WCR Dillard Exhibit A
charles
floor lunchroom to meet Baker and Truly does not include any time to
step to the adjacent window and look out. This is why all the LNers
say that the face is just in one's imagination. Otherwise all LNers
would claim the face is real and that its Oswald admiring his
handywork. This (Dillard)photo of the man looking out of the window
was taken an estimated 10 to 45 seconds after the shots.
Mrs. Reid saw Oswald very close to 2 minutes after the shots coming
from the lunchroom. In my estimation of 1 to 2 minutes after the shots
for Ms Mooneyham to see the man in the window means it was not Oswald.
If he went back up stairs after meeting Mrs. Reid and looked out of
the window he could make Ms Mooneyham's estimate of 4 to 5 minutes.
But Mrs Reid said he was headed in the direction of the front
staircase drinking a coke. A newsman asked Oswald on the first floor
where a phone was and he showed him. The president of the TSBD saw
Oswald in a storage room on the first floor. Then he left the TSBD 3
to 4 minutes after the shots.
He is next seen on a city bus then a little later getting a taxi
because the bus was stopped due to the halted traffic.
Charles
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic," John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Anthony Marsh
> The time estimate for Oswald (approx. 90 seconds) to be in the second
Whose estimate and why should anyone believe it is the absolute proof?
Don't try to make fun of the WC and then say that they were perfect.
> floor lunchroom to meet Baker and Truly does not include any time to
> step to the adjacent window and look out. This is why all the LNers
Silly. 5 seconds does not make any difference at all. WHEN those 5
seconds happened could be an important factor.
> say that the face is just in one's imagination. Otherwise all LNers
> would claim the face is real and that its Oswald admiring his
> handywork. This (Dillard)photo of the man looking out of the window
> was taken an estimated 10 to 45 seconds after the shots.
>
No. Why should anyone have to stipulate to your ridiculous theory just
because it sounds cool? There is no face there. Just a dirty window.
> Mrs. Reid saw Oswald very close to 2 minutes after the shots coming
> from the lunchroom. In my estimation of 1 to 2 minutes after the shots
> for Ms Mooneyham to see the man in the window means it was not Oswald.
> If he went back up stairs after meeting Mrs. Reid and looked out of
> the window he could make Ms Mooneyham's estimate of 4 to 5 minutes.
NEVER rely on eyewitnesses. That is not research. It is voodoo.
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony,
You apparently believe that the face which is broken up into four parts by
the wood strips which hold the panes is not real. This would be astounding
if it is not a face because it would mean that the dirt on each pane
produced part of a face when taken together they are coherent.
Additionally it is astounding that a shadow down the face is seen
corresponding to the vertical wood strip. Also that this arrangement of
dirt on the window panes that appears to be a face is not seen in any
other photograph. It is almost as if it is a real face that moved. It
appears in the exact spot as if someone is standing on the floor and
looking out of the window. In fact Lillian Mooneyham told the FBI exactly
that in her January 1964 interview.
Is it not possible that you could be wrong?
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony, I will admit there is distortion around the mouth area of the face
because IMO the camera equipment was not elaborate enough and enlargement
of the image brings distortion. We also must remember this distortion area
is where dirt has accumulated on the window. We cannot have the original
negative professionally examined for this face because the area of the
face on the negative has been utterly destroyed. The people who destroyed
this evidence avoided even reporting it until months later when they had
to.
The police uniform is dark in the photo but I can still see what I believe
is two or three features of a Dallas police uniform.
In my opinion this face is real.
Anthony Marsh
I don't see any face. Just a dirty window.
> of the image brings distortion. We also must remember this distortion area
> is where dirt has accumulated on the window. We cannot have the original
> negative professionally examined for this face because the area of the
> face on the negative has been utterly destroyed. The people who destroyed
> this evidence avoided even reporting it until months later when they had
> to.
>
Show me the EXACT area where you think there is a face on the destroyed
negative.
> The police uniform is dark in the photo but I can still see what I believe
> is two or three features of a Dallas police uniform.
>
Nonsense. Like Badge Man.
Anthony Marsh
I have no idea what you are babbling about. You make a vague claim so that
when element of it are disproved you can say that's not what you meant.
> Additionally it is astounding that a shadow down the face is seen
> corresponding to the vertical wood strip. Also that this arrangement of
> dirt on the window panes that appears to be a face is not seen in any
> other photograph. It is almost as if it is a real face that moved. It
How would you know? You haven't examined any of the other photographs of
the windows. And you haven't even looked at some real examples of seeing a
face in the window, like Dorman. Your face must be as equally visible to
be real.
> appears in the exact spot as if someone is standing on the floor and
> looking out of the window. In fact Lillian Mooneyham told the FBI exactly
> that in her January 1964 interview.
>
No.
> Is it not possible that you could be wrong?
> Charles
>
Is it possible that you will do those things I said you must do? Not
bloody likely.
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
See if this link works! http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=view_attachment&file_id=15699
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
See if this link works!
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=view_attachment&file_id=15699
Anthony Marsh
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=view_attachment&file_id=15699
>
Yes, that came through ok. I can see what you think is a face. It is not.
I think that apparent head would be too small and too high up. Compare
that to Dorman's face.
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
The whole bloody photo:
http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/user_files/15714.jpg
Anthony Marsh
Doesn't the exhibit label cover up the area where you think the face is?
charles
>
> Yes, that came through ok. I can see what you think is a face. It is not.
> I think that apparent head would be too small and too high up. Compare
>
> - Show quoted text -
The guy standing in the photo and holding the ruler is essentially the
same height as the man in the window.
Photo link: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/ce1312.jpg
Charles
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony,
You have serious perception problems. The average person sees the face
and where it is quite well.
A person standing where this person is would be 5'8" to 5'10". His face
is the same size as Williams on the floor below him.
I wonder if this person on the sixth floor moved around enough where he
was to cause the ceiling in the floor below him to dislodge some white
chalk material. Because directly below him Bonnie Ray Williams had some
white material fall from the ceiling on the fifth floor and land on his
head and shirt. I believe the guy shifting his weight is a better solution
than blaming it on the sound of the rifle firing a shot. WHAT DO YOU
THINK?
Charles
Anthony Marsh
No. Absolutely not one single person on this planet saw a face there on
the Dillard photo until you dreamed it up. And the WC and HSCA analyzed
it and did not see a face there.
> A person standing where this person is would be 5'8" to 5'10". His face
> is the same size as Williams on the floor below him.
>
Create it to prove that point.
> I wonder if this person on the sixth floor moved around enough where he
> was to cause the ceiling in the floor below him to dislodge some white
> chalk material. Because directly below him Bonnie Ray Williams had some
> white material fall from the ceiling on the fifth floor and land on his
> head and shirt. I believe the guy shifting his weight is a better solution
> than blaming it on the sound of the rifle firing a shot. WHAT DO YOU
> THINK?
>
I think you are spouting nonsense.
> Charles
>
Anthony Marsh
Show us where you think the eyes and nose are in the Dillard photo.
Then remember to take into account perspective.