Oswald's Dynamite Alibi Redux
Sean Smiley
floor when they took the elevators down for lunch about 11:50.
Harold "Shorty" Norman & James "Junior" Jarman ate lunch quickly,
separately, on the first floor (Jarman v3 p201), then went out front
together.
If, then, Oswald stayed upstairs, but wanted an alibi, he might have
said something, at the Saturday morning interview, like, I came down
and ran into "Junior" & "Shorty" in or near the lunchroom.
But he did not. He said something more like, I saw possibly 2 Negro
employees walking through the room (cf Bookhout WR p622), or, Two
Negroes came in (Fritz's notes).
This would not seem to make sense, as all the other employees would
have already been eating their lunches *before* Oswald came down. But
Oswald did not say, for instance, *I* came in, & saw two Negroes
eating lunch.
In fact, there was a later point in time when Norman & Jarman--after
hearing that the motorcade was on Main, circa 12:22--"came in", as
Jarman testified (v3p202), the back way, and would have at least
passed the domino lunch room, if not looked in to see who might be
there (they were apparently looking for B.R. Williams or Danny Arce).
At any rate, according to both Fritz & Bookhout, Oswald stated that he
was there first, to see the two come in or walk through or look in,
whatever terminology he used. And the only way, it seems, that he
could possibly have known that two fellow employees were coming *into*
the depository, at that time--when most everyone would likely be
already outside, or going *out*--was if he were indeed on the first
floor, near the back door, about 12:25. ,
"I came in". Not.
dcw
Anthony Marsh
> At least five fellow employees left Lee Oswald behind on an upper
> floor when they took the elevators down for lunch about 11:50.
>
> separately, on the first floor (Jarman v3 p201), then went out front
> together.
>
> If, then, Oswald stayed upstairs, but wanted an alibi, he might have
> said something, at the Saturday morning interview, like, I came down
> and ran into "Junior"& "Shorty" in or near the lunchroom.
>
> But he did not. He said something more like, I saw possibly 2 Negro
> employees walking through the room (cf Bookhout WR p622), or, Two
> Negroes came in (Fritz's notes).
>
> This would not seem to make sense, as all the other employees would
> have already been eating their lunches *before* Oswald came down. But
> eating lunch.
>
> In fact, there was a later point in time when Norman& Jarman--after
> hearing that the motorcade was on Main, circa 12:22--"came in", as
> Jarman testified (v3p202), the back way, and would have at least
> passed the domino lunch room, if not looked in to see who might be
> there (they were apparently looking for B.R. Williams or Danny Arce).
> was there first, to see the two come in or walk through or look in,
> whatever terminology he used. And the only way, it seems, that he
> could possibly have known that two fellow employees were coming *into*
> the depository, at that time--when most everyone would likely be
> already outside, or going *out*--was if he were indeed on the first
> floor, near the back door, about 12:25. ,
>
> "I came in". Not.
>
> dcw
>
Accepting your premise arguendo to be true or possible, could Oswald
have simply seen them from the Domino room as they walked in the back
door and took the elevator?
Sean Smiley
Yes, as I've pointed out to Bud elsewhere--from the doorway of the
Domino Room you could see someone coming in the back way going just
about anywhere on the first floor, except the toilet room right next
to the back entrance....
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Fine, but Oswald would therefore have to be in the doorway, not just
sitting down reading a newspaper.
bigdog
> At least five fellow employees left Lee Oswald behind on an upper
> floor when they took the elevators down for lunch about 11:50.
>
> Harold "Shorty" Norman & James "Junior" Jarman ate lunch quickly,
> separately, on the first floor (Jarman v3 p201), then went out front
> together.
>
> If, then, Oswald stayed upstairs, but wanted an alibi, he might have
> said something, at the Saturday morning interview, like, I came down
> and ran into "Junior" & "Shorty" in or near the lunchroom.
>
> But he did not. He said something more like, I saw possibly 2 Negro
> employees walking through the room (cf Bookhout WR p622), or, Two
> Negroes came in (Fritz's notes).
>
> This would not seem to make sense, as all the other employees would
> have already been eating their lunches *before* Oswald came down. But
> Oswald did not say, for instance, *I* came in, & saw two Negroes
> eating lunch.
>
> In fact, there was a later point in time when Norman & Jarman--after
> hearing that the motorcade was on Main, circa 12:22--"came in", as
> Jarman testified (v3p202), the back way, and would have at least
> passed the domino lunch room, if not looked in to see who might be
> there (they were apparently looking for B.R. Williams or Danny Arce).
Oh boy, are you reaching.
> At any rate, according to both Fritz & Bookhout, Oswald stated that he
> was there first, to see the two come in or walk through or look in,
> whatever terminology he used. And the only way, it seems, that he
> could possibly have known that two fellow employees were coming *into*
> the depository, at that time--when most everyone would likely be
> already outside, or going *out*--was if he were indeed on the first
> floor, near the back door, about 12:25. ,
>
> "I came in". Not.
>
Even if we accept your amazing stretch to place Oswald in the domino room
at 12:25, it isn't an alibi. An alibi would have to establish that he was
not in the sniper's nest at 12:30. Oswald could reach the sniper's nest in
less than 5 minutes from anywhere in the building. The only person who can
vouch for Oswald's whereabouts at 12:30 is Howard Brennan. He said he was
in the sniper's nest firing a rifle.
Sean Murphy
Don, it's also possible that Oswald noticed the reentry of these two
co-workers and erroneously concluded from it that the motorcade had
already left Dealey Plaza. Hence his reported claim to have been eating
his lunch on the first floor when the President passed the building.
Sean Smiley
Or, as bigdog brought to our attention (a tip o' the hat!), it seems
he could have seen them coming around on Houston, through the Domino
Room windows.
Sean Smiley
The motorcade was scheduled to pass at 12:25. You really think the
shooter (not Oswald) is going to take a chance that it would be on
time? And how could he be leaving the "nest" & returning without
Williams hearing him? Williams wouldn't have left the 6th floor till
about 12:27, when Norman & Jarman got to the 5th floor....
dcw
Bud
> > Domino Room you could see someone coming in the back way going just
> > about anywhere on the first floor, except the toilet room right next
> > to the back entrance....
> > dcw
>
> Don, it's also possible that Oswald noticed the reentry of these two
> co-workers and erroneously concluded from it that the motorcade had
> already left Dealey Plaza. Hence his reported claim to have been eating
> his lunch on the first floor when the President passed the building.
You`s expect an innocent person to be ultra curious about details of
the event so he could show that he wasn`t involved. Oswald, of course,
was guilty, so he didn`t waste his time (I think that sentence needs
another comma).
Anthony Marsh
I am not sure how possible that would be. From the view of the
background scene in the FBI photo it appears that the window opening
would be too high for someone sitting at the table to see the men
walking by. Remember how people had to walk up the steps in the front of
the building to get to the first floor.
http://i863.photobucket.com/albums/ab192/col_crow/dominowindow.jpg
Anthony Marsh
That's going a little too far. I don't think he was expecting the
motorcade to be over that early.
And did he know those guys were outside watching the motorcade? Or just
grabbing a smoke?
Sean Murphy
Norman & Jarman left the front area of the building when they heard
that the motorcade was on Main Street. That puts it very close to the
scheduled time of the motorcade's passing through Dealey Plaza.
Jean Davison
>
Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
Jean
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
> > >> Domino Room you could see someone coming in the back way going just
> > >> about anywhere on the first floor, except the toilet room right next
> > >> to the back entrance....
> > >> dcw
>
> > > Don, it's also possible that Oswald noticed the reentry of these two
> > > co-workers and erroneously concluded from it that the motorcade had
> > > already left Dealey Plaza. Hence his reported claim to have been eating
> > > his lunch on the first floor when the President passed the building.
>
> > That's going a little too far. I don't think he was expecting the
> > motorcade to be over that early.
> > And did he know those guys were outside watching the motorcade? Or just
> > grabbing a smoke?
>
> Norman & Jarman left the front area of the building when they heard
> that the motorcade was on Main Street.
You say this as if it is established fact.
> That puts it very close to the
> scheduled time of the motorcade's passing through Dealey Plaza.
Yah, the motorcade entered Main about the time it was supposed to be
in Dealey. So what?
Hank Sienzant
For clarity, I assume you meant "He [Brennan] said he [Oswald] was in the
Sean Murphy
> Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
> they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
> Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
> front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
> as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>
> Jean
Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
TSBD entrance). Perhaps Truly & Campbell didn't step right up to the edge
themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
Norman says they left that spot upon hearing that the President was on
Main. Jarman estimates that this was only five minutes or less before the
assassination - an estimate that sounds pretty spot on given that the
relevant police radio broadcasts were either (from memory) 12.22 or 12.27.
If Oswald had heard that the motorcade was scheduled to pass through
Dealey Plaza at 12.25, then the sight of two fellow employees reentering
the building around this time may very well have led him to draw the
erroneous conclusion that the parade had already passed.
Jean Davison
> On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
> > they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
> > Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
> > front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
> > as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>
> > Jean
>
> Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
> proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
> TSBD entrance). Perhaps Truly & Campbell didn't step right up to the edge
> themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
back door.
Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
seen near the bottom of this photo:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
the 5th floor.
I think it's significant that Oswald didn't come up
with this "alibi" until Saturday. If he'd really seen these two come
through the back entrance while he was in the domino room, wouldn't
this have been the FIRST thing he mentioned? Instead, I suspect he
racked his brain overnight trying to come up with *something* to place
himself elsewhere, and he came up with this.
Jean
Sean Murphy
> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
> back door.
>
> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>
> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
> the 5th floor.
>
> I think it's significant that Oswald didn't come up
> with this "alibi" until Saturday. If he'd really seen these two come
> through the back entrance while he was in the domino room, wouldn't
> this have been the FIRST thing he mentioned? Instead, I suspect he
> racked his brain overnight trying to come up with *something* to place
> himself elsewhere, and he came up with this.
>
> Jean
We agree that Oswald never claimed to have actually eaten lunch with
'Junior' and the 'short negro' - this was a malicious lie by Fritz and
Kelley.
So: how did Oswald know there was no-one else in the domino room at
the time Jarman and Norman re-entered the building?
Anthony Marsh
Did Oswald in fact know that for a fact. Do you prove that to be a fact.
>
Sean Smiley
> On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
> > > they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
> > > Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
> > > front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
> > > as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>
> > > Jean
>
> > Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
> > proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
> > TSBD entrance). Perhaps Truly & Campbell didn't step right up to the edge
> > themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>
> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
> back door.
>
"toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
But [Norman & Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm, & they
came back later on." (v3p220)
> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>
> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
> the 5th floor.
Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
the file photo, & it would it seems have had to have been very good
luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman & Jarman were
"walking away", through the crowd. I doubt if the shooter (not
necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
before the motorcade was due.
dcw
Bud
Doesn`t your idea require you to rule out Oswald seeing these guys
from anywhere but the first floor before you can declare it an
"alibi"?
Sean Smiley
floor....
dcw
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 21, 3:40 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 8:05 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 4:49 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
>>>>>> they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
>>>>>> Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
>>>>>> front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
>>>>>> as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>>
>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>> Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
>>>>> proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
>>>>> themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>>
>>>> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
>>>> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
>>>> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
>>>> back door.
>>
>>> "toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
>>
>>> But [Norman& Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm,& they
>>> came back later on." (v3p220)
>>
>>>> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
>>>> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
>>>> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>>
>>>> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>>
>>>> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
>>>> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
>>>> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
>>>> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
>>>> the 5th floor.
>>
>>> Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
>>> luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman& Jarman were
>>> "walking away", through the crowd. I doubt if the shooter (not
>>> necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
>>> before the motorcade was due.
>>> dcw
>>
>> Doesn`t your idea require you to rule out Oswald seeing these guys
>> from anywhere but the first floor before you can declare it an
>> "alibi"?
>>
> I think a first-floor vantage point is more likely than a sixth-
> floor....
> dcw
Not necessarily. If you actually look at the view out the window the
angle may not allow someone sitting at the table to see someone under 6
feet tall walk by. Remember that the first floor was not level with the
sidewalk.
Jean Davison
No, I don't agree with that.
>
> So: how did Oswald know there was no-one else in the domino room at
> the time Jarman and Norman re-entered the building?
It was a reasonable assumption -- almost all the TSBD
workers were watching the President go by.
Jean
Sean Smiley
I meant a first-floor vantage point from *inside* the building, as
Norman & Jarman walked in & perhaps checked out the domino room. This
outside-facing windows thing is a relatively new idea....
dcw
Jean Davison
> On Jul 20, 4:49 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
> > > > they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
> > > > Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
> > > > front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
> > > > as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>
> > > > Jean
>
> > > Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
> > > proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
> > > TSBD entrance). Perhaps Truly & Campbell didn't step right up to the edge
> > > themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>
> > Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
> > Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
> > continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
> > back door.
>
> Truly indicated that Norman & Jarman got a little further on Elm than
> "toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
>
> But [Norman & Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm, & they
> came back later on." (v3p220)
Since Truly was able to see this, I think they were in plain
view, not moving through the crowd.
>
> > Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
> > near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
> > seen near the bottom of this photo:
>
> >http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>
> > This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
> > Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
> > motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
> > intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
> > the 5th floor.
>
> Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
> the file photo, & it would it seems have had to have been very good
> luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman & Jarman were
> "walking away", through the crowd.
No reason for them to push through the crowd when they
could simply step out into the street and go around.
Oswald didn't need "luck" to see them. Movement attracts
the eye.
> I doubt if the shooter (not
> necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
> before the motorcade was due.
He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
motorcade to arrive.
Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
not, well,......
Jean
k
Bud
<snicker> So it`s an alibi because *you think* Oswald was on the
first floor. That should play out well in court... "Your honor, I
think my client was on the first floor when the shooting occurred".
Anthony Marsh
> outside-facing windows thing is a relatively new idea....
> dcw
>
Oh, ok. I don't think they walked into the domino room. They probably
just came in the back door and when right to the elevator. So Oswald
would have to be almost standing in the hallway to SEE them.
Anthony Marsh
You have a tape recording of the police interrogation of Oswald?
Are you able to decipher Fritz's notes? Hosty's notes?
>>
>> So: how did Oswald know there was no-one else in the domino room at
>> the time Jarman and Norman re-entered the building?
>
> It was a reasonable assumption -- almost all the TSBD
> workers were watching the President go by.
>
>
Right. Please list the few who were NOT watching the motorcade.
Obviously they must be dirty little Communist assassins, right?
> Jean
Sean Murphy
> > We agree that Oswald never claimed to have actually eaten lunch with
> > 'Junior' and the 'short negro' - this was a malicious lie by Fritz and
> > Kelley.
>
> No, I don't agree with that.
So Oswald really did claim to have eaten lunch with 'Junior' and the
'short negro' and Fritz and Kelley didn't misrepresent him? In which
case your own scenario goes out the window.
> > So: how did Oswald know there was no-one else in the domino room at
> > the time Jarman and Norman re-entered the building?
>
> It was a reasonable assumption -- almost all the TSBD
> workers were watching the President go by.
Right: almost all the workers. About the last place in the building a
guilty Oswald would want to choose for a phoney alibi would be a
lunchroom on the first floor.
Bud
Then his "dynamite alibi" is a fizzle.
> Jean
> k
Jean Davison
> On Jul 22, 7:10 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We agree that Oswald never claimed to have actually eaten lunch with
> > > 'Junior' and the 'short negro' - this was a malicious lie by Fritz and
> > > Kelley.
>
> > No, I don't agree with that.
>
> So Oswald really did claim to have eaten lunch with 'Junior' and the
> 'short negro' and Fritz and Kelley didn't misrepresent him? In which
> case your own scenario goes out the window.
No, I disagree that anyone lied about what Oswald said.
When several people report on a conversation there are going to be
differences. No one has to lie to make that happen. Either way,
Oswald claimed to have been in the domino room and claimed to have
seen the two men.
>
> > > So: how did Oswald know there was no-one else in the domino room at
> > > the time Jarman and Norman re-entered the building?
>
> > It was a reasonable assumption -- almost all the TSBD
> > workers were watching the President go by.
>
> Right: almost all the workers. About the last place in the building a
> guilty Oswald would want to choose for a phoney alibi would be a
> lunchroom on the first floor.
Why?
Jean
Sean Smiley
limo passed.
dcw
> > I doubt if the shooter (not
> > necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
> > before the motorcade was due.
>
> He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
> motorcade to arrive.
>
> Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
> not, well,......
>
the Domino room window on Houston?
dcw
Bud
Your idea requires that he *must* see them from the Domino room. But
you can`t show the *must*.
Bud
No, you are looking in the wrong places, it`s in the police report
and SS report.
> >> So: how did Oswald know there was no-one else in the domino room at
> >> the time Jarman and Norman re-entered the building?
>
> > It was a reasonable assumption -- almost all the TSBD
> > workers were watching the President go by.
>
> Right. Please list the few who were NOT watching the motorcade.
> Obviously they must be dirty little Communist assassins, right?
No, he was watching. And waiting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jean
Jean Davison
Probably a lot of movement toward the street, not so much up
the street heading away from the scene.
> dcw> > I doubt if the shooter (not
> > > necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
> > > before the motorcade was due.
>
> > He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
> > motorcade to arrive.
>
> > Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
> > not, well,......
>
> Can you show that Oswald couldn't have seen Norman & Jarman through
> the Domino room window on Houston?
As Bud said, I don't need to. You have to rule it out.
Jean
Sean Murphy
> > So Oswald really did claim to have eaten lunch with 'Junior' and the
> > 'short negro' and Fritz and Kelley didn't misrepresent him? In which
> > case your own scenario goes out the window.
>
> No, I disagree that anyone lied about what Oswald said.
> When several people report on a conversation there are going to be
> differences. No one has to lie to make that happen. Either way,
> Oswald claimed to have been in the domino room and claimed to have
> seen the two men.
When the man accused of the murder of the President tells you where he was
at or around the time of said President's murder, you don't mishear what
he says. Unless you want to deprive him of a potential alibi.
**
> > Right: almost all the workers. About the last place in the building a
> > guilty Oswald would want to choose for a phoney alibi would be a
> > lunchroom on the first floor.
>
> Why?
Lunchroom at lunchtime.
Bud
> On Jul 23, 5:37 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So Oswald really did claim to have eaten lunch with 'Junior' and the
> > > 'short negro' and Fritz and Kelley didn't misrepresent him? In which
> > > case your own scenario goes out the window.
>
> > No, I disagree that anyone lied about what Oswald said.
> > When several people report on a conversation there are going to be
> > differences. No one has to lie to make that happen. Either way,
> > Oswald claimed to have been in the domino room and claimed to have
> > seen the two men.
>
> When the man accused of the murder of the President tells you where he was
> at or around the time of said President's murder, you don't mishear what
> he says. Unless you want to deprive him of a potential alibi.
Any alibi would be up to him and his lawyer, it`s not something the
authorities can deprive him of.
> **
>
> > > Right: almost all the workers. About the last place in the building a
> > > guilty Oswald would want to choose for a phoney alibi would be a
> > > lunchroom on the first floor.
>
> > Why?
>
> Lunchroom at lunchtime.
Yah, why are the conspirators allowing this? Don`t their very lives
depend on Oswald taking the fall for this crime? Shouln`t he be in the
trunk of a car somewhere?
Anthony Marsh
You've been watching too many Hollywood movies. They didn't need such
shenanigans to frame Dreyfus.
bigdog
Or maybe found somewhere with a "self inflicted" gun shot to the head.
Sean Smiley
And as Bud (and you) have said, he could have guessed from upper windows
that Norman & Jarman "came in" the back way. Yet, he apparently went
beyond what he could have *guessed* & said that the two came into the
Domino Room. Why would he throw away a sure thing for a *wild* guess?
Why would he have them coming in the back way & into the DR, unless it was
true? Why not simply leave it implied that they went straight from the
back door to the fifth floor?
Bud
Still trying to get orange juice from apples, Tony?
Sean Smiley
alibi. And it seems that Jean does not either.... So, again, it boils
down to Oswald said that Norman & Jarman "came in", & I've shown that
that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period. Fizzle?
Not.
dcw
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jean
> > k
Jean Davison
I don't know where you got that.
> So, again, it boils
> down to Oswald said that Norman & Jarman "came in", & I've shown that
> that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period. Fizzle?
> Not.
No, it boils down to HOW Oswald could've known that N&J
"came in" around that time. Can you rule out my explanation?
Apparently not.
Jean
> dcw
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Jean
> > > k- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jean Davison
I don't know why you're picking that version of his
statement, but it doesn't matter. You said it all in the first
sentence. Oswald didn't have to be on the first floor to guess (or
infer) that N&J "came in" the back way. So, goodbye alibi.
Jean
Bud
It fails to be an alibi for a dozen reasons, this is only one of
them. I challenged you a while back in the nuthouse to provide a
definition for "alibi" that could possibly apply to your construct and
I don`t think you did (or could). I challenged you to establish that
the two pieces of evidence (Fritz`s notes, the passage from Bookout`s
report) you use to construct this "alibi" mean what you represent them
to mean. You couldn`t. So this idea never really left the launch pad,
so I really don`t need to shoot it down.
> And it seems that Jean does not either.... So, again, it boils
> down to Oswald said that Norman & Jarman "came in",
By all accounts, into the lunchroom. But N&J never went into the
lunchroom, did they? If they did and saw Oswald, THEN you MIGHT have a
case, although it wouldn`t preclude Oswald getting to the SN in time
to shoot (still another way this construct fails to be an alibi...
nobody was murdered at the time these guys came in).
> & I've shown that
> that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period.
No, you haven`t shown any such thing. If you has something
attributed to Oswald saying "I saw N&J come in the back door" and you
could establish when they came in that door, you might. But you
haven`t presented anything close to that, you only pretend you have.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 25, 6:04 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 8:12 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2:12 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:49 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
>>>>>>>> they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
>>>>>>>> Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
>>>>>>>> front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
>>>>>>>> as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>>
>>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
>>>>>>> proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
>>>>>>> themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>>
>>>>>> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
>>>>>> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
>>>>>> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
>>>>>> back door.
>>
>>>>> "toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
>>
>>>>> But [Norman& Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm,& they
>>>>> came back later on." (v3p220)
>>
>>>> Since Truly was able to see this, I think they were in plain
>>>> view, not moving through the crowd.
>>
>>>>>> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
>>>>>> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
>>>>>> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>>
>>>>>> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
>>>>>> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
>>>>>> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
>>>>>> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
>>>>>> the 5th floor.
>>
>>>>> Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
>>>>> luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman& Jarman were
>>>>> "walking away", through the crowd.
>>
>>>> No reason for them to push through the crowd when they
>>>> could simply step out into the street and go around.
>>
>>>> Oswald didn't need "luck" to see them. Movement attracts
>>>> the eye.
>>
>>>>> I doubt if the shooter (not
>>>>> necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
>>>>> before the motorcade was due.
>>
>>>> He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
>>>> motorcade to arrive.
>>
>>>> Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
>>>> not, well,......
>>
>>> Then his "dynamite alibi" is a fizzle.
>>
>> And yet you don't even believe in your supposed exploding of the
>> alibi.
>
> It fails to be an alibi for a dozen reasons, this is only one of
> them. I challenged you a while back in the nuthouse to provide a
> definition for "alibi" that could possibly apply to your construct and
> I don`t think you did (or could). I challenged you to establish that
> the two pieces of evidence (Fritz`s notes, the passage from Bookout`s
> report) you use to construct this "alibi" mean what you represent them
> to mean. You couldn`t. So this idea never really left the launch pad,
> so I really don`t need to shoot it down.
>
>> And it seems that Jean does not either.... So, again, it boils
>
> By all accounts, into the lunchroom. But N&J never went into the
> lunchroom, did they? If they did and saw Oswald, THEN you MIGHT have a
> case, although it wouldn`t preclude Oswald getting to the SN in time
> to shoot (still another way this construct fails to be an alibi...
> nobody was murdered at the time these guys came in).
>
Oh please. You are clueless as usual.
You don't even know the difference between the Domino room on the first
floor and the lunchroom on the second floor. And you don't know the
difference between walking by or walking through or having lunch with.
>
>> & I've shown that
>> that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period.
>
> No, you haven`t shown any such thing. If you has something
> attributed to Oswald saying "I saw N&J come in the back door" and you
> could establish when they came in that door, you might. But you
> haven`t presented anything close to that, you only pretend you have.
>
Maybe he didn't know if they they walked in through the back door or down
from the stairs or down from the elevator. He merely saw them walk by.
They didn't even stop to eat lunch with him.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 25, 5:04 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 8:12 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2:12 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:49 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
>>>>>>>> they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
>>>>>>>> Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
>>>>>>>> front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
>>>>>>>> as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>>
>>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
>>>>>>> proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
>>>>>>> themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>>
>>>>>> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
>>>>>> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
>>>>>> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
>>>>>> back door.
>>
>>>>> "toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
>>
>>>>> But [Norman& Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm,& they
>>>>> came back later on." (v3p220)
>>
>>>> Since Truly was able to see this, I think they were in plain
>>>> view, not moving through the crowd.
>>
>>>>>> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
>>>>>> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
>>>>>> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>>
>>>>>> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
>>>>>> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
>>>>>> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
>>>>>> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
>>>>>> the 5th floor.
>>
>>>>> Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
>>>>> luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman& Jarman were
>>>>> "walking away", through the crowd.
>>
>>>> No reason for them to push through the crowd when they
>>>> could simply step out into the street and go around.
>>
>>>> Oswald didn't need "luck" to see them. Movement attracts
>>>> the eye.
>>
>>>>> I doubt if the shooter (not
>>>>> necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
>>>>> before the motorcade was due.
>>
>>>> He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
>>>> motorcade to arrive.
>>
>>>> Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
>>>> not, well,......
>>
>>> Then his "dynamite alibi" is a fizzle.
>>
>> And yet you don't even believe in your supposed exploding of the
>> alibi. And it seems that Jean does not either....
>
> I don't know where you got that.
>
>
>> So, again, it boils
>> that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period. Fizzle?
>> Not.
>
> No, it boils down to HOW Oswald could've known that N&J
> "came in" around that time. Can you rule out my explanation?
> Apparently not.
>
> Jean
>
>
Error in logic. Oswald did not say that N&J came into the TSBD then. Only
that he saw them walk by then. They could have already been inside for all
he knew.
Bud
<snicker> I bet you don`t even understand the finer points of this
discussion, yet you jump in all belligerent and ignorant.
> You don't even know the difference between the Domino room on the first
> floor and the lunchroom on the second floor.
Why do you say that? I used "lunchroom" because that is how it is
called in the reports written by the authorities.
>And you don't know the
> difference between walking by or walking through or having lunch with.
Oh, I know the difference. And I know it appears two of those three ways
in the reports written by the people in the room during the
interrogations. And I know CTers generally believe the third, which has
zero support in the evidence.
> >> & I've shown that
> >> that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period.
>
> > No, you haven`t shown any such thing. If you has something
> > attributed to Oswald saying "I saw N&J come in the back door" and you
> > could establish when they came in that door, you might. But you
> > haven`t presented anything close to that, you only pretend you have.
>
> Maybe he didn't know if they they walked in through the back door or down
> from the stairs or down from the elevator. He merely saw them walk by.
Where did he say this? All accounts have him saying they were in the
room with him. The only problem with that is they say they never were. Why
would an innocent person lie like this?
> They didn't even stop to eat lunch with him.
Then why did he tell the authorities that they had?
Bud
Where are you getting this crap from, Tony?
John McAdams
<seansmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>At least five fellow employees left Lee Oswald behind on an upper
>floor when they took the elevators down for lunch about 11:50.
>
>Harold "Shorty" Norman & James "Junior" Jarman ate lunch quickly,
>separately, on the first floor (Jarman v3 p201), then went out front
>together.
>
Is there any independent corroboration that Norman was ever called
"Shorty," or is this just a wild conjecture by conspiracists?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sean Smiley
Well, it was also Bud's explanation, then he disavowed it, said it was
just an exercise in debunking....
dcw
Sean Smiley
> > > > Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
> > > > not, well,......
>
> > > Then his "dynamite alibi" is a fizzle.
>
> > And yet you don't even believe in your supposed exploding of the
> > alibi.
>
> It fails to be an alibi for a dozen reasons, this is only one of
> them. I challenged you a while back in the nuthouse to provide a
> definition for "alibi" that could possibly apply to your construct and
> I don`t think you did (or could). I challenged you to establish that
> the two pieces of evidence (Fritz`s notes, the passage from Bookout`s
> report) you use to construct this "alibi" mean what you represent them
> to mean. You couldn`t. So this idea never really left the launch pad,
> so I really don`t need to shoot it down.
It's your feeble challenges that failed to launch. You could trot out
101 meaningless challenges, & maybe have!
dcw
>
> > And it seems that Jean does not either.... So, again, it boils
> > down to Oswald said that Norman & Jarman "came in",
>
> By all accounts, into the lunchroom. But N&J never went into the
> lunchroom, did they?
And you know this HOW? When did they say that they didn't go into the
lunchroom?
If they did and saw Oswald, THEN you MIGHT have a
> case, although it wouldn`t preclude Oswald getting to the SN in time
> to shoot (still another way this construct fails to be an alibi...
> nobody was murdered at the time these guys came in).
>
> > & I've shown that
> > that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period.
>
> No, you haven`t shown any such thing. If you has something
> attributed to Oswald saying "I saw N&J come in the back door" and you
> could establish when they came in that door, you might. But you
> haven`t presented anything close to that, you only pretend you have.
>
"Came in"--only time that could apply to Norman & Jarman: after
12:20. "Went out": before 12:15. You just can't get over the fact
that Fritz exonerated Oswald....
Sean Smiley
Fritz just said "came in", in his notes--nothing about a room or a
building.
dcw
The only problem with that is they say they never were. Why
> would an innocent person lie like this?
>
> > They didn't even stop to eat lunch with him.
>
> Then why did he tell the authorities that they had?
>
You want us all to go back to Square One, eh? You know that that is
one thing that is in question, at least, if not actually
disproved....
Sean Smiley
guessed anything from the upper windows, so everything's back on the
table. And you said, "Can you show that it couldn't have happened
this way?", in the same way that one might have asked "Can you show
that Oswald didn't get his information from someone on the first floor
at the time, say, Piper?" There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could*
have known that Norman & Jarman came in the back, but the explanation
involving the least amount of speculation is that... he was there to
see them....
dcw
dcw
Jean Davison
>
You didn't answer the question, I noticed.
Jean
Sean Murphy
first floor during the assassination? Surely getting himself spotted
by a police officer in the second-floor lunchroom just after the
assassination has gifted him with a ready-made lie: I was on the
second floor the whole time.
But no, Oswald goes and complicates matters needlessly by bringing in
the first floor. Why?
Bud
> If Oswald is guilty, why on earth is he telling Fritz he was on the
> first floor during the assassination?
He had to put himself somewhere. It wouldn`t look right for his
*not* to say where he was, and he sure as hell couldn`t admit where he
*actually* was.
> Surely getting himself spotted
> by a police officer in the second-floor lunchroom just after the
> assassination has gifted him with a ready-made lie: I was on the
> second floor the whole time.
> But no, Oswald goes and complicates matters needlessly by bringing in
> the first floor. Why?
Maybe he thought someone (Reid?) was in the lunchroom right before
him.
Bud
> On Jul 25, 9:43 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:CUT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
> > > > > not, well,......
>
> > > > Then his "dynamite alibi" is a fizzle.
>
> > > And yet you don't even believe in your supposed exploding of the
> > > alibi.
>
> > It fails to be an alibi for a dozen reasons, this is only one of
> > them. I challenged you a while back in the nuthouse to provide a
> > definition for "alibi" that could possibly apply to your construct and
> > I don`t think you did (or could). I challenged you to establish that
> > the two pieces of evidence (Fritz`s notes, the passage from Bookout`s
> > report) you use to construct this "alibi" mean what you represent them
> > to mean. You couldn`t. So this idea never really left the launch pad,
> > so I really don`t need to shoot it down.
>
> It's your feeble challenges that failed to launch.
No, it`s your ideas, for the reasons I gave.
> You could trot out
> 101 meaningless challenges, & maybe have!
> dcw
When you don`t counter the challenges to your ideas I assume it is
because you can`t.
> > > And it seems that Jean does not either.... So, again, it boils
> > > down to Oswald said that Norman & Jarman "came in",
>
> > By all accounts, into the lunchroom. But N&J never went into the
> > lunchroom, did they?
>
> And you know this HOW? When did they say that they didn't go into the
> lunchroom?
It helps your idea if they went into the lunchroom HOW?
> If they did and saw Oswald, THEN you MIGHT have a> case, although it wouldn`t preclude Oswald getting to the SN in time
> > to shoot (still another way this construct fails to be an alibi...
> > nobody was murdered at the time these guys came in).
>
> > > & I've shown that
> > > that can only apply to actions in the 12:20-12:30 period.
>
> > No, you haven`t shown any such thing. If you has something
> > attributed to Oswald saying "I saw N&J come in the back door" and you
> > could establish when they came in that door, you might. But you
> > haven`t presented anything close to that, you only pretend you have.
>
> "Came in"--only time that could apply to Norman & Jarman: after
> 12:20. "Went out": before 12:15. You just can't get over the fact
> that Fritz exonerated Oswald....
You can`t show he did.
Anthony Marsh
Because maybe you don't know that the manual labor was not allowed to eat
their lunches in the second floor lunch room. All blacks and lower class
workers were require to eat their lunches in the domino room on the first
floor. The only excuse for daring to go into the lunchroom is to buy a
soda, which is what Oswald did. Down south they eat their meal first and
then have a drink.
Sean Smiley
Notice I did answer it, below, in response to another of your 7/25 posts.
I'll just add, yeah, I also can't rule out that Oswald had walkie-talkie
contact with Norman & Jarman, since none of them expressly said they
didn't have walkie-talkies.... (Actually, only one of the two, Norman &
Jarman, would have had to be carrying a w-t, so, yes, that's
tantalizing....)
dcw
Bud
You don`t understand what I say, do you? If your idea ever could get off
the ground against the obstacles against it these other challenges would
bring it back down. But it never really gets off the ground where they are
even necessary.
> so everything's back on the
> table.
Thats what I pointed out, there isn`t anything on the table. You haven`t
shown how the word "alibi" applies. You haven`t established that the key
pieces of your construct mean what you claim.
> And you said, "Can you show that it couldn't have happened
> this way?", in the same way that one might have asked "Can you show
> that Oswald didn't get his information from someone on the first floor
> at the time, say, Piper?" There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could*
> have known that Norman & Jarman came in the back, but the explanation
> involving the least amount of speculation is that... he was there to
> see them....
<snicker> Suddenly dw is a fan of Occam. And the explanation that
requires the least speculation for why Brennan said he saw Oswald shooting
is that Brennan saw Oswald shooting.
Bud
I said "accounts", meaning the three reports. The notes aren`t an
account, they are a mnemonic aid.
And maybe Oswald said that those two "came in" to some money. Thats the
problem of trying to interpret what some else meant by their notes. Thats
why you should go with the reports, where the idea that Fritz was trying
to remind himself of is spelled out.
> The only problem with that is they say they never were. Why> would an innocent person lie like this?
>
> > > They didn't even stop to eat lunch with him.
>
> > Then why did he tell the authorities that they had?
>
> You want us all to go back to Square One, eh?
You never left it, dw.
> You know that that is
> one thing that is in question, at least, if not actually
> disproved....
The idea is clearly stated and corroborated. Compare that to your
tortured interpretations of sentence fragments.
Sean Murphy
Stick to ballistics, Tony.
Mrs. REID. ...there were times, the few times, he ate lunch up there
but he never talked to anyone.
Mr. DULLES. Never talked to anyone?
Mrs. REID. And he was usually reading, I noticed that.
Mr. DULLES. Did he seem to repel ordinary conversational attempts or
didn't you try that?
Mrs. REID. I never did try it, I never did.
Mr. DULLES. You never tried it.
Mrs. REID. He seemed to be interested in what he was doing, I would
never see anyone talking to him at all in the lunchroom so far as I
can recall, not any time.
Jean Davison
We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
he were indeed on the first floor..."
Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
known that Norman & Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
in" has one big advantage. It fits with the other evidence pointing to
his guilt. Your theory involves much *more* speculation, since it
requires you to explain away all that.
Jean
Sean Murphy
>
> Is there any independent corroboration that Norman was ever called
> "Shorty," or is this just a wild conjecture by conspiracists?
Whatever about the appellation 'Shorty', it is rather hard to see how
Oswald can have meant anyone other than the distinctively un-tall
Harold Norman.
Sean Murphy
they move away from the Elm St sidewalk, he will have to start leaning
right out the SN window and/or go to the window looking down onto
Houston St. Either action will require movement - the one thing Oswald
can't engage in if he is to avoid alerting Bonnie Ray Williams to his
presence. The WC story needs him to remain stock still during these
minutes. Why would Oswald risk exposing his presence to Williams for
the sake of keeping an eye on two (actually: three) people wandering
around on the street outside?
Even if Oswald did somehow manage the improbable feat of tracking
Norman & Jarman's movements, are we really to believe that he will
take a further huge risk by claiming to have seen them passing through
on the first floor? For all Oswald knows, there might have been a
group of employees congregated near the back of the first floor or in
the domino room at that time. To claim to have seen Norman & Jarman
while in that locus himself is to risk enmeshing himself in an easily
falsifiable lie.
No. Far, far easier to talk about the one place he can be pretty
confident was empty at the time of the assassination: the second-floor
lunchroom. Yet he doesn't do so.
Again we have to ask: why not?
Anthony Marsh
The politically correct term this week is "height challenged." Even the
BBC made fun of the term this week when running ads for the movie Time
Bandits. Can't say midgets or dwarfs any more.
Anthony Marsh
As usual you simply ignored what I said and counter punched with
something totally irrelevant. We were not talking about Oswald's
anti-social personality.
Sean Smiley
Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
explanation which requires the least speculation....
dcw
>
> Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
> known that Norman & Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
>
> The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
> in" has one big advantage.
Bud rejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
them, I just used that as a tool...."
dcw
It fits with the other evidence pointing to
> his guilt.
Like the hulls which Fritz picked up? Or the wide-open window which
every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from? Or the
rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth? Great
evidence....
dcw
Sean Murphy
> >> Because maybe you don't know that the manual labor was not allowed to eat
> >> their lunches in the second floor lunch room. All blacks and lower class
> >> workers were require to eat their lunches in the domino room on the first
> >> floor. The only excuse for daring to go into the lunchroom is to buy a
> >> soda, which is what Oswald did.
>
> > Stick to ballistics, Tony.
>
> > Mrs. REID. ...there were times, the few times, he ate lunch up there
> > but he never talked to anyone.
> > Mr. DULLES. Never talked to anyone?
> > Mrs. REID. And he was usually reading, I noticed that.
> > Mr. DULLES. Did he seem to repel ordinary conversational attempts or
> > didn't you try that?
> > Mrs. REID. I never did try it, I never did.
> > Mr. DULLES. You never tried it.
> > Mrs. REID. He seemed to be interested in what he was doing, I would
> > never see anyone talking to him at all in the lunchroom so far as I
> > can recall, not any time.
>
> As usual you simply ignored what I said and counter punched with
> something totally irrelevant. We were not talking about Oswald's
> anti-social personality.
As usual you simply ignore what you said yourself, which was: "the
manual labor was not allowed to eat their lunches in the second floor
lunch room." And yet here we have Oswald being seen doing just that on
several occasions. So I guess your theory is that Oswald was more
scared of being accused of eating lunch in the second floor lunch room
than he was of being accused of killing the President.
Bud
It`s totally the product of speculation. You can`t show where Oswald
said he saw those guys come into the building. You only speculate that
he said it.
> > Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
> > known that Norman & Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
>
> > The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
> > in" has one big advantage.
>
> Bud rejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
> them, I just used that as a tool...."
> dcw
It doesn`t matter what I think. Your idea requires it to be ruled
out for it to be a viable alibi.
> It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>
> > his guilt.
>
> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
Yah, they were matched to Oswald`s rifle.
> Or the wide-open window which
> every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from?
Brennan circled which window he said he saw Oswald shoot from.
> Or the
> rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth?
A lot of people got floors wrong.
> Great
> evidence....
<snicker> What is the idea, that unless everything everyone said can
be resolved to your satisfaction than Oswald is innocent?
> dcw
Anthony Marsh
Cite and quote for me anyone saying that Oswald ever ate his lunch in
the second floor lunchroom.
Jean Davison
> In order for a guilty Oswald to see where Jarman & Norman go after
> they move away from the Elm St sidewalk, he will have to start leaning
> right out the SN window and/or go to the window looking down onto
> Houston St. Either action will require movement - the one thing Oswald
> can't engage in if he is to avoid alerting Bonnie Ray Williams to his
> presence. The WC story needs him to remain stock still during these
> minutes. Why would Oswald risk exposing his presence to Williams for
> the sake of keeping an eye on two (actually: three) people wandering
> around on the street outside?
Oswald didn't have to lean out the window to easily see the
street below:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
No need for him to remain still. Bonnie Ray would've
assumed that the person above him was watching the parade. Besides,
Brennan reported that he DID move around.
This is just one of the ways Oswald might've guessed that
the two men came in the back way. He didn't have to see them turn
up Houston. If he'd seen them outside at any time and then heard
their voices below, he could've guessed that they used the freight
elevators near the back entrance -- the only elevators that went to
the 5th floor. In fact, he didn't even need to see them, if he
happened to overhear one of them say anything about being outside and
deciding to come in.
>
> Even if Oswald did somehow manage the improbable feat of tracking
> Norman & Jarman's movements, are we really to believe that he will
> take a further huge risk by claiming to have seen them passing through
> on the first floor? For all Oswald knows, there might have been a
> group of employees congregated near the back of the first floor or in
> the domino room at that time. To claim to have seen Norman & Jarman
> while in that locus himself is to risk enmeshing himself in an easily
> falsifiable lie.
He had to claim to be somewhere and he knew that the usual
occupants of the domino room had broken for lunch before noon --
plenty of time to finish eating and leave.
>
> No. Far, far easier to talk about the one place he can be pretty
> confident was empty at the time of the assassination: the second-floor
> lunchroom. Yet he doesn't do so.
>
> Again we have to ask: why not?
He knew that Baker had spotted him walking *into* the
lunchroom, and the lunchroom was next to the stairway leading to the
SN. He knew firsthand that the sniper could get to that spot by the
time Baker arrived.
Jean
Sean Smiley
> In order for a guilty Oswald to see where Jarman & Norman go after
> they move away from the Elm St sidewalk, he will have to start leaning
> right out the SN window and/or go to the window looking down onto
> Houston St. Either action will require movement - the one thing Oswald
> can't engage in if he is to avoid alerting Bonnie Ray Williams to his
> presence. The WC story needs him to remain stock still during these
> minutes. Why would Oswald risk exposing his presence to Williams for
> the sake of keeping an eye on two (actually: three) people wandering
> around on the street outside?
A "Sniper's nest" shooter would have to have remained pretty still
until about 12:26 or so, when Williams apparently went down to the 5th
floor. Brennan said he saw the suspect get up & leave his view once
or twice--it would have to have been after 12:26.
dcw
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 26, 10:24 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> they move away from the Elm St sidewalk, he will have to start leaning
>> right out the SN window and/or go to the window looking down onto
>> Houston St. Either action will require movement - the one thing Oswald
>> can't engage in if he is to avoid alerting Bonnie Ray Williams to his
>> presence. The WC story needs him to remain stock still during these
>> minutes. Why would Oswald risk exposing his presence to Williams for
>> the sake of keeping an eye on two (actually: three) people wandering
>> around on the street outside?
>
> Oswald didn't have to lean out the window to easily see the
> street below:
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>
> No need for him to remain still. Bonnie Ray would've
> assumed that the person above him was watching the parade. Besides,
> Brennan reported that he DID move around.
>
> This is just one of the ways Oswald might've guessed that
> the two men came in the back way. He didn't have to see them turn
> up Houston. If he'd seen them outside at any time and then heard
> their voices below, he could've guessed that they used the freight
> elevators near the back entrance -- the only elevators that went to
> the 5th floor. In fact, he didn't even need to see them, if he
> happened to overhear one of them say anything about being outside and
> deciding to come in.
>
If someone on the fifth floor could hear shells dropping on the floor
above over the sound of a gunshot, why couldn't someone of the sixth floor
hear conversations on the fifth floor?
>>
>> Even if Oswald did somehow manage the improbable feat of tracking
>> Norman& Jarman's movements, are we really to believe that he will
>> take a further huge risk by claiming to have seen them passing through
>> on the first floor? For all Oswald knows, there might have been a
>> group of employees congregated near the back of the first floor or in
>> the domino room at that time. To claim to have seen Norman& Jarman
>> while in that locus himself is to risk enmeshing himself in an easily
>> falsifiable lie.
>
> He had to claim to be somewhere and he knew that the usual
> occupants of the domino room had broken for lunch before noon --
> plenty of time to finish eating and leave.
>
Ok, break to have lunch. But how many actually had lunch in the domino
room at 12:00 and who was the last guy to leave?
Jean Davison
CTs think these arguments make the evidence go away, but
they don't. Even if Fritz picked up the shells, they still matched
Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
the sixth floor.
Let's say Fritz picked up the shells, the window was wide
open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. What do you
think these anomalies MEAN? I think that if you spelled that out, it
wouldn't make sense. Go ahead, give it a try!
It seems that CTs have no plausible alternative explanation
for the evidence against Oswald. Most CTs won't even try to present
one. That makes the WC's the default explanation, going on 50 years
now.
Jean
.
> dcw- Hide quoted text -
Sean Smiley
> On Jul 26, 10:24 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In order for a guilty Oswald to see where Jarman & Norman go after
> > they move away from the Elm St sidewalk, he will have to start leaning
> > right out the SN window and/or go to the window looking down onto
> > Houston St. Either action will require movement - the one thing Oswald
> > can't engage in if he is to avoid alerting Bonnie Ray Williams to his
> > presence. The WC story needs him to remain stock still during these
> > minutes. Why would Oswald risk exposing his presence to Williams for
> > the sake of keeping an eye on two (actually: three) people wandering
> > around on the street outside?
>
> Oswald didn't have to lean out the window to easily see the
> street below:
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>
> No need for him to remain still. Bonnie Ray would've
> assumed that the person above him
I think that Sean Murphy was referring to the time that Williams, too,
was on the *sixth* floor. Sean?
dcw
Sean Smiley
> > > We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
> > > said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
> > > he were indeed on the first floor..."
>
> > Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
> > explanation which requires the least speculation....
> > dcw
>
> It`s totally the product of speculation. You can`t show where Oswald
> said he saw those guys come into the building. You only speculate that
> he said it.
Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
that indeed they "came in". Perfect match.
dcw
>
> > > Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
> > > known that Norman & Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
>
> > > The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
> > > in" has one big advantage.
>
> > Bud rejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
> > them, I just used that as a tool...."
> > dcw
>
> It doesn`t matter what I think. Your idea requires it to be ruled
> out for it to be a viable alibi.
>\
I've noted that there are many possible, if unlikely, explanations for
Oswald's knowledge of the movements of Norman & Jarman. I can't rule them
all out. Yeah, maybe Piper told Oswald, etc. No "requirement" here
either....
> > It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>
> > > his guilt.
>
> > Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
>
> Yah, they were matched to Oswald`s rifle.
Har har har. Well, let's say that the hulls which Fritz, or
Studebaker (as per Tom Alyea), later *put down* were a match....
> > Or the wide-open window which
> > every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from?
>
> Brennan circled which window he said he saw Oswald shoot from.
>\\
Then, he noticed that it did not fit the opening he saw the man fire
from
> > Or the
> > rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth?
>
> A lot of people got floors wrong.
>
Yeah, they mistook the fifth floor for the 6th....
Sean Smiley
If you assume that he put the same shells back down, in the same
place, in the same number. A lot of assumptions.... And you assume
that Fritz committed near-perjury. for nothing, in his affidavit
*suggesting* that he didn't touch the hulls on the floor at all in the
depository....
dcw
> Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
> ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
> the sixth floor.
Det. Montgomery & Johnson's first report (not their later
*corrections* in their testimony) describe a preternaturally quiet
sixth floor which they were minding from about 1:10 to about 2. They
did not say a word, initially, about the great excitement occasioned
by the discovery of the rifle. Yet, they heard, from a radio down
below, about 1:21 or so, about the shooting of an officer in Oak
Cliff! Which occurred just about the same time as the finding of the
rifle.... Two witnesses to the rifle *not* being found on the 6th
floor!
Sean Murphy
I just did: Mrs. Reid. Can't you read?
Sean Murphy
> No need for him to remain still. Bonnie Ray would've
> assumed that the person above him was watching the parade.
Above him?? Good grief, Jean, don't tell me you've totally
misunderstood Bonnie Ray Williams' testimony.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 26, 10:48 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 5:59 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 7:29 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 8:45 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 8:57 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:36 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 11:12 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:49 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
>>>>>>>>>>>> proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
>>>>>>>>>>> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
>>>>>>>>>>> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>> back door.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> "toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But [Norman& Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm,& they
>>>>>>>>>> came back later on." (v3p220)
>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Truly was able to see this, I think they were in plain
>>>>>>>>> view, not moving through the crowd.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
>>>>>>>>>>> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
>>>>>>>>>>> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
>>>>>>>>>>> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
>>>>>>>>>>> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
>>>>>>>>>>> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
>>>>>>>>>>> the 5th floor.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
>>>>>>>>>> luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman& Jarman were
>>>>>>>>>> "walking away", through the crowd.
>>
>>>>>>>>> No reason for them to push through the crowd when they
>>>>>>>>> could simply step out into the street and go around.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Oswald didn't need "luck" to see them. Movement attracts
>>>>>>>>> the eye.
>>
>>>>>>>> I'd imagine there was a lot of movement in those minutes before the
>>>>>>>> limo passed.
>>
>>>>>>> Probably a lot of movement toward the street, not so much up
>>>>>>> the street heading away from the scene.
>>
>>>>>>>> dcw> > I doubt if the shooter (not
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
>>>>>>>>>> before the motorcade was due.
>>
>>>>>>>>> He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
>>>>>>>>> motorcade to arrive.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
>>>>>>>>> not, well,......
>>
>>>>>>>> the Domino room window on Houston?
>>
>>>>>>> As Bud said, I don't need to. You have to rule it out.
>>
>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>> And as Bud (and you) have said, he could have guessed from upper windows
>>>>>> beyond what he could have *guessed*& said that the two came into the
>>>>>> Domino Room. Why would he throw away a sure thing for a *wild* guess?
>>>>>> true? Why not simply leave it implied that they went straight from the
>>>>>> back door to the fifth floor?
>>
>>>>> I don't know why you're picking that version of his
>>>>> statement, but it doesn't matter. You said it all in the first
>>>>> sentence. Oswald didn't have to be on the first floor to guess (or
>>>>> infer) that N&J "came in" the back way. So, goodbye alibi.
>>
>>>> guessed anything from the upper windows, so everything's back on the
>>>> table. And you said, "Can you show that it couldn't have happened
>>>> this way?", in the same way that one might have asked "Can you show
>>>> that Oswald didn't get his information from someone on the first floor
>>>> at the time, say, Piper?" There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could*
>>>> involving the least amount of speculation is that... he was there to
>>>> see them....
>>>> dcw
>>>> dcw
>>
>>> We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
>>> said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
>>> he were indeed on the first floor..."
>>
>> Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
>> explanation which requires the least speculation....
>> dcw
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
It seems that you have no plausible alternative explanation for the
massive evidence against Drefyus, therefore you assume that he was guilty.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 29, 5:39 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 10:48 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 26, 5:59 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 25, 7:29 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 24, 8:45 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 8:57 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:36 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 11:12 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:49 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 11:36 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 5:46 pm, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you happen to know just where they were standing before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they walked around to the back door? Norman said he was in front of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truly, who was apparently right at the edge of Elm, about 30 feet in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> front of the building -- not on the sidewalk in front of the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as I'd previously thought. Or is that incorrect?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, both Jarman and Norman seem to place themselves at the edge of Elm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper (as opposed to the small continuation of Elm just in front of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves until the motorcade's arrival?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Truly said they moved forward. Truly saw Jarman and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Norman walk with Givens toward the Houston-Elm intersection. Givens
>>>>>>>>>>>> continued walking away and the other two cut up Houston to go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> back door.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "toward the Houston-Elm intersection":
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But [Norman& Jarman] had started across Houston St. up Elm,& they
>>>>>>>>>>> came back later on." (v3p220)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since Truly was able to see this, I think they were in plain
>>>>>>>>>> view, not moving through the crowd.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson's map of witnesses placed Truly and Campbell
>>>>>>>>>>>> near the traffic signal on Elm, approximately where the two people are
>>>>>>>>>>>> seen near the bottom of this photo:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/limo_nyt_112207.jpg
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This photo IMO shows how easily Oswald could've seen
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jarman and Norman walking away up Elm Street shortly before the
>>>>>>>>>>>> motorcade arrived, and then either saw them turn up Houston at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> intersection -- or maybe he recognized their voices later coming from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the 5th floor.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, not that easily. The crowd was a bit thicker than that shown in
>>>>>>>>>>> luck for him to be looking down at the moment Norman& Jarman were
>>>>>>>>>>> "walking away", through the crowd.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No reason for them to push through the crowd when they
>>>>>>>>>> could simply step out into the street and go around.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oswald didn't need "luck" to see them. Movement attracts
>>>>>>>>>> the eye.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd imagine there was a lot of movement in those minutes before the
>>>>>>>>> limo passed.
>>
>>>>>>>> Probably a lot of movement toward the street, not so much up
>>>>>>>> the street heading away from the scene.
>>
>>>>>>>>> dcw> > I doubt if the shooter (not
>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily Oswald) was that intent on the people below a few minutes
>>>>>>>>>>> before the motorcade was due.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> He would've been looking out the window, waiting for the
>>>>>>>>>> motorcade to arrive.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you show that it couldn't have happened this way? If
>>>>>>>>>> not, well,......
>>
>>>>>>>>> the Domino room window on Houston?
>>
>>>>>>>> As Bud said, I don't need to. You have to rule it out.
>>
>>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>>> And as Bud (and you) have said, he could have guessed from upper windows
>>>>>>> beyond what he could have *guessed*& said that the two came into the
>>>>>>> Domino Room. Why would he throw away a sure thing for a *wild* guess?
>>>>>>> true? Why not simply leave it implied that they went straight from the
>>>>>>> back door to the fifth floor?
>>
>>>>>> I don't know why you're picking that version of his
>>>>>> statement, but it doesn't matter. You said it all in the first
>>>>>> sentence. Oswald didn't have to be on the first floor to guess (or
>>>>>> infer) that N&J "came in" the back way. So, goodbye alibi.
>>
>>>>> guessed anything from the upper windows, so everything's back on the
>>>>> table. And you said, "Can you show that it couldn't have happened
>>>>> this way?", in the same way that one might have asked "Can you show
>>>>> that Oswald didn't get his information from someone on the first floor
>>>>> at the time, say, Piper?" There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could*
>>>>> involving the least amount of speculation is that... he was there to
>>>>> see them....
>>>>> dcw
>>>>> dcw
>>
>>>> We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
>>>> said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
>>>> he were indeed on the first floor..."
>>
>>> Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
>>> explanation which requires the least speculation....
>>> dcw
>>
>>>> Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
>>
>>>> The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
>>>> in" has one big advantage.
>>
>>> Bud rejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
>>> them, I just used that as a tool...."
>>> dcw
>>
>>> It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>>
>>>> his guilt.
>>
>>> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up? Or the wide-open window which
>>> every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from? Or the
>>> rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth? Great
>>> evidence...
>>
>> CTs think these arguments make the evidence go away, but
>> they don't. Even if Fritz picked up the shells, they still matched
>
> If you assume that he put the same shells back down, in the same
> place, in the same number. A lot of assumptions.... And you assume
> that Fritz committed near-perjury. for nothing, in his affidavit
> *suggesting* that he didn't touch the hulls on the floor at all in the
> depository....
> dcw
>
>
>> Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
>> ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
>> the sixth floor.
>
> *corrections* in their testimony) describe a preternaturally quiet
> sixth floor which they were minding from about 1:10 to about 2. They
> did not say a word, initially, about the great excitement occasioned
> by the discovery of the rifle. Yet, they heard, from a radio down
> below, about 1:21 or so, about the shooting of an officer in Oak
> Cliff! Which occurred just about the same time as the finding of the
> rifle.... Two witnesses to the rifle *not* being found on the 6th
> floor!
>
No.
Just because they didn't see something happen does not mean that it did
not happen.
Jean Davison
"Sean Murphy" wrote in message
news:463eb18d-1774-4bae...@a12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, he was on the 6th floor for a while. Oswald didn't have to
make a lot of noise to look out the window.
Jean
Jean Davison
"Sean Smiley" wrote in message
news:a5292904-01cf-4a09...@s33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
So Fritz was carrying shells from Oswald's M-C in his pocket?
Just happened to have them on him, eh?
Please tell me the story of how that came about.
Anthony Marsh
Curiousity. He pocketed one shell because he wanted to try to track down
where Oswald had bought it.
Donald Willis
>>
>>
>>> Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
>>> ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
>>> the sixth floor.
>>
>> Det. Montgomery& Johnson's first report (not their later
>> *corrections* in their testimony) describe a preternaturally quiet
>> sixth floor which they were minding from about 1:10 to about 2. They
>> did not say a word, initially, about the great excitement occasioned
>> by the discovery of the rifle. Yet, they heard, from a radio down
>> below, about 1:21 or so, about the shooting of an officer in Oak
>> Cliff! Which occurred just about the same time as the finding of the
>> rifle.... Two witnesses to the rifle *not* being found on the 6th
>> floor!
>>
>
>No.
>Just because they didn't see something happen does not mean that it did
>not happen.
>
1:21 from far below. Accounts of the discovery of the rifle (at about the same
time) almost invariably say that the finding was a noisy one, with was it
Weitzman crying out....
dcw
>>
>>>
>>> Let's say Fritz picked up the shells, the window was wide
>>> open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. What do you
>>> think these anomalies MEAN? I think that if you spelled that out, it
>>> wouldn't make sense. Go ahead, give it a try!
>>>
>>> It seems that CTs have no plausible alternative explanation
>>> for the evidence against Oswald. Most CTs won't even try to present
>>> one. That makes the WC's the default explanation, going on 50 years
>>> now.
>>>
>>> Jean
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>
>
--
Donald Willis
Bud
> On Jul 27, 3:34 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:CUT
>
> > > > We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
> > > > said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
> > > > he were indeed on the first floor..."
>
> > > Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
> > > explanation which requires the least speculation....
> > > dcw
>
> > It`s totally the product of speculation. You can`t show where Oswald
> > said he saw those guys come into the building. You only speculate that
> > he said it.
>
> Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
> that indeed they "came in". Perfect match.
> dcw
Also a perfect match for them coming into some money. And didn`t
they come into work?
And haven`t you shown that you haven`t a clue what Fritz means by
what he writes in his notes?
> > > > Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
> > > > known that Norman & Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
>
> > > > The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
> > > > in" has one big advantage.
>
> > >Budrejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
> > > them, I just used that as a tool...."
> > > dcw
>
> > It doesn`t matter what I think. Your idea requires it to be ruled
> > out for it to be a viable alibi.
> >\
>
> I've noted that there are many possible, if unlikely, explanations for
> Oswald's knowledge of the movements of Norman & Jarman. I can't rule them
> all out. Yeah, maybe Piper told Oswald, etc. No "requirement" here
> either....
It is a requirement if you want to claim it is an "alibi".
> > > It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>
> > > > his guilt.
>
> > > Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
>
> > Yah, they were matched to Oswald`s rifle.
>
> Har har har. Well, let's say that the hulls which Fritz, or
> Studebaker (as per Tom Alyea), later *put down* were a match....
So your idea is that Fritz was carrying rifle bullets, was told
Kennedy was to be killed and his role was to put them down. So, with
this important role he heads not to the TSBD but to Parkland after the
shooting. And then he allows the media to film in the building. All
this is silliness propped up by what? An intense desire to pretend
Oswald was innocent.
> > > Or the wide-open window which
> > > every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from?
>
> > Brennan circled which window he said he saw Oswald shoot from.
> >\\
>
> Then, he noticed that it did not fit the opening he saw the man fire
> from
Where did he express this idea?
> > > Or the
> > > rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth?
>
> > A lot of people got floors wrong.
>
> Yeah, they mistook the fifth floor for the 6th....
Right, a lot of people got the floors wrong.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 29, 12:54 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 3:34 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:CUT
>>
>>>>> We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
>>>>> said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
>>>>> he were indeed on the first floor..."
>>
>>>> Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
>>>> explanation which requires the least speculation....
>>>> dcw
>>
>>> It`s totally the product of speculation. You can`t show where Oswald
>>> said he saw those guys come into the building. You only speculate that
>>> he said it.
>>
>> Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
>> that indeed they "came in". Perfect match.
>> dcw
>
> Also a perfect match for them coming into some money. And didn`t
> they come into work?
>
It is not clear. It is a matter of interpretation. You may think it means
coming into the TSBD. Others may think it means coming in to the Domino
Room.
> And haven`t you shown that you haven`t a clue what Fritz means by
> what he writes in his notes?
>
Do you agree with the translations on the JFK Lancer web site? Do you
have your own versions?
>>>>> Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
>>>>> known that Norman& Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
>>
>>>>> The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
>>>>> in" has one big advantage.
>>
>>>> Budrejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
>>>> them, I just used that as a tool...."
>>>> dcw
>>
>>> It doesn`t matter what I think. Your idea requires it to be ruled
>>> out for it to be a viable alibi.
>>> \
>>
>> I've noted that there are many possible, if unlikely, explanations for
>> Oswald's knowledge of the movements of Norman& Jarman. I can't rule them
>> all out. Yeah, maybe Piper told Oswald, etc. No "requirement" here
>> either....
>
> It is a requirement if you want to claim it is an "alibi".
>
Why does Oswald need an alibi?
There was an assassination just up the street from me and I was at home
asleep. So I have no alibi. Why do I need one?
I could have easily been framed.
In the Stuart murder case Willie Bennett had no alibi and was easily
framed by the Boston Police, who would beat and threaten with murder
anyone who offered an alibi for Bennett.
The FBI was easily able to frame 5 bookies for a murder that the FBI
knew they did not commit because the real killer was their own FBI
informant. All the bookies had alibis, but the FBI made those alibis
disappear.
>>>> It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>>
>>>>> his guilt.
>>
>>>> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
>>
>>> Yah, they were matched to Oswald`s rifle.
>>
>> Har har har. Well, let's say that the hulls which Fritz, or
>> Studebaker (as per Tom Alyea), later *put down* were a match....
>
> So your idea is that Fritz was carrying rifle bullets, was told
> Kennedy was to be killed and his role was to put them down. So, with
Please learn a little about ballistics. This is not about BULLETS. Those
are the things fired. This is about shells, empty cartridges that are
left behind after the bullets are fired.
No one has ever proposed that Fritz was smart enough to know where to
find WCC M-C cartridges. BTW, the ballistics evidence proved that the
bullets were fired from Oswald's rifle and the cartridges had been
chambered in and fired from Oswald's rifle. So Fritz would need to use
Oswald's rifle some time. No one has come up with that theory.
> this important role he heads not to the TSBD but to Parkland after the
> shooting. And then he allows the media to film in the building. All
> this is silliness propped up by what? An intense desire to pretend
> Oswald was innocent.
>
And maybe the film showed the empty cartridges lying in a different
location than where they were found and photographed in place.
But of course that film was made to disappear. Coincidence? How many
coincidences do you need before you can smell conspiracy?
My theory is that Fritz was curious and picked up the shells to try to
figure out what type of weapon fired them. Then he realized he made a
boo-boo and threw them down.
Donald Willis
>>
>> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up? =A0Or the wide-open window which
>> every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from? =A0Or the
>> rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth? =A0Great
>> evidence...
>
> CTs think these arguments make the evidence go away, but
>they don't. Even if Fritz picked up the shells, they still matched
>Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
>ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
>the sixth floor.
>
> Let's say Fritz picked up the shells, the window was wide
>open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. What do you
>think these anomalies MEAN? I think that if you spelled that out, it
>wouldn't make sense. Go ahead, give it a try!
>
nest". It means that the shooting came from a different place (or places). It
means that an uninhabited site was selected as the shooting site, & Oswald was
cut-and-pasted into that site.
dcw
> It seems that CTs have no plausible alternative explanation
>for the evidence against Oswald. Most CTs won't even try to present
>one. That makes the WC's the default explanation, going on 50 years
>now.
>=20
>Jean
>
>.
>> dcw- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--
Donald Willis
Donald Willis
>> > > > his guilt.
>>
>> > > Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
>>
>>
>> Har har har. =A0Well, let's say that the hulls which Fritz, or
>> Studebaker (as per Tom Alyea), later *put down* were a match....
>
> So your idea is that Fritz was carrying rifle bullets, was told
>Kennedy was to be killed and his role was to put them down. So, with
>this important role he heads not to the TSBD but to Parkland after the
>shooting. And then he allows the media to film in the building.
And a reporter has said that he got film of the picking up of at least one
hull. If so, that film was quickly disappeared. The cops/SS have more
than one way to control a situation....
dcw
All
>this is silliness propped up by what? An intense desire to pretend
>Oswald was innocent.
>
>> > > =A0Or the wide-open window which
>> > > every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from?
>>
>> > =A0 Brennan circled which window he said he saw Oswald shoot from.
>> >\\
>>
>> Then, he noticed that it did not fit the opening he saw the man fire
>> from
>
> Where did he express this idea?
>
>> > > =A0Or the
>> > > rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth?
>>
>> > =A0 A lot of people got floors wrong.
>>
>> Yeah, they mistook the fifth floor for the 6th....
>
> Right, a lot of people got the floors wrong.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >=A0Great
>> > > evidence....
>>
>> > =A0 <snicker> What is the idea, that unless everything everyone said ca=
>n
>> > be resolved to your satisfaction than Oswald is innocent?
>>
>> > > dcw
>
>
--
Donald Willis
Donald Willis
>> > he said it.
>>
>> Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
>> dcw
>
> Also a perfect match for them coming into some money. And didn`t
>they come into work?
>
Hey! Henny Youngman has taken over for Bud!
dcw
> And haven`t you shown that you haven`t a clue what Fritz means by
>what he writes in his notes?
>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald=
> *could* have
>> > > > known that Norman & Jarman came in the back..." =A0There goes the a=
>libi.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The theory that Oswald was upstairs but some=
>how knew they "came
>> > > > in" =A0has one big advantage.
>>
>> > >Budrejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
>> > > them, I just used that as a tool...."
>> > > dcw
>>
>> > =A0 It doesn`t matter what I think. Your idea requires it to be ruled
>> > out for it to be a viable alibi.
>> >\
>>
>> I've noted that there are many possible, if unlikely, explanations for
>> Oswald's knowledge of the movements of Norman & Jarman. =A0I can't rule t=
>hem
>> all out. =A0Yeah, maybe Piper told Oswald, etc. =A0No "requirement" here
>> either....
>
> It is a requirement if you want to claim it is an "alibi".
>
>> > > =A0=A0It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>>
>> > > > his guilt.
>>
>> > > Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
>>
>> > =A0 Yah, they were matched to Oswald`s rifle.
>>
>> Har har har. =A0Well, let's say that the hulls which Fritz, or
>> Studebaker (as per Tom Alyea), later *put down* were a match....
>
> So your idea is that Fritz was carrying rifle bullets, was told
>Kennedy was to be killed and his role was to put them down. So, with
>this important role he heads not to the TSBD but to Parkland after the
>shooting. And then he allows the media to film in the building. All
>this is silliness propped up by what? An intense desire to pretend
>Oswald was innocent.
>
>> > > =A0Or the wide-open window which
>> > > every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from?
>>
>> > =A0 Brennan circled which window he said he saw Oswald shoot from.
>> >\\
>>
>> Then, he noticed that it did not fit the opening he saw the man fire
>> from
>
> Where did he express this idea?
>
>> > > =A0Or the
>> > > rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth?
>>
>> > =A0 A lot of people got floors wrong.
>>
>> Yeah, they mistook the fifth floor for the 6th....
>
> Right, a lot of people got the floors wrong.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >=A0Great
>> > > evidence....
>>
>> > =A0 <snicker> What is the idea, that unless everything everyone said ca=
>n
>> > be resolved to your satisfaction than Oswald is innocent?
>>
>> > > dcw
>
>
--
Donald Willis
Anthony Marsh
> CUT
>>>
>>> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up? =A0Or the wide-open window which
>>> every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from? =A0Or the
>>> rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth? =A0Great
>>> evidence...
>>
>> CTs think these arguments make the evidence go away, but
>> they don't. Even if Fritz picked up the shells, they still matched
>> Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
>> ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
>> the sixth floor.
>>
>> Let's say Fritz picked up the shells, the window was wide
>> open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. What do you
>> think these anomalies MEAN? I think that if you spelled that out, it
>> wouldn't make sense. Go ahead, give it a try!
>>
> Oh, that's an easy one! It means that no one shot from the 6th-floor "sniper's
> nest". It means that the shooting came from a different place (or places). It
> cut-and-pasted into that site.
> dcw
>
Please don't take seriously any question like that based on false
premises. THE rifle was not found on a different floor. He could have a
theory that ANOTHER rifle was found on another floor, hence two shooters.
That's fine. But THE rifle, Oswald's rifle was photographed and filmed on
the sixth floor.
Why doesn't he claim that the shells were found on a different floor?
Maybe Fritz picked them up on the fifth floor, pushing his way past the
three Negro workers near the window, then Fritz dropped them on the sixth
floor. Then you'd have a genuine kooky theory.
As a matter of fact I think some kook claimed that those men were really
the assassins shooting from the fifth floor. I think it was over on the
Lack of Education forum.
>> It seems that CTs have no plausible alternative explanation
>> for the evidence against Oswald. Most CTs won't even try to present
>> one. That makes the WC's the default explanation, going on 50 years
>> now.
>> =20
>> Jean
>>
>> .
k
Donald Willis
>>>
>>> Let's say Fritz picked up the shells, the window was wide
>>> open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. What do you
>>> think these anomalies MEAN? I think that if you spelled that out, it
>>> wouldn't make sense. Go ahead, give it a try!
>>>
>>Oh, that's an easy one! It means that no one shot from the 6th-floor "sniper's
>>nest". It means that the shooting came from a different place (or places). It
>>means that an uninhabited site was selected as the shooting site,& Oswald was
>> cut-and-pasted into that site.
>> dcw
>>
>
>Please don't take seriously any question like that based on false
>premises. THE rifle was not found on a different floor. He could have a
>theory that ANOTHER rifle was found on another floor, hence two shooters.
>That's fine. But THE rifle, Oswald's rifle was photographed and filmed on
>the sixth floor.
>
>Why doesn't he claim that the shells were found on a different floor?
>Maybe Fritz picked them up on the fifth floor, pushing his way past the
>three Negro workers near the window
Um, they were long gone by the time any searchers got upstairs. Williams said
he saw Baker (or the latter's helmet), but Baker was inside somewhat earlier
than was Fritz....
dcw
, then Fritz dropped them on the sixth
>floor. Then you'd have a genuine kooky theory.
>
>As a matter of fact I think some kook claimed that those men were really
>the assassins shooting from the fifth floor. I think it was over on the
>Lack of Education forum.
>
>>> It seems that CTs have no plausible alternative explanation
>>> for the evidence against Oswald. Most CTs won't even try to present
>>> one. That makes the WC's the default explanation, going on 50 years
>>> now.
>>> =20
>>> Jean
>>>
>>> .
>k
--
Donald Willis
Bud
> "CUTe building. You only speculate that
>
> >> > he said it.
>
> >> Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
> >> that indeed they "came in". =A0Perfect match.
> >> dcw
>
> > Also a perfect match for them coming into some money. And didn`t
> >they come into work?
>
> Hey! Henny Youngman has taken over for Bud!
> dcw
Why are your unsupported claims superior to mine?
Bud
> CUT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up? =A0Or the wide-open window which
> >> every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from? =A0Or the
> >> rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth? =A0Great
> >> evidence...
>
> > CTs think these arguments make the evidence go away, but
> >they don't. Even if Fritz picked up the shells, they still matched
> >Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. And the oddball
> >ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
> >the sixth floor.
>
> > Let's say Fritz picked up the shells, the window was wide
> >open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. What do you
> >think these anomalies MEAN? I think that if you spelled that out, it
> >wouldn't make sense. Go ahead, give it a try!
>
> Oh, that's an easy one! It means that no one shot from the 6th-floor "sniper's
> nest". It means that the shooting came from a different place (or places). It
> means that an uninhabited site was selected as the shooting site, & Oswald was
> cut-and-pasted into that site.
> dcw
Why don`t you outline all the things that would have to have occurred
for that possibility to be the reality so we can dismiss that nonsense and
accept that Oswald was guilty?
Bud
> On 8/2/2011 12:23 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 12:54 pm, Sean Smiley<seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 3:34 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:CUT
>
> >>>>> We've come far from your opening post in this thread in which you
> >>>>> said, "the only way, it seems, that he could possibly have known....was if
> >>>>> he were indeed on the first floor..."
>
> >>>> Not really. I said "it seems". And it still seems. It's the
> >>>> explanation which requires the least speculation....
> >>>> dcw
>
> >>> It`s totally the product of speculation. You can`t show where Oswald
> >>> said he saw those guys come into the building. You only speculate that
> >>> he said it.
>
> >> Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
> >> that indeed they "came in". Perfect match.
> >> dcw
>
> > Also a perfect match for them coming into some money. And didn`t
> > they come into work?
>
> It is not clear. It is a matter of interpretation.
Yah, Fritz`s.
> You may think it means
> coming into the TSBD. Others may think it means coming in to the Domino
> Room.
Who did Fritz write the notes for? Me? Others?
> > And haven`t you shown that you haven`t a clue what Fritz means by
> > what he writes in his notes?
>
> Do you agree with the translations on the JFK Lancer web site? Do you
> have your own versions?
Lancer seems ok. It`s not like it`s passages from the Bible that
need exact interpretation.
> >>>>> Now you say, "There may be 100 ways that Oswald *could* have
> >>>>> known that Norman& Jarman came in the back..." There goes the alibi.
>
> >>>>> The theory that Oswald was upstairs but somehow knew they "came
> >>>>> in" has one big advantage.
>
> >>>> Budrejected that: "I don't think Oswald looked out a window and saw
> >>>> them, I just used that as a tool...."
> >>>> dcw
>
> >>> It doesn`t matter what I think. Your idea requires it to be ruled
> >>> out for it to be a viable alibi.
> >>> \
>
> >> I've noted that there are many possible, if unlikely, explanations for
> >> Oswald's knowledge of the movements of Norman& Jarman. I can't rule them
> >> all out. Yeah, maybe Piper told Oswald, etc. No "requirement" here
> >> either....
>
> > It is a requirement if you want to claim it is an "alibi".
>
> Why does Oswald need an alibi?
He needs an alibi about as much as he needs a drink of water.
dw is trying to cobble together one from sentence fragments taken
out of context from the evidence. It`s a hobby that seems to amuse
him.
> There was an assassination just up the street from me and I was at home
> asleep. So I have no alibi. Why do I need one?
> I could have easily been framed.
> In the Stuart murder case Willie Bennett had no alibi and was easily
> framed by the Boston Police, who would beat and threaten with murder
> anyone who offered an alibi for Bennett.
> The FBI was easily able to frame 5 bookies for a murder that the FBI
> knew they did not commit because the real killer was their own FBI
> informant. All the bookies had alibis, but the FBI made those alibis
> disappear.
>
> >>>> It fits with the other evidence pointing to
>
> >>>>> his guilt.
>
> >>>> Like the hulls which Fritz picked up?
>
> >>> Yah, they were matched to Oswald`s rifle.
>
> >> Har har har. Well, let's say that the hulls which Fritz, or
> >> Studebaker (as per Tom Alyea), later *put down* were a match....
>
> > So your idea is that Fritz was carrying rifle bullets, was told
> > Kennedy was to be killed and his role was to put them down. So, with
>
> Please learn a little about ballistics. This is not about BULLETS. Those
> are the things fired. This is about shells, empty cartridges that are
> left behind after the bullets are fired.
Luckily you were to big a man to make an issue over my mistake.
> No one has ever proposed that Fritz was smart enough to know where to
> find WCC M-C cartridges.
He found one in Oswald`s rifle.
> BTW, the ballistics evidence proved that the
> bullets were fired from Oswald's rifle and the cartridges had been
> chambered in and fired from Oswald's rifle. So Fritz would need to use
> Oswald's rifle some time. No one has come up with that theory.
>
> > this important role he heads not to the TSBD but to Parkland after the
> > shooting. And then he allows the media to film in the building. All
> > this is silliness propped up by what? An intense desire to pretend
> > Oswald was innocent.
>
> And maybe the film showed the empty cartridges lying in a different
> location than where they were found and photographed in place.
> But of course that film was made to disappear. Coincidence? How many
> coincidences do you need before you can smell conspiracy?
How many things do you need to attribute to the conspiracy before it
becomes a massive undertaking?
> My theory is that Fritz was curious and picked up the shells to try to
> figure out what type of weapon fired them. Then he realized he made a
> boo-boo and threw them down.
After being ejected the shells could bounce and roll and end up just
about anywhere. It wasn`t like their placement yielded investigators
useful information.
Donald Willis
>> "CUTe building. You only speculate that
>>
>> >> > he said it.
>>
>> >> Fritz wrote "2 negr came in" (as per Oswald); one of the two testified
>> >> dcw
>>
>> > =A0Also a perfect match for them coming into some money. And didn`t
>> >they come into work?
>>
>> Hey! =A0Henny Youngman has taken over for Bud!
>> dcw
>
> Why are your unsupported claims superior to mine?
>
Mine was supported. Norman said the two came in the back way. Neither
said that they came into any money. And they didn't come into work
together....
dcw
Donald Willis
>ch
>> >> every witness (except Euins) said that the shooter shot from? =3DA0Or =
>the
>> >> rifle which ATF said was found on a floor other than the sixth? =3DA0G=
>reat
>> >> evidence...
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CTs think these arguments make the evidence go away,=
> but
>> >they don't. =A0Even if Fritz picked up the shells, they still =A0matched
>> >Oswald rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. =A0And the oddball
>> >ATF testimony can't negate all the other evidence placing the rifle on
>> >the sixth floor.
>>
>s wide
>> >open, and the rifle was found on a different floor. =A0 What do you
>> >think these anomalies MEAN? =A0I think that if you spelled that out, it
>> >wouldn't make sense. =A0Go ahead, give it a try!
>>
>> Oh, that's an easy one! =A0It means that no one shot from the 6th-floor "=
>sniper's
>> nest". =A0It means that the shooting came from a different place (or plac=
>es). =A0It
>> means that an uninhabited site was selected as the shooting site, & Oswal=
>d was
>> cut-and-pasted into that site.
>> dcw
>
> Why don`t you outline all the things that would have to have occurred
>for that possibility to be the reality so we can dismiss that nonsense and
>accept that Oswald was guilty?
Hey! Those were Jean's coordinates. What would you conclude if (a) Fritz
picked up the shells, (b) the sniper's window was wide open, & (c) the
rifle was found on a different floor. (I might add that at least a&b are
true.)
dcw