth than the WCR. Since it was a conspiracy, do you
think that there are many books that YOU would accept that say that? No,
you would say that ANY book that said there was a plot was 'one of those
books'. No LN book would tell the truth about the circumstances, that's
for sure. They would repeat the WCR. So please don't decide for me what
I should read. I could make many recommendations for you, but I think
that's rude and I wouldn't suggest any of them unless you asked.

> >I appreciate that you're an LN, but that's not very helpful.
> >Many stories related about the Tippit scene allow that the body did NOT
> >groan or do anything that might seem like it was still alive.
>
> Huh? Post an account from a witness who said that they saw Tippit the
> entire time Markham and Cimino were on the scene and Tippit made no
> movements and uttered no sound.
>
> You can't.
>

I can give fairly good information on that. Tippit's autopsy stated
that he was hit by a bullet in the right temple, and it was determined
that the shooter went to the body and specifically aimed that shot. With
a wound of that type, he was dead immediately, and whether there was any
movement or not, he was dead. Same as JFK when he was struck in the head
with a bullet. I've read no story of activity after the shooting on
Tippit's part.

> And even if you could, you would lack any source for Markham claiming
> to have "talked to" Tippit.
>
> >So I went
> >with those stories.
>
> No, you went with some unreliable conspiracy book.
>

WRONG! I got the information both here and various articles online,
NOT in a book.

>
> >I'm sure a poll of how many said there was no action
> >vs. how many said Tippit groaned and such would come out that the body was
> >killed instantly as the stories said.
> >
>
> You are thrashing around tying to wiggle out of the fact that you
> quoted some unreliable conspiracy book.
>

WRONG again! I did NOT quote a book. If I had, I would say so, and I
always have when that was the case. I don't need to lie or fake it like
some people here. You post my comments, so you should be the first to
know it.

> >
> >
> >> As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
> >> being asked.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
> >completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.
> >
>
> It's not "mental problems" to be a bit intimidated and confused
> talking to the WC. Especially when you are not particularly well
> educated or used to dealing with government officials.
>
> Markham was not Ruth Paine.
>

Markham was a dingbat, which I have no problem saying. I feel sorry
for her with her challenges, but she was indeed mentally challenged. Any
one following her statements in the videos and following her testimony can
see that, except possibly you, since it helps your case.

> >
> > Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
> >statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.
> >
>
> Yes, Clemons was mixed up. No other witness puts a pair of people
> shooting Tippit.
>

There was another witness, a woman who looked out her upstairs window,
but I don't give that as proof, since I haven't tracked her down again.
When I find here, I'll let you know. For now, there are others who saw
all kinds of things at the Tippit scene, but they weren't mentioned often.
Frank Wright for instance:

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm

> >
> >
> >> And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
> >> assassination.
> >>
> >
> > As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
> >criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
> >which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
> >that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
> >Markham?
> >
> >http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
>
> Mark Lane tried to get Markham to say the cops had told her whom to
> ID.
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
> stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
> whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
> replied, "They didn't tell me one thing."
>
> <End quote>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> You need to start understanding that the stuff you have been reading
> is unreliable.
>

You need to understand that you have made it clear that here we can
espouse our beliefs on the JFK murder, pro or con. And many LNs have
expressed many beliefs that I know are just plain silly. You have no
trouble with them, so why do you have a problem with my beliefs? While
some of my beliefs come from books, they also come from the ARRB files,
which most people here seem to be afraid of going to.


Books are a most important part of a free society, and some may not be
to your liking, but at least we're not restricted from them as in some
countries.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 21 May 2017 18:36:29 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 10:53:59 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 20 May 2017 10:40:44 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
>> >> >her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
>> >> >dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>> >>
>> >> In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
>> >> day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
>> >> a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
>> >> of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
>> >> approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
>> >> and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."
>> >>
>> >> You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you now ordering me not to post things that I believe about the
>> >crime?
>>
>> The fact that you "believe it" isn't evidence.
>>
>
>
> Now that we have your opinion, where's the evidence that my beliefs
>are not valid to be stated for this forum?

Your lack of a primary source to support your assertion.

>Considering the things you
>post from many LNs here with no comment, I'm surprised you take a shot at
>me, who generally follows the rules. There's a huge amount of statements
>here that have no evidence whatsoever behind them.
>

Feel free to challenge any that you disagree with.

I'm challenging you, and you have no primary source for your "Markham
said she talked to Tippit" claim.

You just got it from some conspiracy book.

>
>
>> I posted a cite to a primary source as to what she said.
>>
>> Do you have a *primary source* saying that she said she was "talking
>> to Tippit?"
>>
>
>
>
> No, but many have said that she had said that she spoke with the body.
>So I have said that. Not having a primary source does not invalidate an
>utterance.
>

Actually, it does.

What "many have said" is nonsense.

Some buff book started that, and others have just copied it, without
questioning it.

You need to get a clue about how that works.

>
>
>
>> You need to start understanding that the conspiracy books you read are
>> unreliable.
>>
>
>
>
> You need to understand that there are books out there that speak a
>helluva lot more truth than the WCR. Since it was a conspiracy, do you
>think that there are many books that YOU would accept that say that? No,
>you would say that ANY book that said there was a plot was 'one of those
>books'. No LN book would tell the truth about the circumstances, that's
>for sure. They would repeat the WCR. So please don't decide for me what
>I should read. I could make many recommendations for you, but I think
>that's rude and I wouldn't suggest any of them unless you asked.

You are saying that since you believe in a conspiracy, you have a
right to believe anything in a conspiracy book.

Nonsense.

If there is no primary source to support your assertion, you should
not make it.

>
>
>
>
>> >I appreciate that you're an LN, but that's not very helpful.
>> >Many stories related about the Tippit scene allow that the body did NOT
>> >groan or do anything that might seem like it was still alive.
>>
>> Huh? Post an account from a witness who said that they saw Tippit the
>> entire time Markham and Cimino were on the scene and Tippit made no
>> movements and uttered no sound.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>
> I can give fairly good information on that. Tippit's autopsy stated
>that he was hit by a bullet in the right temple, and it was determined
>that the shooter went to the body and specifically aimed that shot. With
>a wound of that type, he was dead immediately, and whether there was any
>movement or not, he was dead.

But if there was movement, Markham might well have believed Tippit was
*trying* to talk to her.

And that he was *trying* to talk to her is what she said.

She didn't claim any successful communication.

>Same as JFK when he was struck in the head
>with a bullet. I've read no story of activity after the shooting on
>Tippit's part.
>

Frank Cimino, who was the first person to approach the fatally wounded
officer, reported that he moved slightly and groaned, but "never said
anything that he could understand."

The reason you have "read no story" is that you only read conspiracy
stuff.

>
>
>> And even if you could, you would lack any source for Markham claiming
>> to have "talked to" Tippit.
>>
>> >So I went
>> >with those stories.
>>
>> No, you went with some unreliable conspiracy book.
>>
>
>
>
> WRONG! I got the information both here and various articles online,
>NOT in a book.
>

Same thing. Most stuff online is just from this or that conspiracy
book, but even if it was originally published online, there is no
primary source to back it up.

>
>
>>
>> >I'm sure a poll of how many said there was no action
>> >vs. how many said Tippit groaned and such would come out that the body was
>> >killed instantly as the stories said.
>> >
>>
>> You are thrashing around tying to wiggle out of the fact that you
>> quoted some unreliable conspiracy book.
>>
>
>
> WRONG again! I did NOT quote a book. If I had, I would say so, and I
>always have when that was the case. I don't need to lie or fake it like
>some people here. You post my comments, so you should be the first to
>know it.
>

Where did you get that assertion? Online. Have you seen any primary
source to back it up.

No.

>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
>> >> being asked.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
>> >completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.
>> >
>>
>> It's not "mental problems" to be a bit intimidated and confused
>> talking to the WC. Especially when you are not particularly well
>> educated or used to dealing with government officials.
>>
>> Markham was not Ruth Paine.
>>
>
>
> Markham was a dingbat, which I have no problem saying. I feel sorry
>for her with her challenges, but she was indeed mentally challenged. Any
>one following her statements in the videos and following her testimony can
>see that, except possibly you, since it helps your case.
>

She was confused talking to the WC, but she picked Oswald out of a

lineup on the day of the assassination.

And she was not at all confused resisting Mark Lane's attempt to
manipulate her.

>
>
>> >
>> > Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
>> >statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, Clemons was mixed up. No other witness puts a pair of people
>> shooting Tippit.
>>
>
>
> There was another witness, a woman who looked out her upstairs window,
>but I don't give that as proof, since I haven't tracked her down again.
>When I find here, I'll let you know. For now, there are others who saw
>all kinds of things at the Tippit scene, but they weren't mentioned often.
>Frank Wright for instance:
>
>http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
>
>

Is he the guy who said the shooter left in a car?

That doesn't support Clemons. It contradicts Clemons.

>
>> >
>> >
>> >> And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
>> >> assassination.
>> >>
>> >
>> > As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
>> >criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
>> >which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
>> >that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
>> >Markham?
>> >
>> >http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
>>
>> Mark Lane tried to get Markham to say the cops had told her whom to
>> ID.
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
>> stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
>> whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
>> replied, "They didn't tell me one thing."
>>
>> <End quote>
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>>
>> You need to start understanding that the stuff you have been reading
>> is unreliable.
>>
>
>
>
> You need to understand that you have made it clear that here we can
>espouse our beliefs on the JFK murder, pro or con.

And you can be challenged.

You have been, and have come up short.

>And many LNs have
>expressed many beliefs that I know are just plain silly. You have no
>trouble with them, so why do you have a problem with my beliefs? While
>some of my beliefs come from books, they also come from the ARRB files,
>which most people here seem to be afraid of going to.
>

Where is the primary source for Markham having a "conversation" with
Tippit?

>
> Books are a most important part of a free society, and some may not be
>to your liking, but at least we're not restricted from them as in some
>countries.
>

Right. People are free to read bad books. And people are free to
believe them.

And other people are free to challenge them.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/20/2017 10:53 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 May 2017 10:40:44 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 19 May 2017 13:44:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
>>>> her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
>>>> dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> In Markham's first statement, found in the Dallas Times Herald on the
>>> day of the assassination, she claims that Tippit tried to talk to her,
>>> a perception that could have been accounted for by spasmodic movements
>>> of the dying cop. Indeed, Frank Cimino, who was the first person to
>>> approach the fatally wounded officer, reported that he moved slightly
>>> and groaned, but "never said anything that he could understand."
>>>
>>> You need to quit posting conspiracy book factoids.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you now ordering me not to post things that I believe about the
>> crime?
>
> The fact that you "believe it" isn't evidence.
>

When does he post evidence. It's all conjecture.

[bigdog]

Nonsense. You changed what Carolyn Walthers said. You changed what Ruby
Henderson said. You changed what 3 of your 6 witnesses said about the hole
in the windshield of the limo. That's 5 witnesses whose accounts you
modified to fit your narrative. And those are just the ones I remember off
the top of my head.

Oh, brother, are you getting desperate. Two Oswalds? Seriously?

>
>
>
> > His former landlady, Mary
> > Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
> > The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
> > McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
> > from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
> > witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
> > grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
> > the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
> > want to believe. That trumps all else.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I don't believe to the exclusion of other statements that the
> Nash Rambler story is the only one. That's more of your foolishness when
> you don't think it through. The possibility of 2 Oswalds is in evidence,
> and I haven't seen reason to throw it away. The Nash Rambler story has a
> number of witnesses to it, so it stays until something resolves the
> problem.
>

You demonstrate once again that you are willing to buy into just about any
story no matter how goofy so that you don't have to confront the
overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.

You seem to think there are alternate truths. Newsflash. There is only one
truth. It isn't a multiple choice exercise. The witnesses I believe are
supported by the physical evidence. The people you believe are supported
by nothing. They don't even support each others versions of events. But
that doesn't matter to you. You just want to believe anyone who says
Oswald wasn't the murderer of JFK and JDT.

> And again I have to advise you that I do NOT throw out
> evidence, but I may use it differently than you. BTW, do you still hold
> with Helen markham as a good witness?
>

You can claim you don't throw out evidence all you want but the truth is
you discard it all the time if it points to Oswald's guilt. And only
because it points to Oswald's guilt.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! While their work on the body may have had some results,
reading the talk of the doctors there made it clear that he was dead when
the bullet went through his brain and blew out the BOH. If some autonomic
function did something for a moment, it had nothing to do with the
consciousness of JFK.

> >
> >
> > > As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
> > > being asked.
> > >
> >
> >
> > And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
> > completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.
> >
>
> Markham's identification of Oswald as the shooter was confirmed by the
> fact he still had the murder weapon in his hands when arrested roughly a
> half hour later. What is there to confirm Clemmons' version?
>

Oh? You have cites and links showing that the revolver was the "murder
weapon" of Tippit? Please show that. And have you checked Markham's
testimony and statements earlier where she said the shooter had black
hair?

"Mr. BALL. Did you say about 18?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I said he was young looking.
Mr. BALL. Did you give that age, 18?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I don't believe I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you say he had black hair?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You thought he was black-haired?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, that is what I told him. I thought he was black-haired.
I remember saying that."

From: Markham testimony.



> >
> > Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
> > statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.
> >
>
> The physical evidence tells us which one to believe.

Oh? what physical evidence talks to you?

> > > And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
> > > assassination.
> > >
> >
> > As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
> > criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
> > which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
> > that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
> > Markham?
> >
> > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
> >
>
> You can't get around the fact that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in
> his possession when arrested a short time later. On top of that the were
> numerous witnesses who IDed Oswald. The physical evidence backs up all of
> them.

Tell me how they were able to positively identify the revolver as the
one that killed Tippit, please supply cites and links. I was under the
impression that the bullets in Tippit's body couldn't be proven to have
come from the .38 special on Oswald.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Is that a new rule for the forum? I've seen LNs say the damndest things
with NO source but their opinions, and you haven't penalized them. I
figure I have equal rights to the LNs at the least.

> >Considering the things you
> >post from many LNs here with no comment, I'm surprised you take a shot at
> >me, who generally follows the rules. There's a huge amount of statements
> >here that have no evidence whatsoever behind them.
> >
>
> Feel free to challenge any that you disagree with.
>

You know that I do.

> I'm challenging you, and you have no primary source for your "Markham
> said she talked to Tippit" claim.
>
> You just got it from some conspiracy book.
>

Nope, I actually got it online in various articles, many from LNs.

> >
> >
> >> I posted a cite to a primary source as to what she said.
> >>
> >> Do you have a *primary source* saying that she said she was "talking
> >> to Tippit?"
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > No, but many have said that she had said that she spoke with the body.
> >So I have said that. Not having a primary source does not invalidate an
> >utterance.
> >
>
> Actually, it does.
>

Well, you're welcome to argue about it with me, as you say.

> What "many have said" is nonsense.
>

And as well that is an opinion too.

> Some buff book started that, and others have just copied it, without
> questioning it.
>
> You need to get a clue about how that works.
>

I repeat, I got it from online articles.

> >> You need to start understanding that the conspiracy books you read are
> >> unreliable.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > You need to understand that there are books out there that speak a
> >helluva lot more truth than the WCR. Since it was a conspiracy, do you
> >think that there are many books that YOU would accept that say that? No,
> >you would say that ANY book that said there was a plot was 'one of those
> >books'. No LN book would tell the truth about the circumstances, that's
> >for sure. They would repeat the WCR. So please don't decide for me what
> >I should read. I could make many recommendations for you, but I think
> >that's rude and I wouldn't suggest any of them unless you asked.
>
> You are saying that since you believe in a conspiracy, you have a
> right to believe anything in a conspiracy book.
>
> Nonsense.
>

I see your opinion of my beliefs, and that's fair for a mostly LN
community, but where else would I be able to clean up my beliefs but here?
And what do you think is my opinion of your beliefs? I know we differ,
but the rules you laid out allows us both to say what we believe within
those rules.

> If there is no primary source to support your assertion, you should
> not make it.
>

Again, I ask if that's a new rule of the forum, or can I do like all
the LNs do here ,and make any old opinion out to be the truth proof or
not?

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> >I appreciate that you're an LN, but that's not very helpful.
> >> >Many stories related about the Tippit scene allow that the body did NOT
> >> >groan or do anything that might seem like it was still alive.
> >>
> >> Huh? Post an account from a witness who said that they saw Tippit the
> >> entire time Markham and Cimino were on the scene and Tippit made no
> >> movements and uttered no sound.
> >>
> >> You can't.
> >>
> >
> > I can give fairly good information on that. Tippit's autopsy stated
> >that he was hit by a bullet in the right temple, and it was determined
> >that the shooter went to the body and specifically aimed that shot. With
> >a wound of that type, he was dead immediately, and whether there was any
> >movement or not, he was dead.
>
> But if there was movement, Markham might well have believed Tippit was
> *trying* to talk to her.
>
> And that he was *trying* to talk to her is what she said.
>

So you agree that she said that. Thank you! I won't have to do the
research.

> She didn't claim any successful communication.
>

OK.

> >Same as JFK when he was struck in the head
> >with a bullet. I've read no story of activity after the shooting on
> >Tippit's part.
> >
>
> Frank Cimino, who was the first person to approach the fatally wounded
> officer, reported that he moved slightly and groaned, but "never said
> anything that he could understand."
>
> The reason you have "read no story" is that you only read conspiracy
> stuff.
>

FALSE! I read much 'stuff' right here, and much of that is by LNs.
I've even read parts of the WCR, though I hate to admit it. The reason
you have the wrong slant on the murder of JFK, is that you won't spend
much time with the ARRB files. There's many answers there to many of the
questions about the case. That includes proof that the SBT is dead, for
instance.

> >
> >
> >> And even if you could, you would lack any source for Markham claiming
> >> to have "talked to" Tippit.
> >>
> >> >So I went
> >> >with those stories.
> >>
> >> No, you went with some unreliable conspiracy book.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I got the information both here and various articles online,
> >NOT in a book.
> >
>
> Same thing. Most stuff online is just from this or that conspiracy
> book, but even if it was originally published online, there is no
> primary source to back it up.
>

Humorously, there's an area in Simkin's stuff that's called 'primary
sources'. An article I used for a cite in one case.

> >> >I'm sure a poll of how many said there was no action
> >> >vs. how many said Tippit groaned and such would come out that the body was
> >> >killed instantly as the stories said.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are thrashing around tying to wiggle out of the fact that you
> >> quoted some unreliable conspiracy book.
> >>
> >
> >
> > WRONG again! I did NOT quote a book. If I had, I would say so, and I
> >always have when that was the case. I don't need to lie or fake it like
> >some people here. You post my comments, so you should be the first to
> >know it.
> >
>
> Where did you get that assertion? Online. Have you seen any primary
> source to back it up.
>
> No.
>

I have always given the source for every new fact I bring out.
Anyone can check it and complain if it's not valid. That includes you, if
you had the time away from posting. Admittedly, I often won't mention the
source the second time I use it, but will produce it ANY time I'm asked.
For instance, the list I made for everyone of the over 39 witnesses to the
BOH having a large hole in it. Every item has a cite and a link to the
context, and name the speaker. Whether the link is valid, or the cite is
correct is as you say, something that someone will complain about if they
think it isn't right.

No, that was Frank Wright.

> That doesn't support Clemons. It contradicts Clemons.
>

It also contradicts some of the other witnesses. All of which have
slight problems in their testimony, but then that's what some say, that
witnesses get things wrong.

> >> >> And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
> >> >> assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
> >> >criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
> >> >which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
> >> >that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
> >> >Markham?
> >> >
> >> >http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
> >>
> >> Mark Lane tried to get Markham to say the cops had told her whom to
> >> ID.
> >>
> >> <Quote on>
> >>
> >> Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
> >> stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
> >> whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
> >> replied, "They didn't tell me one thing."
> >>
> >> <End quote>
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
> >>
> >> You need to start understanding that the stuff you have been reading
> >> is unreliable.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > You need to understand that you have made it clear that here we can
> >espouse our beliefs on the JFK murder, pro or con.
>
> And you can be challenged.
>
> You have been, and have come up short.
>

That's your opinion. and your judgment too. I also have opinions
similar about some others. Nothing different than what I see here every
day.

> >And many LNs have
> >expressed many beliefs that I know are just plain silly. You have no
> >trouble with them, so why do you have a problem with my beliefs? While
> >some of my beliefs come from books, they also come from the ARRB files,
> >which most people here seem to be afraid of going to.
> >
>
> Where is the primary source for Markham having a "conversation" with
> Tippit?
>

We've gone pas that argument. I will check your info on it, but you
did say she SAID he seemed to talk to her. So I'm satisfied that you see
my point. No doubt if you were right, then she probably talked back and
thought she was having a conversation. Thank you for your help with that.

> >
> > Books are a most important part of a free society, and some may not be
> >to your liking, but at least we're not restricted from them as in some
> >countries.
> >
>
> Right. People are free to read bad books. And people are free to
> believe them.
>

And when they say 'bad' books or 'good' books, they are expressing
their opinions, which is also allowed. A fast question John, Are there
any books in your estimation that are 'good' books that espouse
conspiracy? Or that say that they can prove that the Autopsy Report was
false?

> And other people are free to challenge them.
>

Which is fine by me. I'm glad we had this little talk. A few
questions are left hanging out, but I'm sure we'll clear them off in time.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 22 May 2017 20:56:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> >

>> > Now that we have your opinion, where's the evidence that my beliefs
>> >are not valid to be stated for this forum?
>>
>> Your lack of a primary source to support your assertion.
>>
>
>
> Is that a new rule for the forum? I've seen LNs say the damndest things
>with NO source but their opinions, and you haven't penalized them. I
>figure I have equal rights to the LNs at the least.
>

And I have equal rights to challenge you when you do that.

You have been challenged, and come up short.

>>
>> You are saying that since you believe in a conspiracy, you have a
>> right to believe anything in a conspiracy book.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>
>
> I see your opinion of my beliefs, and that's fair for a mostly LN
>community, but where else would I be able to clean up my beliefs but here?
>And what do you think is my opinion of your beliefs? I know we differ,
>but the rules you laid out allows us both to say what we believe within
>those rules.
>

And to challenge each other.

>
>
>
>> If there is no primary source to support your assertion, you should
>> not make it.
>>
>
>
> Again, I ask if that's a new rule of the forum, or can I do like all
>the LNs do here ,and make any old opinion out to be the truth proof or
>not?
>
>>

>> But if there was movement, Markham might well have believed Tippit was
>> *trying* to talk to her.
>>
>> And that he was *trying* to talk to her is what she said.
>>
>
>
> So you agree that she said that. Thank you! I won't have to do the
>research.
>

No, you have no evidence she was conversing with him. She said he was
*trying* to talk to her, and Cimino's testimony is that Tippit moved

slightly and groaned, but "never said anything that he could
understand."

So she may well have interpreted his movements as "trying to talk" to
her.

>
>> She didn't claim any successful communication.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>>

>> Same thing. Most stuff online is just from this or that conspiracy
>> book, but even if it was originally published online, there is no
>> primary source to back it up.
>>
>
>
>
> Humorously, there's an area in Simkin's stuff that's called 'primary
>sources'. An article I used for a cite in one case.
>

But Simkin is terribly selective in what he shows you. And a lot of
it is really secondary sources.

>> >
>> > There was another witness, a woman who looked out her upstairs window,
>> >but I don't give that as proof, since I haven't tracked her down again.
>> >When I find here, I'll let you know. For now, there are others who saw
>> >all kinds of things at the Tippit scene, but they weren't mentioned often.
>> >Frank Wright for instance:
>> >
>> >http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Is he the guy who said the shooter left in a car?
>>
>
>
> No, that was Frank Wright.
>

That's what you said.

When you produce accounts that contradict the WC version, but also
contradict *each other,* you don't have any real anti-WC evidence. You
have noise.

The consensus of witness accounts is that one shooter killed Tippit,
and then left on foot.

>
>
>> That doesn't support Clemons. It contradicts Clemons.
>>
>
>
> It also contradicts some of the other witnesses. All of which have
>slight problems in their testimony, but then that's what some say, that
>witnesses get things wrong.
>

The consensus of witness accounts is that one shooter killed Tippit,
and then left on foot.

>> >>
>> >> <Quote on>
>> >>
>> >> Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
>> >> stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
>> >> whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
>> >> replied, "They didn't tell me one thing."
>> >>
>> >> <End quote>
>> >>
>> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>> >>

You need to take this (above) seriously.

>>
>> Where is the primary source for Markham having a "conversation" with
>> Tippit?
>>
>
>
> We've gone pas that argument. I will check your info on it, but you
>did say she SAID he seemed to talk to her. So I'm satisfied that you see
>my point. No doubt if you were right, then she probably talked back and
>thought she was having a conversation. Thank you for your help with that.
>

No, the point is that she is being portrayed as a ditz who thought she
had a conversation with Tippit.

But in fact, all she said is that he *tried* to talk.

That's not a bizarre perception at all, although it was probably
mistaken.

>
> And when they say 'bad' books or 'good' books, they are expressing
>their opinions, which is also allowed. A fast question John, Are there
>any books in your estimation that are 'good' books that espouse
>conspiracy? Or that say that they can prove that the Autopsy Report was
>false?
>

Some are better than others, but the ones that claim massive evidence
alteration are the worst.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I did NOT change a word of what Ruby Henderson said. I repeated
her own words, and simply explained to those that didn't have the ability
to understand her, like you. NOT a single word was changed. In the case
of the 6 witnesses who ALL said there was a bullet hole in the windshield,
I did NOT change a single word they said, but I did try to explain to you
what people mean when they say there is a hole in a glass pane. They mean
all the way through, not part way through. Can you picture a bullet
hanging halfway through a window? No. It won't happen.

So I'm glad I was able to explain that to you. Try to remember it for
next time you begin to repeat all these things we've said.

WRONG! Acting like you know nothing about such a thing is foolish.
I've seen you discuss it with others. Doesn't matter if you believe it or
not. I know you've heard it.

> >
> >
> >
> > > His former landlady, Mary
> > > Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
> > > The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
> > > McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
> > > from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
> > > witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
> > > grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
> > > the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
> > > want to believe. That trumps all else.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I don't believe to the exclusion of other statements that the
> > Nash Rambler story is the only one. That's more of your foolishness when
> > you don't think it through. The possibility of 2 Oswalds is in evidence,
> > and I haven't seen reason to throw it away. The Nash Rambler story has a
> > number of witnesses to it, so it stays until something resolves the
> > problem.
> >
>
> You demonstrate once again that you are willing to buy into just about any
> story no matter how goofy so that you don't have to confront the
> overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.
>

TRY BEING INTELLIGENT THIS TIME! I just got through saying that I
don't buy into the Nash rambler story, but there were enough witnesses for
me to put it on the side and wait for something to help resolve it.
Think it through.

There are instances where there are indeed multiple truths in the same
situation. Think that one through too. That there are alternate stories
of a situation doesn't mean there re multiple scenarios, but that there
may be a different explanation for it. One that you haven't settled on.

On the other case of multiple truths, the difference is perception.
A man is starving and he steals a loaf of bread to eat. He thinks of it
as doing what is necessary to live. Another person looking on thinks it
is an act of stealing and that it is horrible to steal food from others
who might buy that food. These are multiple truths, and the difference is
perception. And not only can a 3 people have 3 perceptions about stealing
food, but those same 3 people can also maintain many more perceptions than
the 3 original ones. Each person many see levels of need or want, and
each is a different perception.

> > And again I have to advise you that I do NOT throw out
> > evidence, but I may use it differently than you. BTW, do you still hold
> > with Helen markham as a good witness?
> >
>
> You can claim you don't throw out evidence all you want but the truth is
> you discard it all the time if it points to Oswald's guilt. And only
> because it points to Oswald's guilt.

Nope. I don't throw out that stuff, I put it away for another time
when it might come in handy.

Chris

[bigdog]

Cite one member of the ER staff at Parkland who said JFK was DOA. He had a
heartbeat and respiration when he arrived. They worked frantically to try
to sustain those knowing full well it was probably hopeless. JFK had no
chance of surviving that wound but that does not mean he died the instant
the bullet struck him in the head.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > As for her WC testimony, she clearly was confused about what she was
> > > > being asked.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And here your choosing to use your opinion of her mental state, yet
> > > completely allowing Markham with her mental problems to go unchecked.
> > >
> >
> > Markham's identification of Oswald as the shooter was confirmed by the
> > fact he still had the murder weapon in his hands when arrested roughly a
> > half hour later. What is there to confirm Clemmons' version?
> >
>
>
> Oh? You have cites and links showing that the revolver was the "murder
> weapon" of Tippit? Please show that. And have you checked Markham's
> testimony and statements earlier where she said the shooter had black
> hair?

Oswald's revolver was the only weapon in the world that could have fired
the shells which the shooter discarded as he fled the seen. 'nuff said.

>
> "Mr. BALL. Did you say about 18?
> Mrs. MARKHAM. I said he was young looking.
> Mr. BALL. Did you give that age, 18?
> Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I don't believe I did.
> Mr. BALL. Did you say he had black hair?
> Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
> Mr. BALL. You thought he was black-haired?
> Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, that is what I told him. I thought he was black-haired.
> I remember saying that."
>
> From: Markham testimony.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Listening to Markham in testimony and listening to Clemons in her
> > > statement tells the tale of who was mentally challenged and mixed up.
> > >
> >
> > The physical evidence tells us which one to believe.
>
>
>
> Oh? what physical evidence talks to you?
>

It talks to people who are willing to listen to it. Conspiracy hobbyists
turn a deaf ear to it.

>
>
> > > > And she had indeed picked Oswald out of the lineup on the day of the
> > > > assassination.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As many of us now, the police will sometimes 'help' a witness to ID a
> > > criminal. And Markham certainly needed help just getting out her story,
> > > which changed at times. We know from the autobiography of Howard Brennan
> > > that he admitted the police helped him make an ID of Oswald, why not
> > > Markham?
> > >
> > > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
> > >
> >
> > You can't get around the fact that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in
> > his possession when arrested a short time later. On top of that the were
> > numerous witnesses who IDed Oswald. The physical evidence backs up all of
> > them.
>
>
> Tell me how they were able to positively identify the revolver as the
> one that killed Tippit, please supply cites and links.

The cites are in the WCR which is available free online. Since you refuse
to look at that you will just have to remain in the dark. You can lead a
horse to water...

> I was under the
> impression that the bullets in Tippit's body couldn't be proven to have
> come from the .38 special on Oswald.
>

The reason for that is also explained in the WCR but you refuse to look. I
can't force you to do that. What is indisputable is that the shells the
shooter discarded while reloading as he fled were all positively matched
to Oswald's revolver. I'd love to see your explanation for that
inconvenient truth.

[bigdog]

You added an element to her story which was not in her statement. She said
she wasn't sure which floor she saw the two men on. You claimed she said
they were on the 6th floor. That is most definitely a change to what she
said.

> In the case
> of the 6 witnesses who ALL said there was a bullet hole in the windshield,
> I did NOT change a single word they said, but I did try to explain to you
> what people mean when they say there is a hole in a glass pane.

You claimed that they all said there was a hole that went through the
windshield when 3 of them most definitely did not say the hole went all
the way through. That is most definitely a change.

> They mean
> all the way through, not part way through.

How do you know they meant all the way through when they didn't say all
the way through. You are enhancing what they said with your own
interpretation. That is most definitely a change.

> Can you picture a bullet
> hanging halfway through a window? No. It won't happen.
>

It wasn't a bullet. If was a fragment of a bullet that had already struck
the dense bone of JFK's head losing much of its energy.

> So I'm glad I was able to explain that to you. Try to remember it for
> next time you begin to repeat all these things we've said.
>

I'm glad you were again able to demonstrate how you have changed what
witnesses said to fit your narrative. You never allow these people's words
to speak for themselves.

I've heard the story of two Oswalds. It has always been the kookiest of
kooks who propose it.

> I've seen you discuss it with others. Doesn't matter if you believe it or
> not. I know you've heard it.
>

I've heard lots of kooky things in my discussions with conspiracy
hobbyists. That doesn't make them any less kooky.

>

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > His former landlady, Mary
> > > > Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
> > > > The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
> > > > McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
> > > > from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
> > > > witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
> > > > grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
> > > > the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
> > > > want to believe. That trumps all else.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I don't believe to the exclusion of other statements that the
> > > Nash Rambler story is the only one. That's more of your foolishness when
> > > you don't think it through. The possibility of 2 Oswalds is in evidence,
> > > and I haven't seen reason to throw it away. The Nash Rambler story has a
> > > number of witnesses to it, so it stays until something resolves the
> > > problem.
> > >
> >
> > You demonstrate once again that you are willing to buy into just about any
> > story no matter how goofy so that you don't have to confront the
> > overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.
> >
>
>
> TRY BEING INTELLIGENT THIS TIME! I just got through saying that I
> don't buy into the Nash rambler story,

Then why bring it up?

> but there were enough witnesses for
> me to put it on the side and wait for something to help resolve it.
> Think it through.
>

It was resolved. Oswald boarded a bus minutes after leaving the TSBD.
There is ample evidence of that. That means he didn't leave the TSBD in a
Nash Rambler unless you think that Rambler too him just a few blocks going
in the wrong direction on Elm St. against all that traffic that had been
held up by the motorcade.

That is a truly bizarre statement.

> Think that one through too. That there are alternate stories
> of a situation doesn't mean there re multiple scenarios, but that there
> may be a different explanation for it. One that you haven't settled on.
>

There can only be one correct explanation.

> On the other case of multiple truths, the difference is perception.
> A man is starving and he steals a loaf of bread to eat. He thinks of it
> as doing what is necessary to live. Another person looking on thinks it
> is an act of stealing and that it is horrible to steal food from others
> who might buy that food.

There is one truth. The man stole the bread to survive. People can differ
as to whether the act was justified, but there is still one truth.

> These are multiple truths, and the difference is
> perception. And not only can a 3 people have 3 perceptions about stealing
> food, but those same 3 people can also maintain many more perceptions than
> the 3 original ones. Each person many see levels of need or want, and
> each is a different perception.
>

There is still but one truth about what the man did.

>
>
> > > And again I have to advise you that I do NOT throw out
> > > evidence, but I may use it differently than you. BTW, do you still hold
> > > with Helen markham as a good witness?
> > >
> >
> > You can claim you don't throw out evidence all you want but the truth is
> > you discard it all the time if it points to Oswald's guilt. And only
> > because it points to Oswald's guilt.
>
>
> Nope. I don't throw out that stuff, I put it away for another time
> when it might come in handy.
>

Nonsense. You simply invent excuses to dismiss it so you don't have to
deal with it.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:14:06 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 May 2017 20:56:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > Now that we have your opinion, where's the evidence that my beliefs
> >> >are not valid to be stated for this forum?
> >>
> >> Your lack of a primary source to support your assertion.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Is that a new rule for the forum? I've seen LNs say the damndest things
> >with NO source but their opinions, and you haven't penalized them. I
> >figure I have equal rights to the LNs at the least.
> >
>
> And I have equal rights to challenge you when you do that.
>
> You have been challenged, and come up short.
>

Of course, I accept that, and welcome it. You have helped me to learn
that there is not a good story on Helen Markham's talking to a body.
Once you agreed that she talked to a body, I was in agreement with you.
Thank you. After talking with you, I learned that she COULD talk to a
body, and maybe think it was talking to her. You pointed that out to me.
Thank you again.

> >>
> >> You are saying that since you believe in a conspiracy, you have a
> >> right to believe anything in a conspiracy book.
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I see your opinion of my beliefs, and that's fair for a mostly LN
> >community, but where else would I be able to clean up my beliefs but here?
> >And what do you think is my opinion of your beliefs? I know we differ,
> >but the rules you laid out allows us both to say what we believe within
> >those rules.
> >
>
> And to challenge each other.
>

Of course. No problem.

> >
> >
> >
> >> If there is no primary source to support your assertion, you should
> >> not make it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Again, I ask if that's a new rule of the forum, or can I do like all

> >the LNs do here, and make any old opinion out to be the truth proof or

> >not?
> >
> >>
> >> But if there was movement, Markham might well have believed Tippit was
> >> *trying* to talk to her.
> >>
> >> And that he was *trying* to talk to her is what she said.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So you agree that she said that. Thank you! I won't have to do the
> >research.
> >
>
> No, you have no evidence she was conversing with him. She said he was
> *trying* to talk to her, and Cimino's testimony is that Tippit moved
> slightly and groaned, but "never said anything that he could
> understand."
>
> So she may well have interpreted his movements as "trying to talk" to
> her.
>

Of course! That's what I've learned from talking to you. See above,
we've already discussed that andagreed.

> >
> >> She didn't claim any successful communication.
> >>
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >>
> >> Same thing. Most stuff online is just from this or that conspiracy
> >> book, but even if it was originally published online, there is no
> >> primary source to back it up.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Humorously, there's an area in Simkin's stuff that's called 'primary
> >sources'. An article I used for a cite in one case.
> >
>
> But Simkin is terribly selective in what he shows you. And a lot of
> it is really secondary sources.
>
> >> >
> >> > There was another witness, a woman who looked out her upstairs window,
> >> >but I don't give that as proof, since I haven't tracked her down again.
> >> >When I find here, I'll let you know. For now, there are others who saw
> >> >all kinds of things at the Tippit scene, but they weren't mentioned often.
> >> >Frank Wright for instance:
> >> >
> >> >http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is he the guy who said the shooter left in a car?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, that was Frank Wright.
> >
>
> That's what you said.
>

Sorry! Correct.

> When you produce accounts that contradict the WC version, but also
> contradict *each other,* you don't have any real anti-WC evidence. You
> have noise.
>

That's your opinion. Some facts I've encountered tell me that the WCR
is foolishness time 2. Using theories to get their message of Oswald's
guilt out to the public. The SBT and the 'lone nut' theories make (for
me) a less than legitimate document, no matter how long it was, or how
selective the FBI was in bringing witnesses to the WC.

> The consensus of witness accounts is that one shooter killed Tippit,
> and then left on foot.
>

I would have to agree as far as those that gave testimony. I haven't
been satisfied yet on that one. I tend to think that Oswald had been
pushed to a limit and might have struck out, but I'm not yet sure. That
will gel for me in time.

> >
> >
> >> That doesn't support Clemons. It contradicts Clemons.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It also contradicts some of the other witnesses. All of which have
> >slight problems in their testimony, but then that's what some say, that
> >witnesses get things wrong.
> >
>
> The consensus of witness accounts is that one shooter killed Tippit,
> and then left on foot.
>

That's what you said before. My method doesn't allow me to quickly
accept something because the statistics are good for it. Like more people
said one thing than another. As well, I can't sit and read only the kooky
LN viewpoints that I see now and then, I have to go with what seems
factual, or acts that fit humans in certain circumstances. And all of
that for me, is flavored with the fact (again, to me) that we're dealing
here with a political coup, a murder by a group.


If there was a conspiracy, there's good reason for them to make many
things all point in one direction, and I'm sure there would be the hope
that it would be believed because there is a majority saying it. It
allows the plotters to get away and carry on their lives with no
interruption, or looking over their shoulder.

> >> >>
> >> >> <Quote on>
> >> >>
> >> >> Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
> >> >> stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
> >> >> whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
> >> >> replied, "They didn't tell me one thing."
> >> >>
> >> >> <End quote>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
> >> >>
>
> You need to take this (above) seriously.
>

I take all the videos seriously. I'm not particularly in favor of Mark
Lane's methods, but I have listened and watched his witnesses, and believe
most of them. It doesn't matter that Lane may be an SOB. What matters is
the people and how they conduct themselves. Like the 3 men in the video
that said that there was evidence that shots came from the GK, and the FBI
took their statements and changed them around to come out that they all
said it was the TSBD! That's only one of the many claims that the FBI
changed statements, and did other things, to intimidate witnesses and shut
them up. And I've encountered many cases where that was the complaint.

> >>
> >> Where is the primary source for Markham having a "conversation" with
> >> Tippit?
> >>
> >
> >

> > We've gone past that argument. I will check your info on it, but you

> >did say she SAID he seemed to talk to her. So I'm satisfied that you see
> >my point. No doubt if you were right, then she probably talked back and
> >thought she was having a conversation. Thank you for your help with that.
> >
>
> No, the point is that she is being portrayed as a ditz who thought she
> had a conversation with Tippit.
>

John, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree you on that. While I acceept
your idea about talking to the dead, Markham was still to me, a ditz. I
read her testimony carefully, and watched her videos and came away with
the impression from my experience in the world that she was mentally
challenged, and deeply confused in most of her dealings with people. Of
course you disagree, so I can save you the effort.

> But in fact, all she said is that he *tried* to talk.
>
> That's not a bizarre perception at all, although it was probably
> mistaken.
>

We've gone over all that, and I've accepted your suggestion of what she
was doing. It made sense to me. I don't have a problem changing my
viewpoint on something if I feel the evidence (or logic, or common sense)
says so.

>
> >
> > And when they say 'bad' books or 'good' books, they are expressing
> >their opinions, which is also allowed. A fast question John, Are there
> >any books in your estimation that are 'good' books that espouse
> >conspiracy? Or that say that they can prove that the Autopsy Report was
> >false?
> >
>
> Some are better than others, but the ones that claim massive evidence
> alteration are the worst.
>

It may sound odd to you, but I agree about "massive evidence". Now in
the autopsy, after reading the details of the autopsy team, and the
details of the autopsy itself, I came to the conclusion that the Autopsy
Report was false. That's based on the words of the prosectors themselves
DURING the autopsy. It's all too involved to hang you up here, but the
evidence (mostly from the ARRB files) is clear that they learned one set
of facts from the autopsy, and Humes went home and wrote up a completely
different set of facts for the AR. So to your point, I believe all the
ARRB information about the autopsy, and only differ with the one little
part where Humes wrote up something he himself didn't believe.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! She was sure it was the 3rd or 4th floor. She did NOT say she
wasn't sure which floor. I said she made a mistake and gave my reasons,
then said that the floor where everyone saw men with guns was the 6th.
So I believe she made a mistake and it was the 6th where she saw the men
with a gun. I have not said I didn't change what she said, I said that I
corrected her mistake. Call it what you want. It was the 6th based on
evidence and common sense.

> > In the case
> > of the 6 witnesses who ALL said there was a bullet hole in the windshield,
> > I did NOT change a single word they said, but I did try to explain to you
> > what people mean when they say there is a hole in a glass pane.
>
> You claimed that they all said there was a hole that went through the
> windshield when 3 of them most definitely did not say the hole went all
> the way through. That is most definitely a change.
>

Nope, you'll won't get away with that. I don't change words, I will
at times explain what folks mean when it's too complicated for you to
follow though. In tis case you mention, it was clear that ALL 6 witnesses
by saying the bullet went through the windshield, meant that it went all
the way through, not halfway. Simple stuff, but I had to explain it to
you.

> > They mean
> > all the way through, not part way through.
>
> How do you know they meant all the way through when they didn't say all
> the way through. You are enhancing what they said with your own
> interpretation. That is most definitely a change.
>

You're being silly and have painted yourself into your usual corner.
Now you have to keep picking at it in hopes somehow something will change.

> > Can you picture a bullet
> > hanging halfway through a window? No. It won't happen.
> >
>
> It wasn't a bullet. If was a fragment of a bullet that had already struck
> the dense bone of JFK's head losing much of its energy.
>

We don't know that, how did you get to know it? If your talking of the
bullet that slammed into the solid chrome bar over the windshield, it
slammed it awful hard. What was the measurement for that? Do we need an
expert, or are you qualified?

> > So I'm glad I was able to explain that to you. Try to remember it for
> > next time you begin to repeat all these things we've said.
> >
>
> I'm glad you were again able to demonstrate how you have changed what
> witnesses said to fit your narrative. You never allow these people's words
> to speak for themselves.
>

WRONG! Correcting you once again. I didn't change any words said by
any of the 6 witnesses. I simply explained to you where you went wrong
again.

As a conspiracy hobbyist yourself, I'm surprised you have such a lack
of respect for them.

> > > > > His former landlady, Mary
> > > > > Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
> > > > > The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
> > > > > McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
> > > > > from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
> > > > > witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
> > > > > grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
> > > > > the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
> > > > > want to believe. That trumps all else.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! I don't believe to the exclusion of other statements that the
> > > > Nash Rambler story is the only one. That's more of your foolishness when
> > > > you don't think it through. The possibility of 2 Oswalds is in evidence,
> > > > and I haven't seen reason to throw it away. The Nash Rambler story has a
> > > > number of witnesses to it, so it stays until something resolves the
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You demonstrate once again that you are willing to buy into just about any
> > > story no matter how goofy so that you don't have to confront the
> > > overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.
> > >
> >
> >
> > TRY BEING INTELLIGENT THIS TIME! I just got through saying that I
> > don't buy into the Nash rambler story,
>
> Then why bring it up?
>

The similarity reminded me of the guy. You have to realize that
Hispanics figure in this case somewhere.

> > but there were enough witnesses for
> > me to put it on the side and wait for something to help resolve it.
> > Think it through.
> >
>
> It was resolved. Oswald boarded a bus minutes after leaving the TSBD.
> There is ample evidence of that. That means he didn't leave the TSBD in a
> Nash Rambler unless you think that Rambler too him just a few blocks going
> in the wrong direction on Elm St. against all that traffic that had been
> held up by the motorcade.
>

LOL! The last thing I would bet on is YOU telling anyone all about how
the case turned out! You read the WCR!

Or your method of dealing with possibilities is bizarre.

> > Think that one through too. That there are alternate stories

> > of a situation doesn't mean there are multiple scenarios, but that there

> > may be a different explanation for it. One that you haven't settled on.
> >
>
> There can only be one correct explanation.
>


> > On the other case of multiple truths, the difference is perception.
> > A man is starving and he steals a loaf of bread to eat. He thinks of it
> > as doing what is necessary to live. Another person looking on thinks it
> > is an act of stealing and that it is horrible to steal food from others
> > who might buy that food.
>
> There is one truth. The man stole the bread to survive. People can differ
> as to whether the act was justified, but there is still one truth.
>

Not really. Others that think it's wrong to steal food, better (for
instance) to beg for it. Those people have what THEY think is the truth,
or at least it's true for them that the act of stealing was a terrible
crime, that he could have done something else to survive. I'm not saying
who is right and wrong, I'm saying there are 2 truths about stealing the
bread. Some one else might believe that he could fast for days without
any problem with the right mental attitude, and not think about survival
or stealing, or whatever.

> > These are multiple truths, and the difference is

> > perception. And not only can 3 people have 3 perceptions about stealing

> > food, but those same 3 people can also maintain many more perceptions than

> > the 3 original ones. Each person may see levels of need or want, and

> > each is a different perception.
> >
>
> There is still but one truth about what the man did.
>

Only to you. To others, like myself, I see multiple truths depending
on your perception and viewpoint.

> >
> >
> > > > And again I have to advise you that I do NOT throw out
> > > > evidence, but I may use it differently than you. BTW, do you still hold
> > > > with Helen markham as a good witness?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can claim you don't throw out evidence all you want but the truth is
> > > you discard it all the time if it points to Oswald's guilt. And only
> > > because it points to Oswald's guilt.
> >
> >
> > Nope. I don't throw out that stuff, I put it away for another time
> > when it might come in handy.
> >
>
> Nonsense. You simply invent excuses to dismiss it so you don't have to
> deal with it.

More opinion. Ah well. I tried.

Chris

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 7:13:47 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:14:06 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 22 May 2017 20:56:26 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Now that we have your opinion, where's the evidence that my beliefs
> > >> >are not valid to be stated for this forum?
> > >>
> > >> Your lack of a primary source to support your assertion.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that a new rule for the forum? I've seen LNs say the damndest things
> > >with NO source but their opinions, and you haven't penalized them. I
> > >figure I have equal rights to the LNs at the least.
> > >
> >
> > And I have equal rights to challenge you when you do that.
> >
> > You have been challenged, and come up short.
> >
>
>
> Of course, I accept that, and welcome it. You have helped me to learn
> that there is not a good story on Helen Markham's talking to a body.
> Once you agreed that she talked to a body, I was in agreement with you.
> Thank you. After talking with you, I learned that she COULD talk to a
> body, and maybe think it was talking to her. You pointed that out to me.
> Thank you again.

What Markham said...

<quote on>

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Tippit, Officer Tippit, didn't say anything to you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He tried to.
Mr. DULLES. He tried to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. But he didn't succeed?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I couldn't understand. I was screaming and hollering
and I was trying to help him all I could, and I would have.

<quote off>

Why Markham might have thought he was trying to talk...


https://havealittletalk.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/how-to-know-when-death-is-imminent-signs-someone-is-dying/

"The death rattle is a gurgling sound. Mandibular movement refers to the
jaw moving, like someone is eating air."

[Jonny Mayer]

Which shot is the bullet fragment from? I'm guessing not the head shot
because the mark on the windshield is visible when they emerge from behind
the Stemmons sign.

Also the bullet which did not go through Connally and instead exited JFK's
throat and hit the chrome topping and made a dent, split in half and the
two fragments were found in the limo. The impact to the chrome topping
made the bullet split into pieces and one of those pieces bounced off the
chrome topping and hit the windshield, causing it to get lodged in said
windshield.

No single bullet. Connally hit by a different bullet as he said.

What do you think of that David Von Pein? Please be civil.

[bigdog]

Now you're conflating what Walthers said with what Henderson said.
Henderson said she wasn't sure which floor she saw the two men on.
Walthers was sure it was not the 6th floor but you keep insisting that's
what she meant.

It really makes it difficult when you can't even keep your own bullshit
straight.

> She did NOT say she
> wasn't sure which floor. I said she made a mistake and gave my reasons,
> then said that the floor where everyone saw men with guns was the 6th.
> So I believe she made a mistake and it was the 6th where she saw the men
> with a gun. I have not said I didn't change what she said, I said that I
> corrected her mistake. Call it what you want. It was the 6th based on
> evidence and common sense.
>

You seem more confused than ever.

>
>
> > > In the case
> > > of the 6 witnesses who ALL said there was a bullet hole in the windshield,
> > > I did NOT change a single word they said, but I did try to explain to you
> > > what people mean when they say there is a hole in a glass pane.
> >
> > You claimed that they all said there was a hole that went through the
> > windshield when 3 of them most definitely did not say the hole went all
> > the way through. That is most definitely a change.
> >
>
>
> Nope, you'll won't get away with that. I don't change words, I will
> at times explain what folks mean when it's too complicated for you to
> follow though.

When you try to enhance what the people said rather than let their words
speak for themselves, you are changing what they said to fit your
narrative. You don't get to do that. If the words of the witnesses don't
fit your beliefs, you don't get to change them until they do.

> In tis case you mention, it was clear that ALL 6 witnesses
> by saying the bullet went through the windshield, meant that it went all
> the way through, not halfway. Simple stuff, but I had to explain it to
> you.
>

All six witnesses did NOT say the bullet went all the way through the
windshield. That is one more example of you trying to force fit what
witnesses said to fit your beliefs. When you are forced to do that, you
reveal how lame your beliefs are.

>
>
>
> > > They mean
> > > all the way through, not part way through.
> >
> > How do you know they meant all the way through when they didn't say all
> > the way through. You are enhancing what they said with your own
> > interpretation. That is most definitely a change.
> >
>
>
>
> You're being silly and have painted yourself into your usual corner.
> Now you have to keep picking at it in hopes somehow something will change.
>

It is not nitpicking to point out the witnesses didn't say what you
claimed they did.

>
>
>
> > > Can you picture a bullet
> > > hanging halfway through a window? No. It won't happen.
> > >
> >
> > It wasn't a bullet. If was a fragment of a bullet that had already struck
> > the dense bone of JFK's head losing much of its energy.
> >
>
>
> We don't know that, how did you get to know it? If your talking of the
> bullet that slammed into the solid chrome bar over the windshield, it
> slammed it awful hard. What was the measurement for that? Do we need an
> expert, or are you qualified?
>

Of course we do. Fragments were found in the hole on the inside of the
windshield. That along is proof positive the bullet had fragmented when it
struck the windshield. The outer surface of the windshield remained smooth
which is proof positive the only defect was on the inner surface.

>
>
>
> > > So I'm glad I was able to explain that to you. Try to remember it for
> > > next time you begin to repeat all these things we've said.
> > >
> >
> > I'm glad you were again able to demonstrate how you have changed what
> > witnesses said to fit your narrative. You never allow these people's words
> > to speak for themselves.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Correcting you once again. I didn't change any words said by
> any of the 6 witnesses. I simply explained to you where you went wrong
> again.
>

You added to their words when you said all six witnesses said the hole
went through the windshield when only three of the six said that. An
addition is a change.

Don't try to put me on your team.

>
>
> > > > > > His former landlady, Mary
> > > > > > Bledsoe, recognized him and said he had a hole in the elbow of his shirt.
> > > > > > The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had such a hole. Cecil
> > > > > > McWatters was the bus driver who also IDed him. Oswald had a bus transfer
> > > > > > from McWatters in the pocket of his shirt when arrested. That's two
> > > > > > witnesses corroborate by physical evidence. And then we have Oswald
> > > > > > grabbing a cab a short time after leaving the bus. But you go on believing
> > > > > > the story about Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler because it's the one you
> > > > > > want to believe. That trumps all else.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! I don't believe to the exclusion of other statements that the
> > > > > Nash Rambler story is the only one. That's more of your foolishness when
> > > > > you don't think it through. The possibility of 2 Oswalds is in evidence,
> > > > > and I haven't seen reason to throw it away. The Nash Rambler story has a
> > > > > number of witnesses to it, so it stays until something resolves the
> > > > > problem.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You demonstrate once again that you are willing to buy into just about any
> > > > story no matter how goofy so that you don't have to confront the
> > > > overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > TRY BEING INTELLIGENT THIS TIME! I just got through saying that I
> > > don't buy into the Nash rambler story,
> >
> > Then why bring it up?
> >
>
> The similarity reminded me of the guy. You have to realize that
> Hispanics figure in this case somewhere.
>

I have no idea where you are going with this. I'll bet nobody else does
either.

>
>
>
> > > but there were enough witnesses for
> > > me to put it on the side and wait for something to help resolve it.
> > > Think it through.
> > >
> >
> > It was resolved. Oswald boarded a bus minutes after leaving the TSBD.
> > There is ample evidence of that. That means he didn't leave the TSBD in a
> > Nash Rambler unless you think that Rambler too him just a few blocks going
> > in the wrong direction on Elm St. against all that traffic that had been
> > held up by the motorcade.
> >
>
>
> LOL! The last thing I would bet on is YOU telling anyone all about how
> the case turned out! You read the WCR!
>

Which contains the one and only truth.

It's clear logic is not your strong suit. Not that anybody ever thought it
was.

>
>
>
> > > These are multiple truths, and the difference is
> > > perception. And not only can 3 people have 3 perceptions about stealing
> > > food, but those same 3 people can also maintain many more perceptions than
> > > the 3 original ones. Each person may see levels of need or want, and
> > > each is a different perception.
> > >
> >
> > There is still but one truth about what the man did.
> >
>
>
>
> Only to you. To others, like myself, I see multiple truths depending
> on your perception and viewpoint.
>

I'm not surprised you think there can be multiple truths whether we are
talking about a hypothetical event or a real one. There is one truth.
There is one reality.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And again I have to advise you that I do NOT throw out
> > > > > evidence, but I may use it differently than you. BTW, do you still hold
> > > > > with Helen markham as a good witness?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can claim you don't throw out evidence all you want but the truth is
> > > > you discard it all the time if it points to Oswald's guilt. And only
> > > > because it points to Oswald's guilt.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. I don't throw out that stuff, I put it away for another time
> > > when it might come in handy.
> > >
> >
> > Nonsense. You simply invent excuses to dismiss it so you don't have to
> > deal with it.
>
>
> More opinion. Ah well. I tried.
>

You demonstrate the truth of that statement every time I present the
evidence of Oswald's guilt. You have an excuse to dismiss every bit of it.

[John McAdams]

Very good, interesting find. The study cited involved only dying
cancer patients, but there is more here:

http://www.mywhatever.com/cifwriter/library/70/4993.html

It's quite easy to believe (especially when we factor in Cimino's
testimony) that Markhan *believed* Tippit was trying to talk. Even if
we know that was impossible, there is no reason she, on the scene at
the time, could have known that.

This is like the silly thing about Markham having "left her shoes on
the top of a police car."

That sounds really ditzy until you know that she was walking to catch
a bus to go to work, and was carrying an extra pair of shoes. Lots of
women have different shoes for work.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You're getting yourself all messed up again. Walthers said
either the 3rd or 4th floor, but made a mistake. The reasoning is clear.
No other window had so many witnesses that saw a man wit ha gun in them.
Only on the 6th floor. If you want to say she saw 2 men in the 3rd or 4th
floor, then you're starting up another sdhooting team. Is that what
you're doing?

In the case of Henderson her EXACT words were:

"She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
were on."

When you use simple logic to understand her comment, it comes out to
the 6th floor, since there was no one seen in the window of the 7th floor,
but they were seen on the floors below, meaning the 3rd and 4th. Again,
the other witnesses only saw a gun in the 6th floor window. No change as
made to the Henderson statement, merely an explanation to help the
logically challenged.

> It really makes it difficult when you can't even keep your own bullshit
> straight.
>

WRONG! Se above, where I had to get yours straight.

> > She did NOT say she
> > wasn't sure which floor. I said she made a mistake and gave my reasons,
> > then said that the floor where everyone saw men with guns was the 6th.
> > So I believe she made a mistake and it was the 6th where she saw the men
> > with a gun. I have not said I didn't change what she said, I said that I
> > corrected her mistake. Call it what you want. It was the 6th based on
> > evidence and common sense.
> >
>
> You seem more confused than ever.
>

When in reality, it's you. I'm clear on all this. You're the one
having a problem. That's why you have to ask so many questions...it's so
you can understand.

> >
> >
> > > > In the case
> > > > of the 6 witnesses who ALL said there was a bullet hole in the windshield,
> > > > I did NOT change a single word they said, but I did try to explain to you
> > > > what people mean when they say there is a hole in a glass pane.
> > >
> > > You claimed that they all said there was a hole that went through the
> > > windshield when 3 of them most definitely did not say the hole went all
> > > the way through. That is most definitely a change.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, you'll won't get away with that. I don't change words, I will
> > at times explain what folks mean when it's too complicated for you to
> > follow though.
>
> When you try to enhance what the people said rather than let their words
> speak for themselves, you are changing what they said to fit your
> narrative. You don't get to do that. If the words of the witnesses don't
> fit your beliefs, you don't get to change them until they do.
>

WRONG! In all the witnesses we've discussed, there is only ONE whose
words I did not take exactly as stated. That was Carolyn Walther, and I
simply corrected a mistake she made in what floor the men with a gun were
on. Try and get an understanding of these thing so I don't have to
straighten you out all the time.

> > In tis case you mention, it was clear that ALL 6 witnesses
> > by saying the bullet went through the windshield, meant that it went all
> > the way through, not halfway. Simple stuff, but I had to explain it to
> > you.
> >
>
> All six witnesses did NOT say the bullet went all the way through the
> windshield. That is one more example of you trying to force fit what
> witnesses said to fit your beliefs. When you are forced to do that, you
> reveal how lame your beliefs are.
>

LOL! We've done this before, and you still can't get it right! It's
laughable. You're here to laugh at everyone else and you're the joke!

> >
> >
> >
> > > > They mean
> > > > all the way through, not part way through.
> > >
> > > How do you know they meant all the way through when they didn't say all
> > > the way through. You are enhancing what they said with your own
> > > interpretation. That is most definitely a change.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You're being silly and have painted yourself into your usual corner.
> > Now you have to keep picking at it in hopes somehow something will change.
> >
>
> It is not nitpicking to point out the witnesses didn't say what you
> claimed they did.
>

They ALL said exactly what I said they did except Carolyn Walther.
You have no case and are hanging on that and repeating it over and over
because you've lost and can't admit it.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > Can you picture a bullet
> > > > hanging halfway through a window? No. It won't happen.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It wasn't a bullet. If was a fragment of a bullet that had already struck
> > > the dense bone of JFK's head losing much of its energy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > We don't know that, how did you get to know it? If your talking of the
> > bullet that slammed into the solid chrome bar over the windshield, it
> > slammed it awful hard. What was the measurement for that? Do we need an
> > expert, or are you qualified?
> >
>
> Of course we do. Fragments were found in the hole on the inside of the
> windshield. That along is proof positive the bullet had fragmented when it
> struck the windshield. The outer surface of the windshield remained smooth
> which is proof positive the only defect was on the inner surface.
>

WRONG! If a bullet passes through a glass pane,. it could very well
scrape some of it's material on the glass edge of the hole. Think it
through.

> > > > So I'm glad I was able to explain that to you. Try to remember it for
> > > > next time you begin to repeat all these things we've said.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm glad you were again able to demonstrate how you have changed what
> > > witnesses said to fit your narrative. You never allow these people's words
> > > to speak for themselves.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Correcting you once again. I didn't change any words said by
> > any of the 6 witnesses. I simply explained to you where you went wrong
> > again.
> >
>
> You added to their words when you said all six witnesses said the hole
> went through the windshield when only three of the six said that. An
> addition is a change.
>

They all said there was a hole in the windshield. You're losing it
again. Get a grip.

You haven't presented evidence of Oswald's guilt, you've shown a few
circumstantial items that don't prove anything as to who fired a gun out
the window, of for that matter, who fired the kill shot at JFK that hit
him in the forehead.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Here's an interesting statement from Paul O'Connor, who was on the
Bethesda autopsy team that did JFK's autopsy. The below text is from
examining the organs after removal of some of them. The subject is the
bullet that hit JFK in the upper back.


"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law Pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

So if the bullet didn't go past the pleura, it could NOT come out of
the throat wound, and could not go and hit Connally, and Connally was
correct that he was hit by a different bullet. The SBT is dead.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:

> Which shot is the bullet fragment from? I'm guessing not the head shot
> because the mark on the windshield is visible when they emerge from behind
> the Stemmons sign.
>

Really? What are you looking at?

> Also the bullet which did not go through Connally and instead exited JFK's
> throat and hit the chrome topping and made a dent, split in half and the
> two fragments were found in the limo.

That would make sense if the shooter fired from inside the trunk of the

limo.

> The impact to the chrome topping
> made the bullet split into pieces and one of those pieces bounced off the
> chrome topping and hit the windshield, causing it to get lodged in said
> windshield.
>
> No single bullet. Connally hit by a different bullet as he said.

Connally had no idea which bullet hit JFK. He knew he was hit by the
second shot. So was JFK.

[Bud]

Liveleak has several videos of this phenomenon. This one is pretty
brutal...

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC VIDEO OF BLOODY DYING MAN: PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=821_1315496474

And thats a Disney movie compared to this guy`s demise...

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a2_1391106608&comments=1

But they both pale in comparison to this...

https://youtu.be/pl6f_XwMhMM

[John McAdams]

OK, that last one was snuck in as a joke.

But you are right about the issue here.

I guess Liveleak is the place for really gross videos. I've long
known about zerocensorship.com (which has uncensored ISIS execution
videos), but never paid much attention to Liveleak. I think I won't.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

There is no reasoning with what you have done. There are a number of ways
to resolve the conflicts in her story but you only want to consider the
one that supports your story. The fact remains Walthers didn't say she saw
a gunman on the 6th floor no matter how much you try to twist her words.

> No other window had so many witnesses that saw a man wit ha gun in them.
> Only on the 6th floor. If you want to say she saw 2 men in the 3rd or 4th
> floor, then you're starting up another sdhooting team. Is that what
> you're doing?
>

You refuse to consider that she didn't really see a gunman and that she
saw someone on a lawyer floor that she just guessed was the gunman after
the shots had been fired. That explanation wouldn't fit your narrative so
you arbitrarily dismiss it.

> In the case of Henderson her EXACT words were:
>
> "She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
> but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
> were on."
>
> When you use simple logic to understand her comment, it comes out to
> the 6th floor, since there was no one seen in the window of the 7th floor,
> but they were seen on the floors below, meaning the 3rd and 4th. Again,
> the other witnesses only saw a gun in the 6th floor window. No change as
> made to the Henderson statement, merely an explanation to help the
> logically challenged.
>

Nothing in Henderson's words leads to the conclusion you have reached.
Once again you are forced to make assumptions to get her words to fit your
story. Just because she didn't see someone on the floors above the two men
she saw doesn't mean there wasn't anybody on the floors above them. Her
description of the men fit the black employees in the windows below the
sniper's nest. She could have simply not seen Oswald at the time she
looked up. That scenario perfectly fits her statement as well but once
again, you refuse to consider that because it doesn't fit your story. I've
given you numerous opportunities to explain why that scenario doesn't fit
her statement and you have dodged the challenge every time. You have no
logical refutation so once again you arbitrarily dismiss it.

>
>
>
> > It really makes it difficult when you can't even keep your own bullshit
> > straight.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Se above, where I had to get yours straight.
>
>
>
> > > She did NOT say she
> > > wasn't sure which floor. I said she made a mistake and gave my reasons,
> > > then said that the floor where everyone saw men with guns was the 6th.
> > > So I believe she made a mistake and it was the 6th where she saw the men
> > > with a gun. I have not said I didn't change what she said, I said that I
> > > corrected her mistake. Call it what you want. It was the 6th based on
> > > evidence and common sense.
> > >
> >
> > You seem more confused than ever.
> >
>
>
> When in reality, it's you. I'm clear on all this.

Only in your mind which seems to be a very fascinating place.

> You're the one
> having a problem. That's why you have to ask so many questions...it's so
> you can understand.
>

I gave up trying to understand you and the goofy things you believe a long
time ago. They defy reason and logic.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > In the case
> > > > > of the 6 witnesses who ALL said there was a bullet hole in the windshield,
> > > > > I did NOT change a single word they said, but I did try to explain to you
> > > > > what people mean when they say there is a hole in a glass pane.
> > > >
> > > > You claimed that they all said there was a hole that went through the
> > > > windshield when 3 of them most definitely did not say the hole went all
> > > > the way through. That is most definitely a change.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, you'll won't get away with that. I don't change words, I will
> > > at times explain what folks mean when it's too complicated for you to
> > > follow though.
> >
> > When you try to enhance what the people said rather than let their words
> > speak for themselves, you are changing what they said to fit your
> > narrative. You don't get to do that. If the words of the witnesses don't
> > fit your beliefs, you don't get to change them until they do.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! In all the witnesses we've discussed, there is only ONE whose
> words I did not take exactly as stated. That was Carolyn Walther, and I
> simply corrected a mistake she made in what floor the men with a gun were
> on. Try and get an understanding of these thing so I don't have to
> straighten you out all the time.

You changed the floor Walthers said she saw the men on. You added the
floor Henderson saw the men on because her statement didn't specify a
floor and you can't logically conclude she meant the 6th floor because
other possibilities exist, possibilities you refuse to consider because
they don't fit your story. You claim three people who only said they saw a
hole in the windshield really meant they saw a hole THROUGH the windshield
which is also an enhancement, aka a change to their stories. You have no
physical evidence on your side and the stories of the witnesses you cite
don't fit your beliefs without your modifications.

>
>
>
>
> > > In tis case you mention, it was clear that ALL 6 witnesses
> > > by saying the bullet went through the windshield, meant that it went all
> > > the way through, not halfway. Simple stuff, but I had to explain it to
> > > you.
> > >
> >
> > All six witnesses did NOT say the bullet went all the way through the
> > windshield. That is one more example of you trying to force fit what
> > witnesses said to fit your beliefs. When you are forced to do that, you
> > reveal how lame your beliefs are.
> >
>
>
> LOL! We've done this before, and you still can't get it right! It's
> laughable. You're here to laugh at everyone else and you're the joke!
>

There is nothing wrong about what I said. Three of the six witnesses you
cited did not say the hole went completely through the windshield and you
and anybody who has seen their statements knows they didn't say it went
through. You want to continue to pretend they said something they didn't
just as you did with Walthers and Henderson. It is only in a make believe
world that one can believe Oswald was not the assassin of JFK.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > They mean
> > > > > all the way through, not part way through.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know they meant all the way through when they didn't say all
> > > > the way through. You are enhancing what they said with your own
> > > > interpretation. That is most definitely a change.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're being silly and have painted yourself into your usual corner.
> > > Now you have to keep picking at it in hopes somehow something will change.
> > >
> >
> > It is not nitpicking to point out the witnesses didn't say what you
> > claimed they did.
> >
>
>
> They ALL said exactly what I said they did except Carolyn Walther.

Complete and absolute bullshit.

> You have no case and are hanging on that and repeating it over and over
> because you've lost and can't admit it.
>

You're the one adding things to witness statements because their words
don't support your story. You can deny you do that all you want but nobody
who has seen their statements and the conclusions you reached from those
statements is going to buy your denials.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Can you picture a bullet
> > > > > hanging halfway through a window? No. It won't happen.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It wasn't a bullet. If was a fragment of a bullet that had already struck
> > > > the dense bone of JFK's head losing much of its energy.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We don't know that, how did you get to know it? If your talking of the
> > > bullet that slammed into the solid chrome bar over the windshield, it
> > > slammed it awful hard. What was the measurement for that? Do we need an
> > > expert, or are you qualified?
> > >
> >
> > Of course we do. Fragments were found in the hole on the inside of the
> > windshield. That along is proof positive the bullet had fragmented when it
> > struck the windshield. The outer surface of the windshield remained smooth
> > which is proof positive the only defect was on the inner surface.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! If a bullet passes through a glass pane,. it could very well
> scrape some of it's material on the glass edge of the hole. Think it
> through.
>

If a bullet passes completely through a sheet of glass, neither side will
be smooth to the touch.

>
>
>
> > > > > So I'm glad I was able to explain that to you. Try to remember it for
> > > > > next time you begin to repeat all these things we've said.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad you were again able to demonstrate how you have changed what
> > > > witnesses said to fit your narrative. You never allow these people's words
> > > > to speak for themselves.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Correcting you once again. I didn't change any words said by
> > > any of the 6 witnesses. I simply explained to you where you went wrong
> > > again.
> > >
> >
> > You added to their words when you said all six witnesses said the hole
> > went through the windshield when only three of the six said that. An
> > addition is a change.
> >
>
>
> They all said there was a hole in the windshield. You're losing it
> again. Get a grip.
>

Three of them didn't so the hole went through and you keep pretending they
did say that.

Keep those excuses coming. That along with your assumptions, speculations,
and modifications to witness statements is pretty much all you have in
your toolbox.

[bigdog]

Now see if you can cite a qualified medical examiner who said the bullet
never went past the pleura. They will be throwing snowballs in hell before
you are able to do that.

[John McAdams]

On 26 May 2017 21:29:06 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

So a bullet that was capable of penetrating 48 inches of pine lumber
was not even able to penetrate the pleura.

Did JKF have a steel plura?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

<snicker> the horror... the horror...

[Anthony Marsh]

But how are you going to censor videos? You don't have the computer
skills. Watch out this weekend for the WannaLaugh worm.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he did. He could SEE that JFK had already been hit before he
himself was hit.

Your SBT must be a REALLLYYY slow bullet.

>>
>> What do you think of that David Von Pein? Please be civil.
>
>

You know that McAdams will just censor whatever we say about his minions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/26/2017 10:45 AM, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> Which shot is the bullet fragment from? I'm guessing not the head shot
> because the mark on the windshield is visible when they emerge from behind
> the Stemmons sign.
>
> Also the bullet which did not go through Connally and instead exited JFK's
> throat and hit the chrome topping and made a dent, split in half and the
> two fragments were found in the limo. The impact to the chrome topping
> made the bullet split into pieces and one of those pieces bounced off the
> chrome topping and hit the windshield, causing it to get lodged in said
> windshield.
>

The angles are wrong for a fragement to hit the chrome topping and then
hit the windshield. Plus I think that whatever fragment hit the windshield
then ricocheted into the back of the rearview mirror. That's a lot to ask
of one magic fragment.

[Jason Burke]

According to the CT folks, why yes, yes he did.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Jonny Mayer]

John didn't edit my post Anthony, that's how I wrote it. I wrote please
be civil as the last time I tried to talk about this with DVP he laughed
at me, I remember you mentioned that to him too. Although laughing is
still civil its just a little rude.

Bigdog; the bullet mark appearing on the windshield as they emerge from
the Stemmons sign. There is white circular mark around the center of the
windshield which I believe was the bullet impact mark seen in Altgens 6
and 7 etc. which is also visible in the Zapruder film from 215 to around
238. So the bullet which went through JFK did not go through Connally
therefore more than one shooter.

TAXI!

[mainframetech]

This part of the case is a perfect example for me to let you know that
I no longer need you as foil, but I thank you for your help in getting the
message out. The repetition you keep involving yourself in is wasting my
time, and we've raked over every little bit you could drag out. So we've
come to the end of the road you and I. I'm no longer going to spend all
my time trying to straighten you out, or get you on the right track, or
correct all your foolish comments. I may occasionally jump in with
something, but my constant wiping behind your ears is over. This comment
of yours is an example of something we've discussed many times over, with
NO change, and it wasted my time ,since I've gotten all the use out of the
repetition I want to get. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Chris

[mainframetech]

C'mon John. You can do better than that! Besides you're gonna make Harris jealous spending so much time on little ole me. First, one of the autopsy team members had heard of the phenomena called a 'short shot' where something wrong with the bullet or the charge behind it failed to give it full power, and it was stopped easily. Second, O'Connor was not the only member of the team that saw that proof that the back bullet never left the body. Third, they were unable to find ANY path beyond that point in the body (pleura). Even the Autopsy Report (AR) was unable to show that they followed the path. Fourth, As well, the probes they used did NOT go past about an inch or so into the body. That is not clear proof, but fit with everything else that was done. Fifth, Humes stuck his finger into the back wound (a no-no normally) and was unable to get anywhere after about an inch. Sixth, when they opened the body and removed the organs, they saw clearly that there was a path down to the pleura, and then bruising at the pleura and the right lung, but NO PATH beyond that. A bullet insists on making a path for itself and won't simply make turns to avoid tissues like the pleura and the lung. Seventh, the bruising on the pleura and lung was somewhat down from the edge of the lung, and the bruise was about 2 inches in diameter. So the bullet struck more in the middle of tissue, and not skirting the edge. Eighth, You may find this a bit much, but here's the sworn testimony of Custer, one of the X-ray Technicians:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many types of bullet.

Chris

[Jonny Mayer]

Yes exactly Anthony that's why there is damage to the rear view mirror.
Then where did the fragment go? I know...

[Jonny Mayer]

Actually I now think I was wrong about it being in the Zapruder film.
Everything else I said still stands. What I thought I could see in some
Zapruder frames is probably just a reflection.

[bigdog]

You're going to continue wasting your time because nobody is buying what
you are selling.

> So we've
> come to the end of the road you and I. I'm no longer going to spend all
> my time trying to straighten you out, or get you on the right track, or
> correct all your foolish comments. I may occasionally jump in with
> something, but my constant wiping behind your ears is over. This comment
> of yours is an example of something we've discussed many times over, with
> NO change, and it wasted my time ,since I've gotten all the use out of the
> repetition I want to get. Good luck in your future endeavors.
>

I guess you got tired of being told the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/29/2017 9:52 AM, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> Yes exactly Anthony that's why there is damage to the rear view mirror.
> Then where did the fragment go? I know...
>

I don't know for sure. I rarely ever state that I know something for a
fact unless I have the documents to back it up.

I suspect that it ricocheted into the defroster vent, but I do not know
the exact angles. But at least I have the official photos of the
limsousine interior from when they were working on it.

Just to prank a couple of wiseguys I made up a hoax theory that the
bullet hit the chrome topping directly and ricocheted back into JFK's
forehead.

[bigdog]

I'm glad you retracted that. I looked at the frames and saw no evidence of
the crack. I'm not sure what that white spot your referred to was but it
was in the wrong place to be the crack in the windshield. My guess is it
is a reflection off the steering column. I was going to reply last night
but my server was acting finicky so I didn't bother.

[Anthony Marsh]

I've also heard some kooks blame it on the backbrace, which they even
claim had steel stays and that could have stopped the bullet.

>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called Pareidolia. There is no known treatment.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, you noticed that too. McAdams had problems with his server too. I
suspect midwest storms are constantly knocking out power. That's why it's
good to have a backup battery power supply for your main computer.

[Jason Burke]

An gol durn, they both fell for it!

Right, Anthony Anthony?

[Jonny Mayer]

Yeah. It is visible in Altgens 6 & 7 though. Altgens 6 was taken at
approx. z255. CE399 is not missing any FMJ. FMJ was stuck in the
windshield by z255 (after hitting the chrome topping then the rear view
mirror and finally coming to rest in the windshield). Therefore it was a
different bullet that hit Connally just as he and his wife said on Larry
King. So single bullet is dead.

[mainframetech]

The angle for it to be the steering column is wrong. Try again.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

This is Ralphesque:

If A
.
.
.
Then Z.

[Anthony Marsh]

Physically impossible. There is no bullet STUCK in the windshield.
A 1.2" 6.8 mm diameter bullet would stick out literally like a sore
thumb. And people would walk by the limo and say, "Hey, look at that
thumb sticking out of the windshield. How gross!"

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, they were THAT dumb. They told me that the SMI bullets were steel
jacketed.

[mainframetech]

While I agree that the SBT is dead, I can't see the sequence of events
you stated above. CE399 is missing a tiny bit of material from the tail
end, though not enough to match the particles in Connally's wrist. And I
don't see it hitting the chrome bar over the windshield and THEN the
mirror. And of course, a bullet is not going to "come to rest" IN the
windshield.

Chris

[Jonny Mayer]

There's no if or then. Jason don't bother.

[Jonny Mayer]

Fragment Anthony. Why bother replying if you only half read the comment?

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:46:24 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 00:24:54 UTC+1, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 9:58:19 AM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > > > Actually I now think I was wrong about it being in the Zapruder film.
> > > > Everything else I said still stands. What I thought I could see in some
> > > > Zapruder frames is probably just a reflection.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you retracted that. I looked at the frames and saw no evidence of
> > > the crack. I'm not sure what that white spot your referred to was but it
> > > was in the wrong place to be the crack in the windshield. My guess is it
> > > is a reflection off the steering column. I was going to reply last night
> > > but my server was acting finicky so I didn't bother.
> >
> > Yeah. It is visible in Altgens 6 & 7 though. Altgens 6 was taken at
> > approx. z255. CE399 is not missing any FMJ. FMJ was stuck in the
> > windshield by z255 (after hitting the chrome topping then the rear view
> > mirror and finally coming to rest in the windshield). Therefore it was a
> > different bullet that hit Connally just as he and his wife said on Larry
> > King. So single bullet is dead.
>
>
>
> While I agree that the SBT is dead, I can't see the sequence of events
> you stated above. CE399 is missing a tiny bit of material from the tail
> end, though not enough to match the particles in Connally's wrist.

In order to state that logically, you would have to know the weight of the
particles in Connally's wrist and the difference in weight between CE399
and a pristine 6.5mm Carcano bullet. Since we both know you don't know
what those figures are, there is no way you can logically make that
statement so you do what conspiracy hobbyists have been doing for decades.
You try run a bluff.

> And I
> don't see it hitting the chrome bar over the windshield and THEN the
> mirror. And of course, a bullet is not going to "come to rest" IN the
> windshield.
>

Nobody cares what you can or can't see.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/1/2017 10:30 AM, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> Fragment Anthony. Why bother replying if you only half read the comment?
>
>

SNIP SNIP.
What is your point? Learn to quote properly.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> Fragment Anthony. Why bother replying if you only half read the comment?

That's been Marsh's SOP for as long as I've been on this forum. Better get
used to it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some of us can make reasonable estimates and do actual research.
Would you take into account an weight lost just by the bullet being fired?

[mainframetech]

False! It's possible to decide it by measuring the particles in the
wrist to the Tail end of CE399. I've done that and it should be posted
soon.

> Since we both know you don't know
> what those figures are, there is no way you can logically make that
> statement so you do what conspiracy hobbyists have been doing for decades.
> You try run a bluff.
>

Watch me.

> > And I
> > don't see it hitting the chrome bar over the windshield and THEN the
> > mirror. And of course, a bullet is not going to "come to rest" IN the
> > windshield.
> >
>
> Nobody cares what you can or can't see.

Indeed! And now we have your ad hominem opinion. Where's your proof?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Sometimes it looks that way because you guys snip the messages.

[OHLeeRedux]

Nobody snips your messages. Every time you claim that, the content you
claim was snipped is still there, right above your silly claim that the
content was snipped.

Either your software is not showing you the entire post, or this is just
another of many instances of your spreading alternative facts.

In either case, it is your responsibility, and trying to blame others is
reprehensible.

[bigdog]

Very well. Now tell us how much those particles weighed.

>
>
>
> > Since we both know you don't know
> > what those figures are, there is no way you can logically make that
> > statement so you do what conspiracy hobbyists have been doing for decades.
> > You try run a bluff.
> >
>
>
> Watch me.
>

I have been which is how I know you are bluffing. You'd be an easy mark in
a poker game. As the saying goes, if you look around the poker table and
you can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you.

>
>
>
> > > And I
> > > don't see it hitting the chrome bar over the windshield and THEN the
> > > mirror. And of course, a bullet is not going to "come to rest" IN the
> > > windshield.
> > >
> >
> > Nobody cares what you can or can't see.
>
>
>
> Indeed! And now we have your ad hominem opinion. Where's your proof?
>

I've seen all the help you get from your fellow conspiracy hobbyists. You
always seem to be out on your own.

Tell us which other poster has concurred with some of these pearls you
have offered us:

Oswald never bought any ammo

Oswald never practiced

Carolyn Walthers saw two men with a gun on the 6th floor

Ruby Henderson said she saw two men on the 6th floor

JFK was hit by a shot fired through the windshield

JFK's body was altered prior to the autopsy

I could go on and on but even your fellow conspiracy hobbyists want no
part of this nonsense.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/2/2017 8:37 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 10:51:26 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/1/2017 8:51 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
>>>> Fragment Anthony. Why bother replying if you only half read the comment?
>>>
>>> That's been Marsh's SOP for as long as I've been on this forum. Better get
>>> used to it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes it looks that way because you guys snip the messages.
>
>
> Nobody snips your messages. Every time you claim that, the content you
> claim was snipped is still there, right above your silly claim that the
> content was snipped.
>

False. Trolls like to snip out the context to create false impressions.

[OHLeeRedux]

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:33:41 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/2/2017 8:37 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 10:51:26 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2017 8:51 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:30:11 AM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> >>>> Fragment Anthony. Why bother replying if you only half read the comment?
> >>>
> >>> That's been Marsh's SOP for as long as I've been on this forum. Better get
> >>> used to it.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sometimes it looks that way because you guys snip the messages.
> >
> >
> > Nobody snips your messages. Every time you claim that, the content you
> > claim was snipped is still there, right above your silly claim that the
> > content was snipped.
> >
>
> False. Trolls like to snip out the context to create false impressions.
>

"False" is an adjective properly applied to everything you say. You know
perfectly well that your original post remains here no matter what anyone
else posts.

Your alternative facts have been exposed, Anthony. We're on to you.

[Mitch Todd]

On 5/19/2017 12:44 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:

>> I didn't change anything in her statement. She never said
>> that the gunman was signalling the other guy *while* he was
>> reloading. You can construe it that way, I guess, but then
>> you also have to explain why no one else who saw the gunman
>> talking to the guy across the street while unloading and
>> reloading his pistol. Not Markham, or Scoggins, or Benavides,
>> or the Davis women. BTW, Clemons also didn't say he other guy
>> was Oswald. You're already folding your imagination into her
>> testimony.
>
> True as far as his name. But the description fit Oswald a lot better
> than the chunky short one. Which matched the man driving the Nash Rambler
> at the TSBD that an Oswald ran into and entered.

"kinda short, kinda chunky adult male" would have fit tens
of thousands of people in the Dallas area in 1963. And
where does Clemons say that Kinda Shorty was, as Craig
put it, "Negro?" BTW, Oswald was 5' 9". Even in 1963,
that wasn't considered tall. How can he be the tall
guy?


>>>> It had to have happened after that. The
>>>> only other person who saw Oswald communicate with anyone else was
>>>> Callaway. More to the point, Callaway said he said something to Oswald
>>>> while Oswald was on the other side of the street. Clemons has to be
>>>> talking about him.
>>>
>>> Clemons saw the guy talking to the Oswald looking fellow. Mostly
>>> telling him to 'go on'.
>>
>> Where did you get "mostly" from, Chris? The *only* thing that
>> she claimed was that he told the other guy, "go on."
>
> One had to use their intelligence. The man reloading his revolver did
> not say just 'go on' in their whole conversation. They obviously knew
> each other, and surely must have said more than 'go on'. Clemons happened
> to see the 'go on' gesture.

You have a tendency to confuse the words "intelligence"
with "imagination," which explains your general method
of argument. The *only* thing that Clemons claimed
the gunman said was, "go on." Anything more is entirely
your own product, built wholly from fairy dust and make
believe.



>> Compare
>> that to Callaway's testimony that he told the man that he
>> identified as Oswald "What's going on?" And keep in mind that
>> Callaway is the *only* other witness who had the gunman verbally
>> interact with another man, and that it happened across Patton.
>
> Or so he says. Perhaps you mixed him up with another?

What other? No one (including Wright and Clemons!) testified
to seeing two gunmen, nor did anyone report two people
southbound on Patton towards Jefferson.



>>>>>> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
>>>>>> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
>>>>>> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
>>>>>> Oswald.
>>>>>
>>>>> Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
>>>>>
>>>>> But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
>>>>
>>>> He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
>>>> video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
>>>> how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
>>>> Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
>>>> the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
>>>> matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
>>>
>>> Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
>>> Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.
>>
>> She said he was "very dark complected," like Craig described
>> the Rambler driver?
>
> True. I got the impression he was Hispanic, but that's no guarantee.

Darker than that. Craig describes him as "a Negro male" in his
11-22-63 affidavit. Even then, Dallas had a non-trivial Hispanic
population, and Craig should have been able to differentiate
between members of the two groups. So (again) where did Clemons
describe the shorter guy as dark-complected?


>>>>>> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
>>>>>> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
>>>>>> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
>>>>>> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
>>>>>> later rememberences.
>>>>>
>>>>> "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.
>>>>
>>>> It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
>>>> pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
>>>> like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
>>>> it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.
>>>
>>> You forget that Clemons is a witness.
>>
>> So, you're trying to tell us that your take on Clemons'
>> testimony is corroborated by...Clemons? That's some really
>> dim logic there. Next you'll be telling us that Abraham
>> Lincoln is buried Grant's tomb because it's Grant's tomb.
>
> Use your head. Clemons speaks directly and I don't see any reason to
> simply dismiss her statement and insert another guy and change them around
> as to who is speaking. Until we have a specific reason for what she said,
> I'm holding her statement in abeyance. There is another woman that was on
> that street and she also saw what Clemons saw, but I'm still tracking her
> down. I gave you the info that shows complication in the Tippit killing,
> right?

As I've already said, if you ignore Clemons' description
of the twomen, and concentrate on their described actions,
you have something that dovetails neatly and elegantly
with Ted Callaway's testimony. If you give precedence to
her physical description of the two men, then the whole
thing doesn't fit any other testimony (including Wright's)

BTW, the other woman is Helen Markham. I'm honestly
surprised you couldn't figure that out.


>>> And she wasn't the only one.
>> >
>>> Here's the statement of Frank White who lived in the area:
>>>
>>> "Frank Wright lived along the street from the spot where Tippit was
>>> killed, and heard the shots as he sat in his living room. While his wife
>>> telephoned for help, Wright went straight to his front door. He later told
>>> researchers: "I was the first person out," and caught sight of Tippit in
>>> time to see him roll over once and then lie still. Wright also said, "I
>>> saw a man standing in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on
>>> the ground. I couldn't tell who the man was on the ground. The man who was
>>> standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat.
>>> It ended just above his hands. I didn't see any gun. He ran around on the
>>> passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go, and he
>>> got into his car... He got in that car and he drove away as fast as you
>>> could see...."
>>
>> So, did Wright claim that the gunman signaled to another man
>> across the street, as Clemons said, and did it while reloading
>> as you claim she said? No. Did Clemons or any other witness at
>> the scene describe a man near Tippit's cruiser running to a car,
>> getting in, and driving away as Wright claimed? No. For that
>> matter, how could Wright claim that he was the "first person
>> out" when Markham, Benavides, and Scoggins were outside before
>> the shooting and saw it?
>
> Well, the cab driver saw a lot less than he said. I checked his story
> out a long time ago and he was looking through a bush at what was
> happening, and he was also ducking behind his cab at various times to
> avoid being seen and shot at. Not a very good situation for viewing the
> scene, but he's always noted as seeing everything perfectly.

I've never heard anyone say that Scoggins saw "everything
perfectly," including Scoggins. Then again, he didn't have
to. He just had to see enough in order to figure out what
happened, who did it, and what that person looked like.
He had plenty of opportunity to do that. BTW, the bushes
you're probably thinking of are the ones on the east side
of the Davis property, along Patton. Those were only about
2' high between Scoggins' cab and the scene of the murder,
and didn't obstruct Scoggins' view. Another, taller,
evergreen bush located near the property line between 402
and 404 10th *did* block Scoggins' view of the gunman just
when Tippit was shot, as Scoggins testified. However, it was
small enough that Scoggins was able to see the gunman both
before and after the shooting, as he also testified.


> To me, the
> whole Tippit scene needs further clarification. There is also many
> indications that many of these people, including cops were in on the
> goings on during the killing of JFK, and some were even named as shooters
> in Dealey Plaza by one of the authors of books on the subject.

So now you're down to trying to insinuate your way out of this?


> The LNs are often telling me that certain witnesses were mistaken, and
> I need to realize that, now I'm saying it and no one wants to allow for
> it.

I'd certainly say that Clemons was mistaken about her description
of the two men. To have it your way, you'd have to add two more
characters to the story that aren't in the other witness accounts.


>>> From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
>> >
>>> And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
>>> much to check on the Tippit killing.
>>
>> Yeah, like I never heard of Simkin's website?! ;-P
>
> I'm sure you have, I just was unaware whether you had checked out this
> particular part. Relax. We're not having some kind of fight.

There's nothing there that I hadn't seen before in other
places. This ain't my first rodeo.



>> Instead of just passively soaking up Simkin's presentation,
>> why not track down the underlying testimony on your own at
>> Mary Ferrell or History Matters or McAdams site?
>
> I've found that McAdams site varies too much. Sometimes it's giving
> straight info, and sometimes it's got 'hit pieces', which are irritating
> to read.

In your world, a "Hit Piece" is some bit of research that
you can neither admit to, nor argue against, so you merely
try to blow it off down the memory hole.



>>>>>> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
>>>>>> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
>
> I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
> her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
> dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that. And
> her testimony when being questioned was something out of Alice in
> Wonderland.


McAdams, I trust, has set you straight about what Markham
(and Frank Cimino) actually testified to, rather than what
some overzealous, sloppy researcher wrote after the fact.
Markham really does seem to be something of a drama queen,
but the extent of it falls short of what you've been led to
claim. Anyhoo, even if I exclude Markham for the sake of
argument, that still leaves Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway,
and Guinyard, (and, I think, the Davises as well) identified
Oswald as the gunman.


>>>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But how would that have even been possible [i.e., Acquilla Clemmons
>>>>>> describing an encounter between Oswald and Callaway] from Clemmons'
>>>>>> location? Clemmons lived on Tenth Street, not on Patton, right? And the
>>>>>> only "Callaway/Oswald" encounter occurred on Patton, not on Tenth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~big shrug~
>>>>>
>>>>> Good thinking for a change from DVP.
>>>>
>>>> As David later realized, and as you yourself pointed out in
>>>> this post, Clemons moved towards the site of the shooting,
>>>> and would have been able to see further and further down
>>>> Patton as she closed on the intersection.
>>>
>>> Anything to make it work.
>>
>> What sour grapes you have! You're the guy who said
>> that DVP was "good thinking" when he questioned
>> whether Clemons would have been able to see Callaway
>> and Oswald pass each other on 10th. You're also the
>> guy who pointed out that Clemons said she went over
>> to where the murder occurred, and would then have
>> easily been able to see down Patton all the way to
>> Jefferson.
>
> How easily she could see down the other street doesn't mean she was
> watching someone on that street, or getting mixed up with people there.

How many people do you think were at the scene? By my
count Markham, Scoggins, and Benavides saw the shooting,
the Davis girls were in their house and saw the gunman,
Callaway, Cimino, Wright, and Clemons came each came out
of a building and walked to the scene in the immediate
aftermath. Of course, there is the gunman and Tippit.


>>>>>> MITCH TODD SAID:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She said that, after she heard the shots, she left the house and made her
>>>>>> way down 10th to the intersection with Patton. The closer she got, the
>>>>>> further down Patton she would have been able to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, Mitch. Thanks. I haven't done any in-depth study of Acquilla
>>>>>> Clemmons or her statements. I didn't realize she even said she left her
>>>>>> front porch that afternoon (actually, it would have been the house of her
>>>>>> employer at 327 East Tenth Street, which was not her own dwelling). I
>>>>>> thought she said she observed everything from the front porch of the
>>>>>> house. (You don't think I've been brainwashed by watching Oliver Stone's
>>>>>> version of events, do you? Oh God, no!! Anything but that.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm ashamed to admit that even though I have Mark Lane's "Rush To
>>>>>> Judgment" film in my video collection (and I've watched the film MANY
>>>>>> times), I was under the (false) impression (until today) that Mrs.
>>>>>> Acquilla Clemmons did all of her "witnessing" on 11/22/63 from the front
>>>>>> porch of the house. I *must* have been erroneously influenced by Oliver
>>>>>> Stone's filmed re-creation featuring Mrs. Clemmons, which shows Clemmons
>>>>>> never leaving the front porch, as I recall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clemmons said that she walked down to where Tippit was laying on the
>>>>> ground.
>>>>
>>>> See what I mean? Not good thinking on your part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But after watching Clemmons' interview with Mark Lane in "RTJ" again just
>>>>>> now, I can see where I was mistaken in that "Only From The Front Porch"
>>>>>> belief. She clearly says in the Lane interview that she left her
>>>>>> employer's house and then "ran back down the street". (See video below.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxIOFRDYldpdEwtaDA/view
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same information about Clemmons leaving the front porch of her
>>>>>> employer's house can also be found in Dale Myers' book "With Malice"
>>>>>> (which apparently I also had forgotten completely about, too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After re-evaluating Clemmons' statements in the Mark Lane film, I can see
>>>>>> that what you (Mitch Todd) have said about her possibly seeing the
>>>>>> "Oswald/Callaway" encounter is certainly possible and makes a lot of
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very doubtful. Too many things made up in the description of what
>>>>> happened.
>>>>
>>>> So many of them that you can't name a-one of 'em.
>>>
>>> WRONG! There's a list of them in the link I provided.
>>
>> What link? The one one to Spartacus? You didn't post that
>> until after I'd dinged you, so your your "WRONG" is totally,
>> well, wrong. And it doesn't address what I've been saying
>> about Clemons and Callaway, anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Apart from her observation about the "other man" (who didn't have a gun)
>>>>>> being rather "thin" (which, as you pointed out, does not really fit
>>>>>> Callaway's physique as of 1963 or 1964), there are several things in
>>>>>> Clemmons' story that fit perfectly with Callaway being part of the
>>>>>> "encounter" that Acquilla talked about in her 1966 interview with Mark
>>>>>> Lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also See:
>>>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

And McAdams allows you to call me a liar because you are one of his
minions.

[mainframetech]

Apparently you aren't familiar with the human race and their gestures
and movements and what they often mean. You can tell a lot more of
communication by those.

>
>
> >> Compare
> >> that to Callaway's testimony that he told the man that he
> >> identified as Oswald "What's going on?" And keep in mind that
> >> Callaway is the *only* other witness who had the gunman verbally
> >> interact with another man, and that it happened across Patton.
> >
> > Or so he says. Perhaps you mixed him up with another?
>
> What other? No one (including Wright and Clemons!) testified
> to seeing two gunmen, nor did anyone report two people
> southbound on Patton towards Jefferson.
>

There was another woman that saw the action from her second floor, but
I haven't located her again.

>
>
> >>>>>> From the video record, Callaway looks like he's a bit chunky and doesn't
> >>>>>> appear to be too tall. Put it together, and Clemons describes the
> >>>>>> encounter between Oswald and Callaway, but with Callaway switched with
> >>>>>> Oswald.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Callaway looks to be taller than you think:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWdWMhqLSM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But his description doesn't fit what Acquilla Clemmons says she saw.
> >>>>
> >>>> He does look a bit taller in the video, but then again, you picked the
> >>>> video where almost everyone else is sitting. He'd look the giant no matter
> >>>> how short he was! Seriously, let's say for the sake of argument that
> >>>> Callaway was tall and in no way bushy-haired. That doesn't take away from
> >>>> the fundamental point. Description of the gunman aside, Clemons' testimony
> >>>> matches very closely that of Callaway's, and nothing else.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, her description looks more like the guy that was driving the
> >>> Nash Rambler that was seen to have picked up Oswald in front of the TSBD.
> >>
> >> She said he was "very dark complected," like Craig described
> >> the Rambler driver?
> >
> > True. I got the impression he was Hispanic, but that's no guarantee.
>
> Darker than that. Craig describes him as "a Negro male" in his
> 11-22-63 affidavit. Even then, Dallas had a non-trivial Hispanic
> population, and Craig should have been able to differentiate
> between members of the two groups. So (again) where did Clemons
> describe the shorter guy as dark-complected?
>

If you didn't see it in her video, then she didn't say it, as far as I
know.

There's still a problem with changing a witness's story fit your own
needs. Clemons looked and sounded like she was clear on what she was
saying, and I'm keeping it in mind as she said it.

> BTW, the other woman is Helen Markham. I'm honestly
> surprised you couldn't figure that out.
>

If you mean the 'other woman' that saw the scene, it wasn't Markham.
The woman I'm talking about saw the scene from her second floor window.
Sorry you wasted you time.

Thinking what you saw was one thing, and yet was another, is a common
problem with sightings.

>
> > To me, the
> > whole Tippit scene needs further clarification. There is also many
> > indications that many of these people, including cops were in on the
> > goings on during the killing of JFK, and some were even named as shooters
> > in Dealey Plaza by one of the authors of books on the subject.
>
> So now you're down to trying to insinuate your way out of this?
>

Don't even begin to suggest that. What am I supposed to be trying to
get away from? I'm right here and whatever I've said is what I said. I
don't memorize every word, and I've been corrected before. What seems to
be the problem? Why is a discussion some kind of battle with you?
You're not going to change the truth of it being a conspiracy, there is
too much evidence for that.

I've said that there is more to be learned about the Tippit situation,
and that's my belief. Poke away at it, but that's not going to change.

>
> > The LNs are often telling me that certain witnesses were mistaken, and
> > I need to realize that, now I'm saying it and no one wants to allow for
> > it.
>
> I'd certainly say that Clemons was mistaken about her description
> of the two men. To have it your way, you'd have to add two more
> characters to the story that aren't in the other witness accounts.
>

Why 2 more? One of the 2 she saw was an Oswald type.

> >>> From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
> >> >
> >>> And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
> >>> much to check on the Tippit killing.
> >>
> >> Yeah, like I never heard of Simkin's website?! ;-P
> >
> > I'm sure you have, I just was unaware whether you had checked out this
> > particular part. Relax. We're not having some kind of fight.
>
> There's nothing there that I hadn't seen before in other
> places. This ain't my first rodeo.
>

Is that an excuse to avoid looking it up at Simkin's?

>
>
> >> Instead of just passively soaking up Simkin's presentation,
> >> why not track down the underlying testimony on your own at
> >> Mary Ferrell or History Matters or McAdams site?
> >
> > I've found that McAdams site varies too much. Sometimes it's giving
> > straight info, and sometimes it's got 'hit pieces', which are irritating
> > to read.
>
> In your world, a "Hit Piece" is some bit of research that
> you can neither admit to, nor argue against, so you merely
> try to blow it off down the memory hole.
>

WRONG! A hit piece is one that takes an extreme view against something
and finds every possible thing to nitpick at, rather than showing a 'fair
and balanced' view. And I've used the information in some hit pieces if
they seemed truthful. The tone used in a hit piece, doesn't necessarily
mean that it is also lies, though that sometimes happens.

>
>
> >>>>>> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
> >>>>>> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
> >
> > I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
> > her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
> > dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that. And
> > her testimony when being questioned was something out of Alice in
> > Wonderland.
>
>
> McAdams, I trust, has set you straight about what Markham
> (and Frank Cimino) actually testified to, rather than what
> some overzealous, sloppy researcher wrote after the fact.
> Markham really does seem to be something of a drama queen,
> but the extent of it falls short of what you've been led to
> claim. Anyhoo, even if I exclude Markham for the sake of
> argument, that still leaves Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway,
> and Guinyard, (and, I think, the Davises as well) identified
> Oswald as the gunman.
>

Repeat, Markham is a dingbat. McAdams gave me a reason that she might
have thought she was talking to Tippit because he groaned, and I accepted
that possibility. However, she was mentally confused by almost anything
said to her by people.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 4:50:39 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> There's still a problem with changing a witness's story fit your own
> needs.

TIMEOUT!!!

You are the last person on earth who should be complaining about changing
a witness' story to fit your needs. You changed what Carolyn Walther said.
You changed what Ruby Henderson said. You changed what H. R. Freeman said.
You changed what Richard Dudman said. You changed what Charles Taylor
said. I'm sure there are others whom I can't even think of right now, but
these are just five examples of witnesses whose stories you enhanced to
fit your beliefs. This is just too much.

[mainframetech]

FALSE! As usual, giving out false information! You know that I did NOT
change Ruby Henderson's statement, you just didn't understand it. I only
explained it, without change! I changed NO OTHER person's statement
whatsoever! Your loss of an argument has driven you to make these
unproven ad hominem attacks to try to regain your lost ego.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:22:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 4:50:39 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > There's still a problem with changing a witness's story fit your own
> > > needs.
> >
> > TIMEOUT!!!
> >
> > You are the last person on earth who should be complaining about changing
> > a witness' story to fit your needs. You changed what Carolyn Walther said.
> > You changed what Ruby Henderson said. You changed what H. R. Freeman said.
> > You changed what Richard Dudman said. You changed what Charles Taylor
> > said. I'm sure there are others whom I can't even think of right now, but
> > these are just five examples of witnesses whose stories you enhanced to
> > fit your beliefs. This is just too much.
>
>
>
> FALSE! As usual, giving out false information! You know that I did NOT
> change Ruby Henderson's statement, you just didn't understand it.

I know she didn't know what floor she saw the dark complexioned men on and
you changed that to say she specified the 6th floor.

> I only
> explained it, without change!

Your explanation made no sense. There are scenarios that fit what she said
but you only want to consider the one that fits your narrative.

> I changed NO OTHER person's statement
> whatsoever! Your loss of an argument has driven you to make these
> unproven ad hominem attacks to try to regain your lost ego.
>

Also untrue. You said Carolyn Walthers said she saw a man with a rifle on
the 6th floor when she said it was on a lower floor. You took statements
from three witnesses who only said they saw a hole in the windshield and
changed them to say the hole went all the way through.

[Jason Burke]

This dude's getting almost as desperate as BobHarris and Ralph.

[bigdog]

The Good, the Bad, and the Clueless.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:24:00 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:22:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 4:50:39 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's still a problem with changing a witness's story fit your own
> > > > needs.
> > >
> > > TIMEOUT!!!
> > >
> > > You are the last person on earth who should be complaining about changing
> > > a witness' story to fit your needs. You changed what Carolyn Walther said.
> > > You changed what Ruby Henderson said. You changed what H. R. Freeman said.
> > > You changed what Richard Dudman said. You changed what Charles Taylor
> > > said. I'm sure there are others whom I can't even think of right now, but
> > > these are just five examples of witnesses whose stories you enhanced to
> > > fit your beliefs. This is just too much.
> >
> >
> >
> > FALSE! As usual, giving out false information! You know that I did NOT
> > change Ruby Henderson's statement, you just didn't understand it.
>
> I know she didn't know what floor she saw the dark complexioned men on and
> you changed that to say she specified the 6th floor.
>

FALSE! Here are her exact words:

"She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
were on."



Sadly, you're unable to understand the simple logic involved in proving
that there was no one in a higher window than the 6th floor. But many saw
a man with a gun on the 6th. So simple when you apply common sense with
the logic.

> > I only
> > explained it, without change!
>
> Your explanation made no sense. There are scenarios that fit what she said
> but you only want to consider the one that fits your narrative.
>

Hey, don't fault me for your inability to do dimple logic.

> > I changed NO OTHER person's statement
> > whatsoever! Your loss of an argument has driven you to make these
> > unproven ad hominem attacks to try to regain your lost ego.
> >
>
> Also untrue. You said Carolyn Walthers said she saw a man with a rifle on
> the 6th floor when she said it was on a lower floor. You took statements
> from three witnesses who only said they saw a hole in the windshield and
> changed them to say the hole went all the way through.

I have stated clearly that Walther was the only case where I corrected
the witness's mistake. Unless you want to agree that there was another
shooting team on the third floor, and the fourth floor as well. Well?

Chris

[Mitch Todd]

The gesture she makes means exactly the same as
what she said the guy said, "go on." It added
nothing, and indicated nothing more.

>>>> Compare
>>>> that to Callaway's testimony that he told the man that he
>>>> identified as Oswald "What's going on?" And keep in mind that
>>>> Callaway is the *only* other witness who had the gunman verbally
>>>> interact with another man, and that it happened across Patton.
>>>
>>> Or so he says. Perhaps you mixed him up with another?
>>
>> What other? No one (including Wright and Clemons!) testified
>> to seeing two gunmen, nor did anyone report two people
>> southbound on Patton towards Jefferson.
>
> There was another woman that saw the action from her second floor, but
> I haven't located her again.

Doris Holan. Claimed, ca. 1999/2000 to have seen one
gunman shoot Tippit then leave the scene. Soon after,
another man came out of one of the houses, looked at
the scene, then went back in. The big news was that
she claimed that a second Police car was in the driveway
that Tippit's car was blocking. She was a Mike Brownlow
case; for more on Brownlow, see this Ed Forum thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/10967-michael-brownlow/

Whatever you think about Holan and/or Brownlow, the
second Police cruiser is something that no one else
has ever mentioned, and the rest of what she said
doesn't corroborate Clemons (or Callaway, either)

That's the thing. She didn't

>>>>>>>> The filmed interview with Lane was a few years after the fact, and her
>>>>>>>> memory might not have been the most lucid at that point. Also, Callaway
>>>>>>>> wound up grabbing Tippit's pistol and enlisting Scoggins (and his cab) in
>>>>>>>> a fruitless search for the killer, which may well have influenced Clemons'
>>>>>>>> later rememberences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "may have" is a lot like wishful thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's speculative, but either Clemons saw Oswald and Callaway
>>>>>> pass each other, or you have to invent an extra gunman. You
>>>>>> like inventions, so I'm pretty sure where you want to go with
>>>>>> it. There's just no supporting evidence for your version.
>>>>>
>>>>> You forget that Clemons is a witness.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're trying to tell us that your take on Clemons'
>>>> testimony is corroborated by...Clemons? That's some really
>>>> dim logic there. Next you'll be telling us that Abraham
>>>> Lincoln is buried Grant's tomb because it's Grant's tomb.
>>>
>>> Use your head. Clemons speaks directly and I don't see any reason to
>>> simply dismiss her statement and insert another guy and change them around
>>> as to who is speaking. Until we have a specific reason for what she said,
>>> I'm holding her statement in abeyance. There is another woman that was on
>>> that street and she also saw what Clemons saw, but I'm still tracking her
>>> down. I gave you the info that shows complication in the Tippit killing,
>>> right?
>>
>> As I've already said, if you ignore Clemons' description

>> of the two men, and concentrate on their described actions,

>> you have something that dovetails neatly and elegantly
>> with Ted Callaway's testimony. If you give precedence to
>> her physical description of the two men, then the whole
>> thing doesn't fit any other testimony (including Wright's)
>
> There's still a problem with changing a witness's story fit your own
> needs. Clemons looked and sounded like she was clear on what she was
> saying, and I'm keeping it in mind as she said it.

As others have already noted, you have no problem
"correcting" inconvenient bits in witness statements,
so I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than
the definition of hypocrisy. My point is, given the
various witness statements, we have a choice of
Clemons not-completely-accurately recalling the
encounter between Callaway and Oswald, or having
to add two more people to the scene for which no
other witness at the scene saw.

>> BTW, the other woman is Helen Markham. I'm honestly
>> surprised you couldn't figure that out.
>
> If you mean the 'other woman' that saw the scene, it wasn't Markham.
> The woman I'm talking about saw the scene from her second floor window.
> Sorry you wasted you time.

Well, now you know.

That doesn't adress what I said. For that matter, it
doesn't address what you said that I replied to. What
were you trying to say here?

>>> To me, the
>>> whole Tippit scene needs further clarification. There is also many
>>> indications that many of these people, including cops were in on the
>>> goings on during the killing of JFK, and some were even named as shooters
>>> in Dealey Plaza by one of the authors of books on the subject.
>>
>> So now you're down to trying to insinuate your way out of this?
>
> Don't even begin to suggest that. What am I supposed to be trying to
> get away from? I'm right here and whatever I've said is what I said. I
> don't memorize every word, and I've been corrected before. What seems to
> be the problem? Why is a discussion some kind of battle with you?
> You're not going to change the truth of it being a conspiracy, there is
> too much evidence for that.

I didn't suggest it. I asked you if you were trying to
insinute it. If anyone suggested it, you did. The
whole "there are many

> I've said that there is more to be learned about the Tippit situation,
> and that's my belief. Poke away at it, but that's not going to change.
>
>
>>
>>> The LNs are often telling me that certain witnesses were mistaken, and
>>> I need to realize that, now I'm saying it and no one wants to allow for
>>> it.
>>
>> I'd certainly say that Clemons was mistaken about her description
>> of the two men. To have it your way, you'd have to add two more
>> characters to the story that aren't in the other witness accounts.
>
> Why 2 more? One of the 2 she saw was an Oswald type.
>
>
>>>>> From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
>>>> >
>>>>> And you might want to look through the info at the link, since there's
>>>>> much to check on the Tippit killing.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, like I never heard of Simkin's website?! ;-P
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have, I just was unaware whether you had checked out this
>>> particular part. Relax. We're not having some kind of fight.
>>
>> There's nothing there that I hadn't seen before in other
>> places. This ain't my first rodeo.
>
> Is that an excuse to avoid looking it up at Simkin's?

Maybe you need to think carefully through the meaning
of "there's nothing there that I hadn't seen before
in other places" and the implications thereof.

>>>> Instead of just passively soaking up Simkin's presentation,
>>>> why not track down the underlying testimony on your own at
>>>> Mary Ferrell or History Matters or McAdams site?
>>>
>>> I've found that McAdams site varies too much. Sometimes it's giving
>>> straight info, and sometimes it's got 'hit pieces', which are irritating
>>> to read.
>>
>> In your world, a "Hit Piece" is some bit of research that
>> you can neither admit to, nor argue against, so you merely
>> try to blow it off down the memory hole.
>
> WRONG! A hit piece is one that takes an extreme view against something
> and finds every possible thing to nitpick at, rather than showing a 'fair
> and balanced' view. And I've used the information in some hit pieces if
> they seemed truthful. The tone used in a hit piece, doesn't necessarily
> mean that it is also lies, though that sometimes happens.

I noticed that you never said anything about whether
the "hit piece" was correct in its arguments or not.
A telling omission. I've never seen you come up with
any specific arguments against anything that those
"hit pieces" put forth. It's always just your excuse not
to deal with what they say.

>>>>>>>> Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Ted Callaway, and Sam
>>>>>>>> Guinyard all positively identified Oswald as the man with the gun.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that you include Helen Markham. She's a dingbat and lost
>>> her way. She's the one that said she was talking to Tippit as he lay
>>> dying until the ambulance got there. No one around was aware of that. And
>>> her testimony when being questioned was something out of Alice in
>>> Wonderland.
>>
>>
>> McAdams, I trust, has set you straight about what Markham
>> (and Frank Cimino) actually testified to, rather than what
>> some overzealous, sloppy researcher wrote after the fact.
>> Markham really does seem to be something of a drama queen,
>> but the extent of it falls short of what you've been led to
>> claim. Anyhoo, even if I exclude Markham for the sake of
>> argument, that still leaves Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway,
>> and Guinyard, (and, I think, the Davises as well) identified
>> Oswald as the gunman.
>
> Repeat, Markham is a dingbat. McAdams gave me a reason that she might
> have thought she was talking to Tippit because he groaned, and I accepted
> that possibility. However, she was mentally confused by almost anything
> said to her by people.

Like I said, (and you generally ignored), even without
Markham, Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway, Guinyard, and
the Davis girls ID's Oswald as the one and only gunman.

You gonna answer this?

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:19:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:24:00 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:22:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 4:50:39 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's still a problem with changing a witness's story fit your own
> > > > > needs.
> > > >
> > > > TIMEOUT!!!
> > > >
> > > > You are the last person on earth who should be complaining about changing
> > > > a witness' story to fit your needs. You changed what Carolyn Walther said.
> > > > You changed what Ruby Henderson said. You changed what H. R. Freeman said.
> > > > You changed what Richard Dudman said. You changed what Charles Taylor
> > > > said. I'm sure there are others whom I can't even think of right now, but
> > > > these are just five examples of witnesses whose stories you enhanced to
> > > > fit your beliefs. This is just too much.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FALSE! As usual, giving out false information! You know that I did NOT
> > > change Ruby Henderson's statement, you just didn't understand it.
> >
> > I know she didn't know what floor she saw the dark complexioned men on and
> > you changed that to say she specified the 6th floor.
> >
>
>
>
> FALSE! Here are her exact words:
>
> "She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
> but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
> were on."

Those are not her words, exact or otherwise.

[bigdog]

Logic does not allow you to dismiss all possible scenarios in favor of the
one you want to believe. On numerous occasions I have pointed out the
alternative explanation that Henderson saw the black employees who we know
were on the 5th floor and simply didn't see the gunman on the 6th floor.
You have never been able to explain why that scenario doesn't fit
Henderson's statement in spite of being asked to do so many times. There
is nothing logical about your arbitrary assumption that the men Henderson
saw had to be on the 6th floor.

>
>
> > > I only
> > > explained it, without change!
> >
> > Your explanation made no sense. There are scenarios that fit what she said
> > but you only want to consider the one that fits your narrative.
> >
>
>
> Hey, don't fault me for your inability to do dimple logic.
>

If the logic is so "dimple", why can't you tell us why the scenario I
described doesn't fit Henderson's statement?

>
>
> > > I changed NO OTHER person's statement
> > > whatsoever! Your loss of an argument has driven you to make these
> > > unproven ad hominem attacks to try to regain your lost ego.
> > >
> >
> > Also untrue. You said Carolyn Walthers said she saw a man with a rifle on
> > the 6th floor when she said it was on a lower floor. You took statements
> > from three witnesses who only said they saw a hole in the windshield and
> > changed them to say the hole went all the way through.
>
>
> I have stated clearly that Walther was the only case where I corrected
> the witness's mistake. Unless you want to agree that there was another
> shooting team on the third floor, and the fourth floor as well. Well?
>

It's the only case in which you have admitted to enhancing what a witness
said to force fit it to your beliefs but I have shown you doing that with
a number of witnesses. You keep insisting they meant something they
clearly never said.

[mainframetech]

The info you gave above was useful, and points out the problem I have
with the Tippit shooting. There is (as I said a few times) more
complications that haven't been resolved. Here's another site that adds
to that:

http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting

There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,
others se someone else, and there are many different views of what
happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
thinking.

Thank you for the extra name.


Chris

[mainframetech]

Youy've shown nothing. You've invented many different elements where
you did not listen or cannot handle the logic and common sense, which has
to also be applied to some of these problems. I've explained all these
things to you over an dover again, and your problem is irritating that you
can't remember from day to day what you ask, or what I answer.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:38:28 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:15:25 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > On 6/6/2017 3:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > Repeat, Markham is a dingbat. McAdams gave me a reason that she might
> > > have thought she was talking to Tippit because he groaned, and I accepted
> > > that possibility. However, she was mentally confused by almost anything
> > > said to her by people.
> >
> > Like I said, (and you generally ignored), even without
> > Markham, Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway, Guinyard, and
> > the Davis girls ID's Oswald as the one and only gunman.
> >
>

> The info you gave above was useful, and points out the problem I have
> with the Tippit shooting. There is (as I said a few times) more
> complications that haven't been resolved.

Everything about the Tippit shooting has been resolved despite your
refusal to accept the resolutions.

> Here's another site that adds
> to that:
>
> http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm
>

How the hell could Oswald use his driver's license as ID to buy beer when
Oswald didn't have a driver's license? Your problem is you are unable to
filter out obvious nonsense. You think if somebody goes to the trouble of
creating a website then it must be credible.

> https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting

Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.

>
> There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,
> others se someone else, and there are many different views of what
> happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
> Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
> happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
> thinking.
>
> Thank you for the extra name.
>

Someone else didn't have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession little
more than a half hour after the shooting nor did they have the same two
makes of bullets with which Tippit was shot. Only Oswald fit that
criteria. Kind of makes it hard to argue Oswald didn't shoot Tippit but
you will still try.

[bigdog]

I guess you are going to dodge this question.........AGAIN!!!

> > >
> > >
> > > > > I changed NO OTHER person's statement
> > > > > whatsoever! Your loss of an argument has driven you to make these
> > > > > unproven ad hominem attacks to try to regain your lost ego.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also untrue. You said Carolyn Walthers said she saw a man with a rifle on
> > > > the 6th floor when she said it was on a lower floor. You took statements
> > > > from three witnesses who only said they saw a hole in the windshield and
> > > > changed them to say the hole went all the way through.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have stated clearly that Walther was the only case where I corrected
> > > the witness's mistake. Unless you want to agree that there was another
> > > shooting team on the third floor, and the fourth floor as well. Well?
> > >
> >
> > It's the only case in which you have admitted to enhancing what a witness
> > said to force fit it to your beliefs but I have shown you doing that with
> > a number of witnesses. You keep insisting they meant something they
> > clearly never said.
>
>
>
> Youy've shown nothing. You've invented many different elements where
> you did not listen or cannot handle the logic and common sense, which has
> to also be applied to some of these problems. I've explained all these
> things to you over an dover again, and your problem is irritating that you
> can't remember from day to day what you ask, or what I answer.
>

If you were actually using logic and common sense you would be able to
logically explain why the scenario which I gave isn't compatible with Ruby
Henderson's statement. My scenario doesn't fit your beliefs and since you
can't logically refute it, you continue to ignore it and simply assume
your explanation is the only plausible one. You've done that each and
every time this subject comes up.

[mainframetech]

Since this is a repeat of a discussion we've had many times,. I'm not
responding in detail. I will say that You've been told many times before
that the problem is that you cannot understand the logic given to you, and
the common sense that had to be used with it in determining what Henderson
meant as to floor, and what Walther meant. Only one person's statement
was changed.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:38:28 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:15:25 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > > On 6/6/2017 3:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Repeat, Markham is a dingbat. McAdams gave me a reason that she might
> > > > have thought she was talking to Tippit because he groaned, and I accepted
> > > > that possibility. However, she was mentally confused by almost anything
> > > > said to her by people.
> > >
> > > Like I said, (and you generally ignored), even without
> > > Markham, Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway, Guinyard, and
> > > the Davis girls ID's Oswald as the one and only gunman.
> > >
> >
> > The info you gave above was useful, and points out the problem I have
> > with the Tippit shooting. There is (as I said a few times) more
> > complications that haven't been resolved.
>
> Everything about the Tippit shooting has been resolved despite your
> refusal to accept the resolutions.
>

Sorry. You're the last person I'd believe about that. Your record of
being WRONG is mighty indeed!

> > Here's another site that adds
> > to that:
> >
> > http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm
> >
>
> How the hell could Oswald use his driver's license as ID to buy beer when
> Oswald didn't have a driver's license? Your problem is you are unable to
> filter out obvious nonsense. You think if somebody goes to the trouble of
> creating a website then it must be credible.
>

So you haven't heard of the problem of 2 Oswald's? That might be
proof of it. But of of course, you have your own view of the scenario, so
you won't listen to anything except that.

> > https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
>
> Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
> to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
> of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
> Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.
>

WRONG! Looks like your thinking cap slipped again. The second police
car was supposedly parked in a driveway blocked by the first police car.
It was seen to move further toward the street. This was immediately after
the shots were fired, so the second police car was NOT responding to an
officer down call, it was already there.

> >
> > There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,

> > others see someone else, and there are many different views of what

> > happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
> > Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
> > happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
> > thinking.
> >
> > Thank you for the extra name.
> >
>
> Someone else didn't have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession little
> more than a half hour after the shooting nor did they have the same two
> makes of bullets with which Tippit was shot. Only Oswald fit that
> criteria. Kind of makes it hard to argue Oswald didn't shoot Tippit but
> you will still try.

Thanks for the reminder. There as a problem with the count of the
types of bullet he had in his pocket vs. what was in the gun.

Chris

[bigdog]

You have NEVER been able to articulate why the scenario I presented
doesn't fit with Henderson's statement and this is nothing more than your
latest dodge. It's a ploy straight out of Marsh's playbook. When stuck for
an answer simply claim you have given the answer in the past and aren't
going to do it again. If you ever do offer an explanation, it will be the
first time you have done so.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:36:12 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:38:28 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:15:25 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > > > On 6/6/2017 3:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Repeat, Markham is a dingbat. McAdams gave me a reason that she might
> > > > > have thought she was talking to Tippit because he groaned, and I accepted
> > > > > that possibility. However, she was mentally confused by almost anything
> > > > > said to her by people.
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, (and you generally ignored), even without
> > > > Markham, Benavides, Scoggins, Callaway, Guinyard, and
> > > > the Davis girls ID's Oswald as the one and only gunman.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The info you gave above was useful, and points out the problem I have
> > > with the Tippit shooting. There is (as I said a few times) more
> > > complications that haven't been resolved.
> >
> > Everything about the Tippit shooting has been resolved despite your
> > refusal to accept the resolutions.
> >
>
>
> Sorry. You're the last person I'd believe about that. Your record of
> being WRONG is mighty indeed!
>

Always reassuring when you tell me I am wrong.

>
>
> > > Here's another site that adds
> > > to that:
> > >
> > > http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm
> > >
> >
> > How the hell could Oswald use his driver's license as ID to buy beer when
> > Oswald didn't have a driver's license? Your problem is you are unable to
> > filter out obvious nonsense. You think if somebody goes to the trouble of
> > creating a website then it must be credible.
> >
>
>
> So you haven't heard of the problem of 2 Oswald's?

The only problem with 2 Oswalds is that there are people gullible enough
to believe there were two Oswalds. Just because a factoid gets repeated
over an over again doesn't establish its validity.

> That might be
> proof of it. But of of course, you have your own view of the scenario, so
> you won't listen to anything except that.
>

There is zero evidence of two Oswalds as it relates to the JFK
assassination. Oswald did have a brother with the same last name and I am
sure there were other people who had a surname of Oswald but there is no
evidence that ties any of them to the assassination.

>
>
>
> > > https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> >
> > Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
> > to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
> > of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
> > Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Looks like your thinking cap slipped again. The second police
> car was supposedly parked in a driveway blocked by the first police car.
> It was seen to move further toward the street. This was immediately after
> the shots were fired, so the second police car was NOT responding to an
> officer down call, it was already there.
>

Cite?

If there had been another cop in the area when Tippit went down you can be
sure that cop would have immediately sprung into action. He would not have
allowed Oswald to simply wander off.

>
>
> > >
> > > There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,
> > > others see someone else, and there are many different views of what
> > > happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
> > > Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
> > > happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
> > > thinking.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the extra name.
> > >
> >
> > Someone else didn't have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession little
> > more than a half hour after the shooting nor did they have the same two
> > makes of bullets with which Tippit was shot. Only Oswald fit that
> > criteria. Kind of makes it hard to argue Oswald didn't shoot Tippit but
> > you will still try.
>
>
> Thanks for the reminder. There as a problem with the count of the
> types of bullet he had in his pocket vs. what was in the gun.
>

There's also a perfectly reasonable explanation for that but since you
refuse to read the WCR you will just have to remain in the dark. Oswald
had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested and tried to shoot the
arresting officers with it.

[mainframetech]

How dumb can you get? First you have an Oswald gong away from the
TSBD in a bus then a cab, and at the same time you have an Oswald seen by
a number of people running down the front of the TSBD into a Nash Rambler
driven by a short chunky black haired man. That's 2 Oswalds. I don't say
it's a guarantee that there are 2 Oswald's, but there are certainly
reports of 2 of them.

> > That might be
> > proof of it. But of of course, you have your own view of the scenario, so
> > you won't listen to anything except that.
> >
>
> There is zero evidence of two Oswalds as it relates to the JFK
> assassination. Oswald did have a brother with the same last name and I am
> sure there were other people who had a surname of Oswald but there is no
> evidence that ties any of them to the assassination.
>

WRONG! See above.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> > >
> > > Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
> > > to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
> > > of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
> > > Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Looks like your thinking cap slipped again. The second police
> > car was supposedly parked in a driveway blocked by the first police car.
> > It was seen to move further toward the street. This was immediately after
> > the shots were fired, so the second police car was NOT responding to an
> > officer down call, it was already there.
> >
> Cite?
>

"Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car
to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when
she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was
heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle."

From: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting



> If there had been another cop in the area when Tippit went down you can be
> sure that cop would have immediately sprung into action. He would not have
> allowed Oswald to simply wander off.
>

WRONG! Some police in many towns are dirty. They break the law at
times. There was an undercurrent with the police just after the shooting
of JFK. Tippit especially was running around like a crazy man looking for
someone out of his patrol area.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,
> > > > others see someone else, and there are many different views of what
> > > > happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
> > > > Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
> > > > happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
> > > > thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the extra name.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Someone else didn't have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession little
> > > more than a half hour after the shooting nor did they have the same two
> > > makes of bullets with which Tippit was shot. Only Oswald fit that
> > > criteria. Kind of makes it hard to argue Oswald didn't shoot Tippit but
> > > you will still try.
> >
> >

> > Thanks for the reminder. There was a problem with the count of the

> > types of bullet he had in his pocket vs. what was in the gun.
> >
>
> There's also a perfectly reasonable explanation for that but since you
> refuse to read the WCR you will just have to remain in the dark. Oswald
> had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested and tried to shoot the
> arresting officers with it.

I see. So you pretend there's a solution to the problem, but you have
an excuse to avoid telling it. Suure.

Chris

[mainframetech]

> > > > things to you over an over again, and your problem is irritating that you

> > > > can't remember from day to day what you ask, or what I answer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you were actually using logic and common sense you would be able to
> > > logically explain why the scenario which I gave isn't compatible with Ruby
> > > Henderson's statement. My scenario doesn't fit your beliefs and since you
> > > can't logically refute it, you continue to ignore it and simply assume
> > > your explanation is the only plausible one. You've done that each and
> > > every time this subject comes up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Since this is a repeat of a discussion we've had many times,. I'm not
> > responding in detail. I will say that You've been told many times before
> > that the problem is that you cannot understand the logic given to you, and
> > the common sense that had to be used with it in determining what Henderson
> > meant as to floor, and what Walther meant. Only one person's statement
> > was changed.
> >
>
> You have NEVER been able to articulate why the scenario I presented
> doesn't fit with Henderson's statement and this is nothing more than your
> latest dodge. It's a ploy straight out of Marsh's playbook. When stuck for
> an answer simply claim you have given the answer in the past and aren't
> going to do it again. If you ever do offer an explanation, it will be the
> first time you have done so.

That's your standard ploy. pretend you forgot that you've had an
explanation of everything many times over. Yet when you want to, your
memory seems to work just fine. You're at your worst when you think you
had an idea and have been shown where it fails, like so many of your
ideas.

Now, let's see. You think that there is another explanation for
Henderson's logical statement. Except that she had to be talking about a
qwindow with someone in it, and the 7th floor window had no one in it and
no one had seen anyone there. Common sense says that no one was there,
and that window is therefore the first window with no one in it, meaning
that Henderson was right that the 6th floor window was where she saw the 2
men. Does that answer your silliness over and over? Now you get to
answer and let it all out this time. No holding back. Give your whole
idea and I will squash it all over again with logic and common sense.

And on the other issue, it's about time you answer my comment that
Walther meant the 6th floor where others had seen men with guns. She said
3rd or 4th floor, but meant the 6th. If you disagree with my changing her
floor to the 6th, then make some sense for your own idea. My idea is that
if you wanted her to mean the 3rd or 4th floor, then you are creating a
brand new shooting team on those floors to go along with the shooters on
the 6th floor. That makes no common sense.

Now go to it. I'll respond this time at least once more, then I'm
done with this foolishness. I think you just want attention and get all
bollixed up when you don't get it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Go ahead and let the kooks off the hook by trivializing the controversy.
Yes, there was more than one person named Oswald in the world. That is not
the kook theory.

[bigdog]

On my worst day, not half as dumb as you?

> First you have an Oswald gong away from the
> TSBD in a bus then a cab,

That was the same Oswald who did both.

> and at the same time you have an Oswald seen by
> a number of people running down the front of the TSBD into a Nash Rambler
> driven by a short chunky black haired man.

No idea who that was but we know it wasn't Oswald.

> That's 2 Oswalds.

No, that's 1 Oswald and one guy who we have no idea who he was.

> I don't say
> it's a guarantee that there are 2 Oswald's, but there are certainly
> reports of 2 of them.
>

There are always crazy reports in an event of that magnitude. According to
early reports, Reagan wasn't hit when Hinckley opened fire and Jim Brady
died that afternoon.

>
>
> > > That might be
> > > proof of it. But of of course, you have your own view of the scenario, so
> > > you won't listen to anything except that.
> > >
> >
> > There is zero evidence of two Oswalds as it relates to the JFK
> > assassination. Oswald did have a brother with the same last name and I am
> > sure there were other people who had a surname of Oswald but there is no
> > evidence that ties any of them to the assassination.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! See above.
>

I did. Only evidence for one Oswald.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> > > >
> > > > Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
> > > > to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
> > > > of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
> > > > Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Looks like your thinking cap slipped again. The second police
> > > car was supposedly parked in a driveway blocked by the first police car.
> > > It was seen to move further toward the street. This was immediately after
> > > the shots were fired, so the second police car was NOT responding to an
> > > officer down call, it was already there.
> > >
> > Cite?
> >
>
>
> "Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car
> to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when
> she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was
> heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle."
>
> From: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
>

So you read this on a kook website and you think that gives it
credibility.

>
>
> > If there had been another cop in the area when Tippit went down you can be
> > sure that cop would have immediately sprung into action. He would not have
> > allowed Oswald to simply wander off.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Some police in many towns are dirty. They break the law at
> times. There was an undercurrent with the police just after the shooting
> of JFK. Tippit especially was running around like a crazy man looking for
> someone out of his patrol area.
>

Tippit was not running around like a crazy man. He was doing what his
dispatcher assigned him to do, patrol the Oak Cliff area. The rest of that
is nothing more than your imagination running wild.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,
> > > > > others see someone else, and there are many different views of what
> > > > > happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
> > > > > Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
> > > > > happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
> > > > > thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the extra name.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Someone else didn't have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession little
> > > > more than a half hour after the shooting nor did they have the same two
> > > > makes of bullets with which Tippit was shot. Only Oswald fit that
> > > > criteria. Kind of makes it hard to argue Oswald didn't shoot Tippit but
> > > > you will still try.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reminder. There was a problem with the count of the
> > > types of bullet he had in his pocket vs. what was in the gun.
> > >
> >
> > There's also a perfectly reasonable explanation for that but since you
> > refuse to read the WCR you will just have to remain in the dark. Oswald
> > had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested and tried to shoot the
> > arresting officers with it.
>
>
> I see. So you pretend there's a solution to the problem, but you have
> an excuse to avoid telling it. Suure.
>

I don't need an excuse. You are the one who refuses to read the solution
given by the WCR even though it is available for free online. I can't
force feed you the information. If you want to remain perpetually
confused, that is your prerogative.

[bigdog]

Like Marsh, once you resort to this dodge, you hold to it steadfastly for
one post after another.

> Now, let's see. You think that there is another explanation for
> Henderson's logical statement. Except that she had to be talking about a
> qwindow with someone in it, and the 7th floor window had no one in it and
> no one had seen anyone there. Common sense says that no one was there,
> and that window is therefore the first window with no one in it, meaning
> that Henderson was right that the 6th floor window was where she saw the 2
> men. Does that answer your silliness over and over? Now you get to
> answer and let it all out this time. No holding back. Give your whole
> idea and I will squash it all over again with logic and common sense.
>

All Henderson said was she didn't see anybody above the men she saw.
Common sense doesn't tell us no one was above the men she saw. That is an
illogical assumption. Someone could have been above the men she saw and
she simply didn't notice that person(s). That could mean the men she saw
were the black employees on the 5th floor and she didn't notice Oswald
above them. That is a perfectly reasonable scenario for which you have
been unable to articulate a reason it doesn't fit Henderson's statement.
You simply arbitrarily dismiss it because you don't want to consider it.

> And on the other issue, it's about time you answer my comment that
> Walther meant the 6th floor where others had seen men with guns. She said
> 3rd or 4th floor, but meant the 6th. If you disagree with my changing her
> floor to the 6th, then make some sense for your own idea. My idea is that
> if you wanted her to mean the 3rd or 4th floor, then you are creating a
> brand new shooting team on those floors to go along with the shooters on
> the 6th floor. That makes no common sense.
>

Unless there actually were two men with a gun on a lower floor, Walter got
something very, very wrong. You want to assume what she got wrong was the
floor. You don't want to that what she got wrong was that they had a gun.
She might have seen something nearby that resembled a gun and because she
heard the shots from that direction assumed they were the shooters.

> Now go to it. I'll respond this time at least once more, then I'm
> done with this foolishness. I think you just want attention and get all
> bollixed up when you don't get it.
>

The sooner you quit making foolish assumptions, the better off you will be.

[mainframetech]

> > First you have an Oswald going away from the

> > TSBD in a bus then a cab,
>
> That was the same Oswald who did both.
>
> > and at the same time you have an Oswald seen by
> > a number of people running down the front of the TSBD into a Nash Rambler
> > driven by a short chunky black haired man.
>
> No idea who that was but we know it wasn't Oswald.
>

Ah! You KNOW that! You were there?

> > That's 2 Oswalds.
>
> No, that's 1 Oswald and one guy who we have no idea who he was.
>

Or vice versa.

> > I don't say
> > it's a guarantee that there are 2 Oswald's, but there are certainly
> > reports of 2 of them.
> >
>
> There are always crazy reports in an event of that magnitude. According to
> early reports, Reagan wasn't hit when Hinckley opened fire and Jim Brady
> died that afternoon.
>
> >
> >
> > > > That might be
> > > > proof of it. But of of course, you have your own view of the scenario, so
> > > > you won't listen to anything except that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is zero evidence of two Oswalds as it relates to the JFK
> > > assassination. Oswald did have a brother with the same last name and I am
> > > sure there were other people who had a surname of Oswald but there is no
> > > evidence that ties any of them to the assassination.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! See above.
> >
>
> I did. Only evidence for one Oswald.
>

Oh? Which was which?

> > > > > > https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
> > > > > to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
> > > > > of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
> > > > > Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Looks like your thinking cap slipped again. The second police
> > > > car was supposedly parked in a driveway blocked by the first police car.
> > > > It was seen to move further toward the street. This was immediately after
> > > > the shots were fired, so the second police car was NOT responding to an
> > > > officer down call, it was already there.
> > > >
> > > Cite?
> > >
> >
> >
> > "Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car
> > to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when
> > she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was
> > heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle."
> >
> > From: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> >
>
> So you read this on a kook website and you think that gives it
> credibility.
>

I didn't say anything about credibility? What's wrong with you? You
constantly hear things that weren't said. Have any dogs told you lately
to kill anyone?


And I have to inform you that NO kook LN site will put out info that
would suggest something wrong with the WCR, so only the CT sites will
speak the truth on these things.

> >
> >
> > > If there had been another cop in the area when Tippit went down you can be
> > > sure that cop would have immediately sprung into action. He would not have
> > > allowed Oswald to simply wander off.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Some police in many towns are dirty. They break the law at
> > times. There was an undercurrent with the police just after the shooting
> > of JFK. Tippit especially was running around like a crazy man looking for
> > someone out of his patrol area.
> >
>
> Tippit was not running around like a crazy man. He was doing what his
> dispatcher assigned him to do, patrol the Oak Cliff area. The rest of that
> is nothing more than your imagination running wild.
>

"This information has been provided by Tippit expert Greg Lowrey by way
of Bill Pulte. Greg recalled his interviews with Gloco Station employees
Emmett Hollingshead and J.B. “Shorty” Lewis. They were
both certain that Tippit arrived at the Gloco Station “a few
minutes” after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Greg said
“There was simply no doubt whatever about this in their minds they
were absolutely certain”. Bill Pulte informs me that these
witnesses could have heard on the radio that shots were fired at the
motorcade within minutes of the assassination. Or motorists coming off the
Houston Street Viaduct stopping for gas could have informed the Gloco
employees about the shooting. The location of the former Gloco Station is
about 1.5 miles from the Texas School Book Depository."

and:

"The next Tippit encounter is one that has been reported in several
different books and magazine articles but this incident remained unclear
to me until I obtained transcripts of the interviews with the two men who
were involved. This sighting took place at The Top Ten Record Shop which
is near the corner of West Jefferson Boulevard and Bishop Ave. about one
block West of the Texas Theater.

Louis Cortinas, was an eighteen year-old clerk, in the record shop in
1963. The shop's owner and his boss was Dub Stark.

In a 1981 interview with Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz, Cortinas
stated the following:

" He was behind the counter at The Top Ten Record Shop, 338 West Jefferson
Boulevard, on November 22, 1963. Police Officer, J.D. Tippit, parked his
car on Bishop Street, apparently heading North, and came into the shop in
a hurry and asked Cortinas if he could use the phone at the counter. He
recalls Tippit being in such a hurry that he had to ask people in the
narrow aisle to step aside."

"Tippit said nothing over the phone, apparently not getting an answer. He
stood there long enough for it to ring seven or eight times. Tippit hung
up the phone and walked off fast, he was upset or worried about
something."

"Tippit sped away in his squad car across Jefferson, down Bishop, to
Sunset where he ran a stop sign and turned right down Sunset."

"Stark knew Tippit because "Tippit often came in the store to buy records
for his children, he also stopped by while on duty to use the phone
several times." Again, we find Tippit far off his patrol district on a
regular basis."

"This information is provided by Greg Lowrey by way of Bill Pulte. James
A. Andrews worked for American National Life Insurance whose offices were
located across the street from Austin’s Barbecue. Greg Lowrey was
interviewing Andrews to get recollections of Roscoe White who worked out
of the same office as Andrews. During the interview Andrews told Greg
“Since you are interested in the assassination, let me tell you
something that happened” and told the following story. James A.
Andrew’s was returning to work at his office in Oak Cliff a little
after 1:00 P.M. on 11/22/63. He was driving west on West 10th Street
(about eight or nine blocks from where Tippit was shot minutes later, see
map). Suddenly a police car also traveling west on West 10th Street came
up from behind Andrews’ car, passed him and cut in front of
Andrews’s car forcing him to stop. The police car pulled in front
of Andrews’ car at an angle heading into the curb in order to stop
him. The officer then jumped out of the patrol car motioned to Andrews to
remain stopped, ran back to Andrews’ car, and looked in the space
between the front seat and the back seat. Without saying a word the
policeman went back to the patrol car and then drove off quickly. Andrews
was perplexed by this strange behavior and looked at the officer’s
nameplate, which read “Tippit” (Tippit was wearing his
nameplate on 11/22/63."

From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm


Tipppit was all over the place just after the shooting of JFK, and not
in his patrol area, though he might have called in and reported he was
where he should have been. He was OBVIOUSLY looking for someone,
including his phone call which no one answered. Try and learn the case.

> > > > > > There are many opposite statements in this group. Some see Oswald,
> > > > > > others see someone else, and there are many different views of what
> > > > > > happened. You chose one that suits you and I've not chosen any yet.
> > > > > > Arguing for the explanation you like doesn't help me figure out what
> > > > > > happened, and maybe we never will. But it wasn't so cut and dried in my
> > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the extra name.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone else didn't have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession little
> > > > > more than a half hour after the shooting nor did they have the same two
> > > > > makes of bullets with which Tippit was shot. Only Oswald fit that
> > > > > criteria. Kind of makes it hard to argue Oswald didn't shoot Tippit but
> > > > > you will still try.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the reminder. There was a problem with the count of the
> > > > types of bullet he had in his pocket vs. what was in the gun.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's also a perfectly reasonable explanation for that but since you
> > > refuse to read the WCR you will just have to remain in the dark. Oswald
> > > had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested and tried to shoot the
> > > arresting officers with it.
> >
> >
> > I see. So you pretend there's a solution to the problem, but you have
> > an excuse to avoid telling it. Suure.
> >
>
> I don't need an excuse. You are the one who refuses to read the solution
> given by the WCR even though it is available for free online. I can't
> force feed you the information. If you want to remain perpetually
> confused, that is your prerogative.

You need to learn the standard method here for proving your point.
It includes copying out the text of the proof, and supplying a link to
where it is located. No cite, no proof. Now I know why you made the
excuse.

Chris

[bigdog]

No, I know Oswald was elsewhere and since he couldn't be in two places at
one time that was someone else seen getting into a car outside the TSBD.

>
>
> > > That's 2 Oswalds.
> >
> > No, that's 1 Oswald and one guy who we have no idea who he was.
> >
>
>
> Or vice versa.
>

We have a string of witnesses, McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley, and Roberts who
establish a timeline during which he moved from the TSBD to his rooming
house. A short time later numerous witnesses placed him at the scene of
the Tippit murder.

>
>
> > > I don't say
> > > it's a guarantee that there are 2 Oswald's, but there are certainly
> > > reports of 2 of them.
> > >
> >
> > There are always crazy reports in an event of that magnitude. According to
> > early reports, Reagan wasn't hit when Hinckley opened fire and Jim Brady
> > died that afternoon.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > That might be
> > > > > proof of it. But of of course, you have your own view of the scenario, so
> > > > > you won't listen to anything except that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is zero evidence of two Oswalds as it relates to the JFK
> > > > assassination. Oswald did have a brother with the same last name and I am
> > > > sure there were other people who had a surname of Oswald but there is no
> > > > evidence that ties any of them to the assassination.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! See above.
> > >
> >
> > I did. Only evidence for one Oswald.
> >
>
>
> Oh? Which was which?
>

If you can't figure that out, there is not much you can figure out.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course when there was an officer-down call, more police cars are going
> > > > > > to show up. Amazing how none of the other witnesses closest to the scene
> > > > > > of the shooting saw a second police car prior to Tippit being shot.
> > > > > > Another fine example of your inability to filter out nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Looks like your thinking cap slipped again. The second police
> > > > > car was supposedly parked in a driveway blocked by the first police car.
> > > > > It was seen to move further toward the street. This was immediately after
> > > > > the shots were fired, so the second police car was NOT responding to an
> > > > > officer down call, it was already there.
> > > > >
> > > > Cite?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car
> > > to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when
> > > she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was
> > > heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle."
> > >
> > > From: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t622-second-police-car-at-tippit-shooting
> > >
> >
> > So you read this on a kook website and you think that gives it
> > credibility.
> >
>
>
>
> I didn't say anything about credibility? What's wrong with you? You
> constantly hear things that weren't said. Have any dogs told you lately
> to kill anyone?
>

You're sounding more like Marsh everyday.

>
> And I have to inform you that NO kook LN site will put out info that
> would suggest something wrong with the WCR, so only the CT sites will
> speak the truth on these things.
>

If only you had evidence that was the truth. All you have is what you read
on kook websites.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > If there had been another cop in the area when Tippit went down you can be
> > > > sure that cop would have immediately sprung into action. He would not have
> > > > allowed Oswald to simply wander off.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Some police in many towns are dirty. They break the law at
> > > times. There was an undercurrent with the police just after the shooting
> > > of JFK. Tippit especially was running around like a crazy man looking for
> > > someone out of his patrol area.
> > >
> >
> > Tippit was not running around like a crazy man. He was doing what his
> > dispatcher assigned him to do, patrol the Oak Cliff area. The rest of that
> > is nothing more than your imagination running wild.
> >
>
>
> "This information has been provided by Tippit expert Greg Lowrey by way
> of Bill Pulte.

Who appointed Lowrey as a Tippit expert?

> Greg recalled his interviews with Gloco Station employees
> Emmett Hollingshead and J.B. “Shorty” Lewis. They were
> both certain that Tippit arrived at the Gloco Station “a few
> minutes” after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Greg said
> “There was simply no doubt whatever about this in their minds they
> were absolutely certain”. Bill Pulte informs me that these
> witnesses could have heard on the radio that shots were fired at the
> motorcade within minutes of the assassination. Or motorists coming off the
> Houston Street Viaduct stopping for gas could have informed the Gloco
> employees about the shooting. The location of the former Gloco Station is
> about 1.5 miles from the Texas School Book Depository."
>

So only a crazy man would stop at a gas station?

> and:
>
> "The next Tippit encounter is one that has been reported in several
> different books and magazine articles but this incident remained unclear
> to me until I obtained transcripts of the interviews with the two men who
> were involved. This sighting took place at The Top Ten Record Shop which
> is near the corner of West Jefferson Boulevard and Bishop Ave. about one
> block West of the Texas Theater.
>
> Louis Cortinas, was an eighteen year-old clerk, in the record shop in
> 1963. The shop's owner and his boss was Dub Stark.
>
> In a 1981 interview with Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz, Cortinas
> stated the following:
>
> " He was behind the counter at The Top Ten Record Shop, 338 West Jefferson
> Boulevard, on November 22, 1963. Police Officer, J.D. Tippit, parked his
> car on Bishop Street, apparently heading North, and came into the shop in
> a hurry and asked Cortinas if he could use the phone at the counter. He
> recalls Tippit being in such a hurry that he had to ask people in the
> narrow aisle to step aside."
>

Still no evidence he was running around like a crazy man.

> "Tippit said nothing over the phone, apparently not getting an answer. He
> stood there long enough for it to ring seven or eight times. Tippit hung
> up the phone and walked off fast, he was upset or worried about
> something."
>
> "Tippit sped away in his squad car across Jefferson, down Bishop, to
> Sunset where he ran a stop sign and turned right down Sunset."
>
> "Stark knew Tippit because "Tippit often came in the store to buy records
> for his children, he also stopped by while on duty to use the phone
> several times." Again, we find Tippit far off his patrol district on a
> regular basis."
>

So he was doing nothing on the day of the assassination that he hadn't
done before.

> "This information is provided by Greg Lowrey by way of Bill Pulte. James
> A. Andrews worked for American National Life Insurance whose offices were
> located across the street from Austin’s Barbecue. Greg Lowrey was
> interviewing Andrews to get recollections of Roscoe White who worked out
> of the same office as Andrews. During the interview Andrews told Greg
> “Since you are interested in the assassination, let me tell you
> something that happened” and told the following story. James A.
> Andrew’s was returning to work at his office in Oak Cliff a little
> after 1:00 P.M. on 11/22/63. He was driving west on West 10th Street
> (about eight or nine blocks from where Tippit was shot minutes later, see
> map). Suddenly a police car also traveling west on West 10th Street came
> up from behind Andrews’ car, passed him and cut in front of
> Andrews’s car forcing him to stop. The police car pulled in front
> of Andrews’ car at an angle heading into the curb in order to stop
> him. The officer then jumped out of the patrol car motioned to Andrews to
> remain stopped, ran back to Andrews’ car, and looked in the space
> between the front seat and the back seat. Without saying a word the
> policeman went back to the patrol car and then drove off quickly. Andrews
> was perplexed by this strange behavior and looked at the officer’s
> nameplate, which read “Tippit” (Tippit was wearing his
> nameplate on 11/22/63."
>
> From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm
>

I love these somebody-said-that-somebody-said-that-somebody-said type
cites. Really compelling stuff. You are citing gossip.

>
> Tipppit was all over the place just after the shooting of JFK,

Even according to the gossip you have cited, he had done that before.

> and not
> in his patrol area, though he might have called in and reported he was
> where he should have been. He was OBVIOUSLY looking for someone,
> including his phone call which no one answered. Try and learn the case.
>

Once again you say OBVIOUSLY when making a statement for which you have
zero evidence. Is that supposed to give your statement credibility? Not
working.

I could do that quite easily and everyone who is familiar with the WCR
knows I could do that because they know the explanation is there. It is
far more fun to watch you wallow in your own ignorance, completely in the
dark about something that most assassination buffs, both LN and CT, know
all about.