Was Oswald the victim of bait and switch?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

I have read that the Klein's ad in American Rifleman through which Oswald
purchased his Carcano listed it as a 36 inch carbine. I pulled this from a
website which claims this was the ad:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s2000/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg

Yet Klein's shipped Oswald the longer 40 inch model. Oswald might not have
noticed the difference unless he went to the trouble of measuring it,
something I haven't done for any of the rifles I have purchased over the
years. If Oswald believed his rifle was only 36 inches that might explain
why he made his bag only 38 inches long. If that is the case, it must have
been a rude surprise to him to discover his bag was two short to conceal
the assembled rifle. He couldn't very well sneak the rifle into the TSBD
claiming they were curtain rods if two inches of barrel was sticking out
the end. Had he known his rifle was 40 inches long, it wouldn't have been
too difficult to make the bag 4 inches longer. That would have saved him
the trouble of having to disassemble and then reassemble the rifle. True,
it turned out to be nothing more than a speed bump to his plans. My guess
is it is something he probably would have rather not had to hassle with.

Of course this is all speculation. It might be that Oswald planned all
along to disassemble the rifle. As with so many other things, we are left
to guess what was going on in Oswald's mind and why he did what he did.

PS. Out of curiosity I went to an online inflation calculator to determine
what the cost of Oswald's Carcano would be in 2020. The $12.88 rifle would
cost $108.84 in today's dollars. With the scope, which is what Oswald
ordered, the $19.95 rifle would cost $167.16. Not an insignificant cost to
a lowly paid unskilled laborer.

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

By the time Lee Oswald used the ad to order the 6.5 Italian Carbine,
Klein's was shipping Carcano Model 91/38's. Thus, Oswald received the
latter model.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

The key point is he might not have known that. He might have believed he
got the 36" rifle that was advertised and thus only made his bag 38" long.

[Mark]

That's very interesting. You probably have something there. There are so
many instances of "we'll never know for sure" in the case it's frustrating
at times. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. You know nothing about guns. The original ad was for the CARBIME.
36" long, perfect for hunting in the woods. Halfway through the orders
they ran out of Carbines and substituted with the short rifle.

Maybe you've never seen the ads in the American Rifleman. I have the
original magazines. This is what REAL researchers do.


http://the-puzzle-palace.com/kleinsapr62.png

https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/_/rsrc/1383580993209/carcano/kleinsfeb63.jpg

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

Maybe he just didn't bring enough paper with him from the TSBD.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

If the paper bag was planted then why would the planters plant a 38 inch
(and too short) bag? If they also planted the rifle then they would know
that this shorter bag wouldn't work. Wouldn't they measure the rifle
before hand? To see how long the paper had to be? Or wouldn't they realize
as they put the rifle in the bag that, "Oops, it's too short. Let's make
another bag to cover it"?

Again: Oswald thought the rifle was 38 inches because that was what he
ordered; and that's why he made the bag that length. The planters, having
access to the paper - and also having the rifle too, would make a bag long
enough to cover the (longer) rifle. They knew the correct lengths that
Oswald didn't. And they had more paper, wouldn't they? Oswald just had
that paper he took from the TSBD. He couldn't go back and get more.

The bag was discovered around 2:30 or so or about two hours after the
shooting. This was BEFORE Frazier and/or Randle were interviewed and
before they told the police about seeing Oswald with a large package. So
how did the planters know that Frazier and Randle would support their
action?

Unless - and here we go again - Frazier and Randle were following a
script. In which case, never mind.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

What does any of this have to do with what I suggested? Do you feel a
compulsion to respond to every thread whether or not you have anything to
add to the discussion. Did you think you were being clever by posting the
full page ad from April of 1962 in addition to EXACTLY THE SAME FEBRUARY
1963 AD I POSTED? Just what the hell do you think you contributed?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Most likely he made the bag at the TSBD. The creases indicate the bag was
folded up after it was constructed. There would be no reason for him to
fold it up if he constructed it at the Paine's house. The likelihood is
that he didn't have the rifle with him to check on size when he
constructed the bag.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Had Ruby not killed Oswald, we might have eventually gotten the answers to
some of these questions. The biggest one being, "Why did you do it?". He
might have shed light on this question. He might have told us what his
plan was after leaving the TSBD or if he even had a post-assassination
plan. Then again he might have just clammed up out of defiance and left us
to ponder these questions as we continue to do to this day. Oswald might
still be doing time in the Texas penitentiary. He would now be 80 years
old. He almost certainly would have been sentenced to death for the double
murder he committed but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether that
sentence would have been carried out. The last execution before SCOTUS
struck down all existing death penalty statutes occurred in 1967. Of all
the people who were executed prior to that, only one had committed his
crime after the assassination and that was a person who chose not to
exercise his appellate options. Had Oswald chosen to, he would likely have
continued his appeals well beyond the de facto moratorium on executions we
saw after that 1967 execution. Both Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson
received death sentences but of course neither was carried out. I suspect
the same would have been true of Oswald.

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 9:53:52 AM UTC-5, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Someone over in Duncan's forum (might have been Mytton, IIRC) posted a
copy of the Klein's ad from the April American Rifleman issue. In that
one, item C20-T750 was changed to a 40" short rifle. Magazine ads are
submitted at least one month prior to publication, so Klein's had been
expecting to run out of the 36" carbines by April 1st, if not sooner. It
wasn't bait and switch; Oswald just ordered from an obsolete ad out of an
older issue or AR.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, Jesus, are you blind? Look at how man messages are being posted
here now. only a handful so I an doing to job to get this Newsgroup up
in message count. Isn't that WHY you felt you had to post to attack me?

> add to the discussion. Did you think you were being clever by posting the
> full page ad from April of 1962 in addition to EXACTLY THE SAME FEBRUARY
> 1963 AD I POSTED? Just what the hell do you think you contributed?
>

Did YOU post it from my web site?
I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
Carbine and a short rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/23/2020 7:13 PM, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:

He was asked that question several times and he denied doing it.

> plan was after leaving the TSBD or if he even had a post-assassination

Well, he went back to his rooming house and changed clothes and then
started walking. Where was he headed to?
You say he planned to walk to Mexico?

> plan. Then again he might have just clammed up out of defiance and left us
> to ponder these questions as we continue to do to this day. Oswald might
> still be doing time in the Texas penitentiary. He would now be 80 years
> old. He almost certainly would have been sentenced to death for the double
> murder he committed but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether that
> sentence would have been carried out. The last execution before SCOTUS
> struck down all existing death penalty statutes occurred in 1967. Of all
> the people who were executed prior to that, only one had committed his
> crime after the assassination and that was a person who chose not to
> exercise his appellate options. Had Oswald chosen to, he would likely have
> continued his appeals well beyond the de facto moratorium on executions we
> saw after that 1967 execution. Both Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson
> received death sentences but of course neither was carried out. I suspect
> the same would have been true of Oswald.
>

Silly boy. Oswald would have been released because of Covid-19.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. No one claims that the bag was planted. No one on THIS planet is
THAT stupid. Isn't it strange how the bag is just long enough to hold
the curtain rods?

> Unless - and here we go again - Frazier and Randle were following a
> script. In which case, never mind.
>

Was Frazier paid to lie? By whom?

[Anthony Marsh]

Right, I think Oswald had grounds to SUE. Did he have enough money to
sue? When was the Consumer Protection Bureau founded?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Why would that matter? IT'S THE SAME FREAKING AD!!!

> I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
> Carbine and a short rifle.

Your comments keep getting stranger and stranger and less and less
relevant.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 2:12:21 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
> Carbine and a short rifle.

Both types of guns (the 36-inch and the 40-incher) were labeled as
"CARBINES" by Klein's in 1963. Do you think Klein's was lying in their ads
when they called both versions "Carbines"---or were they merely ignorant
(even though selling guns was their business)?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w1hNQVckESE/XUu5ShzXXCI/AAAAAAABSTo/CcCvfQ8N500RK96scMbIMZoKW0DduPqeACLcBGAs/s1600/Kleins-Rifle-Ads.jpg

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

RELATED DISCUSSION (EXCERPT):

JIM HARGROVE SAID:

All the rifle documents, and the pistol documents as well, placed in
evidence and now at the National Archives are all black and white COPIES.
What happened to all those ORIGINALS that the FBI confiscated?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Would that really make a bit of difference to you or other Anybody But
Oswald conspiracy theorists like you? Don't make me laugh! You guys
wouldn't believe anything relating to Oswald's ownership of the
rifle---even if Charlie Givens had taken an up-close picture of Oswald
holding the rifle while standing in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 PM on Nov.
22. You'd find some way to disregard that photo, just like you disregard
all of the "LHO Did It" evidence in this case.

After all, an "original" document can be a fake and a forgery too, can't
it? For example, many CTers think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 (Oswald's
money order; aka CE788) is a fake document. The rabid CTers of the world
don't think Oswald touched that money order at all. And yet it is an
"original" document, not just a "copy". (See the testimony of Cadigan,
Cole, McNally, and Scott.)

Full Discussion:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

[John McAdams]

On 24 May 2020 19:09:54 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

All this is silly beyond belief.

I suppose these people believe that there is one kind of "lone
assassin" Mannlicher-Carcano, and another kind of "conspiracy
assassin" Mannlicher-Carcano.

So Kleins, which was supposed to ship him the "lone assassin" MC, blew
the plot wide open by shipping him the "conspiracy assassin" MC.

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

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 7:09:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 2:12:21 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
> > Carbine and a short rifle.
>
> Both types of guns (the 36-inch and the 40-incher) were labeled as
> "CARBINES" by Klein's in 1963. Do you think Klein's was lying in their ads
> when they called both versions "Carbines"---or were they merely ignorant
> (even though selling guns was their business)?
>

This was Marsh going full Mr. Smarty Pants and once again getting it
wrong. A carbine is by definition a short rifle and was the preferred
weapon of the cavalry because it was easier to handle while riding on a
horse although it seems to me it would be very difficult to fire
accurately while galloping on a horse. The definition has been expanded in
modern times to include lightweight automatic and semiautomatic rifles.

carbine
[ˈkärˌbīn, ˈkärbēn]

NOUN
a light automatic rifle.

historical
a short rifle or musket used by cavalry.

[Jason Burke]

Yeah. I think Tony is vying with Ramon / piotr/ whoever to see who has
totally lost it the most.

[Mark]

The only thing strange is that you STILL believe the bag held curtain
rods.

What curtain rods? Where did they go? What happened to them? Mark

[donald willis]

Well, at least he didn't need to pick up a jacket--Whaley testified that O
was already wearing TWO jackets! Great witness!

[Mark]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 6:09:47 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Hold on a minute. I believe once in the past Donald alluded that the bag
was a planted fake because it wasn't in the photo of the nest and had to
be diagrammed in. Mark

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Yes, witnesses do get some things wrong, like how wide open a window was.

[Mark]

Oswald himself said he took a bus and a cab to get back to the rooming
house.

This is an excerpt from Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley's report on
the interrogation of LHO on November 23rd:

"In response to questions put by Captain Friz, Oswald said that
immediately after having left the building where he worked, he went by bus
to the theater where he was arrested; that when he got on the bus he
secured a transfer and thereafter transferred to other buses to get to his
destination. He denied that he brought a package to work on that day and
he denied he had ever had any conversation about curtain rods with the boy
named Wesley who drove him to his employment. Fritz asked him if he had
ridden a taxi that day and Oswald then changed his story and said that
when he got on the bus he found it was going too slow and after two blocks
he got off the bus and took a cab to his home; that he passed the time
with the cab driver and that the cab driver had told him that the
President was shot. He paid a cab fare of 85 [cents]."

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

So you can'r deny what I said.

[Anthony Marsh]

It matters that you have to rely on me because I am the oly one who has
the original magzines. And someone pointed out that when it was
advertised is importatant.

>>
>>> I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
>>> Carbine and a short rifle.
>>
>> Your comments keep getting stranger and stranger and less and less
>> relevant.
>>
>
> Yeah. I think Tony is vying with Ramon / piotr/ whoever to see who has
> totally lost it the most.
>

So you want to jpoin the list of the deplorables who can never admit any
fact.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/24/2020 7:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 2:12:21 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
>> Carbine and a short rifle.
>
> Both types of guns (the 36-inch and the 40-incher) were labeled as
> "CARBINES" by Klein's in 1963. Do you think Klein's was lying in their ads
> when they called both versions "Carbines"---or were they merely ignorant
> (even though selling guns was their business)?

Merely ignorant. Not intentional fraud.

>
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w1hNQVckESE/XUu5ShzXXCI/AAAAAAABSTo/CcCvfQ8N500RK96scMbIMZoKW0DduPqeACLcBGAs/s1600/Kleins-Rifle-Ads.jpg
>
> ---------------
>
> RELATED DISCUSSION (EXCERPT):
>
> JIM HARGROVE SAID:
>
> All the rifle documents, and the pistol documents as well, placed in
> evidence and now at the National Archives are all black and white COPIES.
> What happened to all those ORIGINALS that the FBI confiscated?
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Would that really make a bit of difference to you or other Anybody But
> Oswald conspiracy theorists like you? Don't make me laugh! You guys
> wouldn't believe anything relating to Oswald's ownership of the
> rifle---even if Charlie Givens had taken an up-close picture of Oswald

Silly. There you go again with your blanket condemnation.
You know that I believe Oswald owned that Carcano and shot at Walker.
And that the back yard photos are genuine and show the same rifle
(not carbine).

> holding the rifle while standing in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 PM on Nov.
> 22. You'd find some way to disregard that photo, just like you disregard
> all of the "LHO Did It" evidence in this case.
>
> After all, an "original" document can be a fake and a forgery too, can't
> it? For example, many CTers think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 (Oswald's
> money order; aka CE788) is a fake document. The rabid CTers of the world
> don't think Oswald touched that money order at all. And yet it is an
> "original" document, not just a "copy". (See the testimony of Cadigan,
> Cole, McNally, and Scott.)
>
> Full Discussion:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
>

Make sure you misrepresent what I have said to smear ALL conspiracy
believers. Have you ever believed in ANY conspiracy? Even 9/11?

[Anthony Marsh]

That's not a nice way to talk about your minions.
CVP is making a kneejerk attack on me just to impress you.

> I suppose these people believe that there is one kind of "lone
> assassin" Mannlicher-Carcano, and another kind of "conspiracy
> assassin" Mannlicher-Carcano.
>

Can you explain what you think you mean?
It's the same damn rifle no matter who fired it.

> So Kleins, which was supposed to ship him the "lone assassin" MC, blew
> the plot wide open by shipping him the "conspiracy assassin" MC.
>

No, that makes no sense. Kleins was not part of any conspiracy.
Oswald bought the rifle to shoot Walker.

Are you now going to claim that Oswald was planning to kill JFK way back
in April?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/24/2020 8:26 PM, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 7:09:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 2:12:21 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
>>> Carbine and a short rifle.
>>
>> Both types of guns (the 36-inch and the 40-incher) were labeled as
>> "CARBINES" by Klein's in 1963. Do you think Klein's was lying in their ads
>> when they called both versions "Carbines"---or were they merely ignorant
>> (even though selling guns was their business)?
>>
>
> This was Marsh going full Mr. Smarty Pants and once again getting it
> wrong. A carbine is by definition a short rifle and was the preferred

No, silly. The barrel has to be shorter than the short rifle.

> weapon of the cavalry because it was easier to handle while riding on a

Sure, if you're old enough to remember that far back.

> horse although it seems to me it would be very difficult to fire
> accurately while galloping on a horse. The definition has been expanded in
> modern times to include lightweight automatic and semiautomatic rifles.
>
> carbine
> [ˈkärˌbīn, ˈkärbēn]
>
> NOUN
> a light automatic rifle.
>
> historical
> a short rifle or musket used by cavalry.
>

Also by paratroopers. As I said before, you guys know nothing about gun.
Learn to use Google:


Carbine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
For other uses, see Carbine (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with carbyne or carbene.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Carbine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
(May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Airman security forces specialist of Ohio Air National Guard fires an M4
carbine (a shorter and lighter variant of the M16A2 rifle) during target
practice, 2017

A carbine (/ˈkɑːrbiːn/ or /ˈkɑːrbaɪn/)[1] is a long gun firearm but with
a shorter barrel than a standard rifle or musket.[2] Many carbines are
shortened versions of full-length rifles, shooting the same ammunition,
while others fire lower-powered ammunition, including types designed for
pistols.

The smaller size and lighter weight of carbines make them easier to
handle. They are typically issued to high-mobility troops such as
special-operations soldiers and paratroopers, as well as to mounted,
artillery, logistics, or other non-infantry personnel whose roles do not
require full-sized rifles, although there is a growing tendency for
carbines to be issued to front-line soldiers to offset the increasing
weight of other issued equipment. An example of this is the US Army's M4
carbine, which is standard issue.
Contents

1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Carbine arquebus and musket
2.2 Carbine rifle
2.3 World Wars
2.4 Post World War II
3 Modern history
3.1 Contemporary military forces
3.2 Special forces
4 Usage
5 Pistol caliber carbines
5.1 Shoulder-stocked handgun
6 Legal issues
6.1 United States
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading

Etymology

The name comes from its first users — cavalry troopers called
"carabiniers", from the French carabine,[3] from Old French carabin
(soldier armed with a musket), whose origin is unclear. One theory
connects it to an "ancient engine of war" called a calabre;[4] another
connects it to Medieval Latin Calabrinus 'Calabrian';[4][5] yet another,
"less likely", to escarrabin, gravedigger, from the scarab beetle.[6]
History
Carbine arquebus and musket
Harquebusier, carbine-armed cavalry, 17th century
Carbine model 1793, used by the French Army during the French
Revolutionary Wars

The carbine was originally developed for cavalry.

The start of early modern warfare about the 16th century had infantry
armed with firearms, prompting cavalry to do the same, even though
reloading muzzle loading firearms while moving mounted was highly
impractical. Some cavalry, such as the German Reiters, added one or more
pistols, while other cavalry, such as harquebusiers, tried various
shorter, lightened versions of the infantry arquebus weapons – the first
carbines. But these weapons were still difficult to reload while
mounted, and the saber often remained main weapon of such cavalry.
Dragoons and other mounted infantry that dismounted for battles usually
adopted standard infantry firearms, though some favored versions that
were less encumbering when riding – something that could be arranged to
hang clear of the rider's elbows and horse's legs.

While more portable, carbines had the general disadvantages of less
accuracy and power than the longer guns of the infantry. During
Napoleonic warfare, pistol and carbine-armed cavalry generally
transitioned into traditional melee cavalry or dragoons.

Carbines found increased use outside of standard cavalry and infantry,
such as support and artillery troops, who might need to defend
themselves from attack but would be hindered by keeping full-sized
weapons with them continuously; a common title for many short rifles in
the late 19th century was artillery carbine.
Carbine rifle

As the rifled musket replaced the smoothbore firearms for infantry in
the mid 19th century, carbine versions were also developed; this was
often developed separately from the infantry rifles and, in many cases,
did not even use the same ammunition, which made for supply difficulties.

A notable weapon developed towards the end of the American Civil War by
the Union was the Spencer carbine, one of the very first breechloading,
repeating weapons. It had a spring-powered, removable tube magazine in
the buttstock which held seven rounds and could be reloaded by inserting
spare tubes. It was intended to give the cavalry a replacement weapon
which could be fired from horseback without the need for awkward
reloading after each shot – although it saw service mostly with
dismounted troopers, as was typical of cavalry weapons during that war.

In the late 19th century, it became common for a number of nations to
make bolt-action rifles in both full-length and carbine versions. One of
the most popular and recognizable carbines were the lever-action
Winchester carbines, with several versions available firing revolver
cartridges. This made it an ideal choice for cowboys and explorers, as
well as other inhabitants of the American West, who could carry a
revolver and a carbine, both using the same ammunition.

The Lee Enfield Cavalry Carbine (LEC) a shortened version of the
standard British Army infantry rifle was introduced in 1896, although it
did not become the standard British cavalry weapon until 1903.
World Wars
M1 Garand and M1 Carbine

In the decades following World War I, the standard battle rifle used by
armies around the world had been growing shorter, either by redesign or
by the general issue of carbine versions instead of full-length rifles.
This move was initiated by the US Model 1903 Springfield, which was
originally produced in 1907 with a short 24-inch barrel, providing a
short rifle that was longer than a carbine but shorter than a typical
rifle, so it could be issued to all troops without need for separate
versions. Other nations followed suit after World War I, when they
learned that their traditional long-barreled rifles provided little
benefit in the trenches and merely proved a hindrance to the soldiers.
Examples include the Russian Model 1891 rifle, originally with an 800 mm
(31 in) barrel, later shortened to 730 mm (29 in) in 1930, and to 510 mm
(20 in) in 1938, the German Mauser Gewehr 98 rifles went from 740 mm (29
in) in 1898 to 600 mm (24 in) in 1935 as the Karabiner 98k (K98k or
Kar98k), or "short carbine". The barrel lengths in rifles used by the
United States did not change between the bolt-action M1903 rifle of
World War I and the World War II M1 Garand rifle, because the 610 mm (24
in) barrel on the M1903 was still shorter than even the shortened
versions of the Model 1891 and Gewehr 98. The US M1 carbine was more of
a traditional carbine in that it was significantly shorter and lighter,
with a 457.2 mm (18.00 in) barrel, than the M1 Garand rifle, and that it
was intended for rear-area troops who couldn't be hindered with
full-sized rifles but needed something more powerful and accurate than a
Model 1911 pistol (although this didn't stop soldiers from using them on
the front line). Contrary to popular belief, and even what some books
claim, in spite of both being designated "M1", the M1 Carbine was not a
shorter version of the .30-06 M1 Garand, as is typical for most rifles
and carbines, but a wholly different design firing a smaller,
less-powerful cartridge. The "M1" designates each as the first model in
the new US designation system, which no longer used the year of
introduction, but a sequential series of numbers starting at "1": the M1
Carbine and M1 Rifle.

The United Kingdom also developed a "Jungle Carbine" version of their
Lee–Enfield service rifle, featuring a shorter barrel, flash suppressor,
and manufacturing modifications designed to decrease the rifle's weight.
Officially titled Rifle, No. 5 Mk I, it was introduced in the closing
months of World War II, but it did not see widespread service until the
Korean War, the Mau Mau Uprising, and the Malayan Emergency as well the
Vietnam War.
Post World War II
FN FAL rifle - (left) full size, (right) carbine/paratrooper variant
with a folding stock and shortened barrel

A shorter weapon was more convenient when riding in a truck, armored
personnel carrier, helicopter, or aircraft, and also when engaged in
close-range combat. Based on the combat experience of World War II, the
criteria used for selecting infantry weapons began to change. Unlike
previous wars, which were often fought mainly from fixed lines and
trenches, World War II was a highly mobile war, often fought in cities,
forests, or other areas where mobility and visibility were restricted.
In addition, improvements in artillery made moving infantry in open
areas even less practical than it had been.

The majority of enemy contacts were at ranges of less than 300 metres
(330 yards), and the enemy was exposed to fire for only short periods of
time as they moved from cover to cover. Most rounds fired were not aimed
at an enemy combatant, but instead fired in the enemy's direction to
keep them from moving and firing back (see suppressive fire). These
situations did not require a heavy rifle, firing full-power rifle
bullets with long-range accuracy. A less-powerful weapon would still
produce casualties at the shorter ranges encountered in actual combat,
and the reduced recoil would allow more shots to be fired in the short
amount of time an enemy was visible. The lower-powered round would also
weigh less, allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition. With no need of
a long barrel to fire full-power ammunition, a shorter barrel could be
used. A shorter barrel made the weapon weigh less, was easier to handle
in tight spaces, and was easier to shoulder quickly to fire a shot at an
unexpected target. Full-automatic fire was also considered a desirable
feature, allowing the soldier to fire short bursts of three to five
rounds, increasing the probability of a hit on a moving target.

The Germans had experimented with selective-fire carbines firing rifle
cartridges during the early years of World War II. These were determined
to be less than ideal, as the recoil of full-power rifle cartridges
caused the weapon to be uncontrollable in full-automatic fire. They then
developed an intermediate-power cartridge round, which was accomplished
by reducing the power and the length of the standard 7.92×57mm Mauser
rifle cartridge to create the 7.92×33mm Kurz (Short) cartridge. A
selective-fire weapon was developed to fire this shorter cartridge,
eventually resulting in the Sturmgewehr 44, later translated as "assault
rifle" (also frequently called "machine carbines" by Allied
intelligence, a quite accurate assessment, in fact). Very shortly after
World War II, the USSR would adopt a similar weapon, the ubiquitous
AK-47, the first model in the famed Kalashnikov-series, which became the
standard Soviet infantry weapon, and which has been produced and
exported in extremely large numbers up through the present day. Although
the United States had developed the M2 Carbine, a selective-fire version
of the M1 Carbine during WW2, the .30 Carbine cartridge was closer to a
pistol round in power, making it more of a submachine gun than an
assault rifle. It was also adopted only in very small numbers and issued
to few troops (the semi-automatic M1 carbine was produced in a 10-to-1
ratio to the M2), while the AK47 was produced by the millions and was
standard-issue to all Soviet troops, as well as those of many other
nations. The US was slow to follow suit, insisting on retaining a
full-power, 7.62×51mm NATO rifle, the M14 (although this was selective
fire), until too-hastily adopting the 5.56mm M16 rifle in the mid-1960s,
with initially poor results due to the rapidity of its introduction (but
later to become a highly successful line of rifles and carbines).

In the 1950s, the British developed the .280 British, an intermediate
cartridge, and a select-fire bullpup assault rifle to fire it, the EM-2.
They pressed for the US to adopt it so it could become a NATO-standard
round, but the US insisted on retaining a full-power, .30 caliber round.
This forced NATO to adopt the 7.62×51mm NATO round (which in reality is
only slightly different ballistically to the .308 Winchester), to
maintain commonality. The British eventually adopted the 7.62mm FN FAL,
and the US adopted the 7.62mm M14. These rifles are both what is known
as battle rifles and were a few inches shorter than the standard-issue
rifles they replaced (22" barrel as opposed to 24" for the M1 Garand),
although they were still full-powered rifles, with selective fire
capability. These can be compared to the even shorter, less-powerful
assault rifle, which might be considered the "carbine branch of weapons
development", although indeed, there are now carbine variants of many of
the assault rifles which had themselves seemed quite small and light
when adopted.
Bullet drop of the M16A2 rifle (yellow) vs M4 carbine (red)

By the 1960s, after becoming involved in War in Vietnam, the US did an
abrupt about-face and decided to standardize on the intermediate
5.56×45mm round (based on the .223 Remington varmint cartridge) fired
from the new, lightweight M16 rifle, leaving NATO to hurry and catch up.
Many of the NATO countries couldn't afford to re-equip so soon after the
recent 7.62mm standardization, leaving them armed with full-power 7.62mm
battle rifles for some decades afterwards, although by this point, the
5.56mm has been adopted by almost all NATO countries and many non-NATO
nations as well. This 5.56mm NATO round was even lighter and smaller
than the Soviet 7.62×39mm AK-47 cartridge, but possessed higher
velocity. In U.S. service, the M16 assault rifle replaced the M14 as the
standard infantry weapon, although the M14 continued to be used by
designated marksmen. Although at 20", the barrel of the M16 was shorter
than that of the M14, it was still designated a "rifle" rather than a
"carbine", and it was still longer than the AK, which used a 16" barrel.
(The SKS – an interim, semi-automatic, weapon adopted a few years before
the AK-47 was put into service – was designated a carbine, even though
it's 20" barrel was significantly longer than the AK series' 16.3". This
is because of the Kalashnikov's revolutionary nature, which altered the
old paradigm. Compared to previous rifles, particularly the Soviets'
initial attempts at semi-automatic rifles, such as the 24" SVT-40, the
SKS was significantly shorter. The Kalashnikov altered traditional
notions and ushered in a change in what was considered a "rifle" in
military circles.)

In 1974, shortly after the introduction of the 5.56mm NATO, the USSR
began to issue a new Kalashnikov variant, the AK-74, chambered in the
small-bore 5.45×39mm cartridge, which was a standard 7.62×39mm necked
down to take a smaller, lighter, faster bullet. It soon became standard
issue in Soviet nations, although many of the nations with export
Kalashnikovs retained the larger 7.62×39mm round. In 1995, the People's
Republic of China adopted a new 5.8×42mm cartridge to match the modern
trend in military ammunition, replacing the previous 7.62×39mm and
5.45×39mm round as standard.

Later, even lighter carbines variants of many of these short-barreled
assault rifles came to be adopted as the standard infantry weapon. In
much modern tactical thinking, only a certain number of soldiers now
need to retain longer-range weapons, these serving as designated
marksmen. The rest can carry lighter, shorter-ranged weapons for
close-quarters combat and suppressive fire. This is basically a more
extreme extension of the idea that brought the original assault rifle.
Another factor is that with the increasing weight of technology,
sighting systems, ballistic armor, etc., the only way to reduce the
burden on the modern soldier was to equip them with a smaller, lighter
weapon. Also, modern soldiers rely a great deal on vehicles and
helicopters to transport them around the battle area, and a longer
weapon can be a serious hindrance to entering and exiting these
vehicles. Development of lighter assault rifles continued, matched by
developments in even lighter carbines. In spite of the short barrels of
the new assault rifles, carbines variants like the 5.45×39mm AKS-74U and
Colt Commando were being developed for use when mobility was essential
and a submachine gun wasn't sufficiently powerful. The AKS-74U featured
an extremely short 8.1" barrel which necessitated redesigning and
shortening the gas-piston and integrating front sights onto the gas
tube; the Colt Commando was a bit longer, at 11.5". Neither was adopted
as standard issue, although the US did later adopt the somewhat-longer
M4 carbine, with a 14.5" barrel.
Modern history
Contemporary military forces
Steyr AUG rifle (508 mm (20.0 in) barrel)
Steyr AUG carbine (407 mm (16.0 in) barrel). Carbine conversion is
achieved by changing to a shorter barrel.
Two M4 carbines stowed ahead of the flight instrument panel of a US Army
OH-58D reconnaissance helicopter, over Iraq in 2004

By the 1990s, the US had adopted the M4 carbine, a derivative of the M16
family which fired the same 5.56mm cartridge but was lighter and shorter
(in overall length and barrel length), resulting in marginally reduced
range and power, although offering better mobility and lighter weight to
offset the weight of equipment and armor that a modern soldier has to carry.

However, in spite of the benefits of the modern carbine, many armies are
experiencing a certain backlash against the universal equipping of
soldiers with carbines and lighter rifles in general, and are equipping
selected soldiers, usually called Designated Marksmen, or DM, with
higher-power rifles. Another problem comes from the loss of muzzle
velocity caused by the shorter barrel, which when coupled with the
typical small, lightweight bullets, causes effectiveness to be
diminished; a 5.56mm gets its lethality from its high velocity, and when
fired from the 14.5" M4 carbine, its power, penetration, and range are
diminished. Thus, there has been a move towards adopting a slightly more
powerful round tailored for high performance from both long and short
barrels. The US has done experiments regarding adopting a new, slightly
larger and heavier caliber such as the 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm Remington
SPC, which are heavier and thus retain more effectiveness at lower
muzzle velocities, but has for the time decided to retain the 5.56mm
NATO round as standard issue.

While the US Army adopted the M4 carbine in the 1990s, the US Marine
Corps retained their 20" barrel M16A4 rifles long afterwards, citing the
increased range and effectiveness over the carbine version; officers
were required to carry an M4 carbine rather than an M9 pistol, as Army
officers do. Due to the Marine Corps emphasis on being riflemen, the
lighter carbine was considered a suitable compromise between a rifle and
a pistol. Marines with restricted mobility such as vehicle operators, or
a greater need for mobility such as squad leaders, were also issued M4
carbines. In July 2015, the Marine Corps approved the M4 carbine for
standard issue to front-line Marines, replacing the M16A4 rifle. The
rifles will be issued to support troops while the carbines go to the
front-line Marines, in a reversal of the traditional roles of "rifles
for the front line, carbines for the rear".
Special forces

Special forces need to perform fast, decisive operations, frequently
airborne or boat-mounted. A pistol, though light and quick to operate,
is viewed as not having enough power, firepower, or range. A submachine
gun has selective fire, but firing a pistol cartridge and having a short
barrel and sight radius, it is not accurate or powerful enough at longer
ranges. Submachine guns also tend to have poorer armor and cover
penetration than rifles and carbines firing rifle ammunition.
Consequently, carbines have gained wide acceptance among SOCOM, UKSF,
and other communities, having relatively light weight, large magazine
capacity, selective fire, and much better range and penetration than a
submachine gun.
Usage

The smaller size and relative lighter weight of carbines makes them
easier to handle in close-quarter situations such as urban engagements,
when deploying from military vehicles, or in any situation where space
is confined. The disadvantages of carbines relative to rifles include
inferior long-range accuracy and a shorter effective range. These
comparisons refer to carbines (short-barreled rifles) of the same power
and class as the regular full-sized rifles.

Compared to submachine guns, carbines have a greater effective range and
are capable of penetrating helmets and body armor when used with armor
piercing ammunition.[7] However, submachine guns are still used by
military special forces and police SWAT teams for close quarters battle
(CQB) because they are "a pistol caliber weapon that's easy to control,
and less likely to over-penetrate the target."[7] Also, carbines are
harder to maneuver in tight encounters where superior range and stopping
power at distance are not great considerations.

Firing the same ammunition as standard-issue rifles or pistols gives
carbines the advantage of standardization over those personal defense
weapons (PDWs) that require proprietary cartridges.

The modern usage of the term carbine covers much the same scope as it
always had, namely lighter weapons (generally rifles) with barrels up to
20 inches in length. These weapons can be considered carbines, while
rifles with barrels longer than 20 inches are generally not considered
carbines unless specifically named so. Conversely, many rifles have
barrels shorter than 20", yet aren't considered carbines. The AK series
rifles has an almost universal barrel length of 16.3", well within
carbine territory, yet has always been considered a rifle, perhaps
because it was designed as such and not shortened from a longer weapon.
Modern carbines use ammunition ranging from that used in light pistols
up to powerful rifle cartridges, with the usual exception of
high-velocity magnum cartridges. In the more powerful cartridges, the
short barrel of a carbine has significant disadvantages in velocity, and
the high residual pressure, and frequently still-burning powder and
gases, when the bullet exits the barrel results in substantially greater
muzzle blast. Flash suppressors are a common, partial solution to this
problem, although even the best flash suppressors are hard put to deal
with the excess flash from the still-burning powder leaving the short
barrel (and they also add several inches to the length of the barrel,
diminishing the purpose of having a short barrel in the first place).
The shorter the barrel, the more difficult it is to hide the flash; the
AKS-74U has a complex, effective muzzle-booster/flash suppressor, yet it
still suffers from extreme muzzle flash.[citation needed]
Pistol caliber carbines
Marlin Model 1894C — .357 Magnum carbine

The typical carbine is the pistol-caliber carbine. These first appeared
soon after metallic cartridges became common. These were developed as
"companions" to the popular revolvers of the day, firing the same
cartridge but allowing more velocity and accuracy than the revolver.
These were carried by cowboys, lawmen, and others in the Old West. The
classic combination would be a Winchester lever-action carbine and a
Colt Single Action Army revolver in .44-40 or .38-40. During the 20th
century, this trend continued with more modern and powerful smokeless
revolver cartridges, in the form of Winchester and Marlin lever action
carbines chambered in .38 Special/.357 Magnum and .44 Special/.44 Magnum.

Modern equivalents include the Ruger Police Carbine, which uses the same
magazine as the Ruger pistols of the same caliber, and the
(discontinued) Marlin Camp Carbine, which, in .45 ACP, used M1911
magazines. The Ruger Model 44 and Ruger Deerfield Carbine were both
carbines chambered in .44 Magnum. The Beretta Cx4 Storm shares magazines
with many Beretta pistols and is designed to be complementary to the
Beretta Px4 Storm pistol. The Hi-Point 995TS are popular, economical and
reliable alternatives to other pistol caliber carbines in the United
States, and their magazines can be used in the Hi-Point C-9 pistol.
Another example is the Kel-Tec SUB-2000 series chambered in either 9 mm
Luger or .40S&W, which can be configured to accept Glock, Beretta, S&W,
or SIG pistol magazines. The SUB-2000 also has the somewhat unusual
(although not unique) ability to fold in half.
Kel-Tec SUB-2000 carbine in 9×19mm Parabellum

The primary advantage of a carbine over a pistol using the same
ammunition is controllability. The combination of firing from the
shoulder, longer sight-radius, 3 points of contact (firing hand, support
hand & shoulder), and precision offer a significantly more user-friendly
platform. Carbines like the Kel-Tec SUB-2000, Hi Point 995TS and Beretta
Cx4 Storm have the ability to mount user friendly optics, lights and
lasers thanks to them having accessory rails, which make target
acquisition and engagement much easier.

The longer barrel can offer increased velocity and, with it, greater
energy and effective range due to the propellant having more time to
burn. However, loss in bullet velocity can happen where the propellant
is utilised before the bullet reaches the muzzle, combined with the
friction from the barrel on the bullet. As long guns, pistol-caliber
carbines may be less legally restricted than handguns in some
jurisdictions. Compared to carbines chambered in intermediate or rifle
calibers, such as .223 Remington and 7.62×54mmR, pistol-caliber carbines
generally experience less of an increase in external ballistic
properties as a result of the propellant. The drawback is that one loses
the primary benefits of a handgun, i.e. portability and concealability,
resulting in a weapon almost the size of, but less accurate than, a
long-gun, but not much more powerful than a pistol.

Also widely produced are semi-automatic and typically longer-barreled
derivatives of select-fire submachine guns, such as the FN PS90, HK USC,
KRISS Vector, Thompson carbine, CZ Scorpion S1 Carbine and the Uzi
carbine. In order to be sold legally in many countries, the barrel must
meet a minimum length (16" in the USA). So the original submachine gun
in given a legal-length barrel and made into a semi-automatic,
transforming it into a carbine. Though less common, pistol-caliber
conversions of centerfire rifles like the AR-15 are commercially available.
Shoulder-stocked handgun
Mauser C96 "Red 9" variant with attached shoulder-stock

Some handguns used to come from the factory with mounting lugs for a
shoulder stock, notably including the "Broomhandle" Mauser C96, Luger
P.08, and Browning Hi-Power. In the case of the first two, the pistol
could come with a hollow wooden stock that doubled as a holster.

Carbine conversion kits are commercially available for many other
pistols, including M1911 and most Glocks. These can either be simple
shoulder stocks fitted to a pistol or full carbine conversion kits,
which are at least 26 in (660 mm) long and replace the pistol's barrel
with one at least 16 in (410 mm) long for compliance with the US law. In
the US, fitting a shoulder stock to a handgun with a barrel less than
16" long legally turns it into a short-barreled rifle, which is in
violation of the National Firearms Act.
Legal issues
United States

Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, firearms with shoulder stocks
or originally manufactured as a rifle and barrels less than 16 in (410
mm) in length are classified as short-barreled rifles. Short-barreled
rifles are restricted similarly to short-barreled shotguns, requiring a
$200 tax paid prior to manufacture or transfer – a process which can
take several months. Because of this, firearms with barrels of less than
16 in (410 mm) and a shoulder stock are uncommon. A list of firearms not
covered by the NFA due to their antique status may be found here[8] or
due to their Curio and Relic status may be found here;[9] these lists
includes a number of carbines with barrels less than the minimum legal
length and firearms that are "primarily collector's items and are not
likely to be used as weapons and, therefore, are excluded from the
provisions of the National Firearms Act." Machine guns, as their own
class of firearm, are not subject to requirements of other class firearms.

Distinct from simple shoulder stock kits, full carbine conversion kits
are not classified as short-barreled rifles. By replacing the pistol
barrel with one at least 16 in (410 mm) in length and having an overall
length of at least 26 in (660 mm), a carbine converted pistol may be
treated as a standard rifle under Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968
(GCA).[10] However, certain "Broomhandle" Mauser C96, Luger, and
Browning Hi-Power Curio & Relic pistols with their originally issued
stock attached only may retain their pistol classification.

Carbines without a stock and not originally manufactured as a rifle are
not classified as rifles or short barreled rifles. A carbine
manufactured under 26 in (660 mm) in length without a forward vertical
grip will be a pistol and, state law notwithstanding, can be carried
concealed without creating an unregistered Any Other Weapon. A nearly
identical carbine with an overall length of 26 in (660 mm) or greater is
simply an unclassified firearm under Title I of the Gun Control Act of
1968, as the Any Other Weapon catch-all only applies to firearms under
26 in (660 mm) or that have been concealed. However, a modification
intending to fire from the shoulder and bypass the regulation of
short-barreled rifles is considered the unlawful possession and
manufacture of an unregistered short-barreled rifle.

In some historical cases, the term machine carbine was the official
title for submachine guns, such as the British Sten and Australian Owen
guns. The semiautomatic-only version of the Sterling submachine gun was
also officially called a "carbine". The original Sterling semi-auto
would be classed a "short barrel rifle" under the U.S. National Firearms
Act, but fully legal long-barrel versions of the Sterling have been made
for the U.S. collector market.[citation needed]
See also
Look up carbine in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

List of carbines
Personal defense weapon
Short-barreled rifle

References

"Carbine". Dictionary.com. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Carbine". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th
ed.). Cambridge University Press.
"Carbine". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
"Carabin". Oxford English Dictionary.
"Carbine". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
"Carbine". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(Fifth ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2016. Retrieved September 26,
2018 – via thefreedictionary.com.
Gurwitch, Jeff (December 11, 2011). "Submachine Guns (SMG's): Outpaced
by Today's Modern Short-Barreled Rifles (SBR's)/Sub-Carbines, or Still a
Viable Tool for Close Quarters Battle/Close Quarters Combat (CQB/CQC)?".
Defense Review. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
"Curios or Relics List — Update March 2001 through May 2005". Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
"Curios or Relics List — Update January 2009 through June 2010". Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Retrieved November 13, 2015.

"ATF Rule 2011-4 pertaining to Carbine Conversion Units". Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Retrieved November 16, 2015.

Further reading

Beard, Ross E. Carbine : the story of David Marshall Williams.
Williamstown, NJ: Phillips, 1997. ISBN 0-932572-26-X OCLC 757855022
Carbines : cal. .30 carbines M1, M1A1, M2 and M3. Washington, DC:
Headquarters, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, 1953.
McAulay, John D. Carbines of the Civil War, 1861–1865. Union City,
TN: Pioneer Press, 1981. ISBN 978-0-913159-45-3 OCLC 8111324
McAulay, John D. Carbines of the U.S. Cavalry, 1861–1905. Lincoln,
RI: Andrew Mowbray Publishers, 1996. ISBN 0-917218-70-1 OCLC 36087526

Categories:

CarbinesRifles18th-century weapons

Navigation menu

Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in

Article
Talk

Read
Edit
View history

Search

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools

What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export

Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

العربية
Deutsch
Español
Français
한국어
Italiano
Русский
Tiếng Việt
中文

Edit links

This page was last edited on 16 May 2020, at 18:08 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

[Anthony Marsh]

In the National Archives.
What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was dented?
It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
and you don't care.

[donald willis]

I know that I have, on occasion, mentioned the rifle bag, and I may have
once or twice suggested that it was a fake. Or I may not have. At any
rate, the bag was hardly ever my focus....

[donald willis]

However, Whaley's error was highly suggestive--of someone who would say anything that he thought his questioners wanted to hear!

And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
their "wrong". LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
they can....

dcw

[donald willis]

I don't trust a word of Oswald's interviewers, from Fritz to Kelley to
Bookhout.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

I deny they had any bearing on the points I was making. Not only that,
what you wrote was just plain wrong because a carbine is a short rifle?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 12:06:24 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/24/2020 8:26 PM, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 7:09:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 2:12:21 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> I merely pointed out that you do not know the difference between a
> >>> Carbine and a short rifle.
> >>
> >> Both types of guns (the 36-inch and the 40-incher) were labeled as
> >> "CARBINES" by Klein's in 1963. Do you think Klein's was lying in their ads
> >> when they called both versions "Carbines"---or were they merely ignorant
> >> (even though selling guns was their business)?
> >>
> >
> > This was Marsh going full Mr. Smarty Pants and once again getting it
> > wrong. A carbine is by definition a short rifle and was the preferred
>
> No, silly. The barrel has to be shorter than the short rifle.
>

Is that the law according to Anthony Marsh?

> > weapon of the cavalry because it was easier to handle while riding on a
>
> Sure, if you're old enough to remember that far back.
>
> > horse although it seems to me it would be very difficult to fire
> > accurately while galloping on a horse. The definition has been expanded in
> > modern times to include lightweight automatic and semiautomatic rifles.
> >
> > carbine
> > [ˈkärˌbīn, ˈkärbēn]
> >
> > NOUN
> > a light automatic rifle.
> >
> > historical
> > a short rifle or musket used by cavalry.
> >
>
>
> Also by paratroopers. As I said before, you guys know nothing about gun.
> Learn to use Google:
>

I wouldn't present myself as a firearms expert but I wouldn't have to be to know more about them than you do.

It would appear you have chosen to resort to filibuster to divert
attention away from the error you made rather than just simply admitting
you were wrong. It seems you found one or more web pages to copy and paste
hoping nobody would bother to read it all. That actually worked. It wasn't
necessary to read through all of it to see what you were up to. You are
trying to move the goalpost by shifting the discussion from the DEFINITION
of a carbine to the PURPOSES of a carbine, the latter not being in dispute
nor relevant to the subject of the thread. You made the statement that a
carbine is different from a short rifle when in fact a carbine is a short
rifle. Apparently you didn't even bother to read what you copied and
pasted. You might have come across this:

> A carbine (/ˈkɑːrbiːn/ or /ˈkɑːrbaɪn/)[1] is a long gun firearm but with
> a shorter barrel than a standard rifle or musket.[2] Many carbines are
> shortened versions of full-length rifles, shooting the same ammunition,
> while others fire lower-powered ammunition, including types designed for
> pistols.

Notice it says a carbine is shorter than a STANDARD rifle. It does not say
it is shorter than a short rifle because a carbine is a short rifle.

This is one more instance in which you tried to make yourself appear
smarter than everybody else and instead you just stepped in it again.

PS. I actually own a lever action carbine and as the above definition
points out, it fires the same .44 caliber ammo that my .44 Magnum handgun
fires. That is one of the reasons the Winchester was popular in the old
west because the same caliber of ammo could be used in both the short
rifle and the six shooter. One didn't need to carry two types of ammo.
Those old enough to remember the old Steve McQueen series Wanted Dead or
Alive might remember he had a Winchester with a sawed off barrel and stock
which he carried as a sidearm in a pistol holster on his hip. It was
nicknamed the Mare's Leg.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=steve+mcqueen+gun+wanted+dead+or+alive&&view=detail&mid=635F7EFA95A2D1EC0B0C635F7EFA95A2D1EC0B0C&rvsmid=BEAF86BCD9340CBF25A4BEAF86BCD9340CBF25A4&FORM=VDQVAP

[Mark]

Why don't you trust Kelley? Mark

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Why would he think his questioners wanted to hear him say Oswald was
wearing two jackets?

> And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> their "wrong".

You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
about the floor they saw the shooter.

> LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
> their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
> they can....

The forensic evidence is all on the side of those who believe Oswald was
the sole shooter. There is no forensic evidence of any shooter anywhere
except in the 6th floor nest. Eye and earwitness testimony provides fodder
for just about anything one wants to believe because witnesses get some
things right and some things wrong.

[Mark]

When it comes to the evidence recovered, you have become a reactionary
know-nothing.

The only curtain rods in the National Archives came from the Paine garage
after the assassination, and you know it.

> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was dented?
> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
> and you don't care.

I would if you could provide evidence that evidence was destroyed and
hidden.

All you have is an opinion that a Communist-couldn't-have-killed-Kennedy.

Mark

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, that argument was ripped to shreds a year ago in this thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ

> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was dented?

Quick, introduce a red herring when you can't defend your claims.

> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
> and you don't care.

What does this have to do with the length of the rifle or the length of
the paper bag?

Nothing. Of course, you do what CTs do all the time when pressed, change
the subject.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 4:03:37 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Nope - try again:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ

[donald willis]

He was presented with a photo of one Oswald jacket, and he said that, yes,
Oswald was wearing that jacket. He was then presented with a photo of the
other Oswald jacket, and he said that, yes, he was wearing that one too.
In other words, Whaley didn't know WHAT Oswald was wearing and had to
GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....

> > And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> > fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> > their "wrong".
>
> You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
> about the floor they saw the shooter.
>

No, the hearings presented the testimony of witnesses who were almost
unanimous re how wide the window was open. No argument necessary.... And
they certainly did not think that they were wrong....

> > LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
> > their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
> > they can....
>
>
> The forensic evidence is all on the side of those who believe Oswald was
> the sole shooter. There is no forensic evidence of any shooter anywhere
> except in the 6th floor nest.

That is, if you believe that Fritz did not pick up the shells in one place
and put them down in another.

dcw

[donald willis]

He joined Fritz & Bookhout in saying that in the first Saturday (11/23)
interview, Oswald changed his story and said he got off the bus & took a
taxi. The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
all the way to Oak Cliff.

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

So Fritz, Bookhout, Kelley, and Whaley were all lying about Oswald taking
a cab? And that McWatters was wrong / lying about giving out a transfer to
a man about 12:40? And that Whaley was wrong / lying in IDing Oswald and
saying he noticed the ID bracelet his passenger was wearing?

Let's assume all that's true. How does that take Oswald's rifle out of
Oswald's hand in the Depository at 12:30? As far as I can see, it changes
nothing about the evidence of who fired the shots. Where's your claim go?
Nowhere.

You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.

> The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
> all the way to Oak Cliff.
>

Do you mean here?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/

I see he scratched out that he took the man all the way to Marsalis
Street. He's not allowed to correct his own handwritten statement now?

It's curious that you're only telling half the story at best, while
accusing law enforcement officers from different agencies on the weekend
of 11/22/63 of being in collusion to make up a story about a cab ride that
really doesn't put the rifle in Oswald's hands or take it out of Oswald's
hands.

If they were going to be in collusion for something, why not collude to
claim Oswald admitted in custody the rifle was his and he fired the shots
at the President? Instead, you have them in collusion to make up he took a
cab ride. What's the point of THAT?

And gee, that Oswald took a cab has only be resolved since September of 1964:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#movements

== QUOTE ==
Oswald's Movements After Leaving Depository Building

The bus ride.--According to the reconstruction of time and events which the Commission found most credible, Lee Harvey Oswald left the building approximately 3 minutes after the assassination. He probably walked east on Elm Street for seven blocks to the corner of Elm and Murphy where he boarded a bus which was heading back in the direction of the Depository Building, on its way to the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. (See Commission Exhibit 1119-A, p. 158.)

When Oswald was apprehended, a bus transfer marked for the Lakewood-Marsalis route was found in his shirt pocket. The transfer was dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63" and was punched in two places by the busdriver. On the basis of this punchmark, which was distinctive to each Dallas driver, the transfer was conclusively identified as having been issued by Cecil J. McWatters, a busdriver for the Dallas Transit Co. On the basis of the date and time on the transfer, McWatters was able to testify that the transfer had been issued by him on a trip which passed a check point at St. Paul and Elm Streets at 12:36 p.m., November 22, 1963.

McWatters was sure that he left the checkpoint on time and he estimated that it took him 3 to 4 minutes to drive three blocks west from the checkpoint to Field Street, which he reached at about 12:40 p.m. McWatters' recollection is that he issued this transfer to a man who entered his bus just beyond Field Street, where a man beat on the front door of the bus, boarded it and paid his fare. About two blocks later, a woman asked to get off to make a 1 o'clock train at Union Station and requested a transfer which she might use if she got through the traffic.
... So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks [back] asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did.
... It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street.
Page 158

This page reproduces COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 1119-A: a diagram showing the Whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald between 12:33 p.m. and 1:50 p.m., November 22, 1963.

Page 159

The man was on the bus approximately 4 minutes.
== UNQUOTE ==

You cannot get around the physical evidence of the bus transfer found in
Oswald's pocket without claiming Whaley was lying about giving that
transfer to a man who left the bus shortly after he boarded it. That man
was Oswald. The transfer establishes that. The hard evidence establishes
that. Oswald did NOT ride all the way to Marsalis, he got off the bus
shortly after boarding it and took a cab to the rooming house.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/23/2020 7:13 PM, Steven M. Galbraith wrote:

> > If the paper bag was planted then why would the planters plant a 38 inch
> > (and too short) bag? If they also planted the rifle then they would know
> > that this shorter bag wouldn't work. Wouldn't they measure the rifle
> > before hand? To see how long the paper had to be? Or wouldn't they realize
> > as they put the rifle in the bag that, "Oops, it's too short. Let's make
> > another bag to cover it"?
> >
> > Again: Oswald thought the rifle was 38 inches because that was what he
> > ordered; and that's why he made the bag that length. The planters, having
> > access to the paper - and also having the rifle too, would make a bag long
> > enough to cover the (longer) rifle. They knew the correct lengths that
> > Oswald didn't. And they had more paper, wouldn't they? Oswald just had
> > that paper he took from the TSBD. He couldn't go back and get more.
> >
> > The bag was discovered around 2:30 or so or about two hours after the
> > shooting. This was BEFORE Frazier and/or Randle were interviewed and
> > before they told the police about seeing Oswald with a large package. So
> > how did the planters know that Frazier and Randle would support their
> > action?
> >
>
> Silly. No one claims that the bag was planted. No one on THIS planet is
> THAT stupid. Isn't it strange how the bag is just long enough to hold
> the curtain rods?

Curtain rods that were never seen and never found?

What's curious is that you ignore the fact that the bag is just long
enough to hold Oswald's disassembled rifle that was found in the
Depository on the sixth floor and was traced to Lee Harvey Oswald through
a variety of proofs.

And that the bag was made just long enough to fit the 36-inch rifle that
rifle ordered, but not the 40-inch rifle that Oswald was shipped. And that
on the afternoon of the assassination, Marina admitted to the police at
the Paine home that Oswald owned a rifle and it was stored in the Paine
garage tied up within a blanket. But when a policeman lifted that blanket,
it was determined to be empty.

And that Oswald in custody denied bringing any long package to the
Depository on 11/22/63. He told his interrogators that if Wes Frazier said
that, Frazier must be thinking of some other time.

You tried this curtain rod argument in the past and failed royally to
establish any part of it.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 7:09:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/23/2020 7:13 PM, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Someone over in Duncan's forum (might have been Mytton, IIRC) posted a
> > copy of the Klein's ad from the April American Rifleman issue. In that
> > one, item C20-T750 was changed to a 40" short rifle. Magazine ads are
> > submitted at least one month prior to publication, so Klein's had been
> > expecting to run out of the 36" carbines by April 1st, if not sooner. It
> > wasn't bait and switch; Oswald just ordered from an obsolete ad out of an
> > older issue or AR.
> >
>
>
> Right, I think Oswald had grounds to SUE. Did he have enough money to
> sue? When was the Consumer Protection Bureau founded?

That's pure unadulterated nonsense. Retailers reserve the right to ship an
alternate product of the same or greater value all the time. And when they
do so, they put the onus on the customer to return the item if they are
not satisfied. Oswald kept the item, did not return it or attempt to
return it, so he was satisfied, and had no basis to sue.

A lawsuit would be the last resort if you tried to reach an accomodation
with the retailer and failed. Oswald did not even try to return the item,
which would have been the first step necessary in a lawsuit. You expose
your lack of knowledge every time you post. Oswald had no grounds to sue,
contrary to your assertion. Your claim is nonsense.

Hank

[Mark]

Is this the affidavit you're referring to?:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338646/

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Still silly after all these years.
Either way it was still a 91/38 model. Klein's ran out the Carbines and
sent him a short rifle. Don't think of it as consumer fraud, think of it
as a free upgrade.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. There is reasonable doubt. Maybe you were in a coma or a
drunken stuper in 1978 when the HSCA said it was a conspiracy. Maybe
you've never read the internal WC memos that hint at conspiracy. Maybe you
weren't even born when Dallas authorities said it was an International
Communist Conspiracy.

Maybe you don't even understand that an assassination by a lone shooter
could still be a conbspiracy. Maybe you're not even aware of the kooks on
your side claim that Castro was behind it, or maybe the KGB.

> except in the 6th floor nest. Eye and earwitness testimony provides fodder
> for just about anything one wants to believe because witnesses get some
> things right and some things wrong.

How many eye witnesses said a UFO did it?
Have you ever seen the show Dark Skies?

[Anthony Marsh]

Reactionary? What kind oa whimpy insult is that?
You already know that I am skeptical of the evidence.
Call me a skeptic.

> The only curtain rods in the National Archives came from the Paine garage
> after the assassination, and you know it.
>

No, and neither do you. I specialize in digging up evidence that no one
else knew about.

>
>> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was dented?
>> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
>> and you don't care.
>
> I would if you could provide evidence that evidence was destroyed and
> hidden.
>

Not an answer. You ducked the question.

> All you have is an opinion that a Communist-couldn't-have-killed-Kennedy.
>

I never said that a Communist fouldn't havd killed JFK.
I can not be sure who fired whch shots.
Were the really working for the CIA or were they working for Castro?

> Mark
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly, just because McAdams censors my messages so that I never get the
chance to refute everything you say does not mean that you win the
argument.

>> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was
>> dented?
>
> Quick, introduce a red herring when you can't defend your claims.

Just one example of missing evidence. I have more.

>
>> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
>> and you don't care.
>
> What does this have to do with the length of the rifle or the length of
> the paper bag?
>

Nothing, if it is the right bag. The original or the remake? Do you
think it was the bag carried out by the cop? Isn't that bag long enough
for you?

> Nothing. Of course, you do what CTs do all the time when pressed, change
> the subject.
>

Always the same subject. Mishandling of evidence and you don't care about
it.

Like OJ's glove. You don't care about evidence as long as you already have
your mind made up. But the JURY cared. And YOU are not the Jury. You lost
the case and you are a sore loser. If the glove don't fit, you must
Acquit.

> Hank
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Which point are you point to, Mr. Vague?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get involved?

> > > And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> > > fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> > > their "wrong".
> >
> > You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
> > about the floor they saw the shooter.
> >
>
> No, the hearings presented the testimony of witnesses who were almost
> unanimous re how wide the window was open. No argument necessary.... And
> they certainly did not think that they were wrong....
>

They were also unanimous about which floor they saw the shooter. One floor
down from the top floor. That would be the 6th floor.

>
> > > LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
> > > their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
> > > they can....
> >
> >
> > The forensic evidence is all on the side of those who believe Oswald was
> > the sole shooter. There is no forensic evidence of any shooter anywhere
> > except in the 6th floor nest.
>
> That is, if you believe that Fritz did not pick up the shells in one place
> and put them down in another.
>

That's exactly what I believe. That is what sensible people believe since
there is no evidence that happened. That is something you had to concoct
to fit your belief that the shooter was on the 5th floor. You decided that
the shooter had to be on the fifth floor because you can't comprehend that
maybe their idea of wide open might be different from yours or that they
could have simply been wrong about how wide open the window was. The rifle
was on the 6th floor. The shells were on the 6th floor. The rifle bag was
on the 6th floor. The fingerprints of the rifle's owner was on the 6th
floor. The witnesses said the shooter was on the 6th floor. You want us to
disregard all that because somebody described the window being more wide
open than it actually was. Unbelievable how bad conspiracy hobbyists are
at weighing evidence. But Bud told us that many years ago.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

No, they sent him a 40 inch carbine instead of the 36 inch carbine that
was in the ad he responded to. Both models meet the definition of a
carbine which is a short rifle. Why you keep insisting that a short rifle
is different from a carbine is a bit baffling. The point of the thread
which you missed because you were so eager to play Mr. Smarty Pants again
is that Oswald might well have believed his rifle was only 36 inches long
which would explain why he only made the bag 38 inches long. The title of
the thread is a bit facetious because I was not trying to make the case
that Oswald was the victim of consumer fraud but that his mistaken belief
about which rifle Klein's actually sent him might explain why he didn't
make the bag long enough to hold his rifle without disassembling it. If I
had been in Oswald's shoes I don't think disassembling and reassembling
the rifle would be chores I would rather not have bothered with. It was a
distraction possibly made necessary because he got a longer rifle than the
one he ordered.

[Anthony Marsh]

Like the jacket he left behind in the Domno room? How many weeks later was
that found? What about the backyard photo that they never found? You know,
the one that Marna HID in the BIBLE? What pose was that again?

> What's curious is that you ignore the fact that the bag is just long
> enough to hold Oswald's disassembled rifle that was found in the
> Depository on the sixth floor and was traced to Lee Harvey Oswald through
> a variety of proofs.
>

I don't ignore anything. I just don't jump to conclusions.

> And that the bag was made just long enough to fit the 36-inch rifle that
> rifle ordered, but not the 40-inch rifle that Oswald was shipped. And that

Again, you ASSuME that to frame Oswald. It could have been made the fit
the curtain rods.

> on the afternoon of the assassination, Marina admitted to the police at
> the Paine home that Oswald owned a rifle and it was stored in the Paine
> garage tied up within a blanket. But when a policeman lifted that blanket,
> it was determined to be empty.
>

Duh! Don't try to pretend that I don't know that rifle was found in the
TSBD. Grow up and lear\n to rgue honestly some day.

> And that Oswald in custody denied bringing any long package to the

Right, not long. Did the cops show him the bag they found? Are they ever
obligated to do that in ANY case?

> Depository on 11/22/63. He told his interrogators that if Wes Frazier said
> that, Frazier must be thinking of some other time.
>
> You tried this curtain rod argument in the past and failed royally to
> establish any part of it.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ
>
> Hank
>

Just shoot a bunch of arrows into the air and maybe one will hit
something. In any case, never admit anything and alays attack instead of
answering questions. Haven't you learned anything from Trump?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/26/2020 4:33 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

ell, if you would bother to read all the messages you would see that I
just said you should think of it as an upgrade, not fraud.

> A lawsuit would be the last resort if you tried to reach an accomodation
> with the retailer and failed. Oswald did not even try to return the item,

Well, that was a carefully crafted joke, but YOU didn't get it.
He was POOR. He used a DAMN alias. He did not want to dram attention to
himself.

> which would have been the first step necessary in a lawsuit. You expose
> your lack of knowledge every time you post. Oswald had no grounds to sue,
> contrary to your assertion. Your claim is nonsense.
>

I didn't say that he should sue. Have you ever sued when you get scammed?
<crickets>

> Hank
>

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 1:33:38 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:54:15 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Mark wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 3:03:52 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

> > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 7:58:35 AM UT CUT ; that he passed the time

> > > > > with the cab driver and that the cab driver had told him that the
> > > > > President was shot. He paid a cab fare of 85 [cents]."
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > I don't trust a word of Oswald's interviewers, from Fritz to Kelley to
> > > > Bookhout.
> > >
> > > Why don't you trust Kelley? Mark
> >
> > He joined Fritz & Bookhout in saying that in the first Saturday (11/23)
> > interview, Oswald changed his story and said he got off the bus & took a
> > taxi.
>
> So Fritz, Bookhout, Kelley, and Whaley were all lying about Oswald taking
> a cab?

Uh, yes.

And that McWatters was wrong / lying about giving out a transfer to
> a man about 12:40?

McW said nothing about a 12:40 transfer in his affidavit.

And that Whaley was wrong / lying in IDing Oswald and
> saying he noticed the ID bracelet his passenger was wearing?
>

And Whaley WASN'T wrong in saying that Oswald was wearing two jackets and
an overshirt? Funny he could see the bracelet under all that
outerwear....

> Let's assume all that's true. How does that take Oswald's rifle out of
> Oswald's hand in the Depository at 12:30? As far as I can see, it changes
> nothing about the evidence of who fired the shots. Where's your claim go?
> Nowhere.

Goes to conspiracy. Oswald was most probably a shooter in Dealey, but he
wasn't in on it alone.

>
> You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
> but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
> would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
> cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.
>

A cab gets him to Oak Cliff in time to shoot Tippit; a bus does not....

> > The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
> > all the way to Oak Cliff.
> >
>
> Do you mean here?
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
>
> I see he scratched out that he took the man all the way to Marsalis
> Street. He's not allowed to correct his own handwritten statement now?

Nice misdirection. McWatters did NOT scratch out the part re picking up a
woman on Marsalis, then referring her to the man--still on the bus, in Oak
Cliff!--he had picked up earlier. Either way, Oswald gets to Marsalis, in
Oak Cliff, on the bus. Try again.

>
> It's curious that you're only telling half the story at best, while
> accusing law enforcement officers from different agencies on the weekend
> of 11/22/63 of being in collusion to make up a story about a cab ride that
> really doesn't put the rifle in Oswald's hands or take it out of Oswald's
> hands.
>

Takes the pistol out of Oswald's hands.

> If they were going to be in collusion for something, why not collude to
> claim Oswald admitted in custody the rifle was his and he fired the shots
> at the President? Instead, you have them in collusion to make up he took a
> cab ride. What's the point of THAT?
>
> And gee, that Oswald took a cab has only be resolved since September of 1964:
> https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#movements
>
> == QUOTE ==
> Oswald's Movements After Leaving Depository Building
>
> The bus ride.--According to the reconstruction of time and events which the Commission found most credible, Lee Harvey Oswald left the building approximately 3 minutes after the assassination. He probably walked east on Elm Street for seven blocks to the corner of Elm and Murphy where he boarded a bus which was heading back in the direction of the Depository Building, on its way to the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. (See Commission Exhibit 1119-A, p. 158.)
>
> When Oswald was apprehended, a bus transfer marked for the Lakewood-Marsalis route was found in his shirt pocket. The transfer was dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63" and was punched in two places by the busdriver. On the basis of this punchmark, which was distinctive to each Dallas driver, the transfer was conclusively identified as having been issued by Cecil J. McWatters, a busdriver for the Dallas Transit Co. On the basis of the date and time on the transfer, McWatters was able to testify that the transfer had been issued by him on a trip which passed a check point at St. Paul and Elm Streets at 12:36 p.m., November 22, 1963.
>
> McWatters was sure that he left the checkpoint on time and he estimated that it took him 3 to 4 minutes to drive three blocks west from the checkpoint to Field Street, which he reached at about 12:40 p.m. McWatters' recollection is that he issued this transfer to a man who entered his bus just beyond Field Street, where a man beat on the front door of the bus, boarded it and paid his fare. About two blocks later, a woman asked to get off to make a 1 o'clock train at Union Station and requested a transfer which she might use if she got through the traffic.
> ... So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks [back] asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did.
> ... It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street.
> Page 158
>
> This page reproduces COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 1119-A: a diagram showing the Whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald between 12:33 p.m. and 1:50 p.m., November 22, 1963.
>
> Page 159
>
> The man was on the bus approximately 4 minutes.
> == UNQUOTE ==
>
> You cannot get around the physical evidence of the bus transfer found in
> Oswald's pocket without claiming Whaley was lying about giving that
> transfer to a man who left the bus shortly after he boarded it.

Transfers can be manufactured very easily. I doubt that the transfer
actually found on Oswald was the same one which was produced in evidence.
And I think you mean "McWatters", not "Whaley"....

That man
> was Oswald. The transfer establishes that. The hard evidence establishes
> that. Oswald did NOT ride all the way to Marsalis, he got off the bus
> shortly after boarding it and took a cab to the rooming house.
>

However, the hard evidence in McWatters' affidavit maintains that Oswald
took the bus all the way into Oak Cliff, contrary to what you were
maintaining, above....

dcw

[donald willis]

Yes.

[donald willis]

I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
board.

>
> > > > And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> > > > fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> > > > their "wrong".
> > >
> > > You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
> > > about the floor they saw the shooter.
> > >
> >
> > No, the hearings presented the testimony of witnesses who were almost
> > unanimous re how wide the window was open. No argument necessary.... And
> > they certainly did not think that they were wrong....
> >
>
> They were also unanimous about which floor they saw the shooter. One floor
> down from the top floor. That would be the 6th floor.
>

Depends on which source you use. The weekend of the assassination Deputy
Lewis wrote that Euins said "5th floor". That evolved....

> >
> > > > LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
> > > > their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
> > > > they can....
> > >
> > >
> > > The forensic evidence is all on the side of those who believe Oswald was
> > > the sole shooter. There is no forensic evidence of any shooter anywhere
> > > except in the 6th floor nest.
> >
> > That is, if you believe that Fritz did not pick up the shells in one place
> > and put them down in another.
> >
>
> That's exactly what I believe. That is what sensible people believe since
> there is no evidence that happened. That is something you had to concoct
> to fit your belief that the shooter was on the 5th floor. You decided that
> the shooter had to be on the fifth floor because you can't comprehend that
> maybe their idea of wide open might be different from yours or that they
> could have simply been wrong about how wide open the window was.

I've gone into this many times, principally with Brennan & Fischer, who
gave precise reasons why they said the window was wide open.

The rifle
> was on the 6th floor. The shells were on the 6th floor.

After Fritz put them down there.

The rifle bag was
> on the 6th floor.

Again, I've cited Dets. Johnson & Montgomery many times. They were on the
6th floor from about 1:15 to 2:30 & heard no commotion re the finding of
any rifle there.

The fingerprints of the rifle's owner was on the 6th
> floor. The witnesses said the shooter was on the 6th floor. You want us to
> disregard all that because somebody

Minimize conflicts with your beliefs, if you will. There were FIVE
"somebodies".

described the window being more wide
> open than it actually was. Unbelievable how bad conspiracy hobbyists are
> at weighing evidence. But Bud told us that many years ago.

He was wrong, too.

dcw

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Maybe you are speaking from the wrong orifice.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, you don't know what a contract hit is.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.

> >
> > > > > And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> > > > > fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> > > > > their "wrong".
> > > >
> > > > You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
> > > > about the floor they saw the shooter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, the hearings presented the testimony of witnesses who were almost
> > > unanimous re how wide the window was open. No argument necessary.... And
> > > they certainly did not think that they were wrong....
> > >
> >
> > They were also unanimous about which floor they saw the shooter. One floor
> > down from the top floor. That would be the 6th floor.
> >
>
> Depends on which source you use. The weekend of the assassination Deputy
> Lewis wrote that Euins said "5th floor". That evolved....
>

One witness. All the others were quite clear it was the 6th floor in the
way the described it. It would be quite easy to miscount the floors but
when you describe it as one floor down from the top floor or right below
the ledge, that is quite specific about which floor the saw the shooter
on. The various descriptions fit the 6th floor. These witnesses were
either wrong about the floor they saw the shooter was or they were wrong
about how wide open the window was or their idea of what constituted wide
open was different from yours. If there is an apparent conflict, the
sensible thing to do is turn to the forensic evidence to figure out what
these witnesses got right and what they got wrong. All the forensic
evidence is on the 6th floor. Not only was there no forensic evidence
found on the 5th floor, there were three employees of the TSBD on that
floor and two appeared in the Dillard photo which of course you are forced
to invent an excuse to dismiss.

> > >
> > > > > LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
> > > > > their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
> > > > > they can....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The forensic evidence is all on the side of those who believe Oswald was
> > > > the sole shooter. There is no forensic evidence of any shooter anywhere
> > > > except in the 6th floor nest.
> > >
> > > That is, if you believe that Fritz did not pick up the shells in one place
> > > and put them down in another.
> > >
> >
> > That's exactly what I believe. That is what sensible people believe since
> > there is no evidence that happened. That is something you had to concoct
> > to fit your belief that the shooter was on the 5th floor. You decided that
> > the shooter had to be on the fifth floor because you can't comprehend that
> > maybe their idea of wide open might be different from yours or that they
> > could have simply been wrong about how wide open the window was.
>
>
> I've gone into this many times,

You've been dead wrong, many times.

> principally with Brennan & Fischer, who
> gave precise reasons why they said the window was wide open.
>

They also gave precise definitions as to which floor they saw the shooter.
One floor below the top floor is very precise and unambiguous.

>
> The rifle
> > was on the 6th floor. The shells were on the 6th floor.
>
> After Fritz put them down there.
>

Poppycock.

I suppose he moved the rifle too.

>
> The rifle bag was
> > on the 6th floor.
>
> Again, I've cited Dets. Johnson & Montgomery many times. They were on the
> 6th floor from about 1:15 to 2:30 & heard no commotion re the finding of
> any rifle there.
>
> The fingerprints of the rifle's owner was on the 6th
> > floor. The witnesses said the shooter was on the 6th floor. You want us to
> > disregard all that because somebody
>
> Minimize conflicts with your beliefs, if you will. There were FIVE
> "somebodies".
>
>
> described the window being more wide
> > open than it actually was. Unbelievable how bad conspiracy hobbyists are

You have no forensic evidence to support anything you believe. It is all
base on your interpretations of what various witnesses said. All the
forensic evidence conflicts with what you would rather believe so he do
what conspiracy hobbyists have been doing for over 50 years. You invent
cockamamie excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it rather than
considering that maybe you have just misfigured the whole thing.

> > at weighing evidence. But Bud told us that many years ago.
>
> He was wrong, too.

No, he was spot on and you are Exhibit A.

>
> dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

They don't do speculations, conjecture or motivations when it requires
they actually come to a reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence.
Otherwise, they feel free to speculate, conjecture, and discuss motive to
their heart's content.

He has yet to explain (that I've seen) what was the purpose in moving all
the evidence up one flight. I suspect his argument goes nowhere and he
can't explain what was the purpose in moving it all to the sixth floor and
getting the men known to be on the fifth floor to lie about their
whereabouts at the time of the assassination.

Oh, that's because he doesn't do motivation.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:07:14 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

They concluded it was a conspiracy based on since-disproven evidence.

> Maybe
> you've never read the internal WC memos that hint at conspiracy.

The Warren Commission discussed the possibility of conspiracy numerous
times, yes. But they found no evidence of one.

> Maybe you
> weren't even born when Dallas authorities said it was an International
> Communist Conspiracy.

They suggested that based on the background of the one suspect in custody,
Lee Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959. No evidence has been found
that supports this conclusion.

>
> Maybe you don't even understand that an assassination by a lone shooter
> could still be a conbspiracy.

There's no evidence Oswald was working with anyone else.

> Maybe you're not even aware of the kooks on
> your side claim that Castro was behind it, or maybe the KGB.

I'm pretty sure the people suggesting that are conspiracy theorists.

>
> > except in the 6th floor nest. Eye and earwitness testimony provides fodder
> > for just about anything one wants to believe because witnesses get some
> > things right and some things wrong.
>
> How many eye witnesses said a UFO did it?
> Have you ever seen the show Dark Skies?

Have you ever read the 26 volumes of hearings and evidence? Your arguments
show no familiarity with the subject matter discussed therein. You simply
repeat a lot of stuff garnered from conspiracy books.

Hank

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT

> > > > GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
> > > > along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
> > > > recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
> > > >
> > >
> > > If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
> > > involved?
> >
> > I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
> > happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
> > board.
> >
>
> Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
> motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
> isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
>

Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
jackets....

> > >
> > > > > > And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> > > > > > fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> > > > > > their "wrong".
> > > > >
> > > > > You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
> > > > > about the floor they saw the shooter.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, the hearings presented the testimony of witnesses who were almost
> > > > unanimous re how wide the window was open. No argument necessary.... And
> > > > they certainly did not think that they were wrong....
> > > >
> > >
> > > They were also unanimous about which floor they saw the shooter. One floor
> > > down from the top floor. That would be the 6th floor.
> > >
> >
> > Depends on which source you use. The weekend of the assassination Deputy
> > Lewis wrote that Euins said "5th floor". That evolved....
> >
>
> One witness. All the others were quite clear it was the 6th floor in the
> way the described it.

Three witnesses, at least:

"I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open
all the way"--Bob Edwards (11/22/63 affidavit)

Now, tell me that the fifth-floor east-end windows were not wide open.
Edwards got it exactly right. But the FBI got him to recant on the floor
number. But not on that "wide open all the way". That's still out there.

"There was a man on the fifth floor"--Ronald Fischer (11/22/63 affidavit)

And in his testimony, Fischer added that the window was all the way open,
or almost so, or he could not have seen as much of the suspect. Again,
fifth floor, wide open window....

It would be quite easy to miscount the floors but
> when you describe it as one floor down from the top floor or right below
> the ledge, that is quite specific about which floor the saw the shooter
> on. The various descriptions fit the 6th floor. These witnesses were
> either wrong about the floor they saw the shooter was or they were wrong
> about how wide open the window was or their idea of what constituted wide
> open was different from yours. If there is an apparent conflict, the
> sensible thing to do is turn to the forensic evidence to figure out what
> these witnesses got right and what they got wrong. All the forensic
> evidence is on the 6th floor.

Or was moved up there by Fritz.

Not only was there no forensic evidence
> found on the 5th floor

Insp. Sawyer radioed that shells were found on the "third floor". Now,
what might that mean? To reporters, he said "fifth floor". There's your
answer.

, there were three employees of the TSBD on that
> floor

I'll grant you two--Williams and Oswald.

and two appeared in the Dillard photo which of course you are forced
> to invent an excuse to dismiss.
>

"Invent"? LNs say that you can't see any of the three fifth-floor
"witnesses" in the Dillard wide-angle, as reproduced in the Warren Report,
because the three black men are simply lost in the shadows. It had not
occurred to me that that's just plain wrong, or, that is, why it's
wrong.

Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
photo.

Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
inconstant sun!

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You suggested he might have grounds to sue because he was shipped an item
of equal or greater value, that he didn't try to return. Your claim was
and remains nonsense.

>
> > A lawsuit would be the last resort if you tried to reach an accomodation
> > with the retailer and failed. Oswald did not even try to return the item,
>
> Well, that was a carefully crafted joke, but YOU didn't get it.
> He was POOR. He used a DAMN alias. He did not want to dram attention to
> himself.

Not that carefully crafted, as it's indistinguishable from the normal
off-the-wall arguments you advance.

>
> > which would have been the first step necessary in a lawsuit. You expose
> > your lack of knowledge every time you post. Oswald had no grounds to sue,
> > contrary to your assertion. Your claim is nonsense.
> >
>
> I didn't say that he should sue.

Quoting you: "Right, I think Oswald had grounds to SUE."

Your claim is, was, and remains nonsense.

> Have you ever sued when you get scammed?
> <crickets>

Begs the question, assumes I have been scammed. Typical conspiracy tripe,
go to a logical fallacy when all else fails.


>
> > Hank
> >

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, that was found. Unlike that.

> How many weeks later was that found?

About two weeks later, as I recall. So it's unlike the curtain rods that
were never found, that Oswald in custody denied bringing to the
Depository. Those curtain rods, the likes of which were never found. Those
curtain rods.

> What about the backyard photo that they never found? You know,
> the one that Marna HID in the BIBLE? What pose was that again?

Marina destroyed one photo of Lee Oswald that Lee had signed to his
Daughter June. Both Lee Oswald's wife Marina and his mother Marguerite
testified to that. That photo?

Marina's testimony:
== QUOTE ==
Mrs. OSWALD. I went to my room. But then I showed Lee's mother the
photograph, where he is photographed with a rifle, and told her he had
shot at Walker and it appeared he might have been shooting at the
President. She said that I should hide that photograph and not show it to
anyone.
On the next day I destroyed one photograph which I had. I think I had two
small ones. When we were in the hotel I burned it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to her about the destruction of the
photographs when she suggested that?
Mrs. OSWALD. She saw it, while I was destroying them.
== UNQUOTE ==

Marguerite's testimony:
== QUOTE ==
So this is where the picture comes in.
While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina
comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match
to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of
paper, and struck a match to it.
Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what
is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it
completely.
Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's
shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state
here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very
beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you
keep picture."
And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then
she decided to get rid of the picture.
She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed
it down the toilet.
== UNQUOTE ==

That photo? That two witnesses testified to the existence of and admitted
to the destruction of? That photo?

That's not at all like the curtain rods that Oswald mentioned to a
co-worker but then denied the existence of in custory when question by
LEO's.

>
> > What's curious is that you ignore the fact that the bag is just long
> > enough to hold Oswald's disassembled rifle that was found in the
> > Depository on the sixth floor and was traced to Lee Harvey Oswald through
> > a variety of proofs.
> >
>
> I don't ignore anything. I just don't jump to conclusions.

HILARIOUS!

So you think it's "jumping to conclusions" to reach the only reasonable
conclusion that's supported by the evidence that's been available for the
past 56 years. Just curious, how much time would have to transpire before
you felt you weren't "jumping to conclusions"? 100 years? 200? A
millenium?

>
> > And that the bag was made just long enough to fit the 36-inch rifle that
> > rifle ordered, but not the 40-inch rifle that Oswald was shipped. And that
>
> Again, you ASSuME that to frame Oswald. It could have been made the fit
> the curtain rods.

And we're back to the non-existent curtain rods there's no evidence of
that were denied by Oswald in custody! And to your assumption that Oswald
was framed, and that somehow I'm responsible for the framing. Hilarious.

We have a 34.8 inch rifle in evidence, a rifle owned and possessed by
Oswald, found in the Depository and linked ballistically to the
assassination. We have a bag with his prints that was found in the
sniper's nest corner from where the shooter was seen to fire and where
ballistic evidence was found tying his rifle to the assassination. And you
characterize as an assumption that the bag is linked to the rifle. And
suggest instead it's just as reasonable that the bag could belong instead
to the curtain rods you can't establish the existence of.

Rinse and repeat...

>
> > on the afternoon of the assassination, Marina admitted to the police at
> > the Paine home that Oswald owned a rifle and it was stored in the Paine
> > garage tied up within a blanket. But when a policeman lifted that blanket,
> > it was determined to be empty.
> >
>
> Duh! Don't try to pretend that I don't know that rifle was found in the
> TSBD. Grow up and lear\n to rgue honestly some day.

Ok, great. Now suggest how Oswald got it there, except through the
subterfuge of telling Frazier he'd be bringing curtain rods to work from
the Paine home.

>
> > And that Oswald in custody denied bringing any long package to the
>
> Right, not long.

The bag is 38 inches by 8 inches. That's over a yard long. It bears
Oswald's print. Why would you characterized this bag as "not long"?

It's long enough to smuggle his rifle into the Depository. Right?

> Did the cops show him the bag they found? Are they ever
> obligated to do that in ANY case?

Probably not until pre-trial discovery. Are you making a point or just
flopping around like a fish on a boat deck trying to distract from the
points I'm making?

Oswald told Frazier the bag contained curtain rods. Oswald told the law
enforcement officers during his interrogation that he only brought his
lunch, that Frazier must be mistaken or thinking of some other time.
Oswald also denied in custody owning a rifle, a rifle his wife had already
admitted he did own to the officers who visited the Paine residence on the
afternoon of the assassination. And as you acknowledged, there are photos
showing Oswald with the rifle.

So reconcile the known evidence with the lies Oswald told - to Frazier and
to the LEOs in his interrogation. Reconcile the known evidence - his rifle
was used to murder the President - with the lies Oswald told in
custody.

Bet you can't.

>
> > Depository on 11/22/63. He told his interrogators that if Wes Frazier said
> > that, Frazier must be thinking of some other time.
> >
> > You tried this curtain rod argument in the past and failed royally to
> > establish any part of it.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ
> >
> > Hank
> >
>
>
> Just shoot a bunch of arrows into the air and maybe one will hit
> something. In any case, never admit anything and alays attack instead of
> answering questions. Haven't you learned anything from Trump?

You're still just accusing me of shooting arrows into the air in the hopes
of hitting something. Wrong analogy. At the link, I punctured every ballon
about the curtain rods you tried to float. Here it is again:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ

You avoided answering the questions that asked for your evidence,
presented nothing but multiple conjectures about why there was no
evidence, and then attacked me.

Hank

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

You just removed the "maybe".

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 1:33:38 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:54:15 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Mark wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 3:03:52 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 7:58:35 AM UT CUT ; that he passed the time
> > > > > > with the cab driver and that the cab driver had told him that the
> > > > > > President was shot. He paid a cab fare of 85 [cents]."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't trust a word of Oswald's interviewers, from Fritz to Kelley to
> > > > > Bookhout.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you trust Kelley? Mark
> > >
> > > He joined Fritz & Bookhout in saying that in the first Saturday (11/23)
> > > interview, Oswald changed his story and said he got off the bus & took a
> > > taxi.
> >
> > So Fritz, Bookhout, Kelley, and Whaley were all lying about Oswald taking
> > a cab?
>
> Uh, yes.

On the basis of what basis? You're aware these men worked for different
law enforcement agencies or was a civilian, right? Why would they all lie
about Oswald taking a cab? Didn't they care about capturing the real
killer(s) of the President?

>
> And that McWatters was wrong / lying about giving out a transfer to
> > a man about 12:40?
>
> McW said nothing about a 12:40 transfer in his affidavit.

He noted the transfer taken from Oswald's shirt was issued by him.
"The transfer #004459 is a transfer from my bus with my punch mark".

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/

There is testimony that this transfer was taken from Oswald's shirt about
4pm on 11/22/63.

McWatters expands on the above remark and explains he gave the transfer to
a man who LEFT THE BUS shortly after boarding.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; he just paid his fare and sat down on the second
cross seat on the right.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not you gave him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Not when he got on; no, sir.
Mr. BALL - You didn't. Did you ever give him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; I gave him one about two blocks from where he got
on.
Mr. BALL - Did he ask you for a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember what he said to you when he asked you for the
transfer?

Mr. McWATTERS - Well, the reason I recall the incident, I had--there was a
lady that when I stopped in this traffic, there was a lady who had a
suitcase and she said, "I have got to make a 1 o'clock train at Union
Station," and she said, "I don't believe from the looks of this traffic
you are going to be held up."
She said, "Would you give me a transfer and I am going to walk on down,"
which is about from where I was at that time about 7 or 8 blocks to Union
Station and she asked me if I would give her a transfer in case I did get
through the traffic if I would pick her up on the way.
So, I said, "I sure will." So I gave her a transfer and opened the door
and as she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about 2 blocks

asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the
block where the lady did.

Mr. BALL - Where was that near, what intersection?
Mr. McWATTERS - It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near
Poydras and Lamar Street. It is a short block, but the main intersection
there is Lamar Street.
Mr. BALL - He had been on the bus about 2 blocks?
Mr. McWATTERS - About 2 blocks; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

>
> And that Whaley was wrong / lying in IDing Oswald and
> > saying he noticed the ID bracelet his passenger was wearing?
> >
>
> And Whaley WASN'T wrong in saying that Oswald was wearing two jackets and
> an overshirt? Funny he could see the bracelet under all that
> outerwear....

You think Whaley was lying, so you're prepared to dismiss anything he
said. If he was lying, why did he said Oswald was wearing two jackets?
Didn't the conspirators prepare him well enough to withstand a little
friendly questioning? (There was no cross-examination, right)?

>
> > Let's assume all that's true. How does that take Oswald's rifle out of
> > Oswald's hand in the Depository at 12:30? As far as I can see, it changes
> > nothing about the evidence of who fired the shots. Where's your claim go?
> > Nowhere.
>
> Goes to conspiracy. Oswald was most probably a shooter in Dealey, but he
> wasn't in on it alone.

Only if you assume everyone above was lying. Then your assumption leads to
a conclusion of conspiracy. But you cannot establish any lying, and
therefore cannot establish a conspiracy by the means of this argument.

>
> >
> > You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
> > but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
> > would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
> > cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.
> >
>
> A cab gets him to Oak Cliff in time to shoot Tippit; a bus does not....

And since we know the shells discarded at the scene were traceable to
Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others, we know Oswald got to
the scene of Tippit's murder in time.

A few questions:

If Oswald didn't do it, who did, and why?

Wasn't Oswald seen North of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes before
Tippit's murder, and seen south of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes
after Tippit's murder? Wouldn't that place Oswald in the vicinity of
Tippit's murder at the time of Tippit's murder?

Wasn't Oswald seen zipping up a jacket at the rooming house as he was
leaving the rooming house (about 15 minutes before Tippit's murder) and
seen without a jacket south of the rooming house (about 15 minutes after
Tippit's murder)? Why did he discard a perfectly good jacket he just went
to the rooming house to obtain?

Or was Mary Bledsoe lying too?

>
>
> > > The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
> > > all the way to Oak Cliff.
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean here?
> > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
> >
> > I see he scratched out that he took the man all the way to Marsalis
> > Street. He's not allowed to correct his own handwritten statement now?
>
> Nice misdirection. McWatters did NOT scratch out the part re picking up a
> woman on Marsalis, then referring her to the man--still on the bus, in Oak
> Cliff!--he had picked up earlier. Either way, Oswald gets to Marsalis, in
> Oak Cliff, on the bus. Try again.

I see a line scratched it... it reads, "I don't remember where I left this
man off, but I believe I left him off at Marsalis." The "but I believe I
left him off at Marsalis" is scratched out. He isn't talking about a woman
there, and he's not saying the man rode all the to Oak Cliff there. He
took that out. And that's not misdirection.

>
>
> >
> > It's curious that you're only telling half the story at best, while
> > accusing law enforcement officers from different agencies on the weekend
> > of 11/22/63 of being in collusion to make up a story about a cab ride that
> > really doesn't put the rifle in Oswald's hands or take it out of Oswald's
> > hands.
> >
>
> Takes the pistol out of Oswald's hands.

Based on your assumptions that Oswald took no cab and that every mention
of the cab is a lie. But those are assumptions only. You can't assume your
way to Oswald's innocence.

>
>
> > If they were going to be in collusion for something, why not collude to
> > claim Oswald admitted in custody the rifle was his and he fired the shots
> > at the President? Instead, you have them in collusion to make up he took a
> > cab ride. What's the point of THAT?
> >
> > And gee, that Oswald took a cab has only be resolved since September of 1964:
> > https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#movements
> >
> > == QUOTE ==
> > Oswald's Movements After Leaving Depository Building
> >
> > The bus ride.--According to the reconstruction of time and events which the Commission found most credible, Lee Harvey Oswald left the building approximately 3 minutes after the assassination. He probably walked east on Elm Street for seven blocks to the corner of Elm and Murphy where he boarded a bus which was heading back in the direction of the Depository Building, on its way to the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. (See Commission Exhibit 1119-A, p. 158.)
> >
> > When Oswald was apprehended, a bus transfer marked for the Lakewood-Marsalis route was found in his shirt pocket. The transfer was dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63" and was punched in two places by the busdriver. On the basis of this punchmark, which was distinctive to each Dallas driver, the transfer was conclusively identified as having been issued by Cecil J. McWatters, a busdriver for the Dallas Transit Co. On the basis of the date and time on the transfer, McWatters was able to testify that the transfer had been issued by him on a trip which passed a check point at St. Paul and Elm Streets at 12:36 p.m., November 22, 1963.
> >
> > McWatters was sure that he left the checkpoint on time and he estimated that it took him 3 to 4 minutes to drive three blocks west from the checkpoint to Field Street, which he reached at about 12:40 p.m. McWatters' recollection is that he issued this transfer to a man who entered his bus just beyond Field Street, where a man beat on the front door of the bus, boarded it and paid his fare. About two blocks later, a woman asked to get off to make a 1 o'clock train at Union Station and requested a transfer which she might use if she got through the traffic.
> > ... So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks [back] asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did.
> > ... It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street.
> > Page 158
> >
> > This page reproduces COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 1119-A: a diagram showing the Whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald between 12:33 p.m. and 1:50 p.m., November 22, 1963.
> >
> > Page 159
> >
> > The man was on the bus approximately 4 minutes.
> > == UNQUOTE ==
> >
> > You cannot get around the physical evidence of the bus transfer found in
> > Oswald's pocket without claiming Whaley was lying about giving that
> > transfer to a man who left the bus shortly after he boarded it.
>
> Transfers can be manufactured very easily.

His affidavit specifies on 11/22/63 which transfer he was talking about:
#004459.

This one: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0499b.htm

> I doubt that the transfer
> actually found on Oswald was the same one which was produced in evidence.
> And I think you mean "McWatters", not "Whaley"....
>

Yes, I meant McWatters.

Your doubts are NOT evidence and don't substitute for evidence.

You know what is evidence?

1. McWatter's testimony.
2. McWatter's affidavit.
3. The transfer.
4. The notation on the small manila envelope that the transfer was taken
off Oswald on 11/22/63.
5. The testimony of the police officer who took it off Oswald.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL. When you took Oswald down for the first showup and waited in the
room outside, the showup room, you searched him?
Mr. SIMS. Yes; Boyd and I.
Mr. BALL What did you find?
Mr. SIMS. I found a bus transfer slip in his shirt pocket.
Mr. BALL. And what else?
Mr. SIMS. Well, Boyd found some .38 cartridges in his pocket.
Mr. BALL. How many?
Mr. SIMS. I don't know--I have it here ---I believe it's five rounds of .38
caliber pistol shells in his left front pocket.
Mr. BALL. Left-front shirt pocket?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir; they were in his pants pocket.
Mr. BALL. Left front?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where was the transfer?
Mr. SIMS. The transfer was in his shirt pocket.
Mr. BALL. Would that be on the left side, I suppose?
Mr. SIMS. I don't know if he's got two pockets or not.
Mr. BALL. Let's take a look at it.
Mr. SIMS. (Examined Exhibit hereinafter referred to).
Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit 150 is being exhibited for the witness'
examination.
Mr. SIMS. Well, he's got two pockets in here and let's see if I have it on
here--what pocket it was--I didn't say--I don't remember what pocket he had
that in.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the transfer?
Mr. SIMS. I went back up to the office and I believe initialed it and placed
it in an envelope for identification.
== UNQUOTE ==

The back of the transfer #004459 is initialed by Richard M. Sims ("rms").
That's the one with McWatters UNIQUE punchmark. That's the one referenced
in McWatters affidavit.

I can go with the evidence or I can go with your unexplained and vague
doubts.

Tough call ---- NOT.

All of that is manufactured or lies to what end? Oswald already killed the
President, according to your own scenario. So what was the purpose of
killing Tippit and framing Oswald for it?

> That man
> > was Oswald. The transfer establishes that. The hard evidence establishes
> > that. Oswald did NOT ride all the way to Marsalis, he got off the bus
> > shortly after boarding it and took a cab to the rooming house.
> >
>
> However, the hard evidence in McWatters' affidavit maintains that Oswald
> took the bus all the way into Oak Cliff, contrary to what you were
> maintaining, above....

Nope, there's a reference to that, and it's scratched out. And what
remains is "I don't remember where I left this man off". And McWatters
said the man left after getting the transfer and was only on the bus a few
blocks.

>
> dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT
> > > > > GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
> > > > > along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
> > > > > recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
> > > > involved?
> > >
> > > I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
> > > happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
> > > board.
> > >
> >
> > Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
> > motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> > In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
> > isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
> >
>
> Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
> picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
> jackets....

Or maybe he picked up Oswald and mistakenly remembered Oswald wearing two
jackets.

They are lost in the reproduction of the photo. You need to look at the
original or a close copy of the original.

>
> Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
> 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
> Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
> the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
> photo.

Assuming Williams didn't move between the Dillard photo and the Powell
photo. Your assumptions are not evidence.

>
> Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
> preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
> added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
> now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
> inconstant sun!

Your failure to understand that reproductions of photographs in books are
not photographs is part of your problem. Look at the original or a first
generation copy of the original. Just because a reproduction of a photo
doesn't show something doesn't mean it's not there in the original.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Sorry, but your claim isn't evidenced. It's still merely an unproven
assertion by you.

Here's your admission of defeat regard the last thread I engaged you on
concerning the supposed curtain rods. I pointed out numerous instances
where you ignored the points I was making and almost as many instances
where you gave excuses for why you had no evidence here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ

Mark wrote, after my post: "I think you have blown both doors off of
Tony's jerry-rigged CT Jalopy."

And your last word on the subject was: "Don't hurt your arm patting
yourself on the back too hard."

Nobody was patting themselves on their own back, so even your concession
speech was off the mark.

>
> >> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was
> >> dented?
> >
> > Quick, introduce a red herring when you can't defend your claims.
>
> Just one example of missing evidence. I have more.

Thanks, that's a great example of a red herring where you change the
subject once again. Do you have more?

>
> >
> >> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
> >> and you don't care.
> >
> > What does this have to do with the length of the rifle or the length of
> > the paper bag?
> >
>
> Nothing, if it is the right bag.

Thanks for admitting your change of subject has nothing to do with the
subject matter under discussion.

> The original or the remake? Do you
> think it was the bag carried out by the cop? Isn't that bag long enough
> for you?

The bag in evidence is the only bag found in the area of the sniper's nest
and is the only long bag that was taken out of the Depository. It was
determined to be long enough to contain the rifle and determined to have
Oswald's fingerprint on it. The only other bag taken out of the Depository
was a small lunch bag that contained chicken bones. That lunch bag was
left on the sixth floor by Bonnie Ray Williams and we have his testimony
concerning that.

>
> > Nothing. Of course, you do what CTs do all the time when pressed, change
> > the subject.
> >
>
> Always the same subject. Mishandling of evidence and you don't care about
> it.

No, mishandling of evidence is not the same as missing evidence. The two
are different, and you're trying to move the goalposts.

Show there was any mishandling of the bag, other than that admitted to in
testimony by a police lab trainee, Studebaker:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/studebak.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the
building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two
were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that
said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after
the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for
identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the
FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate
location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water
pipes in the corner there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was that with reference to those pipes - the paper wrapping?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Laying right beside it - right here.
Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long
and it was doubled over.
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took
it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of
it, and I don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.
== UNQUOTE ==

Studebaker's error was picking up the bag before it was photographed in
place. In that case, the proper procedure at that point is NOT to put it
back into the crime scene and NOT to photograph it in place. The correct
procedure was followed once Studebaker picked it up in error. That's not
missing evidence, that's an error in processing evidence.

You still have no curtain rods to point to. You never will, because the
evidence indicates that was a convenient lie Oswald told to his co-worker
to explain why he was bringing a long package to work on the morning of
11/22/63. When arrested, Oswald did not admit to bringing curtain rods to
work, he in fact denied doing so and claimed that Frazier misunderstood or
was thinking of some other time. Oswald also denied in custody owning a
rifle, a fact his wife on the afternoon of 11/22/63 had already admitted
to.

>
> Like OJ's glove. You don't care about evidence as long as you already have
> your mind made up. But the JURY cared. And YOU are not the Jury. You lost
> the case and you are a sore loser. If the glove don't fit, you must
> Acquit.

Yes, another great example of a red herring. We're not going off the rails
here and following you through the forest as your train of thought crashes
headlong through the trees. Do you have other examples of red herrings you
like to use?

I remind you the subject matter under discussion here is the supposed
curtain rods I keep asking you for evidence of, evidence you cannot
produce and that your own client denied in custody ever existed.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, not me. Never used that alias.

Read the post, I'm not pointing to ONE point, despite your pretense. I'm
pointing out the 15 different ways I established you had no argument and
no evidence.

The points I made that you ignored about the curtain rods are in this post:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/s1fl65TsAAAJ

Pretend some more I'm being vague. That's another logical fallacy by you.

>
> >
> >
> >> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was dented?
> >> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
> >> and you don't care.
> >
> >

Another red herring logical fallacy. We're discussing the supposed curtain
rods you have no evidence of. There is evidence of a dent in the chrome
top of the limo (photographs and testimony), so your example doesn't fit.
Do you have more examples of red herrings you like to use?

Hank

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT
> > > > > GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
> > > > > along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
> > > > > recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
> > > > involved?
> > >
> > > I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
> > > happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
> > > board.
> > >
> >
> > Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
> > motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> > In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
> > isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
> >
>
> Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
> picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
> jackets....
>

It is very illogical thinking to say because you can't think of anything
else, it must be this.

>
> > > >
> > > > > > > And I never said that the witnesses who said that the shooter's window was
> > > > > > > fully open were "wrong"! Odd that the witnesses were almost unanimous in
> > > > > > > their "wrong".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are arguing that the witnesses were almost unanimous in being wrong
> > > > > > about the floor they saw the shooter.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the hearings presented the testimony of witnesses who were almost
> > > > > unanimous re how wide the window was open. No argument necessary.... And
> > > > > they certainly did not think that they were wrong....
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They were also unanimous about which floor they saw the shooter. One floor
> > > > down from the top floor. That would be the 6th floor.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Depends on which source you use. The weekend of the assassination Deputy
> > > Lewis wrote that Euins said "5th floor". That evolved....
> > >
> >
> > One witness. All the others were quite clear it was the 6th floor in the
> > way the described it.
>
> Three witnesses, at least:
>
> "I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open
> all the way"--Bob Edwards (11/22/63 affidavit)
>
> Now, tell me that the fifth-floor east-end windows were not wide open.
> Edwards got it exactly right. But the FBI got him to recant on the floor
> number. But not on that "wide open all the way". That's still out there.
>
> "There was a man on the fifth floor"--Ronald Fischer (11/22/63 affidavit)
>
> And in his testimony, Fischer added that the window was all the way open,
> or almost so, or he could not have seen as much of the suspect. Again,
> fifth floor, wide open window....
>

Oh, so now it is almost wide open. But let's count that as a witness who said it was wide open.

Brennan was quite specific as to which floor he saw the shooter. One floor
below the top floor. No ambiguity about that as compared to what was meant
by wide open and all the forensic evidence supports that Brennan. None
supports the people who thought it was the fifth floor.

> It would be quite easy to miscount the floors but
> > when you describe it as one floor down from the top floor or right below
> > the ledge, that is quite specific about which floor the saw the shooter
> > on. The various descriptions fit the 6th floor. These witnesses were
> > either wrong about the floor they saw the shooter was or they were wrong
> > about how wide open the window was or their idea of what constituted wide
> > open was different from yours. If there is an apparent conflict, the
> > sensible thing to do is turn to the forensic evidence to figure out what
> > these witnesses got right and what they got wrong. All the forensic
> > evidence is on the 6th floor.
>
> Or was moved up there by Fritz.

Well if you are going to hypothesize things for which you have zero
evidence, you can construct just about any scenario you like. If you stick
with what is supported by evidence, the choices are much more limited, as
in one. Oswald did it firing from the 6th floor corner window. Funny how
you would think it more likely that Fritz moved the rifle, the shells, the
rifle bag, and Oswald's fingerprints from the 5th floor to the 6th floor
with no one witnessing this that that witnesses might have miscounted the
floors or were less than precise in describing how wide open the window
was, especially since those witnesses are contradicted by other witnesses
who don't require all this sinister evidence moving in order for their
stories to hold water.

>
>
> Not only was there no forensic evidence
> > found on the 5th floor
>
> Insp. Sawyer radioed that shells were found on the "third floor". Now,
> what might that mean? To reporters, he said "fifth floor". There's your
> answer.
>

It means that Sawyer was confused as to where the shells were actually
found.

> , there were three employees of the TSBD on that
> > floor
>
> I'll grant you two--Williams and Oswald.
>
> and two appeared in the Dillard photo which of course you are forced
> > to invent an excuse to dismiss.
> >
>
> "Invent"? LNs say that you can't see any of the three fifth-floor
> "witnesses" in the Dillard wide-angle, as reproduced in the Warren Report,
> because the three black men are simply lost in the shadows. It had not
> occurred to me that that's just plain wrong, or, that is, why it's
> wrong.
>
> Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
> 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
> Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
> the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
> photo.
>
> Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
> preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
> added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
> now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
> inconstant sun!
>

Right on cue, you provide the excuses I spoke about. You fail to
understand that these apparent discrepancies are nothing more than the
result of developing and printing of the negatives. Depending on
resolution and contrast, some details can be lost during that process.
Enhancing the photos during the developing process is a way of bringing
out greater clarity. There is nothing sinister about this.

[Anthony Marsh]

Never rely on witnesses. Rely on Science. The Scientific evidence proves
that 3 shots were fired from the 6 floor.

>
>>>>
>>>>>> LNs don't like to admit that all the evidence isn't on
>>>>>> their side. Like lawyers, they'll corral every shred of evidence any way
>>>>>> they can....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The forensic evidence is all on the side of those who believe Oswald was
>>>>> the sole shooter. There is no forensic evidence of any shooter anywhere
>>>>> except in the 6th floor nest.
>>>>
>>>> That is, if you believe that Fritz did not pick up the shells in one place
>>>> and put them down in another.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's exactly what I believe. That is what sensible people believe since
>>> there is no evidence that happened. That is something you had to concoct
>>> to fit your belief that the shooter was on the 5th floor. You decided that
>>> the shooter had to be on the fifth floor because you can't comprehend that
>>> maybe their idea of wide open might be different from yours or that they
>>> could have simply been wrong about how wide open the window was.
>>
>>
>> I've gone into this many times,
>
> You've been dead wrong, many times.
>
>> principally with Brennan & Fischer, who
>> gave precise reasons why they said the window was wide open.
>>
>
> They also gave precise definitions as to which floor they saw the shooter.
> One floor below the top floor is very precise and unambiguous.
>

Yes, even if he doesn't know how to count.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, you mean when the HSCA accidentally ruined it?
That does not alter how it looked when it was published. Do you have a
copy negative of the WC eshibit?

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, maybe if the HSCA hadn't accidentally destroyed the original
negative we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2020 11:48 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT
>>>>>> GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
>>>>>> along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
>>>>>> recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
>>>>> involved?
>>>>
>>>> I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
>>>> happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
>>>> board.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
>>> motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
>>> In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
>>> isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
>>>
>>
>> Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
>> picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
>> jackets....
>
> Or maybe he picked up Oswald and mistakenly remembered Oswald wearing two
> jackets.
>

Well, you're simply not trying hard rnough to be silly.
Why don't you say that Oswald was wearing one jacket and taking another
to the dry cleaners? Geesh, no imagination!

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I removed YOU fraom reasonable.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because thy did not look for conspiracy. They were ordered to NOT
speculate about conspiracy, just like you.

>
>
>
>> Maybe you
>> weren't even born when Dallas authorities said it was an International
>> Communist Conspiracy.
>
> They suggested that based on the background of the one suspect in custody,
> Lee Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959. No evidence has been found
> that supports this conclusion.
>
>
>>
>> Maybe you don't even understand that an assassination by a lone shooter
>> could still be a conbspiracy.
>
> There's no evidence Oswald was working with anyone else.

That's what I said. That's WHY I think it was a conspiracy and Oswald
was the Patsy.

>
>> Maybe you're not even aware of the kooks on
>> your side claim that Castro was behind it, or maybe the KGB.
>
> I'm pretty sure the people suggesting that are conspiracy theorists.

No, silly. Do some reading. Lots of people on your side think it was a
conspiracy.

>
>>
>>> except in the 6th floor nest. Eye and earwitness testimony provides fodder
>>> for just about anything one wants to believe because witnesses get some
>>> things right and some things wrong.
>>
>> How many eye witnesses said a UFO did it?
>> Have you ever seen the show Dark Skies?
>
> Have you ever read the 26 volumes of hearings and evidence? Your arguments

Of course, Silly. I have one of the volumes on my bookshelf and several
copes of the report. Want one? Just post your real name and real adresss
and I'll mail you one.

> show no familiarity with the subject matter discussed therein. You simply
> repeat a lot of stuff garnered from conspiracy books.
>

I debuk a lot of those conspiracy books.


> Hank
>
>

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 4:38:38 PM UTC-4, jec CUT psychologists on the
> > > board.
> > > CUT ambiguous.

> >
> > >
> > > The rifle
> > > > was on the 6th floor. The shells were on the 6th floor.
> > >
> > > After Fritz put them down there.
> > >
> >
> > Poppycock.
> >
> > I suppose he moved the rifle too.
>
> He has yet to explain (that I've seen) what was the purpose in moving all
> the evidence up one flight. I suspect his argument goes nowhere and he
> can't explain what was the purpose in moving it all to the sixth floor and
> getting the men known to be on the fifth floor to lie about their
> whereabouts at the time of the assassination.

The Omnipresent Oswald
Lee Harvey Oswald seemed to be everywhere just after 12:30pm, Nov. 22, 1963. Depository front entrance (Harry Holmes, as per Oswald). Small room on the ground floor (Ochus Campbell). First floor (reporter Kent Biffle, as apparently per Roy Truly). First floor lunch room (Homicide Capt. Fritz, as per Oswald). Second floor (Officer Marrion Baker & Truly). Third or fourth floor (Baker's initial affidavit). Fourth floor (DPD Det. Marvin Johnson, as per Baker, in the Homicide Bureau).
I have to vote for Johnson. (Although the Biffle-Truly connection is still tantalizing.) If Baker and Truly did not run into Oswald before reaching the fourth floor, then it follows that Oswald was in no hurry to get out of the building, and he was supposed to have been. He was, after all, an employee there. And--more importantly--he had assurances that he could not be fingered. He was safe--or felt that he was safe.
The key: The baffling, pre-assassination antics of the sniper. Witnesses Ron Fischer, Carolyn Walther, and Howard Brennan all described a man behaving very strangely for someone who was about to shoot the President. Fischer could even see his "sport shirt and slacks" and said that he was "laying down there or in a funny position anyway"; Brennan said that the man "sat sideways", at one point, "on the window sill"; Mrs. Walther said that the man was "leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge". The shooter-in-waiting not only found himself in the public eye--he seemed to seek it out. Why was he not, instead, doing his best to conceal himself?
Answer: Because the Dallas Police would, a short time later, need an APB re a slender white male. And they were not going to get a witness description to that effect either during or immediately after the shooting--when the gun could be pinpointed and gunfire could be returned--when the man would all but disappear into the shadows. The APB material would have to be gathered BEFORE the shooting. And it could come from no one and nowhere else. Yes, the key to the assassination of President Kennedy lay in the minute or two before the assassination. And that minute or two of performance art betrays coordination, coordination between this high-wire artist and, at least, the Dallas Police. No performance, no Fischer, Walther, and Brennan, no basis for the APB, even in retrospect.
Best to ignore the photos of the depository facade prepared expessly, I maintain, for the Warren Commisson. Trust more to belatedly pubished material like the Powell slide. And note, here, that Brennan (counsel David Belin's star witness) testified that he did not see anyone in the fifth-floor end window, the window which purported witness Harold Norman was supposed to have occupied. The Powell reflects Brennan's testimony; the Dillard telephoto shot does not. Then, note that, although Brennan came to think that he saw the shooter on the sixth floor, he maintained that that window was open wide, "just like the windows on the fifth floor, immediately below". Fischer echoed Brennan when he testified that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window were not fully open.
Norman's striking absence from the end window on the fifth floor--in testimony (Brennan) photography (the Powell slide), and Norman's own account (at least until the next Tuesday, Nov. 26th; before that, he seems not to have made any statement at all about the fifth floor)--Norman's absence leaves a vacancy. A suspect at a wide-open end window--described in the respective testimonies of Brennan, Fischer, and Bob Edwards--handily fills that vacancy.
It had to happen on the fifth floor. The man who was acting, before 12:30, like he hadn't a care in the world, could do so because he knew that he was far enough above the crowd to avoid positive IDs, and because any photograph taken of either him or his rifle would have to be suppressed: The infamous "sniper's nest", on the sixth floor, would absorb the world's attention. A photo of a rifle on the fifth floor would have to be squelched, or there might seem to be TWO "sniper's nests". The sniper's pre-12:30 antics in the window rule out the sixth floor--no assurances there for a shooter, whose window-sill antics could have been photographed, and the photographs published--no problem, at least for the assassination organizers.
I find myself forced, finally, to reject all first-floor sightings of Oswald circa 12:31. (If it could be proved that Truly was indeed Biffle's source, I might have to reconsider.) All he had to do--in that situation--in order to latch onto an alibi, was to step outside (as maintained elsewhere) or maybe create a little scene, at 12:31, like he did in Capt. Fritz's office, later. Or, rushing out, he might happen run into a cop--or someone looking for a restroom--at the front door, rushing in. In fact, the cop was apparently Oswald's alibi, as per Holmes. The conspirators absolutely could not allow for such chance encounters.
In order, then, to be a perfect patsy, Oswald would also had to have been the fifth-floor shooter, and model for the police apb. It was a prerequisite.
In a near-surreal incident that day, Oswald all but admitted that he was the assassin. But Warren Report believers and skeptics alike are uncomfortable with the admission, because it offers much to both sides. According to bus driver Cecil McWatters' same-day affidavit, at about 12:45, a man on his bus who resembled Oswald said that the "president was shot in the temple". McWatters later recanted and named one Roy Milton Jones as the man. However, Jones told the FBI that he was on a bus which was boarded by police and held up for an hour--it was not McWatters' 12:45 bus, then, which he was on. In fact, Jones told the FBI that no one on his bus said anything about anyone being "shot in the temple", while the phrase was spoken at least twice on McWatters' bus, first by Oswald, then by McWatters himself. Goodbye, Jones; hello, again, Oswald.
The "temple" speaker, then, was, after all, Oswald, whom McWatters ID'd in a lineup 11/22/63. At 12:45, very few people could have said what he said. But this incriminating witness evidence was also--in another part of the forest--exculpating evidence: If Oswald was on McWatters' bus as far as Marsalis, in Oak Cliff--and, in his affidavit, McWatters said that he was--then he could not have gotten there in time to shoot Officer J.D. Tippit. Guilty on one count, innocent on the other. Cold comfort for skeptics and believers alike.
dcw

[donald willis]

The WC concluded No conspiracy based on since-disproven evidence.

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 8:48:49 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 1:33:38 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:54:15 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Mark wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 3:03:52 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 7:58:35 AM UT CUT ; that he passed the time
> > > > > > > with the cab driver and that the cab driver had told him that the
> > > > > > > President was shot. He paid a cab fare of 85 [cents]."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't trust a word of Oswald's interviewers, from Fritz to Kelley to
> > > > > > Bookhout.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you trust Kelley? Mark
> > > >
> > > > He joined Fritz & Bookhout in saying that in the first Saturday (11/23)
> > > > interview, Oswald changed his story and said he got off the bus & took a
> > > > taxi.
> > >
> > > So Fritz, Bookhout, Kelley, and Whaley were all lying about Oswald taking
> > > a cab?
> >
> > Uh, yes.
>
> On the basis of what basis? You're aware these men worked for different
> law enforcement agencies or was a civilian, right? Why would they all lie
> about Oswald taking a cab? Didn't they care about capturing the real
> killer(s) of the President?
>

One of them--Fritz--actually did NOT want the "real killers" caught, at
least not all of them. Because he was one of them.

>
> >
> > And that McWatters was wrong / lying about giving out a transfer to
> > > a man about 12:40?
> >
> > McW said nothing about a 12:40 transfer in his affidavit.
>
> He noted the transfer taken from Oswald's shirt was issued by him.
> "The transfer #004459 is a transfer from my bus with my punch mark".
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/

I misspoke. But the transfer that he made out was most probably not the
same transfer later submitted in evidence.

Who would have thought that Whaley would say what he said?

> >
> > > Let's assume all that's true. How does that take Oswald's rifle out of
> > > Oswald's hand in the Depository at 12:30? As far as I can see, it changes
> > > nothing about the evidence of who fired the shots. Where's your claim go?
> > > Nowhere.
> >
> > Goes to conspiracy. Oswald was most probably a shooter in Dealey, but he
> > wasn't in on it alone.
>
> Only if you assume everyone above was lying. Then your assumption leads to
> a conclusion of conspiracy. But you cannot establish any lying, and
> therefore cannot establish a conspiracy by the means of this argument.
>

Bookhout did one interview report, with Hosty, based on the first Oswald
interview, then did a later one which contradicted the first: In the
first, there was no mention of him running into a cop on the 2nd floor; in
the second one, there was. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is....

> >
> > >
> > > You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
> > > but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
> > > would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
> > > cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.
> > >
> >
> > A cab gets him to Oak Cliff in time to shoot Tippit; a bus does not....
>
> And since we know the shells discarded at the scene were traceable to
> Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others, we know Oswald got to
> the scene of Tippit's murder in time.
>

The shells found at the scene were not the same shells in evidence later.

> A few questions:
>
> If Oswald didn't do it, who did, and why?
>
> Wasn't Oswald seen North of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes before
> Tippit's murder, and seen south of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes
> after Tippit's murder? Wouldn't that place Oswald in the vicinity of
> Tippit's murder at the time of Tippit's murder?
>
> Wasn't Oswald seen zipping up a jacket at the rooming house as he was
> leaving the rooming house (about 15 minutes before Tippit's murder)

No. The landlady did not mention this incident to the first cops to the
scene. She came up with this vignette later in the day.

and
> seen without a jacket south of the rooming house (about 15 minutes after
> Tippit's murder)? Why did he discard a perfectly good jacket he just went
> to the rooming house to obtain?
>

> Or was Mary Bledsoe lying too? Do you mean Mrs. Roberts?

>
> >
> > > > The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
> > > > all the way to Oak Cliff.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you mean here?
> > > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
> > >
> > > I see he scratched out that he took the man all the way to Marsalis
> > > Street. He's not allowed to correct his own handwritten statement now?
> >
> > Nice misdirection. McWatters did NOT scratch out the part re picking up a
> > woman on Marsalis, then referring her to the man--still on the bus, in Oak
> > Cliff!--he had picked up earlier. Either way, Oswald gets to Marsalis, in
> > Oak Cliff, on the bus. Try again.
>
> I see a line scratched it... it reads, "I don't remember where I left this
> man off, but I believe I left him off at Marsalis." The "but I believe I
> left him off at Marsalis" is scratched out. He isn't talking about a woman
> there, and he's not saying the man rode all the to Oak Cliff there. He
> took that out. And that's not misdirection.
>

How could Oswald not have been on the bus on Marsalis, according to the
affidavit? McWatters pointed him out to the woman who got on the bus on
Marsalis. Your "there" is, again, misdirection, from one part of the
affidavit to another. Try again.

Testimony so absurd & garbled that the Warren Commission could not accept
McWatters' word that he saw Oswald! "McWatters' recollection alone was
too vague to be a basis for placing Oswald on the bus." (p159)


> 2. McWatter's affidavit.

Yes! Before your re-writing of it.

Sims--one of Fritz's men. He and Boyd somehow missed their boss's picking
up of the hulls (which at least two sheriff's deputies saw). They were
clearly part of the cover-up.

> I can go with the evidence or I can go with your unexplained and vague
> doubts.
>
> Tough call ---- NOT.
>
> All of that is manufactured or lies to what end? Oswald already killed the
> President, according to your own scenario. So what was the purpose of
> killing Tippit and framing Oswald for it?
>

To obtain witnesses. As he told his men (recounted in "With Malice"), he
needed witnesses, of which there weren't many in Dealey. (page 207)

>
> > That man
> > > was Oswald. The transfer establishes that. The hard evidence establishes
> > > that. Oswald did NOT ride all the way to Marsalis, he got off the bus
> > > shortly after boarding it and took a cab to the rooming house.
> > >
> >
> > However, the hard evidence in McWatters' affidavit maintains that Oswald
> > took the bus all the way into Oak Cliff, contrary to what you were
> > maintaining, above....
>
> Nope, there's a reference to that, and it's scratched out. And what
> remains is "I don't remember where I left this man off".

Yes, again ignore where McWatters said that he let a woman on the bus ON
MARSALIS. Then said that he referred the woman to Oswald. How could
McWatters do that if Oswald was not on the bus on Marsalis?

Misdirection.

And McWatters
> said the man left after getting the transfer and was only on the bus a few
> blocks.

How could he know that if he didn't know where he'd let the man off?

He also said that the man he ID'd in the lineup was Oswald, then, later,
he said it was not. Then he again said that it was. If I follow the
convolutions of his testimony labyrinth.

dcw

[donald willis]

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 9:26:25 AM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT
> > > > > > GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
> > > > > > along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
> > > > > > recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
> > > > > involved?
> > > >
> > > > I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
> > > > happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
> > > > board.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
> > > motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> > > In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
> > > isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
> > >
> >
> > Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
> > picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
> > jackets....
> >
>
> It is very illogical thinking to say because you can't think of anything
> else, it must be this.
>

His jackets were not radioactive. But you can't even hazard a guess as to
why he said what he said....

You'll clutch at anything! Fischer certainly did not say it was just half
open.... You're really reaching now.

> Brennan was quite specific as to which floor he saw the shooter. One floor
> below the top floor. No ambiguity about that as compared to what was meant
> by wide open

No ambiguity about that either. Brennan said it was open just like the
windows on the floor below... the fifth floor. So at best his testimony
contradicts itself....

and all the forensic evidence supports that Brennan. None
> supports the people who thought it was the fifth floor.
>

Brennan's estimation of how wide the window was open, by itself, does.
His designation of floor, by itself, says 6th floor.

> > It would be quite easy to miscount the floors but
> > > when you describe it as one floor down from the top floor or right below
> > > the ledge, that is quite specific about which floor the saw the shooter
> > > on. The various descriptions fit the 6th floor. These witnesses were
> > > either wrong about the floor they saw the shooter was or they were wrong
> > > about how wide open the window was or their idea of what constituted wide
> > > open was different from yours. If there is an apparent conflict, the
> > > sensible thing to do is turn to the forensic evidence to figure out what
> > > these witnesses got right and what they got wrong. All the forensic
> > > evidence is on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Or was moved up there by Fritz.
>
> Well if you are going to hypothesize things for which you have zero
> evidence

Two deputies said that Fritz picked up the shells.

, you can construct just about any scenario you like. If you stick
> with what is supported by evidence, the choices are much more limited, as
> in one. Oswald did it firing from the 6th floor corner window. Funny how
> you would think it more likely that Fritz moved the rifle

Didn't say that. It was photographed on the 5th floor, which looks just
like the 6th floor, inside & out, so it didn't matter. However, the
shells had to be moved since they were supposedly found in the "nest"....

, the shells, the
> rifle bag, and Oswald's fingerprints from the 5th floor to the 6th floor
> with no one witnessing this that that witnesses might have miscounted the
> floors or were less than precise in describing how wide open the window
> was, especially since those witnesses are contradicted by other witnesses
> who don't require all this sinister evidence moving in order for their
> stories to hold water.
>
> >
> >
> > Not only was there no forensic evidence
> > > found on the 5th floor
> >
> > Insp. Sawyer radioed that shells were found on the "third floor". Now,
> > what might that mean? To reporters, he said "fifth floor". There's your
> > answer.
> >
>
> It means that Sawyer was confused as to where the shells were actually
> found.
>

Ah! Confusion--the default for LNers when confronted by evidence they
don't like. And Sawyer was there on the floor when the shells were
found....

>
> > , there were three employees of the TSBD on that
> > > floor
> >
> > I'll grant you two--Williams and Oswald.
> >
> > and two appeared in the Dillard photo which of course you are forced
> > > to invent an excuse to dismiss.
> > >
> >
> > "Invent"? LNs say that you can't see any of the three fifth-floor
> > "witnesses" in the Dillard wide-angle, as reproduced in the Warren Report,
> > because the three black men are simply lost in the shadows. It had not
> > occurred to me that that's just plain wrong, or, that is, why it's
> > wrong.
> >
> > Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
> > 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
> > Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
> > the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
> > photo.
> >
> > Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
> > preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
> > added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
> > now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
> > inconstant sun!
> >
>
> Right on cue, you provide the excuses I spoke about.

I can't win. If I don't answer, you LNs say No Response. You like to
have it both ways.

You fail to
> understand that these apparent discrepancies are nothing more than the
> result of developing and printing of the negatives. Depending on
> resolution and contrast, some details can be lost during that process.
> Enhancing the photos during the developing process is a way of bringing
> out greater clarity. There is nothing sinister about this.

"Details"? Williams was in the SUN. That image could hardly have been
lost. The edge of the box in the "nest" is visible in the same WR photo
(p67), just above--of course, because it was IN THE SUN.

And, contradictorily, in the Trask version of the photo, the image of
Stephen Wilson on the 2nd floor has LESS clarity. No LN has explained
that....

So all you have to do is explain Wilson and the sun....

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:07:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/25/2020 7:13 PM, Mark wrote:

> > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 3:03:37 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2020 8:32 PM, Mark wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 6:09:47 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2020 7:13 PM, Steven M. Galbraith wrote:

> >>>>> If the paper bag was planted then why would the planters plant a 38 inch
> >>>>> (and too short) bag? If they also planted the rifle then they would know
> >>>>> that this shorter bag wouldn't work. Wouldn't they measure the rifle
> >>>>> before hand? To see how long the paper had to be? Or wouldn't they realize
> >>>>> as they put the rifle in the bag that, "Oops, it's too short. Let's make
> >>>>> another bag to cover it"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again: Oswald thought the rifle was 38 inches because that was what he
> >>>>> ordered; and that's why he made the bag that length. The planters, having
> >>>>> access to the paper - and also having the rifle too, would make a bag long
> >>>>> enough to cover the (longer) rifle. They knew the correct lengths that
> >>>>> Oswald didn't. And they had more paper, wouldn't they? Oswald just had
> >>>>> that paper he took from the TSBD. He couldn't go back and get more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bag was discovered around 2:30 or so or about two hours after the
> >>>>> shooting. This was BEFORE Frazier and/or Randle were interviewed and
> >>>>> before they told the police about seeing Oswald with a large package. So
> >>>>> how did the planters know that Frazier and Randle would support their
> >>>>> action?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Silly. No one claims that the bag was planted. No one on THIS planet is
> >>>> THAT stupid. Isn't it strange how the bag is just long enough to hold
> >>>> the curtain rods?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The only thing strange is that you STILL believe the bag held curtain
> >>> rods.
> >>>
> >>> What curtain rods? Where did they go? What happened to them? Mark
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> In the National Archives.
> >

> > When it comes to the evidence recovered, you have become a reactionary
> > know-nothing.
> >
>
> Reactionary? What kind oa whimpy insult is that?
> You already know that I am skeptical of the evidence.
> Call me a skeptic.
>
> > The only curtain rods in the National Archives came from the Paine garage
> > after the assassination, and you know it.
> >
>
> No, and neither do you. I specialize in digging up evidence that no one
> else knew about.

You specialize in making up stuff. The curtain rods in the archives come
from the Paine garage, and we covered that 15 months ago here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/B4LEwr3APlE/ovrIVCK5GAAJ

In fact, all you need to know is the name of the evidence .jpg you
yourself cited to know your claim about the curtain rods is false.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/32/Photo_naraevid_PaineCurtainRods-1.jpg

That's right, they are "Paine Curtain Rods", not "Oswald Curtain Rods".

>
> >
> >> What happened to the chrome topping from the limousine which was dented?
> >> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
> >> and you don't care.
> >

> > I would if you could provide evidence that evidence was destroyed and
> > hidden.
> >
>
> Not an answer. You ducked the question.

No, it's a loaded question, where you imbed within the question the very
point you need to prove. "Do you still beat your wife" is a classic
example of such a question.


>
> > All you have is an opinion that a Communist-couldn't-have-killed-Kennedy.
> >
>
> I never said that a Communist fouldn't havd killed JFK.

Great, we're making real progress, as long as you don't backslide.

> I can not be sure who fired whch shots.

There you go backsliding. I was afraid of that. There's no hard evidence
of any shooter other than the one in the Depository, using Oswald's rifle.

> Were the really working for the CIA or were they working for Castro?

Another loaded question. You need to stop doing that.


>
> > Mark
> >

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Your silly conclusions aren't proof of anything other than that you are
really bad at figuring.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Keep those unfounded accusations coming.

> >
> > >
> > > And that McWatters was wrong / lying about giving out a transfer to
> > > > a man about 12:40?
> > >
> > > McW said nothing about a 12:40 transfer in his affidavit.
> >
> > He noted the transfer taken from Oswald's shirt was issued by him.
> > "The transfer #004459 is a transfer from my bus with my punch mark".
> >
> > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
>
> I misspoke. But the transfer that he made out was most probably not the
> same transfer later submitted in evidence.
>

As I was saying.

Why is it a lie if a person mentions and event in one account and not in
another? That is neither a lie nor a contradiction. It is simply an
omission.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
> > > > but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
> > > > would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
> > > > cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A cab gets him to Oak Cliff in time to shoot Tippit; a bus does not....
> >
> > And since we know the shells discarded at the scene were traceable to
> > Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others, we know Oswald got to
> > the scene of Tippit's murder in time.
> >
>
> The shells found at the scene were not the same shells in evidence later.
>

And still another unfounded accusation.

>
> > A few questions:
> >
> > If Oswald didn't do it, who did, and why?
> >
> > Wasn't Oswald seen North of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes before
> > Tippit's murder, and seen south of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes
> > after Tippit's murder? Wouldn't that place Oswald in the vicinity of
> > Tippit's murder at the time of Tippit's murder?
> >
> > Wasn't Oswald seen zipping up a jacket at the rooming house as he was
> > leaving the rooming house (about 15 minutes before Tippit's murder)
>
> No. The landlady did not mention this incident to the first cops to the
> scene. She came up with this vignette later in the day.
>

This is illogical beyond belief.

> and
> > seen without a jacket south of the rooming house (about 15 minutes after
> > Tippit's murder)? Why did he discard a perfectly good jacket he just went
> > to the rooming house to obtain?
> >
>
>
> > Or was Mary Bledsoe lying too? Do you mean Mrs. Roberts?
> >
> > >
> > > > > The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
> > > > > all the way to Oak Cliff.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean here?
> > > > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
> > > >
> > > > I see he scratched out that he took the man all the way to Marsalis
> > > > Street. He's not allowed to correct his own handwritten statement now?
> > >
> > > Nice misdirection. McWatters did NOT scratch out the part re picking up a
> > > woman on Marsalis, then referring her to the man--still on the bus, in Oak
> > > Cliff!--he had picked up earlier. Either way, Oswald gets to Marsalis, in
> > > Oak Cliff, on the bus. Try again.
> >
> > I see a line scratched it... it reads, "I don't remember where I left this
> > man off, but I believe I left him off at Marsalis." The "but I believe I
> > left him off at Marsalis" is scratched out. He isn't talking about a woman
> > there, and he's not saying the man rode all the to Oak Cliff there. He
> > took that out. And that's not misdirection.
> >
>
> How could Oswald not have been on the bus on Marsalis, according to the
> affidavit? McWatters pointed him out to the woman who got on the bus on
> Marsalis. Your "there" is, again, misdirection, from one part of the
> affidavit to another. Try again.
>

There is no reason McWatters would have known at the time Oswald was a
person of note. A bus driver picks up hundreds of passengers a day. Do you
think he is going to remember where he picked up each of them and where he
dropped them off. That's absurd.

That is an accurate assessment. Fortunately we have McWatters bus transfer
found on Oswald when arrested that confirms he got off McWatters bus. We
also have the testimony of Mary Bledsoe who recognized Oswald as someone
she had known earlier. Those two pieces of evidence are far more
compelling than your screwy figuring.

Amazing how you try to support one silly assumption with another.

>
> > I can go with the evidence or I can go with your unexplained and vague
> > doubts.
> >
> > Tough call ---- NOT.
> >
> > All of that is manufactured or lies to what end? Oswald already killed the
> > President, according to your own scenario. So what was the purpose of
> > killing Tippit and framing Oswald for it?
> >
>
> To obtain witnesses. As he told his men (recounted in "With Malice"), he
> needed witnesses, of which there weren't many in Dealey. (page 207)
>

This is getting bizarre.

> >
> > > That man
> > > > was Oswald. The transfer establishes that. The hard evidence establishes
> > > > that. Oswald did NOT ride all the way to Marsalis, he got off the bus
> > > > shortly after boarding it and took a cab to the rooming house.
> > > >
> > >
> > > However, the hard evidence in McWatters' affidavit maintains that Oswald
> > > took the bus all the way into Oak Cliff, contrary to what you were
> > > maintaining, above....
> >
> > Nope, there's a reference to that, and it's scratched out. And what
> > remains is "I don't remember where I left this man off".
>
> Yes, again ignore where McWatters said that he let a woman on the bus ON
> MARSALIS. Then said that he referred the woman to Oswald. How could
> McWatters do that if Oswald was not on the bus on Marsalis?
>
> Misdirection.

The misdirections are all coming from you but nobody is following them.

>
> And McWatters
> > said the man left after getting the transfer and was only on the bus a few
> > blocks.
>
> How could he know that if he didn't know where he'd let the man off?
>
> He also said that the man he ID'd in the lineup was Oswald, then, later,
> he said it was not. Then he again said that it was. If I follow the
> convolutions of his testimony labyrinth.
>

One more example of how witnesses get some things right and some things
wrong. We should never assume what a witness says is right nor assume it
is wrong. What we should do is look for corroboration or refutation. If
something a witness says is corroborated by other evidence, that gives it
credibility. If that same witness tells us something that is refuted by
other evidence, then we should doubt that part of their account. It's not
an all or nothing proposition. It simply requires a little common sense to
separate the good from the bad.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Brennan's estimation of how wide open the window was is not forensic
evidence. Any witness' testimony is subject to scrutiny because such
evidence is often faulty, not because people lie but because they don't
remember every detail but are asked to do so anyway.

The Dillard photo establishes that there is a conflict between where
Brennan said he saw the shooter and how wide open the window was. The way
a sensible person resolves such conflicts is to compare them to the body
of evidence and see what fits and what doesn't. Brennan's placement of the
shooter conforms to where the shells were found, the floor the rifle and
the rifle bag were found on, where the fingerprints belonging to the
rifle's owner were found, and where most of the witnesses who saw the
shooter place him. You are willing to throw all of that out and concoct
unsupported tales of Fritz moving evidence from the fifth floor to the
sixth for no apparent reason and bunch of people telling a whole lot of
lies simply because Brennan's recollection of how wide open the window was
conflicts with what the photo shows. You are unwilling to accept that
Brennan simply got that part wrong. You want to believe you have figured
out something that nobody else has been able to do during the past 56
years.

>
> > > It would be quite easy to miscount the floors but
> > > > when you describe it as one floor down from the top floor or right below
> > > > the ledge, that is quite specific about which floor the saw the shooter
> > > > on. The various descriptions fit the 6th floor. These witnesses were
> > > > either wrong about the floor they saw the shooter was or they were wrong
> > > > about how wide open the window was or their idea of what constituted wide
> > > > open was different from yours. If there is an apparent conflict, the
> > > > sensible thing to do is turn to the forensic evidence to figure out what
> > > > these witnesses got right and what they got wrong. All the forensic
> > > > evidence is on the 6th floor.
> > >
> > > Or was moved up there by Fritz.
> >
> > Well if you are going to hypothesize things for which you have zero
> > evidence
>
> Two deputies said that Fritz picked up the shells.
>

Nobody said he carried them from one floor to another. You made that part
up.

> , you can construct just about any scenario you like. If you stick
> > with what is supported by evidence, the choices are much more limited, as
> > in one. Oswald did it firing from the 6th floor corner window. Funny how
> > you would think it more likely that Fritz moved the rifle
>
> Didn't say that. It was photographed on the 5th floor, which looks just
> like the 6th floor, inside & out, so it didn't matter. However, the
> shells had to be moved since they were supposedly found in the "nest"....
>

Where is your evidence that the photograph of where the rifle was found
was taken on the fifth floor?

>
> , the shells, the
> > rifle bag, and Oswald's fingerprints from the 5th floor to the 6th floor
> > with no one witnessing this that that witnesses might have miscounted the
> > floors or were less than precise in describing how wide open the window
> > was, especially since those witnesses are contradicted by other witnesses
> > who don't require all this sinister evidence moving in order for their
> > stories to hold water.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not only was there no forensic evidence
> > > > found on the 5th floor
> > >
> > > Insp. Sawyer radioed that shells were found on the "third floor". Now,
> > > what might that mean? To reporters, he said "fifth floor". There's your
> > > answer.
> > >
> >
> > It means that Sawyer was confused as to where the shells were actually
> > found.
> >
>
> Ah! Confusion--the default for LNers when confronted by evidence they
> don't like. And Sawyer was there on the floor when the shells were
> found....
>

It is not a default. It is a conclusion sensible people draw when
witnesses report things we that conflict with other things we know,
primarily what the forensic evidence tells us. Forensic evidence is highly
reliable. Eyewitness testimony from fallible human beings is not. It might
be right and it might be wrong. We use other evidence to confirm or refute
the things witnesses tell us. Or we can take your approach and assume the
things you want to be true are true and concoct reasons to dismiss any and
all evidence that doesn't conform to that chosen belief.

> >
> > > , there were three employees of the TSBD on that
> > > > floor
> > >
> > > I'll grant you two--Williams and Oswald.
> > >
> > > and two appeared in the Dillard photo which of course you are forced
> > > > to invent an excuse to dismiss.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Invent"? LNs say that you can't see any of the three fifth-floor
> > > "witnesses" in the Dillard wide-angle, as reproduced in the Warren Report,
> > > because the three black men are simply lost in the shadows. It had not
> > > occurred to me that that's just plain wrong, or, that is, why it's
> > > wrong.
> > >
> > > Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
> > > 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
> > > Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
> > > the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
> > > photo.
> > >
> > > Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
> > > preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
> > > added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
> > > now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
> > > inconstant sun!
> > >
> >
> > Right on cue, you provide the excuses I spoke about.
>
> I can't win. If I don't answer, you LNs say No Response. You like to
> have it both ways.
>

Your answers make no sense. They are based on a series of assumptions and
illogical conclusions.

>
> You fail to
> > understand that these apparent discrepancies are nothing more than the
> > result of developing and printing of the negatives. Depending on
> > resolution and contrast, some details can be lost during that process.
> > Enhancing the photos during the developing process is a way of bringing
> > out greater clarity. There is nothing sinister about this.
>
> "Details"? Williams was in the SUN. That image could hardly have been
> lost. The edge of the box in the "nest" is visible in the same WR photo
> (p67), just above--of course, because it was IN THE SUN.
>

A black man with a dark shirt did not stand out in a low resolution, low
contrast version of the photo. Go figure. When the print is enlarged and
the contrast sharpened, we clearly see him. That is the reason for
enlarging and sharpening photos. The same has ben done with the Zapruder
film. By enlarging and stabilizing the film we are able to pick up clues
that the WC was not able to do. For example for years it was widely
believed that when JFK reappeared in frame 225, he was already reacting to
having been shot. He had been shot but had not started to react. The way
we can determine that is by comparing the position of his right hand in
frame 224 to where it was in 225 and see it was still moving downward at
that timeframe. His arms didn't start moving upward until one frame later.
We would not have been able to determine that looking at an unenhanced
version of the Z-film but by enlarging and stabilizing it, we are able to
see that very important detail.

> And, contradictorily, in the Trask version of the photo, the image of
> Stephen Wilson on the 2nd floor has LESS clarity. No LN has explained
> that....
>
> So all you have to do is explain Wilson and the sun....
>

I'm going to take a wild guess and say Stephen Wilson was a white guy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why can't YOU say that UFOs did it?
Why can't you say that the Secret Service fired the fatal shot?
I don't see YOU shooting down those ideas.

> with what is supported by evidence, the choices are much more limited, as
> in one. Oswald did it firing from the 6th floor corner window. Funny how
> you would think it more likely that Fritz moved the rifle, the shells, the
> rifle bag, and Oswald's fingerprints from the 5th floor to the 6th floor

Fingerprints on what? On the floor? Do you know how hard it is to plant
fingerprints on the floor? I've done it. It ain't easy. Certainly
something that Fritz the Klutz could never accomplish.

> with no one witnessing this that that witnesses might have miscounted the
> floors or were less than precise in describing how wide open the window

No one? You mean like being filmed in the act by Alyea? Isn't it
convenient how that film magically disappeared?

> was, especially since those witnesses are contradicted by other witnesses
> who don't require all this sinister evidence moving in order for their
> stories to hold water.
>

Never rely on witnesses.

>>
>>
>> Not only was there no forensic evidence
>>> found on the 5th floor
>>
>> Insp. Sawyer radioed that shells were found on the "third floor". Now,
>> what might that mean? To reporters, he said "fifth floor". There's your
>> answer.
>>
>
> It means that Sawyer was confused as to where the shells were actually
> found.

EVERYONE was confused. This was the DPD. Not CSI/LA.

>
>
>> , there were three employees of the TSBD on that
>>> floor
>>
>> I'll grant you two--Williams and Oswald.
>>
>> and two appeared in the Dillard photo which of course you are forced
>>> to invent an excuse to dismiss.
>>>
>>
>> "Invent"? LNs say that you can't see any of the three fifth-floor
>> "witnesses" in the Dillard wide-angle, as reproduced in the Warren Report,
>> because the three black men are simply lost in the shadows. It had not
>> occurred to me that that's just plain wrong, or, that is, why it's
>> wrong.
>>
>> Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
>> 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
>> Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
>> the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
>> photo.
>>
>> Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
>> preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
>> added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
>> now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
>> inconstant sun!
>>
>
> Right on cue, you provide the excuses I spoke about. You fail to
> understand that these apparent discrepancies are nothing more than the
> result of developing and printing of the negatives. Depending on

Or ruining the negative. Don't be so negative.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do we have to explain the SUN? It does not need defending. It just
goes along and does its job. Sometimes things block the SUN and cast
shadows. Some people can see better in shadows than others. It doesn't
help when you look directly into the Sun!

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

But you don't mind when the witness says obviously stupid and impossible
things. You rely on witnesses if they say what you want to hear.

> The Dillard photo establishes that there is a conflict between where
> Brennan said he saw the shooter and how wide open the window was. The way
> a sensible person resolves such conflicts is to compare them to the body
> of evidence and see what fits and what doesn't. Brennan's placement of the
> shooter conforms to where the shells were found, the floor the rifle and
> the rifle bag were found on, where the fingerprints belonging to the
> rifle's owner were found, and where most of the witnesses who saw the
> shooter place him. You are willing to throw all of that out and concoct
> unsupported tales of Fritz moving evidence from the fifth floor to the
> sixth for no apparent reason and bunch of people telling a whole lot of
> lies simply because Brennan's recollection of how wide open the window was
> conflicts with what the photo shows. You are unwilling to accept that
> Brennan simply got that part wrong. You want to believe you have figured
> out something that nobody else has been able to do during the past 56
> years.
>

That might sound good if it came from anybody else.

Well, the fifth floor did not look exactly like the sixth floor. Maybe
similar, but not the same.

>>
>> , the shells, the
>>> rifle bag, and Oswald's fingerprints from the 5th floor to the 6th floor
>>> with no one witnessing this that that witnesses might have miscounted the
>>> floors or were less than precise in describing how wide open the window
>>> was, especially since those witnesses are contradicted by other witnesses
>>> who don't require all this sinister evidence moving in order for their
>>> stories to hold water.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not only was there no forensic evidence
>>>>> found on the 5th floor
>>>>

Just out of curiosity, was ANY forensic evidence taken out of the fifth
floor? Chicken bones, something, anything?

>>>> Insp. Sawyer radioed that shells were found on the "third floor". Now,
>>>> what might that mean? To reporters, he said "fifth floor". There's your
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It means that Sawyer was confused as to where the shells were actually
>>> found.
>>>
>>
>> Ah! Confusion--the default for LNers when confronted by evidence they
>> don't like. And Sawyer was there on the floor when the shells were
>> found....
>>
>
> It is not a default. It is a conclusion sensible people draw when

Not sensible. The word is biased.

How black? Maybe one black man is easier to see than another?

> contrast version of the photo. Go figure. When the print is enlarged and
> the contrast sharpened, we clearly see him. That is the reason for

Why don't you explain how the HSCA enhanced it?

> enlarging and sharpening photos. The same has ben done with the Zapruder
> film. By enlarging and stabilizing the film we are able to pick up clues
> that the WC was not able to do. For example for years it was widely

Or didn't even try to do.

> believed that when JFK reappeared in frame 225, he was already reacting to
> having been shot. He had been shot but had not started to react. The way
> we can determine that is by comparing the position of his right hand in
> frame 224 to where it was in 225 and see it was still moving downward at
> that timeframe. His arms didn't start moving upward until one frame later.
> We would not have been able to determine that looking at an unenhanced
> version of the Z-film but by enlarging and stabilizing it, we are able to
> see that very important detail.
>

Silly. We see Jackie move exactly as Connally did because of the way you
guys manipulated the frames. So does that mean that Jackie as also hit
by the same bullet? Or that you were dishonest?

>> And, contradictorily, in the Trask version of the photo, the image of
>> Stephen Wilson on the 2nd floor has LESS clarity. No LN has explained
>> that....

SHOW me.

[Anthony Marsh]

It was physically impossible for Fritz to have fired any of those shots.

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 8:48:51 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT
> > > > > > GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
> > > > > > along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
> > > > > > recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
> > > > > involved?
> > > >
> > > > I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
> > > > happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
> > > > board.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
> > > motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> > > In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
> > > isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
> > >
> >
> > Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
> > picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
> > jackets....
>
> Or maybe he picked up Oswald and mistakenly remembered Oswald wearing two
> jackets.
>

Or maybe he didn't pick up Oswald and "remembered" him wearing two jackets.

Well, I believe that the only other version of the photo we have is the
one in Pictures of the Pain. If that's the original, then you have to
explain why, then, in the WR version, Stephen Wilson's image on the second
floor appears SHARPER, not faded, faded like that of the 5th-floor
"witnesses" in same. Actually, faded to invisibility. Or maybe you can't
explain....

> >
> > Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
> > 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
> > Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
> > the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
> > photo.
>
> Assuming Williams didn't move between the Dillard photo and the Powell
> photo. Your assumptions are not evidence.
>

He's in almost exactly the same position in both photos, if not the same
exact position.

> >
> > Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
> > preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
> > added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
> > now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
> > inconstant sun!
>
> Your failure to understand that reproductions of photographs in books are
> not photographs is part of your problem. Look at the original or a first
> generation copy of the original. Just because a reproduction of a photo
> doesn't show something doesn't mean it's not there in the original.

That could explain only HALF of the differences between the POTP version
and the WR version. See above.

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

You refuse to discuss the evidence.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> It's not in the National Archives. Evidence has been destroyed or hidden
>>>> and you don't care.
>>>
>>> What does this have to do with the length of the rifle or the length of
>>> the paper bag?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing, if it is the right bag.
>
> Thanks for admitting your change of subject has nothing to do with the
> subject matter under discussion.
>

It's always about the evidence and the cover-up.

>> The original or the remake? Do you
>> think it was the bag carried out by the cop? Isn't that bag long enough
>> for you?
>
> The bag in evidence is the only bag found in the area of the sniper's nest
> and is the only long bag that was taken out of the Depository. It was
> determined to be long enough to contain the rifle and determined to have
> Oswald's fingerprint on it. The only other bag taken out of the Depository
> was a small lunch bag that contained chicken bones. That lunch bag was
> left on the sixth floor by Bonnie Ray Williams and we have his testimony
> concerning that.
>

Answer the damn question.

>
>>
>>> Nothing. Of course, you do what CTs do all the time when pressed, change
>>> the subject.
>>>
>>
>> Always the same subject. Mishandling of evidence and you don't care about
>> it.
>
> No, mishandling of evidence is not the same as missing evidence. The two
> are different, and you're trying to move the goalposts.
>

No, it's the same. Malfeasance.

Then why don't we have a crime scene photo of the bag in place?
YOu always suck questions.

>
>>
>> Like OJ's glove. You don't care about evidence as long as you already have
>> your mind made up. But the JURY cared. And YOU are not the Jury. You lost
>> the case and you are a sore loser. If the glove don't fit, you must
>> Acquit.
>
> Yes, another great example of a red herring. We're not going off the rails
> here and following you through the forest as your train of thought crashes
> headlong through the trees. Do you have other examples of red herrings you
> like to use?
>

I tried to find a similar example that you might have heard of. But you
don't care about destruction of evidence or planted evidence as long as
you can convict the person you don't like.

> I remind you the subject matter under discussion here is the supposed
> curtain rods I keep asking you for evidence of, evidence you cannot
> produce and that your own client denied in custody ever existed.

Client? What the FUCK are you talking about?

>
> Hank
>

[donald willis]

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 9:41:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 8:48:49 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, donald wi CUT

> > > Only if you assume everyone above was lying. Then your assumption leads to
> > > a conclusion of conspiracy. But you cannot establish any lying, and
> > > therefore cannot establish a conspiracy by the means of this argument.
> > >
> >
> > Bookhout did one interview report, with Hosty, based on the first Oswald
> > interview, then did a later one which contradicted the first: In the
> > first, there was no mention of him running into a cop on the 2nd floor; in
> > the second one, there was. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is....
> >
>
> Why is it a lie if a person mentions and event in one account and not in
> another? That is neither a lie nor a contradiction. It is simply an
> omission.
>

Oh, but the event WAS mentioned in both accounts, the Hosty-Bookhout and
the Bookhout solo. In Hosty-Bookhout, Oswald does go up to the 2nd-floor
lunchroom. But he does not run into anyone there. In the follow-up solo
Bookhout, he runs into a cop, which would seem to have been the most
important part of that event. Yet neither Hosty nor Bookhout mentioned
the cop's presence in their joint report (written by Hosty, reviewed! by
Bookhout). Keep wriggling....

> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
> > > > > but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
> > > > > would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
> > > > > cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A cab gets him to Oak Cliff in time to shoot Tippit; a bus does not....
> > >
> > > And since we know the shells discarded at the scene were traceable to
> > > Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others, we know Oswald got to
> > > the scene of Tippit's murder in time.
> > >
> >
> > The shells found at the scene were not the same shells in evidence later.
> >
>
> And still another unfounded accusation.

The shells at the scene were reported as "auto 38". Is that what was in
evidence? Certainly, this is at least a founded accusation....

> >
> > > A few questions:
> > >
> > > If Oswald didn't do it, who did, and why?
> > >
> > > Wasn't Oswald seen North of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes before
> > > Tippit's murder, and seen south of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes
> > > after Tippit's murder? Wouldn't that place Oswald in the vicinity of
> > > Tippit's murder at the time of Tippit's murder?
> > >
> > > Wasn't Oswald seen zipping up a jacket at the rooming house as he was
> > > leaving the rooming house (about 15 minutes before Tippit's murder)
> >
> > No. The landlady did not mention this incident to the first cops to the
> > scene. She came up with this vignette later in the day.
> >
>
> This is illogical beyond belief.
>

I stand by my statement here. Check the cops' reports, then recall that
Myers found people who said that the landlady was given to lies and
exaggeration. Hardly "beyond belief" then....

"Absurd" "beyond belief" Methinks you doth protest a tad too much....
And he did not necessarily remember where, exactly, he dropped off Oswald.
And he did not remember that, as you point out (the crossed-out section).
But he did remember a (memorable) incident on the bus, on Marsalis, with
the woman who got on the bus on Marsalis, and Oswald, and who but the
latter would have known at that point that Kennedy was shot in the head?
THAT McWatters remembered. Oswald DID take McWatters' bus to Oak
Cliff....

Which would seem to contradict McWatters' affidavit, which has Oswald
still on the bus in Oak Cliff!

No assumptions here. It's your unthinking dismissal of my "assumption"
which is silly. The deputies saw Fritz pick up the shells; Sims & Boyd
failed to record this. Cover-up. Of course, Marsh might say that they
were simply papering over Fritz's unprofessional (klutzy) act, and he just
wanted a closer look at the shells. But the fact that Fritz, Sims AND
Boyd covered it up makes Fritz's action seem a little more significant
than simply an impulsive act.

> > > I can go with the evidence or I can go with your unexplained and vague
> > > doubts.
> > >
> > > Tough call ---- NOT.
> > >
> > > All of that is manufactured or lies to what end? Oswald already killed the
> > > President, according to your own scenario. So what was the purpose of
> > > killing Tippit and framing Oswald for it?
> > >
> >
> > To obtain witnesses. As he told his men (recounted in "With Malice"), he
> > needed witnesses, of which there weren't many in Dealey. (page 207)
> >
>
> This is getting bizarre.

Well, maybe Fritz was that bizarre. But that's what he said. Deal with
it.

dcw

[Mark]

I've come to the realization that Donald is never going to enter the adult
world when it comes to thinking about the murder of JFK. He will always
believe if a witness talks about something in his WC testimony that wasn't
in his affidavit, then he or she is probably a member of his vast cover-up
conspiracy. Or vice-versa. He will always believe witnesses take
precedence over forensic evidence. I also realize he is further down his
rabbit hole than Marsh is down his. And that's saying quite a lot.

Mark

[Mark]

"Manipulated the frames." What are you talking about? Jackie is starting
to react to the fact there is something wrong with her husband. She is
not reacting like Connally. What are you looking at? You helped verify
the Z-film is authentic, so tell me how the frames are being manipulated.

Mark

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:25:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 8:48:51 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5 CUT
> > > > > > > GUESS what he was wearing, and guessed very very wrong. He was just going
> > > > > > > along with what they showed him. Why he didn't just say that he didn't
> > > > > > > recall, I don't know. He so wanted to be helpful....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If he hadn't given Oswald a ride, why would he even want to get
> > > > > > involved?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't do motivations. It's hard enough to determine what actually
> > > > > happened, let alone why. I'll leave that to the psychologists on the
> > > > > board.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Funny how you say you don't do motivations after telling us Whaley was
> > > > motivated by a desire to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> > > > In your previous post you stated, "He so wanted to be helpful". If that
> > > > isn't assigning a motivation to Whaley, I don't know what would be.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ya got me. But I don't see any other, more logical explanation. Maybe he
> > > picked up some other guy who looked like Oswald and WAS wearing two
> > > jackets....
> >
> > Or maybe he picked up Oswald and mistakenly remembered Oswald wearing two
> > jackets.
> >
> Or maybe he didn't pick up Oswald and "remembered" him wearing two jackets.

Your scenario says he never got to the roominghouse about 1pm, as I
understand it. You have a witness that says otherwise that you ignore
(Mary Bledsoe). You have Oswald's own admission in custody that he took a
bus, then a cab. You have the physical evidence of a bus transfer. You
have the testimony of the police officer who took the transfer off him.
You have the bus driver's testimony and same day affidavit that he gave
that transfer to a man who departed the bus.

You just hand-wave all that away - saying the witnesses lied and the
evidence was swapped or forged.

But you've provided no evidence the witnesses lied and the evidence was
swapped or forged ... using your beliefs to discard all that is circular
reasoning at its finest.

It's not the original. It's a reproduction in a mass-produced book. It's
NOT CLOSE to a photographic original. If you don't understand the problem
with your argument, I can't help you.

> then you have to
> explain why, then, in the WR version, Stephen Wilson's image on the second
> floor appears SHARPER, not faded, faded like that of the 5th-floor
> "witnesses" in same. Actually, faded to invisibility. Or maybe you can't
> explain....

And there's the logical fallacy of an attempt to shift the burden of
proof! You critics are nothing if not predictable. There's always a hidden
assumption, a lack of understanding, or a logical fallacy lurking
somewhere nearby when a CT has an argument to advance.

I will point you to the original once more. Examine that and get back to
us with valid criticisms. I don't have to explain any anomalies you think
you see in any photographs. The problem lies with your lack of background
in photo interpretation. Let me know where you obtained your education and
experience in photo analysis before your arguments go any further in this
regard. Let me know when you've examined the original, not reproductions
in mass produced books.

>
> > >
> > > Williams was NOT lost in the shadows. Check the Powell picture on page
> > > 158 of "The Killing of a President", for example. He's partly in the sun.
> > > Very visible. You can see his face and part of his shirt. No way that
> > > the sun-illuminated portion of Williams would be lost in "shadows" in any
> > > photo.
> >
> > Assuming Williams didn't move between the Dillard photo and the Powell
> > photo. Your assumptions are not evidence.
> >
>
> He's in almost exactly the same position in both photos, if not the same
> exact position.

That's a claim you have not established. The Powell photo as I recall was
taken almost a minute after the Dillard one. Do let me know what analytic
methodology you used to determine Williams was in "almost exactly the same
position in both photos, if not the same exact position". Show your work.
We'll wait.

>
> > >
> > > Upshot: The Dillard wide angle version in the WR has been doctored, in
> > > preparation for the NEXT version (seen in Trask), which features Jarman,
> > > added to the fourth from the east end half-window, and Williams, somehow
> > > now subject to the sun's rays, where he was not in the WR version. The
> > > inconstant sun!
> >
> > Your failure to understand that reproductions of photographs in books are
> > not photographs is part of your problem. Look at the original or a first
> > generation copy of the original. Just because a reproduction of a photo
> > doesn't show something doesn't mean it's not there in the original.
>
> That could explain only HALF of the differences between the POTP version
> and the WR version. See above.

Another attempt to shift the burden of proof. I have no obligation to
chase you down rabbit holes and disprove your claims. You have the
obligation to prve them. "I see a problem" is not a proof, it's an
allegation.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hilarious! More evidence that doesn't exist that would prove the existence
of a conspiracy if it existed, only it doesn't.

This story first surfaced in the late 1980s / early 1980s, and was told by
Alyea for the first time in a publication he himself was trying to sell. A
more suspicious person might point to the fact that Alyea obviously had a
conflict of interest there, the more he jazzes up his story, the more
copies he sells and the more money he makes. It's amazing that he let over
25 years pass before he first revealed this tidbit, and what's more
amazing is that CTs breathe this stuff in and accept it without the
slightest doubt as to its veracity.

Some people doubt stories that take years to surface.

>
> > was, especially since those witnesses are contradicted by other witnesses
> > who don't require all this sinister evidence moving in order for their
> > stories to hold water.
> >
>
> Never rely on witnesses.

Above, Alyea, story, you accept.

There were two Dillard photos taken. I believe the negative in question
that was ruined is not the one under discussion. In any case, original
photographs made from both negatives still exist.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 9:41:58 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 8:48:49 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 1:33:38 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:54:15 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-7, Mark wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 3:03:52 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 7:58:35 AM UT CUT ; that he passed the time
> > > > > > > > with the cab driver and that the cab driver had told him that the
> > > > > > > > President was shot. He paid a cab fare of 85 [cents]."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't trust a word of Oswald's interviewers, from Fritz to Kelley to
> > > > > > > Bookhout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you trust Kelley? Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > He joined Fritz & Bookhout in saying that in the first Saturday (11/23)
> > > > > interview, Oswald changed his story and said he got off the bus & took a
> > > > > taxi.
> > > >
> > > > So Fritz, Bookhout, Kelley, and Whaley were all lying about Oswald taking
> > > > a cab?
> > >
> > > Uh, yes.
> >

> > On the basis of what basis [*evidence - hs]? You're aware these men worked for different

> > law enforcement agencies or was a civilian, right? Why would they all lie
> > about Oswald taking a cab? Didn't they care about capturing the real
> > killer(s) of the President?
> >
>
> One of them--Fritz--actually did NOT want the "real killers" caught, at
> least not all of them. Because he was one of them.

Sorry, repeating your belief is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for
the evidence that these men lied about Oswald taking a cab.

Discrepancies in the accounts that form your interpretation are not that
evidence. I'm looking for the supporting evidence for your interpretation.
You apparently can only repeat your interpretation.

>
> >
> > >
> > > And that McWatters was wrong / lying about giving out a transfer to
> > > > a man about 12:40?
> > >
> > > McW said nothing about a 12:40 transfer in his affidavit.
> >
> > He noted the transfer taken from Oswald's shirt was issued by him.
> > "The transfer #004459 is a transfer from my bus with my punch mark".
> >
> > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
>
> I misspoke. But the transfer that he made out was most probably not the
> same transfer later submitted in evidence.

On the basis of what evidence do you say that? That it conflicts with your
interpretation? That's evidence that your interpretation might be wrong,
not that there was any subterfuge ongoing.

Too inconvenient to discuss, I gather.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > And that Whaley was wrong / lying in IDing Oswald and
> > > > saying he noticed the ID bracelet his passenger was wearing?
> > > >
> > >
> > > And Whaley WASN'T wrong in saying that Oswald was wearing two jackets and
> > > an overshirt? Funny he could see the bracelet under all that
> > > outerwear....
> >
> > You think Whaley was lying, so you're prepared to dismiss anything he
> > said. If he was lying, why did he said Oswald was wearing two jackets?
> > Didn't the conspirators prepare him well enough to withstand a little
> > friendly questioning? (There was no cross-examination, right)?
> >
> Who would have thought that Whaley would say what he said?

You did. You suggested he was trying to be helpful, based on nothing more
than Whaley's failure to have perfect recall. Witnesses will make
mistakes, that's a given. In fact, it's also a given that if two witnesses
agree 100% on what transpired, they are probably in collusion.

Yes, Whaley said some things that make no sense. Name a witness to the
assassination that got everything right. You can't. I can't. No one can.
Such a witness does not exist. But you live for the mistakes, because then
you can either weave the mistake into your theory or dismiss the witness
altogether. And dismiss the physical evidence as well that supports the
parts the witness got correct. That's a textbook example of how NOT to
solve a crime.

> > >
> > > > Let's assume all that's true. How does that take Oswald's rifle out of
> > > > Oswald's hand in the Depository at 12:30? As far as I can see, it changes
> > > > nothing about the evidence of who fired the shots. Where's your claim go?
> > > > Nowhere.
> > >
> > > Goes to conspiracy. Oswald was most probably a shooter in Dealey, but he
> > > wasn't in on it alone.
> >
> > Only if you assume everyone above was lying. Then your assumption leads to
> > a conclusion of conspiracy. But you cannot establish any lying, and
> > therefore cannot establish a conspiracy by the means of this argument.
> >
>
> Bookhout did one interview report, with Hosty, based on the first Oswald
> interview, then did a later one which contradicted the first: In the
> first, there was no mention of him running into a cop on the 2nd floor; in
> the second one, there was. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is....
>

Wait, what? Did it occur to you that perhaps Oswald didn't mention running
into Baker and Truly on the second floor, so the first report doesn't
mention it because there was nothing to mention? Did it occur to you that
Oswald remembered that in the second interview, and therefore mentioned
it, and therefore it's noted?

Apparently not. Any conflicts between what Bookhout noted in the first
interview report and the second interview report isn't do to human error
on Bookhout's or Oswald's part, it has to be a lie. That's nonsense. Your
assumptions that the police or federal agents were lying is still just an
assumption, you don't prove the supposed lies by simply finding and
listing discrepancies that are as easily or more easily explained by human
error.

You are still simply assuming the lies that you must prove.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > You want to get Oswald to the rooming house by the means of the bus only,
> > > > but that doesn't explain why those men would lie, why McWatters and Whaley
> > > > would lie or be mistaken, and why getting Oswald to the rooming house in a
> > > > cab instead of a bus was necessary to the conspiracy in any fashion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A cab gets him to Oak Cliff in time to shoot Tippit; a bus does not....
> >
> > And since we know the shells discarded at the scene were traceable to
> > Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others, we know Oswald got to
> > the scene of Tippit's murder in time.
> >
>
> The shells found at the scene were not the same shells in evidence later.

Another claim with no evidence provided in support. You cannot assume your
way to a proof of conspiracy, but you appear intent to try.

>
>
> > A few questions:
> >
> > If Oswald didn't do it, who did, and why?

No response.

> >
> > Wasn't Oswald seen North of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes before
> > Tippit's murder, and seen south of the Tippit murder site about 15 minutes
> > after Tippit's murder? Wouldn't that place Oswald in the vicinity of
> > Tippit's murder at the time of Tippit's murder?

No response.

> >
> > Wasn't Oswald seen zipping up a jacket at the rooming house as he was
> > leaving the rooming house (about 15 minutes before Tippit's murder)
>
> No. The landlady did not mention this incident to the first cops to the
> scene. She came up with this vignette later in the day.

Later the same day. How much later? Why would she invent this on 11/22/63?

Oh my. So we throw out every statement or follow-up testimony that
attempts to expand upon or explain or add to the initial statement? We
throw out the physical evidence of a bus transfer noted by the bus driver
in his FIRST statement exactly why, then? Because you don't like it,
apparently.

>
> and
> > seen without a jacket south of the rooming house (about 15 minutes after
> > Tippit's murder)? Why did he discard a perfectly good jacket he just went
> > to the rooming house to obtain?
> >

Ignored by you. Are you claiming that the jacket found under a car in the
parking lot where Oswald was seen wasn't abandoned by Oswald?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm

Or are you claiming Mary Brock was part of the conspiracy and she lied
too?

>
>
> > Or was Mary Bledsoe lying too? Do you mean Mrs. Roberts?

Typical CT response. Ignore the substance of the point entirely and
correct one minor factual error. You could have chosen to address both the
error in the name and the point I made, but you didn't. You chose to
address only the name error. That's more telling than you'd understand.

> >
> > >
> > > > > The bus driver, on 11/22, said in an affidavit that he took Oswald
> > > > > all the way to Oak Cliff.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean here?
> > > > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/
> > > >
> > > > I see he scratched out that he took the man all the way to Marsalis
> > > > Street. He's not allowed to correct his own handwritten statement now?
> > >
> > > Nice misdirection. McWatters did NOT scratch out the part re picking up a
> > > woman on Marsalis, then referring her to the man--still on the bus, in Oak
> > > Cliff!--he had picked up earlier. Either way, Oswald gets to Marsalis, in
> > > Oak Cliff, on the bus. Try again.
> >
> > I see a line scratched it... it reads, "I don't remember where I left this
> > man off, but I believe I left him off at Marsalis." The "but I believe I
> > left him off at Marsalis" is scratched out. He isn't talking about a woman
> > there, and he's not saying the man rode all the to Oak Cliff there. He
> > took that out. And that's not misdirection.
> >
>
> How could Oswald not have been on the bus on Marsalis, according to the
> affidavit? McWatters pointed him out to the woman who got on the bus on
> Marsalis. Your "there" is, again, misdirection, from one part of the
> affidavit to another. Try again.
>

That confusion on McWatters part was cleared up by the Warren Commission
in his testimony. He was thinking of another passenger, Milton Jones, as
the one who told him the President was shot. The passenger he gave the
transfer to was Lee Oswald, and he got off near the Greyhound Station,
walked to the bus station, and took a cab past his rooming house.

Of course, everyone lied according to you. But you have yet to explain why
they would.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's curious that you're only telling half the story at best, while
> > > > accusing law enforcement officers from different agencies on the weekend
> > > > of 11/22/63 of being in collusion to make up a story about a cab ride that
> > > > really doesn't put the rifle in Oswald's hands or take it out of Oswald's
> > > > hands.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Takes the pistol out of Oswald's hands.
> >
> > Based on your assumptions that Oswald took no cab and that every mention
> > of the cab is a lie. But those are assumptions only. You can't assume your
> > way to Oswald's innocence.
> >

IGNORED. No surprise.

Quote out of context. McWatters remembers giving a transfer to a woman
when the bus got stuck in traffic, then to a man a moment later. That's
pertinent. He doesn't remember any specifics as to the man's identity, but
he was certain of the transfer. He identified the transfer found on Oswald
as the one he handed out on that trip.

>
> > 2. McWatter's affidavit.
>
> Yes! Before your re-writing of it.

I was the one who cited it and quoted from it. You were content to allude
to it and tell us what your interpretation of it implied. You neither
cited it nor quoted from it.

>
>
> > 3. The transfer.

Ignored!

> > 4. The notation on the small manila envelope that the transfer was taken
> > off Oswald on 11/22/63.

Ignored!

Pardon me if I don't find your putting more men into the conspiracy to
explain away evidence that contradicts your interpretation as anything
other than amusing.

>
> > I can go with the evidence or I can go with your unexplained and vague
> > doubts.
> >
> > Tough call ---- NOT.
> >
> > All of that is manufactured or lies to what end? Oswald already killed the
> > President, according to your own scenario. So what was the purpose of
> > killing Tippit and framing Oswald for it?
> >
>
> To obtain witnesses. As he told his men (recounted in "With Malice"), he
> needed witnesses, of which there weren't many in Dealey. (page 207)
>

Yes, you've said that before. But that doesn't help implicate Oswald in
the assassination whatsoever. I find the argument that Fritz would try to
frame Oswald for another crime to somehow implicate Oswald in the
assassination remarkably unconvincing. You also have Fritz sacrificing one
of his own to help convict Oswald - not for the assassination which you
admit you're convinced Oswald committed - but for another crime that you
argue Oswald didn't commit.

That makes no sense. There was no need for the other crime at all.

Especially since, as I've noted, you have Fritz making this decision that
he needed witnesses sometimes in the 45 minutes between the assassination
and the murder of Tippit ... when everything was a ball of confusion and
nobody had a solid handle on what witnesses saw what.

How could Fritz be certain the witnesses would pick Oswald out for the
Tippit murder? How could Fritz be certain the ballistics would match? How
could Fritz be certain Oswald would try to resist arrest in the theatre?

> >
> > > That man
> > > > was Oswald. The transfer establishes that. The hard evidence establishes
> > > > that. Oswald did NOT ride all the way to Marsalis, he got off the bus
> > > > shortly after boarding it and took a cab to the rooming house.
> > > >
> > >
> > > However, the hard evidence in McWatters' affidavit maintains that Oswald
> > > took the bus all the way into Oak Cliff, contrary to what you were
> > > maintaining, above....
> >
> > Nope, there's a reference to that, and it's scratched out. And what
> > remains is "I don't remember where I left this man off".
>
> Yes, again ignore where McWatters said that he let a woman on the bus ON
> MARSALIS. Then said that he referred the woman to Oswald. How could
> McWatters do that if Oswald was not on the bus on Marsalis?
>
> Misdirection.

Milton Jones was the passenger that went all the way to Oak Cliff.

>
> And McWatters
> > said the man left after getting the transfer and was only on the bus a few
> > blocks.
>
> How could he know that if he didn't know where he'd let the man off?

Because he's human! And people make mistakes. The transfer taken from
Oswald's pocket establishes Oswald was on the bus and Oswald left the
bus.

Relying on McWatters testimony for anything more than that is a mistake.

>
> He also said that the man he ID'd in the lineup was Oswald, then, later,
> he said it was not. Then he again said that it was. If I follow the
> convolutions of his testimony labyrinth.

So you establish above not that McWatters is lying in furtherance of a
conspiracy but he's simply confused. Thanks.

The transfer -- we know you don't like it. But where's the evidence any of
it was falsified?

You have none. You discard it because it's inconvenient to your
interpretation.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Yes, that's obvious after a few discussions. But the value in engaging
with CTs such as Donald is that it helps the lurkers understand who has
evidence and reason on their side and who is just talking out of their
hind parts.

Donald's whole shtick is that the earliest witness statements take
precedence over everything else - including hard evidence - and that any
attempts by a witness to clarify the record is simply lies by the witness.
Of course, he only holds to that belief where the earliest witness
statement doesn't conflict with his belief, like in the case of McWatters
earliest statement, which mentions the transfer. Then that mention of the
transfer is obviously false.

Hank