Inconsistent reactions....
Walt
Truly saw him in the TSBD lunchroom just seconds after JFK was
brutally murdered on Elm street in front of the TSBD.
Is this the reaction of someone who had just murdered the President of
The United States??
When Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus just a few minutes later she said
he looked like a maniac.
Is this consistent with his countenance under much more desperate
conditions just minutes before in the lunchroom?
When Mrs Roberts saw him enter the roominghouse she said he was in a
bit of hurry but never noticed anything else unusual in his
countenance. She saw him standing near the bus stop after he changed
his clothes in his room but noticed nothing unusual about his actions.
Johnnie Brewer said he saw a man "acting suspictious" and ducked into
the foyer of his show store when a police car went by with the
redlights and siren on.
Witnesses to Tippit's murder said the man who shot Tippit walked
calmly over to his squad car and talked to Tippit through the open
vent window.
If Tippit's killer had just murdered the President of the United
States wouldn't he have tried to avoid being seen, just as the man
Brewer saw duck out of sight in the foyer of his shoe store. Would
the President's murderer just walk calmly over to Tippit's squad
car?? He would have had ample opportunity after seeing the police car
coming to simply turn and duck behind one of the house along East 10th
street. Tippit was reported to have been cruising slowly east on
East 10th and the killer was reportedly walking west on East 10th.
Which means The man would have spotted Tippit's car before Tippit
spotted him. If he had been the murderer of JFK he could easily have
avoided the encounter with Tippit.
Baldoni
> Oswald appeared calm and normal, but a bit startled when Baker and
> Truly saw him in the TSBD lunchroom just seconds after JFK was
> brutally murdered on Elm street in front of the TSBD.
>
cucumber.
Also that guy who shot His Holiness Pope John Paul II, he was a picture
of tranquility. I believe his name was Mehmet Ali Agca.
--
Count Baldoni
justm...@gmail.com
Walt thinks everyone should act the way he would expect them to act.
Walt has NO IDEA what was going thru LHO's mind at any time before,
during and after the assassination, yet he sits and tells us how LHO
should have reacted. You started this thread once before Walt and got
nowhere...what makes you think it's going to change this time around?
You can't predict what anyone would do when faced with any kind of
trauma in their life. Why do you continually try and tell people how
LHO SHOULD have acted???? Give it a rest, Walt....this is all
speculation and more bs coming from you as usual. It proves NOTHING!
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Oswald appeared calm and normal, but a bit startled when Baker and
> Truly saw him in the TSBD lunchroom just seconds after JFK was
> brutally murdered on Elm street in front of the TSBD.
Yah, Oswald`s reaction was not normal.
> Is this the reaction of someone who had just murdered the President of
> The United States??
Apparently it is.
> When Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus just a few minutes later she said
> he looked like a maniac.
> Is this consistent with his countenance under much more desperate
> conditions just minutes before in the lunchroom?
It was necessary to appear calm to Baker. Not so with Bledsoe.
> When Mrs Roberts saw him enter the roominghouse she said he was in a
> bit of hurry but never noticed anything else unusual in his
> countenance. She saw him standing near the bus stop after he changed
> his clothes in his room but noticed nothing unusual about his actions.
What makes you think it was Oswald she saw? She was bust fiddling
with the TV.
> Johnnie Brewer said he saw a man "acting suspictious" and ducked into
> the foyer of his show store when a police car went by with the
> redlights and siren on.
No, he said he saw Oswald duck into his foyer.
> Witnesses to Tippit's murder said the man who shot Tippit walked
> calmly over to his squad car and talked to Tippit through the open
> vent window.
No witness said anything about a vent window, idiot. Markham said
Oswald spoke to Tippit through the open passenger window.
> If Tippit's killer had just murdered the President of the United
> States wouldn't he have tried to avoid being seen, just as the man
> Brewer saw duck out of sight in the foyer of his shoe store.
They were both the same man, Oswald.
> Would
> the President's murderer just walk calmly over to Tippit's squad
> car??
Isn`t that what the witnesses said Oswald did?
> He would have had ample opportunity after seeing the police car
> coming to simply turn and duck behind one of the house along East 10th
> street. Tippit was reported to have been cruising slowly east on
> East 10th and the killer was reportedly walking west on East 10th.
> Which means The man would have spotted Tippit's car before Tippit
> spotted him. If he had been the murderer of JFK he could easily have
> avoided the encounter with Tippit.
Maybe he could have, maybe he couldn`t have. Meaningless either
way, because he didn`t.
Walt
idiot. Markham said Oswald spoke to Tippit through the open passenger
window."
Of course The Dud isn't smart enough to look at a plat of the scene
where Tippit was killed and deduct that Helen Markham could not have
seen the passenger side window on Tippit's squad car, so she could not
know if the window was open or closed. And If the dud was just a
little bit brighter he could look at photos taken of Tippit's squad
car parked at the scene and see that the window was CLOSED, and the
VENT WINDOW was open.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 12 Apr, 20:07, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>> > Oswald appeared calm and normal, but a bit startled when Baker and
>> > Truly saw him in the TSBD lunchroom just seconds after JFK was
>> > brutally murdered on Elm street in front of the TSBD.
>>
>>
>> > Is this the reaction of someone who had just murdered the President of
>> > The United States??
>>
>>
>> > When Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus just a few minutes later she said
>> > he looked like a maniac.
>> > Is this consistent with his countenance under much more desperate
>> > conditions just minutes before in the lunchroom?
>>
>>
>> > When Mrs Roberts saw him enter the roominghouse she said he was in a
>> > bit of hurry but never noticed anything else unusual in his
>> > his clothes in his room but noticed nothing unusual about his actions.
>>
>> with the TV.
>>
>> > Johnnie Brewer said he saw a man "acting suspictious" and ducked into
>> > the foyer of his show store when a police car went by with the
>> > redlights and siren on.
>>
>>
>> > Witnesses to Tippit's murder said the man who shot Tippit walked
>> > calmly over to his squad car and talked to Tippit through the open
>> > vent window.
>>
>idiot. Markham said Oswald spoke to Tippit through the open passenger
>window."
>
>Of course The Dud isn't smart enough to look at a plat of the scene
>where Tippit was killed and deduct that Helen Markham could not have
>seen the passenger side window on Tippit's squad car, so she could not
>know if the window was open or closed. And If the dud was just a
>little bit brighter he could look at photos taken of Tippit's squad
>car parked at the scene and see that the window was CLOSED, and the
>VENT WINDOW was open.
Isn't it funny that CT'ers just keep on whacking LNT'ers & trolls over the head
with the actual evidence, and LNT'er/Trolls keep talking about "common sense"
rather than the evidence?
>> > If Tippit's killer had just murdered the President of the United
>> > States wouldn't he have tried to avoid being seen, just as the man
>> > Brewer saw duck out of sight in the foyer of his shoe store.
>>
>> =A0 =A0They were both the same man, Oswald.
>>
>> > Would
>> > the President's murderer just walk calmly over to Tippit's squad
>> > car??
>>
>> =A0 Isn`t that what the witnesses said Oswald did?
>>
>> > =A0He would have had ample opportunity after seeing the police car
>> > coming to simply turn and duck behind one of the house along East 10th
>> > street. =A0 Tippit was reported to have been cruising slowly east on
>> > East 10th and the killer was reportedly walking west on East 10th.
>> > Which means The man would have spotted Tippit's car before Tippit
>> > spotted him. =A0If he had been the murderer of JFK he could easily have
>> > avoided the encounter with Tippit.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Maybe he could have, maybe he couldn`t have. Meaningless either
Bud
I produced the photo that showed the view of Tippit`s car from
Markham`s vantage last time you made this unsupported claim.
> so she could not
> know if the window was open or closed.
This is the opinion of an idiot. Markham said Oz talked to Tippit
through the open passenger window.
> And If the dud was just a
> little bit brighter he could look at photos taken of Tippit's squad
> car parked at the scene and see that the window was CLOSED, and the
> VENT WINDOW was open.
That photo wasn`t taken at the time Tippit was killed.
Bud
Isn`t it funny that it was the LN who used actual witness testimony
to support his position, and Ben couldn`t tell?
Walt
car from Markham`s vantage last time you made this unsupported claim."
I don't remember seeing a photo taken from the NW corner of 10th and
Patton that shows the passenger side of Tippits squad car..... Perhaps
you can post it again.
> > > way, because he didn`t.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
Perhaps you can kiss my ass. It`s your claim that Markham couldn`t
tell the passenger window was down from her vantage. Support that
claim with something a little more substantial than an idiot`s
opinion.
Walt
Aren't you the guy who didn't even know that tail lights are on the
rear of the car?? So who's the idiot??
Here's a little test that I believe even an idiot can pass.....
If your standing on the Northwest corner of an intersection of two
streets, and you're facing south, and a car passes by in front of you
on the street that runs east / west, traveling east ( from your
right to your left) which side of the car will be facing toward you?
The driver's side? or the passenger's side?
Bonus question.... Could you see the passenger's window to determine
if it was open or closed?
C'mon Dud.... I know these are very challenging questions but I think
you can answer them.
Walt
Walt wrote:....." I don't remember seeing a photo taken from the NW
corner of 10th and Patton that shows the passenger side of Tippits
squad car..... Perhaps you can post it again."
Dud nastily replied:.... "Perhaps you can kiss my ass. It`s your claim
that Markham couldn`t tell the passenger window was down from her
vantage. Support that claim with something a little more substantial
than an idiot`s
opinion."
Dud, you're on record as saying.... " I produced the photo that showed
the view of Tippit`s car from Markham`s vantage last time you made
this unsupported claim."
If you posted that photo once it should be a piece of cake for you to
post it again and demonstrate that my claim is nothing ..."more
substantial than an idiot`s opinion."
C'mon Dud, show us how smart you are......
Bud
Still you, Walt. Even more so if you think I ever said anything
about the location of taillights on a car.
> Here's a little test that I believe even an idiot can pass.....
>
> If your standing on the Northwest corner of an intersection of two
> streets, and you're facing south, and a car passes by in front of you
> on the street that runs east / west, traveling east ( from your
> right to your left) which side of the car will be facing toward you?
> The driver's side? or the passenger's side?
Blah, blah, blah. You aren`t making any headway on your claim that
Markham couldn`t see the passenger window down from her vantage.
> Bonus question.... Could you see the passenger's window to determine
> if it was open or closed?
I wasn`t there. Markham was, and said she could. You need to
establish it was impossible for her to see the passenger window down
from her vantage. When do you plan to start?
> C'mon Dud.... I know these are very challenging questions but I think
> you can answer them.
You going to have to support your own claims from now on, Walt. No
more of this "prove me wrong" bullshit.
aeffects
you're running Dudster.... we see ya!
Bud
I`m also on record that you can kiss my ass.
> If you posted that photo once it should be a piece of cake for you to
> post it again and demonstrate that my claim is nothing ..."more
> substantial than an idiot`s opinion."
Have you produced something more substantial than your idiotic
opinion?
> C'mon Dud, show us how smart you are......
It seems to me you can either support your claim, or stop making
it. My guess is you will do neither.
Bud
Thats just the drugs in your system, addict. If you ever come down,
you`ll see I`m standing still.
I watched a show on the History Channel last night about the 9-11
conspiracy theories. Now, as everyone knows, there isn`t a spits worth
of difference between those kooks, and the JFK kooks, and in many
cases they are the same (Fetzer was featured on the show, for
instance). The similarities of approach and tactics is startling, the
9-11 kooks use the same tried and true "I find this suspicious, prove
to me it isn`t" approach that the assassination kooks cherish. It
occurred to me instead of trying to debunk kook nonsense, we should
just wait until that put something on the table worthy of
consideration. Since that will never happen because all the things
kooks find suspicious can`t be bundled into a cohesive and reasonable
package, there is no response to kook blather necessary. The fact is
that there is little real difference in a world where few believe the
WC`s conclusions, or one in which many do.
Walt
Well let's see ......Since you obviously have less reasoning ability
than an average 10 year old, it may be impossible for you to
comprehend that when a car passes in front of you traveling from right
to left the DRIVER'S side of the car is toward you and you will be
unable to see the passenger's side of the car. However anybody with
an IQ higher than yours will comprehend that Helen Markham could NOT
have seen whether the PASSENGER side window was open or closed.
Photos of the car taken just minutes later show that the window was
closed. Markham said Tippit talked to the killer through the window,
and since the photos show that the VENT window is open anybody with a
thimble full of commonsense will realize that Tippit and the killer
must have been talking through that open vent window.
Sorry that this is all beyond your comprhension..... Perhaps you
would be happier at alt.idiots.com
Bud
So, you are saying that since Tippit could not see the right side of
his patrol car from the driver`s seat, he could not see the person
(Oz) he was talking to?
> Photos of the car taken just minutes later show that the window was
> closed.
So you can establish that when the photos were taken, the window
was shut.
> Markham said Tippit talked to the killer through the window,
> and since the photos show that the VENT window is open anybody with a
> thimble full of commonsense will realize that Tippit and the killer
> must have been talking through that open vent window.
There is no witness to Oz talking through the vent window, idiot.
Only through the passenger car door window.
> Sorry that this is all beyond your comprhension..... Perhaps you
> would be happier at alt.idiots.com
You`d be their king.
Walt
So, you are saying that since Tippit could not see the right side
of
his patrol car from the driver`s seat, he could not see the person
(Oz) he was talking to?
Stupid question from a stupid person.......
>
> > Photos of the car taken just minutes later show that the window was
> > closed.
>
So you can establish that when the photos were taken, the window
was shut.
Absolutely.... Not only do the photos show that the window is closed
the cops at the scene testified that it was closed.
>
> > Markham said Tippit talked to the killer through the window,
> > and since the photos show that the VENT window is open anybody with a
> > thimble full of commonsense will realize that Tippit and the killer
> > must have been talking through that open vent window.
>
> There is no witness to Oz talking through the vent window, idiot.
> Only through the passenger car door window.
Yes, that's where the OPEN vent window was.... On the passenger side
door.
Bud
You brought up the right side of Tipit`s car as evidence that
Markham couldn`t see the window down. I pointed out that Tippit
couldn`t see the right side of his car, yet could see the person (Oz)
he talked to. How could he do this, Walt?
> > > Photos of the car taken just minutes later show that the window was
> > > closed.
> >
> So you can establish that when the photos were taken, the window
> was shut.
>
> Absolutely.... Not only do the photos show that the window is closed
> the cops at the scene testified that it was closed.
At that time.
> > > Markham said Tippit talked to the killer through the window,
> > > and since the photos show that the VENT window is open anybody with a
> > > thimble full of commonsense will realize that Tippit and the killer
> > > must have been talking through that open vent window.
> >
> > There is no witness to Oz talking through the vent window, idiot.
> > Only through the passenger car door window.
>
> Yes, that's where the OPEN vent window was.... On the passenger side
> door.
Markham said "The window was down." Try again, idjit.
Walt
Let me see if I understand what you're babbling about......You believe
that Markham had some kind of special vision that allowed her to see
the backside of an object where people with normal vision would see
the face of that objrct.... Is that what yer saying??
I gotta tell ya Dud.... There's not very many people that are gonna
buy into that nutty idea.
Why is it that you say Markham was wrong in saying that she was on the
corner of 10th at Patton at about 1:06, when she saw Tippit shot,
which was supported by TF Bowley who arrived a few minutes later at
1:10, but you say she was right when she said the window was down??
Her estimate for the time of the shooting is supported by several
other facts while her ability to see the window on the passenger side
of Tippits car was impossible. Why do you insist on accepting the
impossible and rejecting the possible??.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 14 Apr, 17:32, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>> > On 14 Apr, 16:26, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > On 14 Apr, 14:15, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > On 14 Apr, 10:06, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On 13 Apr, 12:30, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > On 12 Apr, 20:07, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>when Baker and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Truly saw him in the TSBD lunchroom just seconds aft=
>er JFK was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > brutally murdered on Elm street in front of the TSBD=
>.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDYah, Oswald`s reaction was not norm=
>al.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Is this the reaction of someone who had just murdere=
>d the President of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The United States??
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > When Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus just a few minut=
>es later she said
>> > > > > > > > > > > > he looked like a maniac.
>ore desperate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > conditions just minutes before in the lunchroom?
>>
>t so with Bledsoe.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > When Mrs Roberts saw him enter the roominghouse she =
>said he was in a
> in his
>> > > > > > > > > > > > countenance. =EF=BF=BDShe saw him standing near the =
>bus stop after he changed
>about his actions.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDWhat makes you think it was Oswald =
>she saw? She was bust fiddling
>> > > > > > > > > > > with the TV.
>>
>" and ducked into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the foyer of his show store when a police car went b=
>y with the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > redlights and siren on.
>>
>r.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Witnesses to Tippit's murder said the man who shot T=
>ippit walked
>> > > > > > > > > > > > calmly over to his squad car and talked to Tippit th=
>rough the open
>> > > > > > > > > > > > vent window.
>>
> about a vent window,
>> > > > > > > > > > idiot. Markham said Oswald spoke to Tippit through the o=
>pen passenger
>> > > > > > > > > > window."
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Of course The Dud isn't smart enough to look at a plat o=
>f the scene
>> > > > > > > > > > where Tippit was killed and deduct that Helen Markham co=
>uld not have
>> > > > > > > > > > seen the passenger side window on Tippit's squad car,
>>
> of Tippit`s
>> > > > > > > > car from Markham`s vantage last time you made this unsupport=
>ed claim."
>>
>> > > > > > Walt wrote:....." I don't remember seeing a photo taken from the=
> NW
>> > > > > > corner of 10th and Patton that shows the passenger side of Tippi=
>ts
>> > > > > > squad car..... Perhaps you can post it again."
>>
> claim
>> > > > > > that Markham couldn`t tell the passenger window was down from he=
>r
>> > > > > > vantage. Support that claim with something a little more substan=
>tial
>> > > > > > than an idiot`s
>> > > > > > =C2=A0opinion."
>>
>> > > > > > Dud, you're on record as saying.... " I produced the photo that =
>showed
>> > > > > > the view of Tippit`s car from Markham`s vantage last time you ma=
>de
>> > > > > > this unsupported claim."
>>
>> > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0I`m also on record that you can kiss my ass.
>>
>> > > > > > If you posted that photo once it should be a piece of cake for y=
>ou to
>> > > > > > post it again and demonstrate that my claim is nothing ..."more
>> > > > > > substantial than an idiot`s opinion."
>>
>r idiotic
>> > > > > opinion?
>>
>> > > > > > C'mon Dud, show us how smart you are......
>>
>stop making
>> > > > > it. My guess is you will do neither.
>>
>
>> > > > than an average 10 year old, it may be impossible for you to
>ht
>> > > > to left the DRIVER'S =C2=A0side of the car is toward you and you wil=
>l be
>> > > > unable to see the passenger's side of the car. =C2=A0 However anybod=
>y with
>> > > > an IQ higher than yours will comprehend that Helen Markham could NOT=
>
>> > > > have seen whether the PASSENGER side window was open or closed.
>>
>> > Dud asked??
>t side
>> > of
>> > =C2=A0his patrol car from the driver`s seat, he could not see the person=
>
>> > =C2=A0(Oz) he was talking to?
>>
>> > Stupid question from a stupid person.......
>>
>
>> Markham couldn`t see the window down. I pointed out that Tippit
>> couldn`t see the right side of his car, yet could see the person (Oz)
>> he talked to. How could he do this, Walt?
>>
>> > > > Photos of the car taken just minutes later show that the window was
>> > > > closed.
>>
>window
>> > =C2=A0was shut.
>>
>> > Absolutely.... Not only do the photos show that the window is closed
>> > the cops at the scene testified that it was closed.
>>
>>
>> > > > =C2=A0Markham said Tippit talked to the killer through the window,
>> > > > and since the photos show that the VENT window is open anybody with =
>a
>> > > > thimble full of commonsense will realize that Tippit and the killer
>> > > > must have been talking through that open vent window.
>>
>, idiot.
>> > > Only through the passenger car door window.
>>
>de
>> > door.
>>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Markham said "The window was down." Try again, idjit.
>
>Let me see if I understand what you're babbling about......You believe
>that Markham had some kind of special vision that allowed her to see
>the backside of an object where people with normal vision would see
>the face of that objrct.... Is that what yer saying??
>
>I gotta tell ya Dud.... There's not very many people that are gonna
>buy into that nutty idea.
>
>Why is it that you say Markham was wrong in saying that she was on the
>corner of 10th at Patton at about 1:06, when she saw Tippit shot,
>which was supported by TF Bowley who arrived a few minutes later at
>1:10, but you say she was right when she said the window was down??
>Her estimate for the time of the shooting is supported by several
>other facts while her ability to see the window on the passenger side
>of Tippits car was impossible. Why do you insist on accepting the
>impossible and rejecting the possible??.
Perhaps because the "possible" devastates his faith in the WCR...
Markham was certainly one of the eyewitnesses with the most screws loose ... I
think only Mary Bledsoe could compete head to head with Markham for the title of
the "Eyewitness With The Most Screws Loose"
But on the one issue that is the most difficult for the LNT'ers to swallow,
she's ironically the most believable.
>> > > > Sorry that this is all beyond your comprhension..... =C2=A0Perhaps y=
>ou
>> > > > would be happier at alt.idiots.com
>>
>> > > =C2=A0 You`d be their king.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > so she could not
>> > > > > > > > > > know if the window was open or closed.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0This is the opinion of an idiot. Markham said=
> Oz talked to Tippit
>> > > > > > > > > through the open passenger window.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > And If the dud was just a
>> > > > > > > > > > little bit brighter he could look at photos taken of Tip=
>pit's squad
>> > > > > > > > > > car parked at the scene and see that the window was CLOS=
>ED, and the
>> > > > > > > > > > VENT WINDOW was open.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0That photo wasn`t taken at the time Tippit wa=
>s killed.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > If Tippit's killer had just murdered the President o=
>f the United
>> > > > > > > > > > > > States wouldn't he have tried to avoid being seen, j=
>ust as the man
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Brewer saw duck out of sight in the foyer of his sho=
>e store.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThey were both the same man, Oswald=
>.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the President's murderer just walk calmly over to Ti=
>ppit's squad
>> > > > > > > > > > > > car??
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD Isn`t that what the witnesses said Oswald di=
>d?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BDHe would have had ample opportunity after s=
>eeing the police car
>> > > > > > > > > > > > coming to simply turn and duck behind one of the hou=
>se along East 10th
>> > > > > > > > > > > > street. =EF=BF=BD Tippit was reported to have been c=
>ruising slowly east on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > East 10th and the killer was reportedly walking west=
> on East 10th.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Which means The man would have spotted Tippit's car =
>before Tippit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > spotted him. =EF=BF=BDIf he had been the murderer of=
> JFK he could easily have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > avoided the encounter with Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDMaybe he could have, maybe he could=
Walt
> In article <d1ad80fa-3e8a-4268-b568-7efbb91ad...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Markham was certainly one of the eyewitnesses with the most screws
loose ... I think only Mary Bledsoe could compete head to head with
Markham for the title of the "Eyewitness With The Most Screws Loose"
I don't think Markham was anything but scared to death... It does
seem that she was a bit of a bumpkin and not the brighest bulb on the
tree but the main problem was she became hysterical when she saw
Tippit murdered. Immediately after the shooting she gave a
description of the killer that didn't fit Oswald ( which makes sense
because he couldn't possibly have been there at 1:06) but a few hours
later she willing went along with the railroading of Oswald by saying
that a "funny feeling" went through her when she saw Lee Oswald in a
police line-up. Of course he was the only man in the line up that
looked even remotely like the killer... and he was the only one there
who steped forward and gave his true name and place of employment.
The other three men lied about there names and occupations.
But whether she was a screwball or not is totally irrelevant.... She
was a punctual employee and knew what time she had to be at the bus
stop to chack the 1:12 bus to work. It was her daily routine to leave
he apartment at 1:00pm so that she could be at the bus stop about 5
minutes before the scheduled arrival of the bus. She knew she had
left the laundramat at 1:04 which would have put her at the corner of
East 10th and Patton at about 1:06 just as she said. She may have
been a babbling idiot like Dud for several hours that afternoon but
the time she gave for the shooting is solid.
The Warren Commission recognized this simple fact and that's why they
were forced to cover up the time of the shooting and try to make it
appear that the shooting occurred at 1:14. They knew that Oswald
couldn't possibly have travel the mile from the rooming house to the
murder scene in just two minutes.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
The idiot was asserting as fact that the person who talked to
Tippit (Oz, BTW) spoke to him through the vent window. I`ve never said
this wasn`t possible, I objected to Walt stating this possibility as
fact.
> Markham was certainly one of the eyewitnesses with the most screws loose ...
I would say she was a bit of a ditz (often confused during
testimony, hard to keep on track, but in her defense, she was thrust
into a very unfamiliar situation). Roberts, Oz`s housekeeper, was also
a ditz. Linnie Mae Randle was not.
> I
> think only Mary Bledsoe could compete head to head with Markham for the title of
> the "Eyewitness With The Most Screws Loose"
<snicker> I like Bledsoe. She disliked Oz based on her intuition,
and she was proven right is spades.
> But on the one issue that is the most difficult for the LNT'ers to swallow,
> she's ironically the most believable.
She got the hole in the shirt right. No witness gets everything
right. We all see the world by out own perceptions, much of what we
operate by is just impressions, many wrong. When pressed to relate, we
do so imperfectly. If it was a skill we had a use for, people might be
more careful noting details around them. It just isn`t called upon
often.
Bud
No, I`m saying Markham said saw the window down, and you haven`t
shown that to be impossible. You just keep repeating your idiotic
opinion.
> I gotta tell ya Dud.... There's not very many people that are gonna
> buy into that nutty idea.
You think Tippits car was a solid block?
> Why is it that you say Markham was wrong in saying that she was on the
> corner of 10th at Patton at about 1:06, when she saw Tippit shot,
I think other, more reliable evidence show her estimate of the time
to be wrong, right that it was Oswald she saw, and possibly right,
possibly wrong about the window being down.
> which was supported by TF Bowley who arrived a few minutes later at
> 1:10, but you say she was right when she said the window was down??
I`m saying you are making no headway establishing the point of
contention as fact, that the shooter (Oz) talked to Tippit through the
vent window.
> Her estimate for the time of the shooting is supported by several
> other facts
The only times that come close to qualifying as fact are the times
supplied by the DPD dispatchers.
>while her ability to see the window on the passenger side
> of Tippits car was impossible.
So an idiot keeps saying. He falls way short of establishing this
is true, though.
> Why do you insist on accepting the
> impossible and rejecting the possible??.
By all means, stop dancing around and establish the impossibility
of Markham seeing the shooter (Oz) lean on the door of Tippit`s squad
car with the door window down.
Walt
The point my dear half-wit child is....... The passenger side window
was NOT visible so that Markham could determine if it was up or down.
She was about 180 feet to the rear of the squad car and on the drivers
side of the car. She could not see the window to determine if it was
open or closed because she would have been looking through the car.
She could see the man on the passenger side and assume that he and
Tippit were talking but she couldn't have seen if there was a glass
window between them because she would have been looking through the
back window from 180 feet away. There is a photo on page 66 of With
Malice that shows Markham's view of Tippit's squad car. I know you
claim that you don't know your way to the library to look at the book
but this information isn't really for you anyway..... It's so anybody
who wants to see what an imbecile you are, can look at the photo and
see with their own eyes that Markham would NOT have been able to see
the window.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Sorry that this is all beyond your comprhension..... Perhaps you
> > > > > > would be happier at alt.idiots.com
>
> > > > > You`d be their king.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > so she could not
> > > > > > > > > > > > know if the window was open or closed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the opinion of an idiot. Markham said Oz talked to Tippit
> > > > > > > > > > > through the open passenger window.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > And If the dud was just a
> > > > > > > > > > > > little bit brighter he could look at photos taken of Tippit's squad
> > > > > > > > > > > > car parked at the scene and see that the window was CLOSED, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > VENT WINDOW was open.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > That photo wasn`t taken at the time Tippit was killed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If Tippit's killer had just murdered the President of the United
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > States wouldn't he have tried to avoid being seen, just as the man
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brewer saw duck out of sight in the foyer of his shoe store.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > � �They were both the same man, Oswald.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the President's murderer just walk calmly over to Tippit's squad
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > car??
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > � Isn`t that what the witnesses said Oswald did?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > �He would have had ample opportunity after seeing the police car
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > coming to simply turn and duck behind one of the house along East 10th
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > street. � Tippit was reported to have been cruising slowly east on
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 14 Apr, 20:46, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>> > On 14 Apr, 17:32, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > On 14 Apr, 16:26, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > On 14 Apr, 14:15, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On 14 Apr, 10:06, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > On 13 Apr, 12:30, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 Apr, 20:07, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>led when Baker and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truly saw him in the TSBD lunchroom just seconds=
> after JFK was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > brutally murdered on Elm street in front of the =
>TSBD.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDYah, Oswald`s reaction was not =
>normal.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this the reaction of someone who had just mur=
>dered the President of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The United States??
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus just a few m=
>inutes later she said
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > he looked like a maniac.
>ch more desperate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conditions just minutes before in the lunchroom?=
>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD It was necessary to appear calm to Baker=
>. Not so with Bledsoe.
>>
>she said he was in a
>sual in his
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > countenance. =EF=BF=BDShe saw him standing near =
>the bus stop after he changed
>ual about his actions.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDWhat makes you think it was Osw=
>ald she saw? She was bust fiddling
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > with the TV.
>>
>ious" and ducked into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the foyer of his show store when a police car we=
>nt by with the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > redlights and siren on.
>>
>foyer.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witnesses to Tippit's murder said the man who sh=
>ot Tippit walked
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calmly over to his squad car and talked to Tippi=
>t through the open
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vent window.
>>
>hing about a vent window,
>he open passenger
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window."
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course The Dud isn't smart enough to look at a pl=
>at of the scene
>> > > > > > > > > > > > where Tippit was killed and deduct that Helen Markha=
>m could not have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > seen the passenger side window on Tippit's squad car=
>,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Dud wrote: =C2=A0" I produced the photo that showed the =
>view of Tippit`s
>> > > > > > > > > > car from Markham`s vantage last time you made this unsup=
>ported claim."
>>
>> > > > > > > > Walt wrote:....." I don't remember seeing a photo taken from=
> the NW
>> > > > > > > > corner of 10th and Patton that shows the passenger side of T=
>ippits
>> > > > > > > > squad car..... Perhaps you can post it again."
>>
>your claim
>> > > > > > > > that Markham couldn`t tell the passenger window was down fro=
>m her
>> > > > > > > > vantage. Support that claim with something a little more sub=
>stantial
>> > > > > > > > than an idiot`s
>> > > > > > > > =C2=A0opinion."
>>
>hat showed
>> > > > > > > > the view of Tippit`s car from Markham`s vantage last time yo=
>u made
>> > > > > > > > this unsupported claim."
>>
>> > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0I`m also on record that you can kiss my ass.
>>
>> > > > > > > > If you posted that photo once it should be a piece of cake f=
>or you to
>> > > > > > > > post it again and demonstrate that my claim is nothing ..."m=
>ore
>> > > > > > > > substantial than an idiot`s opinion."
>>
> your idiotic
>> > > > > > > opinion?
>>
>> > > > > > > > C'mon Dud, show us how smart you are......
>>
> or stop making
>> > > > > > > it. My guess is you will do neither.
>>
>lity
>> > > > > > than an average 10 year old, it may be impossible for you to
> right
>> > > > > > to left the DRIVER'S =C2=A0side of the car is toward you and you=
> will be
>> > > > > > unable to see the passenger's side of the car. =C2=A0 However an=
>ybody with
>> > > > > > an IQ higher than yours will comprehend that Helen Markham could=
> NOT
>> > > > > > have seen whether the PASSENGER side window was open or closed.
>>
>> > > > Dud asked??
>right side
>> > > > of
>> > > > =C2=A0his patrol car from the driver`s seat, he could not see the pe=
>rson
>> > > > =C2=A0(Oz) he was talking to?
>>
>> > > > Stupid question from a stupid person.......
>>
>that
>> > > Markham couldn`t see the window down. I pointed out that Tippit
>> > > couldn`t see the right side of his car, yet could see the person (Oz)
>> > > he talked to. How could he do this, Walt?
>>
>was
>> > > > > > closed.
>>
>> > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 So you can establish that when the photos were taken, =
>the window
>> > > > =C2=A0was shut.
>>
>> > > > Absolutely.... Not only do the photos show that the window is closed=
>
>> > > > the cops at the scene testified that it was closed.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > =C2=A0Markham said Tippit talked to the killer through the windo=
>w,
>> > > > > > and since the photos show that the VENT window is open anybody w=
>ith a
>> > > > > > thimble full of commonsense will realize that Tippit and the kil=
>ler
>> > > > > > must have been talking through that open vent window.
>>
>ndow, idiot.
>> > > > > Only through the passenger car door window.
>>
>r side
>> > > > door.
>>
>> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Markham said "The window was down." Try again, idjit.
>>
>> > Let me see if I understand what you're babbling about......You believe
>> > that Markham had some kind of special vision that allowed her to see
>> > the backside of an object where people with normal vision would see
>> > the face of that objrct.... Is that what yer saying??
>>
>n`t
>> shown that to be impossible. You just keep repeating your idiotic
>> opinion.
>>
>> > I gotta tell ya Dud.... There's not very many people that are gonna
>> > buy into that nutty idea.
>>
>>
>> > Why is it that you say Markham was wrong in saying that she was on the
>> > corner of 10th at Patton at about 1:06, when she saw Tippit shot,
>>
>e time
>> to be wrong, right that it was Oswald she saw, and possibly right,
>> possibly wrong about the window being down.
>>
>> > which was supported by TF Bowley who arrived a few minutes later at
>> > 1:10, but you say she was right when she said the window was down??
>>
>f
>> contention as fact, that the shooter (Oz) talked to Tippit through the
>> vent window.
>>
>> > Her estimate for the time of the shooting is supported by several
>> > other facts
>>
>times
>> supplied by the DPD dispatchers.
>>
>> >while her ability to see the window on the passenger side
>> > of Tippits car was impossible.
>>
>this
>> is true, though.
>>
>> > =C2=A0Why do you insist on accepting the
>> > impossible and rejecting the possible??.
>>
>ity
> of Markham seeing the shooter (Oz) lean on the door of Tippit`s squad
> car with the door window down.
>
>The point my dear half-wit child is....... The passenger side window
>was NOT visible so that Markham could determine if it was up or down.
>She was about 180 feet to the rear of the squad car and on the drivers
>side of the car. She could not see the window to determine if it was
>open or closed because she would have been looking through the car.
>She could see the man on the passenger side and assume that he and
>Tippit were talking but she couldn't have seen if there was a glass
>window between them because she would have been looking through the
>back window from 180 feet away. There is a photo on page 66 of With
>Malice that shows Markham's view of Tippit's squad car. I know you
>claim that you don't know your way to the library to look at the book
>but this information isn't really for you anyway..... It's so anybody
>who wants to see what an imbecile you are, can look at the photo and
>see with their own eyes that Markham would NOT have been able to see
>the window.
Trolls lie, that's what trolls do. Even if this troll were staring at page 66,
and viewing the scene from Markham's viewpoint - he'd still be lying about the
evidence.
For lurkers who don't have "With Malice", you can view the photo on page 66
here: http://www.cannet.com/~reesedw/hmview1.jpg (The view is actually a
panoramic one extending to page 67 - not shown)
The photo's byline states: "Panoramic view of the Tenth and Patton area from
Helen Markham's position. A Dallas police car (arrow) simulates the position of
Tippit's squad car at the time of the shooting. Photograph taken March 16,
1964.
The trolls have no excuse now.
>> > > > > > Sorry that this is all beyond your comprhension..... =C2=A0Perha=
>ps you
>> > > > > > would be happier at alt.idiots.com
>>
>> > > > > =C2=A0 You`d be their king.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > so she could not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > know if the window was open or closed.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0This is the opinion of an idiot. Markham =
>said Oz talked to Tippit
>> > > > > > > > > > > through the open passenger window.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > And If the dud was just a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > little bit brighter he could look at photos taken of=
> Tippit's squad
>> > > > > > > > > > > > car parked at the scene and see that the window was =
>CLOSED, and the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > VENT WINDOW was open.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0That photo wasn`t taken at the time Tippi=
>t was killed.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If Tippit's killer had just murdered the Preside=
>nt of the United
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > States wouldn't he have tried to avoid being see=
>n, just as the man
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brewer saw duck out of sight in the foyer of his=
> shoe store.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThey were both the same man, Os=
>wald.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the President's murderer just walk calmly over t=
>o Tippit's squad
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > car??
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BD Isn`t that what the witnesses said Oswal=
>d did?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > =EF=BF=BDHe would have had ample opportunity aft=
>er seeing the police car
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > coming to simply turn and duck behind one of the=
> house along East 10th
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > street. =EF=BF=BD Tippit was reported to have be=
David Von Pein
Helen Markham said that the killer (which, of course, was Lee H.
Oswald--as everybody with a working brain knows by this time) "leaned
over in this window" (Markham's words), i.e., the passenger-side
window of the police car, and he "looked in this window".
Now, I ask.....is it reasonable to think that the window which LHO
"leaned over" was OPEN (at least partially) or CLOSED?
IOW--Why would someone bend down and place their crossed arms (elbows)
on the windowsill of a car if the window was completely CLOSED?
The act of Oswald BENDING DOWN and putting his arms (elbows) on the
window ledge of the car is, in itself, a strong indication that the
passenger window which he was leaning over was probably open (at least
open enough to converse with Tippit through).
In the final analysis, of course, the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy
kooks, as per always, are concentrating on relatively-meaningless
chaff here. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the window was
open or closed.
Why?
Because we know that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed Police Officer
Tippit on 10th Street on Nov. 22nd. That's a "MARK VII"/"Done Deal",
and everybody with any sense knows it.
Why?
1.) The bullet shells on 10th St. (which came from Oz's gun...without
question).
2.) 13 witnesses verifying that LHO was either the killer or the ONE
person with a gun fleeing the crime scene.
3.) Because the ABO CT-Kooks of the world are trying so hard to make
Saint Oz out to be an innocent "patsy" in Tippit's murder too.
(#3 might be the biggest reason yet to know that Oswald killed J.D.;
because, as we all know, if an ABO Kook says something....then the
exact opposite is surely the truth.)
=========================================
Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and
put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked
in this window.
Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
Mr. BALL. It was?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
=========================================
Walt
> >>> "The passenger side window was NOT visible so that Markham could determine if it was up or down. .... She could see the man on the passenger side and assume that he and Tippit were talking, but she couldn't have seen if there was a glass window between them, because she would have been looking through the back window from 180 feet away." <<<
>
> Helen Markham said that the killer (which, of course, was Lee H.
> Oswald--as everybody with a working brain knows by this time) "leaned
> over in this window" (Markham's words), i.e., the passenger-side
> window of the police car, and he "looked in this window".
>
> Now, I ask.....is it reasonable to think that the window which LHO
> "leaned over" was OPEN (at least partially) or CLOSED?
>
> IOW--Why would someone bend down and place their crossed arms (elbows)
> on the windowsill of a car if the window was completely CLOSED?
Hey Von Pea Brain.....pull yer head outta yer ass and LOOK at the
picture on page 66 of With Malice..... It should be obvious to you
once you've got yer head out that Markham could NOT have seen any of
the DETAIL that she described, because the man was on the opposite
side of the car, and the car blocked her view. She had seen people
talk to a cars driver in the manner she described ( haven't we all?)
and ASSUMED that's the stance the killer took.
>
> The act of Oswald BENDING DOWN and putting his arms (elbows) on the
> window ledge of the car is, in itself, a strong indication that the
> passenger window which he was leaning over was probably open (at least
> open enough to converse with Tippit through).
He'd also have to bend down to make eye contact and talk to Tippit
through the vent window. And since the vent window is open and the
door window is closed in photos taken just minutes later it's a sure
bet that that is what happened.
>
> In the final analysis, of course, the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy
> kooks, as per always, are concentrating on relatively-meaningless
> chaff here. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the window was
> open or closed.
Oh but it does make a difference..... Because the killer supported his
upper body weight by putting his right hand on the fender near the
cowl and his left hand on the door beneath the window where he left
his finger prints. They were found there and lifted by WE Barnes who
testified that "no prints of any value" were found there. However the
prints he lifted are shown on page 275 and 276 of With Malice, and
they clearly are prints that could be used to identify the person who
leaned on that car. But since the prints were NOT NOT Oswald's prints
they "were of no value".
>
> Why?
>
> Because we know that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed Police Officer
> Tippit on 10th Street on Nov. 22nd. That's a "MARK VII"/"Done Deal",
> and everybody with any sense knows it.
>
> Why?
>
> 1.) The bullet shells on 10th St. (which came from Oz's gun...without
> question).
Wrong.... There's a whole host of questions about those shells.
>
> 2.) 13 witnesses verifying that LHO was either the killer or the ONE
> person with a gun fleeing the crime scene.
Impossible .....Oswald could not have traveled from the rooming house
to the murder scene two minutes.... and the descriptions the witnesses
gave AT THE SCENE just minutes after the shooting did not fit Oswald.
>
> 3.) Because the ABO CT-Kooks of the world are trying so hard to make
> Saint Oz out to be an innocent "patsy" in Tippit's murder too.
>
> (#3 might be the biggest reason yet to know that Oswald killed J.D.;
> because, as we all know, if an ABO Kook says something....then the
> exact opposite is surely the truth.)
Mere gibberish..............
>
> =========================================
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and
> put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked
> in this window.
Markham had to be assuming....because the car blocked her view.
>
> Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Ball is incredulous....because he'd seen photos (see page 66 of With
malice) that make it clear the Markham could not have seen this
detail, he knew that she was imagining the killers stance.
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down.
>
> Mr. BALL. It was?
Ball is incredulous....because he'd seen photos taken of the car at
the scene which show the window closed.
>
> Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
Ball is incredulous.... He knows that Markhams imagination is working
overtime.
Walt
I replied to your post a couple of minutes ago and I meant to include
instructions on how to pull yer head outta yer ass.... but I think I
forgot to include them. Do you want me to send them by E-mail?
Walt
> In article <a74b178f-5e85-4621-874d-a6e844671...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
http://www.cannet.com/~reesedw/hmview1.jpg
Thank you for posting the link, Ben ...... Do you think Dud can
understand a picture and know that Helen Markham had to have been
IMAGINING that the passenger side window was open....because the
picture makes it abundantly clear thar she could NOT have discerned if
the window was open or closed, nor could she have known how the killer
was supporting his upper body weight as he leaned forward and talked
to Tippit.
Ball, the Warren Commission attorney may have had this very photo in
his hands when he asked Markham.... The window was open??? and He
rested his arms on the car???
If he was looking at that photo he would have known that Markham was
imagining things as she assumed they were, and she could not have seen
the things she imagined she'd seen.
Bud
This is the problem when a person who only catches parts of
discussions tries to talk with authority, he makes a fool out of
himself. I linked to that very photo (although a clearer version) a
few weeks ago in the post "Who`s Finger Prints".Here is the one I
linked to...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=351112
You`ll notice it is grainy and lacks the contrast color would give
to it. That won`t stop kooks like you and Walt from making absolute
statements about what could and could not be seen by Markham on that
corner.
> For lurkers who don't have "With Malice", you can view the photo on page 66
> here: http://www.cannet.com/~reesedw/hmview1.jpg (The view is actually a
> panoramic one extending to page 67 - not shown)
And you think that dark B&W photo is a true representation of what
Markham saw?
> The photo's byline states: "Panoramic view of the Tenth and Patton area from
> Helen Markham's position. A Dallas police car (arrow) simulates the position of
> Tippit's squad car at the time of the shooting. Photograph taken March 16,
> 1964.
>
> The trolls have no excuse now.
I could have produced a link to that photo any time I wanted. I
just saw no reason to, I know that kooks see or don`t see what they
want in the evidence.
Bud
Like I said, I posted a link to this photo (a clearer and lighter
version) of Markham`s view when you made these claims in a previos
post (Who`s Finger Prints).
>because the
> picture makes it abundantly clear thar she could NOT have discerned if
> the window was open or closed, nor could she have known how the killer
> was supporting his upper body weight as he leaned forward and talked
> to Tippit.
You think this dark B&W photo is an accurate representation of what
she saw?
> Ball, the Warren Commission attorney may have had this very photo in
> his hands when he asked Markham.... The window was open??? and He
> rested his arms on the car???
>
> If he was looking at that photo he would have known that Markham was
> imagining things as she assumed they were, and she could not have seen
> the things she imagined she'd seen.
You have yet to establish that Markham could not see Oz do what she
said she saw.
Walt
>
> You`ll notice it is grainy and lacks the contrast color would give
> to it. That won`t stop kooks like you and Walt from making absolute
> statements about what could and could not be seen by Markham on that
> corner.
>
> > For lurkers who don't have "With Malice", you can view the photo on page 66
> > panoramic one extending to page 67 - not shown)
>
> And you think that dark B&W photo is a true representation of what
> Markham saw?
>
> > The photo's byline states: "Panoramic view of the Tenth and Patton area from
> > Helen Markham's position. A Dallas police car (arrow) simulates the position of
> > Tippit's squad car at the time of the shooting. Photograph taken March 16,
> > 1964.
>
> > The trolls have no excuse now.
Dud sniveled.... " I could have produced a link to that photo any time
I wanted. I just saw no reason to, I know that kooks see or don`t see
what they want in the evidence."
But the real reason Dud didn't provide a link to the photo is because
it graphic proof that Markham could NOT have known if the passenger
door window was open or closed. Only an idiot like Dud would not be
able to understand that Markham IMAGINED that the window was open.
If a person didn't know that photos taken just minutes after the
shooting show that the door window is closed and the VENT window is
open, they might assume that Markham's imagination was an accurate
portrayal of the door window. But when a person sees the photos that
show the door window closed and the vent window open then it's obvious
that Markham assumed incorrectly.
Bud
Yours is. Here is the photo from Markham`s vantage....
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=351112
Likely the original is clearer. If you blow up the photo to "200%",
you can make out that there are two people around the car, a man in a
dark suit by the driver`s door, and a uniformed policeman on the right
side of the car. The reason they can`t be seen well is the dark car
and the dark trees in the background obscure them. I think it is clear
that if the photo was taken with a modern color digital camera, there
would be no problem picking up either of these men. Of course, Markham
seeing the event in real life would have a much superior view than the
grainy photo Walt the kook is making absolute statements about.
Bud
Is the reason I gave. And you prove me right by doing exactly as I
predicted.
>is because
> it graphic proof that Markham could NOT have known if the passenger
> door window was open or closed.
Is that photo a true representation of what Markham saw? Was she
color blind? Did the trees and the car and the men by the car all
appear as dark botches, or was there contrast available in real life
that the camera doesn`t capture?
> Only an idiot like Dud would not be
> able to understand that Markham IMAGINED that the window was open.
Only an idiot would make absolute statements based on a photo that
doesn`t truly reflect what Markham saw.
> If a person didn't know that photos taken just minutes after the
> shooting show that the door window is closed and the VENT window is
> open,
Well after the shooting, not during. A lot of activity occurred
around that car between the shooting and the taking of that photo.
> they might assume that Markham's imagination was an accurate
> portrayal of the door window. But when a person sees the photos that
> show the door window closed and the vent window open then it's obvious
> that Markham assumed incorrectly.
You haven`t shown that she could not have seen Oz lean in on
Tippit`s open window. You need to produce evidence that truly reprents
hew view, that photo only gives an idea of sizes, not contrasts,
nuances, colors, ect.
Walt
>
> Likely the original is clearer.
If you blow up the photo to "200%",
I was afraid to suggest that you should "blow up" the picture..... I
always try to be careful with my words when I'm dealing with a
mentally challenged person.
But now that you have enlarged it...It should be clearer than ever
that Markham could NOT have seen that window to determine if it was
open or closed.
you can make out that there are two people around the car, a man in a
> dark suit by the driver`s door, and a uniformed policeman on the right
> side of the car. The reason they can`t be seen well is the dark car
> and the dark trees in the background obscure them. I think it is clear
> that if the photo was taken with a modern color digital camera, there
> would be no problem picking up either of these men. Of course, Markham
> seeing the event in real life would have a much superior view than the
> grainy photo Walt the kook is making absolute statements about.
>
>
>
> > > Mrs. MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
>
> > > =========================================- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Did you enlarge the photo? If you did, you might see the point I was
making, idiot.
Walt
Hell, I could see those cops standing by that car without enlarging
the photo..... Who cares if there were cops standing by the car in
this reenactment photo. The point is:.... Markham could not have
been able to see through the car to determine if the window was up or
down. She merely imagined that it was down when she saw the killer
leaning forward and talking to Tippit.
Bud
There is no way you could see them in the photo that Ben produced.
> Who cares if there were cops standing by the car in
> this reenactment photo.
My point was that they were very hard to see with dark clothes and
a dark car with dark trees behind in a B&W photo. The photo is not an
accurate representation of what Markham would have seen.
> The point is:.... Markham could not have
> been able to see through the car to determine if the window was up or
> down.
That is what an idiot keeps saying, but he does nothing to
establish his words as true. You can`t tell what the scene appeared to
Markham that day from that photo. She wasn`t color blind. Look at the
sky in the photo, it`s all grainy, do you suppose the sky looked that
way to her that day?
> She merely imagined that it was down when she saw the killer
> leaning forward and talking to Tippit.
Certainly a third of a block away is close enough to discern that.
The windows of the car are transparent. You`ve done nothing to support
your idea that it was impossible for her to see what she said.
> > > you can make out that there are two people around the car, a man in a
> > > > dark suit by the driver`s door, and a uniformed policeman on the right
> > > > side of the car. The reason they can`t be seen well is the dark car
> > > > and the dark trees in the background obscure them. I think it is clear
> > > > that if the photo was taken with a modern color digital camera, there
> > > > would be no problem picking up either of these men. Of course, Markham
> > > > seeing the event in real life would have a much superior view than the
> > > > grainy photo Walt the kook is making absolute statements about.
<SNIP>
Bud
Here is demonstration of the concept I was trying to express. On the
following link, the author had his picture taken at 10th and Patton,
re-enacting a similar pose taken by Markham in 1963. The differences
in the clarity of the two photos is apparent (they can be found about
two-thirds down the page), especially when you look at the stop sign,
the street signs and the tree branches. In the modern photo, much more
detail can be discerned, but it`s likely still not as clear as actuall
being there (but much, much better than the B&W evidence photos).
I think this establishes that the B&W photos are not an accurate
representation of Markham`s view, and can`t be used to determine what
she could see actually discern in person..
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 15 Apr, 13:09, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > On 15 Apr, 00:38, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > HelenMarkhamsaid that the killer (which, of course, was Lee H.
> > > > > Oswald--as everybody with a working brain knows by this time) "leaned
> > > > > window of the police car, and he "looked in this window".
>
> > > > > Now, I ask.....is it reasonable to think that the window which LHO
> > > > > "leaned over" was OPEN (at least partially) or CLOSED?
>
> > > > > IOW--Why would someone bend down and place their crossed arms (elbows)
> > > > > on the windowsill of a car if the window was completely CLOSED?
>
> > > > Hey Von Pea Brain.....pull yer head outta yer ass and LOOK at the
> > > > picture on page 66 of With Malice..... It should be obvious to you
> > > > > put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked
> > > > > in this window.
>
>
> > > > > Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
>
> > > > Ball is incredulous....because he'd seen photos (see page 66 of With
> > > > detail, he knew that she was imagining the killers stance.
>
>
> > > > > Mr. BALL. It was?
>
> > > > Ball is incredulous....because he'd seen photos taken of the car at
> > > > the scene which show the window closed.
>
>
> > > > > Mr. BALL. Put his arms on the window ledge?
>
> > > > Ball is incredulous.... He knows that Markhams imagination is working
> > > > overtime.
>
>
> > > � �http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>
> > > � Likely the original is clearer.
>
> > If you blow up the photo to "200%",
>
> > I was afraid to suggest that you should "blow up" the picture..... I
> > always try to be careful with my words when I'm dealing with a
> > mentally challenged person.
>
> > But now that you have enlarged it...It should be clearer than ever
> > open or closed.
>
> Here is demonstration of the concept I was trying to express. On the
> following link, the author had his picture taken at 10th and Patton,
> in the clarity of the two photos is apparent (they can be found about
> two-thirds down the page), especially when you look at the stop sign,
> the street signs and the tree branches. In the modern photo, much more
> detail can be discerned, but it`s likely still not as clear as actuall
> being there (but much, much better than the B&W evidence photos).
I understand that you want to change the focus of the debate to the
photography issue...... The point is NOT about the ability of a
camera to record and image. The issue is where Markham could have
seen and known whether a window was open or closed if her view was
obstructed by the car. Only a moron would argue that a person could
discern if a transparent window was open or closed if a car body was
between them and the glass window.
Just to illustrate my point I'll relate a couple of events.... A
couple of years ago I had my car parked in the company parking lot,
possibly 200 feet from the office. It was starting to rain and my
boss looked out and noticed that the windows were down on my car, so
he ran out to the parking lot to close them. When he got to my car he
realized the windows were closed.
( He may have been influenced by the fact that I often do leave the
windows down on my car)
Just a couple of weeks ago my daughter was busy doing something in the
kitchen, when something caught he attention out of the corner of her
eye, and as she turned her head to look a big turkey banged into the
kitchen window.
She went outside to see if he could be plucked and dressed for roast
turkey, and saw him dazzily staggering around the back yard.
The point dear moron is that glass is transparent and it would have
been impossible for Markham to know whether that window was up or down
from her vantage point.
>
> http://search.netscape.com/search/imageDetails?invocationType=imageDe...
>
> I think this establishes that the B&W photos are not an accurate
> representation ofMarkham`s view, and can`t be used to determine what
> she could see actually discern in person..
>
>
>
> > you can make out that there are two people around the car, a man in a
> > > dark suit by the driver`s door, and a uniformed policeman on the right
> > > side of the car. The reason they can`t be seen well is the dark car
> > > and the dark trees in the background obscure them. I think it is clear
> > > that if the photo was taken with a modern color digital camera, there
> > > would be no problem picking up either of these men. Of course,Markham
> > > seeing the event in real life would have a much superior view than the
> > > grainy photo Walt the kook is making absolute statements about.
>
> > > > > Mrs.MARKHAM. On the ledge of the window.
Walt
Since photos taken just minutes after the shooting show that the
window is closed then it's reasonable to conclude that it was closed
at the time and Tippit talked to his killer through the open vent
indow. To do that the killer probably supported his upper body weight
by resting his hands on the car. The logical place for a man to place
his hands would have been on each side of that open vent window. He
would have placed his right hand on the top rear of the right front
fender and his left hand on the window sill beneath the window. DPD
detective and fingerprint man, WE "Pete" Barnes found prints in both
of those locations which supports the idea that the killer conversed
through that open vent window. Markhan viewing the scene from about
180 feet away and to the rear would have seen the killer leaning
forward and assumed that Tippit talked to the killer through the door
window. She merely imagined the window was open.....because she
certainly couldn't see that from where she was standing.
Walt
weight
by resting his hands on the car. The logical place for a man to place
his hands would have been on each side of that open vent window. He
would have placed his right hand on the top rear of the right front
fender and his left hand on the window sill beneath the window. DPD
detective and fingerprint man, WE "Pete" Barnes found prints in both
of those locations which supports the idea that the killer conversed
through that open vent window.
Oh yeah.... I forgot to say that the finger prints that Pete Barnes
found there were NOT lee Oswald's finger prints....
Markhan viewing the scene from about
180 feet away and to the rear would have seen the killer leaning
forward and assumed that Tippit talked to the killer through the
door
window. She merely imagined the window was open.....because she
> certainly couldn't see that from where she was standing.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://search.netscape.com/search/imageDetails?invocationType=imageDe...
>
> > > I think this establishes that the B&W photos are not an accurate
> > > representation ofMarkham`s view, and can`t be used to determine what
> > > she could see actually discern in person..
>
> > > > you can make out that there are two people around the car, a man in a
> > > > > dark suit by the driver`s door, and a uniformed policeman on the right
> > > > > side of the car. The reason they can`t be seen well is the dark car
> > > > > and the dark trees in the background obscure them. I think it is clear
> > > > > that if the photo was taken with a modern color digital camera, there
> > > > > would be no problem picking up either of these men. Of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
I think this establishes that the B&W photos are not an accurate
representation of Markham`s view, and can`t be used to determine what
she could see actually discern in person..
There's no disputing that the human eye is superior to a camera lens,
I readily agree..... However even the human eye can't see the back
side of an object without the aid of a mirror. And the killer was on
the BACKSIDE of Tippits squad car.
Bud
You were crowing how the picture Ben produced supported your
position. When i pointed out that it really didn`t, it now becomes
irrelevant. You`re an idiot.
> The issue is where Markham could have
> seen and known whether a window was open or closed if her view was
> obstructed by the car.
She said she could. You have failed to establish that she could
not.
> Only a moron would argue that a person could
> discern if a transparent window was open or closed if a car body was
> between them and the glass window.
She was specific about Oswald`s position in the door window. The
position she described is impossible with a closed window.
> Just to illustrate my point I'll relate a couple of events.... A
> couple of years ago I had my car parked in the company parking lot,
> possibly 200 feet from the office. It was starting to rain and my
> boss looked out and noticed that the windows were down on my car, so
> he ran out to the parking lot to close them. When he got to my car he
> realized the windows were closed.
And that it wasn`t raining.
> ( He may have been influenced by the fact that I often do leave the
> windows down on my car)
Or under the influence.
> Just a couple of weeks ago my daughter was busy doing something in the
> kitchen,
Poisoning your food, hopefully.
> when something caught he attention out of the corner of her
> eye, and as she turned her head to look a big turkey banged into the
> kitchen window.
> She went outside to see if he could be plucked and dressed for roast
> turkey, and saw him dazzily staggering around the back yard.
Is it your daughter`s custom to murder stunned wildlife?
> The point dear moron is that glass is transparent and it would have
> been impossible for Markham to know whether that window was up or down
> from her vantage point.
If the turkey was able to fly through the window without breaking
glass, that would establish it was open, right. Like Oswald`s body
established for Markham that the window of Tippit`s car door was down.
Bud
A witness who was there said it was open.
Bud
Cars have windows, and windows can be seen through. You`ve done
nothing to show Markham couldn`t see what she said she had seen.