Benavides And Oswald's Hair

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8

And what does it mean that Oswald had needed a haircut for two weeks when Benavides apparently saw the back of his head? Much is made of Oswald and haircuts. We have two barbers, one in Oak Cliff and one on North Beckley Street who claim to have recently cut his hair. One of the TSBD employees, I think it was Jarman, said something to the effect that Oswald's hair was something of a joke, that he needed a haircut. The Benavides description sounds like it means that Oswald should have gotten a haircut two weeks before. I remember young men who got haircuts saying that they would get them every two weeks. I see online somebody says every 3 to 4 weeks. If I assume every 2 to 4 weeks, then Oswald's last haircut would be about 4 to 6 weeks prior to November 22, 1963, the middle of October, perhaps. Perhaps he got a haircut just before he was hired at the TSBD, while he was looking for a job. That would make sense. He wanted to make a good impression, right? In fact, he probably got one early in October when he started his job search, and then another after being hired, if the Benavides estimate is accurate. He was hired on October 15. It is credible to suppose that he got two local haircuts in October, but then let it slide afterwards, having obtained the job. So, even though the Official Story seems to want us to believe that Oswald never got haircuts, of course he did. He probably got one when he began his job search in early October, and he probably got another after being hired. This might be helpful to know if you want to evaluate the barbershop sightings, one of which involves a 14-year-old Marxist boy who matches the description of Allan Tippit.

[Bud]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8

I expect that it was the collar of the light colored windbreaker that he was wearing at the time that made Oswald`s hairline look squared off from a distance. See the third photo down showing the windbreakers from behind for the concept...

https://www.orvis.com/weatherbreaker-jacket/1Z5B0253.html?adv=127748&cm_mmc=plas-G-_-smartmensjackets-_-119533878212-_-1Z5B0253&gclid=Cj0KCQjwpImTBhCmARIsAKr58cwNhKWf5wXAbcSjLb1eBAhX6xfItzmoCSr9M12bixdcBNQ5CeUg-t4aAoIvEALw_wcB

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I think that you do not understand the issue, but I don't care.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8
>
> I expect that it was the collar of the light colored windbreaker that he was wearing at the time that made Oswald`s hairline look squared off from a distance.

This is known as "speculation," favored evidence of kook believers...

[Bud]

It is only speculation that it wasn`t the collar that caused Oswald`s hairline to look straight across, stupid.

You don`t say I saw so-and-so, and I knew it was them because of the hairline in the back of their head. You recognize people by their facial features mainly, and to a lesser extent their build. People in the area at the time said it was Oswald. Even Benavides said it looked like Oswald.

[Bud]

I think I understand the issue perfectly. Some people thought this detail was exonerating for Oswald.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8
>>>
>>> I expect that it was the collar of the light colored windbreaker that he was wearing at the time that made Oswald`s hairline look squared off from a distance.
>>
>> This is known as "speculation," favored evidence of kook believers...
>

> It is only speculation...

<snicker> Yep.

[Bud]

> > It is only speculation that it wasn`t the collar that caused Oswald`s hairline to look straight across, stupid.
>

> <snicker> Yep.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:09:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>>> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect that it was the collar of the light colored windbreaker that he was wearing at the time that made Oswald`s hairline look squared off from a distance.
>>>>
>>>> This is known as "speculation," favored evidence of kook believers...
>>>

>>> It is only speculation...
>>
>> <snicker> Yep.


Quick someone... write down the date! Chickenshit agreed with me!

[Bud]

> >>> It is only speculation that it wasn`t the collar that caused Oswald`s hairline to look straight across, stupid.
> >>

> >> <snicker> Yep.
>
>
> Quick someone... write down the date! Chickenshit agreed with me!

You agreed with me.

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

Don't feed the troll...


The square-backed hair style was Lee...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion,

Hilarious. You do have an inflated opinion of yourself, it appears. I would think the average lurker, if any, would care more about the evidence you present than any opinion you might have. But of course, as a non-lurker, I just disqualified myself from helping you out.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:49:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

I think you found the real Tippit killer, Bud!

Let’s see if Scrum Drum agrees.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:22:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:09:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>>>>> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I expect that it was the collar of the light colored windbreaker that he was wearing at the time that made Oswald`s hairline look squared off from a distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is known as "speculation," favored evidence of kook believers...
>>>>>

>>>>> It is only speculation...

>>>>
>>>> <snicker> Yep.
>>
>> Quick someone... write down the date! Chickenshit agreed with me!
>
> You agreed with me.

I stated that you supplied speculation - you agreed. So clearly, *YOU*
agreed with what *I* stated.

Tell us Chickenshit - why do you lie so blatantly? Do you think
you're fooling anyone?

[Bud]

Wrong. I pointed out that it was speculation that it wasn`t it wasn`t the collar of Oswald`s jacket that made his hair look straight across in the back.

>So clearly, *YOU*
> agreed with what *I* stated.

You hate then truth and you couldn`t deal with the truth of what I wrote so you changed what was written..

> Tell us Chickenshit - why do you lie so blatantly? Do you think
> you're fooling anyone?

Why are such a coward that you can`t deal with the points people make?

[Greg Parker]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:10:29 PM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald.

Let's put aside the fact that the rest of the description described Belin so well, he felt obliged rlto offer an alibi. The hair does not match Oswald's hair at all. Mr b said it was squared off
Back in the 60s that was called a square cut. Odwald's hair dirs exactly what mr b said it did not do - tapers off.

Oswald got his hair cut 3 times st Shasteen's between early oct and early to mid mov.

https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8
> And what does it mean that Oswald had needed a haircut for two weeks when Benavides apparently saw the back of his head? Much is made of Oswald and haircuts. We have two barbers, one in Oak Cliff and one on North Beckley Street who claim to have recently cut his hair. One of the TSBD employees, I think it was Jarman, said something to the effect that Oswald's hair was something of a joke, that he needed a haircut. The Benavides description sounds like it means that Oswald should have gotten a haircut two weeks before. I remember young men who got haircuts saying that they would get them every two weeks. I see online somebody says every 3 to 4 weeks. If I assume every 2 to 4 weeks, then Oswald's last haircut would be about 4 to 6 weeks prior to November 22, 1963, the middle of October, perhaps. Perhaps he got a haircut just before he was hired at the TSBD, while he was looking for a job. That would make sense. He wanted to make a good impression, right? In fact, he probably got one early in October when he started his job search, and then another after being hired, if the Benavides estimate is accurate. He was hired on October 15. It is credible to suppose that he got two local haircuts in October, but then let it slide afterwards, having obtained the job. So, even though the Official Story seems to want us to believe that Oswald never got haircuts, of course he did. He probably got one when he began his job search in early October, and he probably got another after being hired. This might be helpful to know if you want to evaluate the barbershop sightings, one of which involves a 14-year-old Marxist boy who matches the description of Allan Tippit.

Alan tippit? You been hangin with brian too long.

Allan tippit was no genius. Not going by who his father was anyway.

Shasteen thought tge kid was highly intelligent. That and the pl hysical description matches ruth paine's sole russian language student, bill hootkins. His lessons coincided with the haurcuts. ruth was supposed to give the lessons at st marks but she dudnt. She gave tgem at her home where she had an actual russian he could learn from.

Abd ge was no msrxist. His fami lk y were white russians. He was however. Already an accomplished actor at st marks.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hootkins had a fat face. Shasteen specifically said that the boy did not have a fat face. By the time of the Shasteen sightings, Hootkins had turned 15. Shasteen said that the boy claimed to be 14. When boys lie about their age, they always say they are older than they really are, not younger. Not until boys get to be your age do they start to claim to be younger.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:23:01 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:



Two trolls playing like a cat pawing its prey on a moderator-less board...



Armstrong is correct and the squared-off haircut was Lee's and he was at the Tippit murder scene setting up Harvey, who had the tapering hair style on the back of his neck...Harvey was seen by Burroughs entering the Texas Theater around 1:03 to 1:06 and Lee was setting him up in order to lead the cops to the alleged fleeing assassin...

[Greg Parker]

You could certainly say he had a fat face as an adult. Not so much as a 15 year old. Shasteen described it as "wide". As for his age, you are correct. He was 15 at the time. But fellow barber Glover told the FBI that Shasteen had told him the kid was 14 OR 15. Based on that information, FBI HQ ordered Dallas to interview Ruth Paine about any 14 OR 15 year old that LOGICALLY could have accompanied Oswald to the barbershop. www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10009#relPageId=10

They failed to do as instructed, asking only about a 14 year old, allowing Ruth to honestly answer there was no one she knew of.

Here is Hootkins in the 1963 school year book. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/55db8e0ce4b06db5067da361/1512084261256-SL3ORIPNAU6KCSL26GPM/thumbnail.png?content-type=image%2Fpng

> When boys lie about their age, they always say they are older than they really are, not younger. Not until boys get to be your age do they start to claim to be younger.

He never lied about his age. Shasteen was unable to recall if he said 14 or 15. The FBI thwarted its own investigation by making inquiries only about a 14 year old. By the time he got the WC. Shasteen was probably so used to the FBI referring to a 14 year old his memory was gaslit it.

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:16:37 PM UTC+10, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:23:01 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>
>
>
> Two trolls playing like a cat pawing its prey on a moderator-less board...

Yes, I apologize for interrupting your play time, Brian..

> Armstrong is correct and the squared-off haircut was Lee's and he was at the Tippit murder scene setting up Harvey, who had the tapering hair style on the back of his neck...Harvey was seen by Burroughs entering the Texas Theater around 1:03 to 1:06 and Lee was setting him up in order to lead the cops to the alleged fleeing assassin...

And there it is. Brian supports the WC conclusion that the historical Lee Harvey Oswald killed both Kennedy and then Tippit.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The photo you yourself provided, if I'm not mistaken, on some discussion forum in 2019 shows him to be a fat-faced kid. Shasteen said it was not a fat face. Your photo shows a fat face. Glover is hearsay on September 10, 1964, long after Shasteen had gone on the record at least twice saying "14." I see you have a link to the photo. I think he has a fat face. But, maybe Shasteen liked fat-faced 14-year-old boys. Shasteen did recall, he recalled that the boy said he was 14. That's what he told the FBI on December 3, 1963.

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 1:15:37 AM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> > > Hootkins had a fat face. Shasteen specifically said that the boy did not have a fat face. By the time of the Shasteen sightings, Hootkins had turned 15. Shasteen said that the boy claimed to be 14.
> > You could certainly say he had a fat face as an adult. Not so much as a 15 year old. Shasteen described it as "wide". As for his age, you are correct. He was 15 at the time. But fellow barber Glover told the FBI that Shasteen had told him the kid was 14 OR 15. Based on that information, FBI HQ ordered Dallas to interview Ruth Paine about any 14 OR 15 year old that LOGICALLY could have accompanied Oswald to the barbershop. www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10009#relPageId=10
> >
> > They failed to do as instructed, asking only about a 14 year old, allowing Ruth to honestly answer there was no one she knew of.
> >
> > Here is Hootkins in the 1963 school year book. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/55db8e0ce4b06db5067da361/1512084261256-SL3ORIPNAU6KCSL26GPM/thumbnail.png?content-type=image%2Fpng
> > > When boys lie about their age, they always say they are older than they really are, not younger. Not until boys get to be your age do they start to claim to be younger.
> > He never lied about his age. Shasteen was unable to recall if he said 14 or 15. The FBI thwarted its own investigation by making inquiries only about a 14 year old. By the time he got the WC. Shasteen was probably so used to the FBI referring to a 14 year old his memory was gaslit it.

> The photo you yourself provided, if I'm not mistaken, on some discussion forum in 2019 shows him to be a fat-faced kid. Shasteen said it was not a fat face. Your photo shows a fat face. Glover is hearsay on September 10, 1964, long after Shasteen had gone on the record at least twice saying "14." I see you have a link to the photo. I think he has a fat face. But, maybe Shasteen liked fat-faced 14-year-old boys. Shasteen did recall, he recalled that the boy said he was 14. That's what he told the FBI on December 3, 1963.

You are being disingenuous via semantics. Here is what he said:

Mr. SHASTEEN. ... he was a husky kid, he wasn't what you call fat, but he was strong--broad-shouldered--he had a real full, and when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face, he was a wide-faced kid.

Shasteen says "full wide" face. Others might say "fat".

Yes, he said on the record 14. Big deal. He told Glover 14 or 15 and that is the information the FBI thought was the more accurate because that is what they ordered the Dallas office to look into - regardless of Shasteen now claimed to remember. 14 or 15 was his earliest recall. This was not a court of law. Inquiries would get nowhere without following what was thought to be reliable hearsay. It was the Dallas FBI office that pushed the idea the boy was 14 because they damn well knew who the kid was.

But let's look at other things Shasteen said about the boy.

Mr. SHASTEEN. if he had had the personality and the teaching and the understanding to go with his looks, he could have done anything he wanted to do, but his personality to me made him look terrible and what he thought, and naturally when somebody disagrees with you to the point you get angry with them, you don't think much of their looks, but if you bring it down to his looks, he was blue-eyed, blonde-headed--he was not a light blonde he was a dark blonde. In fact a lot of. people might call him brown-headed. But he wasn't nobody's dummy because a 14-year-old boy can't spit out--I wouldn't attempt to say just how he said everything, but the things t hat struck me when he belittled our country and our leaders as a whole I might disagree with our leaders but I'll stick up for them when it comes time down to the point.

The kid was smart. Super smart. And Hootkins not only learned Russian, he later also studied Mandarin and astrophysics. How smart could Tippit;'s kid possibly be? Tippit was not bright, Not at all.

Hootkins also has a direct connection to Oswald via Ruth Paine and his lessons coincide with the time of the haircuts/ Why wouldn't Ruth bring him to her home for the lessons so Marina could be used? It was Hootkins. Without any doubt whatsoever.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:25:44 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:10:29 PM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald.
> Let's put aside the fact that the rest of the description described Belin so well, he felt obliged rlto offer an alibi. The hair does not match Oswald's hair at all. Mr b said it was squared off
> Back in the 60s that was called a square cut. Odwald's hair dirs exactly what mr b said it did not do - tapers off.

<snicker> I guess you didn`t care for my idea that the collar of Oswald`s light jacket might have made Oswald`s hair look squared off from behind.

And since Benavides said the guy looked like Oswald it is lucky he noticed this minor detail that exonerated him.

[I C McGurkenfarkle]

On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 at 02:45:57 UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:25:44 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:10:29 PM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald.
> > Let's put aside the fact that the rest of the description described Belin so well, he felt obliged rlto offer an alibi. The hair does not match Oswald's hair at all. Mr b said it was squared off
> > Back in the 60s that was called a square cut. Odwald's hair dirs exactly what mr b said it did not do - tapers off.

> <snicker> I guess you didn`t care for my idea that the collar of Oswald`s light jacket might have made Oswald`s hair look squared off from behind.

A drunk Parker and a snickering Bud. Who could ask for more in one thread? But even drunk (and I apologize in advance if I am wrong - but look at all those typos!), Parker would be unlikely to agree with you, Bud. My guess - he would say that jacket wasn't Oswald's. In fact, I am sure he would say that because his last known proclamation on this part of the case, has Oswald going direct to the theater from the TSBD.

> And since Benavides said the guy looked like Oswald it is lucky he noticed this minor detail that exonerated him.

As Parker pointed out, Benavides' description was vague enough that it also matched Belin. Unlike Oswald, Belin Was allowed to put his alibi on the record - which he did in response to resembling Benavides' suspect.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'm not being disingenuous, and I shall read no more of your insulting post.

[Bud]

That is because it is difficult to describe some using words, and conspiracy hobbyist look at the wrong things. I`d have a hard time describing my own brother, let alone a stranger. But it is easy to say "he looks like the guy I saw". Like Benavides did...

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?

Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.

You won`t see Greg or any other conspiracy hobbyist quoting that.

[Scrum Drum]

False: Armstrong quoted it and used it as evidence of Lee setting-up Harvey...

[Bud]

Like saying a mental patient scrawled it on the walls of his rubber room in his own feces.

[I C McGurkenfarkle]

Not a good idea, imo. It will allow him to say you conceded his points and then troll to continually remind you of it. Surely you've been around long enough to see this happen again and again?

I happen to agree with Parker, but if you don't - if you truly think it was young Tippit, you should not be bullied into a white flag. Progress is not made that way.

[Greg Parker]

Pointing out that someone looks like someone, is not the purpose of lineups. Imagine if Belin had been wandering around Oak Cliff that day and was picked up on the basis that he matched the vague description of the suspect? Imagine if he was put in a lineup and Benavides said "he looks like the guy who did it..." and that was enough to convince the cops who then go about creating a case out of thin air against Belin. They were desperate to close the case as quickly as possible. Any suspect would do.

Look at McWatters' testimony:

Mr. McWATTERS - Well, just like I say, he was the shortest man in the lineup, in other words, when they brought these men out there, in other words, he was about the shortest, and the lightest weight one, I guess, was the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men than--

"The man" McWatters thought he was there to identify was the "laughing man" - and that was true,. Based on what Bedsloe had told them., the cops believed "Laughing man" was Oswald. But as McWatters himself was to point out, he later learned it was a teenager named Milton Jones.

Mr. BALL - Let's get back to that lineup.
Did you pick out one man or two men that night as people you had seen, as a person you had seen before?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I picked out, the only one that I told them it was the short man that I picked out up there.
Mr. BALL - And you thought he was the teenager whom you described?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, first that is what I thought he was.
Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--

So... McWatters picked Oswald as looking most like Milton Jones. Good enough for the cops. He picked Oswald and that was all they wanted. Didn't matter to them why he picked him.

Let's see how much it matters to you?

At the moment, it looks pretty much like you want it both ways. You want the witnesses to be both vague " because it is difficult to describe some using words" but also accurate.

Typical None Nutter - the homogeneous glam-rockers of this community, swinging all ways when it comes to witness testimony.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Truth is the first casualty in this stupid war. A discussion is not a war. You want war, not the truth. You want Ben and Hank to run circles forever, war for the sake of war. And this Parker is just another war clown. You think Shasteen's boy is Hootkins, fine. Why should I fight a war over Hootkins and Tippit? Twenty years later, we'd just still be lobbing bombs, if we haven't died already by then. Shasteen said the boy said he was 14. That's the best evidence of what the boy said. Glover saying "14 or 15" is inferior evidence. Hootkins had a fat face. Shasteen said he had a wide face, but not a fat "and round" face. That's the evidence for Hootkins, unless you think there's more. The evidence is that Hootkins and Paine collaborated only on Saturdays. Shasteen does not report Saturday-only encounters. Hootkins is not impossible, but Tippit is a better possibility. His father was murdered for some reason, allegedly by Oswald. It seems more likely to me that Oswald would know Alan through JD Tippit than that Oswald would know Hootkins through Ruth Paine, and I don't need to insult you to say so. Even if Parker is right, he's still not worth talking to. If you would like to discuss, I'm fine with that, but I'm not going to war with you.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I hear tell of a Bill Hootkins FBI interview, but I can't find one. The mother was interviewed and said that Ruth Paine picked up her son at the Hootkins residence and took him to the St. Mark's school for these "private" Saturday lessons. It was not a matter of her son going to the Paine residence, so there would not seem to be much opportunity for Oswald and Bill Hootkins to get acquainted.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:03:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
>
> You won`t see Greg or any other conspiracy hobbyist quoting that.

That's because terms like "looks like", "resembles", "similar" and "I figured" are not considered positive identifications.

A positive identification is something like,

"That's the guy. I'll never forget that face.
That's the guy I saw. No doubt.
I'm positive".

Being ignorant to what constitutes a positive identification and what doesn't, I'm not surprised you make
the mistake of considering these descriptions as "evidence".

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:29:26 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> Pointing out that someone looks like someone, is not the purpose of lineups.

Is it to point out someone who doesn`t look like the suspect?

Regardless of whether Benavides made a positive identification it is still an indication of Oswald`s guilt, as he is saying the person looked like the guy other people positively identified. Note if it wasn`t Oswald but someone else Benavides could have easily said the person didn`t look like Oswald (as could be expected if it wasn`t). And Oswald was just unlucky enough that someone who looked like him who was carrying a gun in the same area he was apprehended with a gun?

> Imagine if Belin had been wandering around Oak Cliff that day and was picked up on the basis that he matched the vague description of the suspect?

Did Belin match the description that went out over police radio at the time?

And all you are doing is reinforcing my point that it is hard to give a description of someone using words. And the description is probably as much to rule out people so as to narrow down the possibilities. The description pretty much rules out women, blacks, fatties, ect. You conflate the use of words to describe the characteristics of someone with the the inability of such a crude tool to narrow it down to an individual. It isn`t meant to do that.

My favorite comedian is/was Norm MacDonald. I`ve watched many hours of him performing. If you ask me to describe him in words I would struggle. Someone I saw in a brief, traumatic event would be many times more difficult.

> Imagine if he was put in a lineup and Benavides said "he looks like the guy who did it..." and that was enough to convince the cops who then go about creating a case out of thin air against Belin. They were desperate to close the case as quickly as possible. Any suspect would do.

That is just the world your silly ideas require, you can`t show in any meaningful way that world has ever existed. By far the most likely possibility is they wanted the man who killed Tippit, and JFK. That you can`t come to grips with the fact that it was Oswald does not reflect poorly on them.

> Look at McWatters' testimony:
>
> Mr. McWATTERS - Well, just like I say, he was the shortest man in the lineup, in other words, when they brought these men out there, in other words, he was about the shortest, and the lightest weight one, I guess, was the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men than--
>
> "The man" McWatters thought he was there to identify was the "laughing man" - and that was true,. Based on what Bedsloe had told them., the cops believed "Laughing man" was Oswald. But as McWatters himself was to point out, he later learned it was a teenager named Milton Jones.
>
> Mr. BALL - Let's get back to that lineup.
> Did you pick out one man or two men that night as people you had seen, as a person you had seen before?
> Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I picked out, the only one that I told them it was the short man that I picked out up there.
> Mr. BALL - And you thought he was the teenager whom you described?
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, first that is what I thought he was.
> Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--
>
> So... McWatters picked Oswald as looking most like Milton Jones. Good enough for the cops. He picked Oswald and that was all they wanted. Didn't matter to them why he picked him.
>
> Let's see how much it matters to you?

It doesn`t matter to me because I don`t use McWatters to conclude Oswald was on the bus.

> At the moment, it looks pretty much like you want it both ways. You want the witnesses to be both vague " because it is difficult to describe some using words" but also accurate.

Where do you see me demanding accuracy? The two descriptions of Oswald that went out over police radio for the two murders he committed were pretty good, but not flawless.

> Typical None Nutter - the homogeneous glam-rockers of this community, swinging all ways when it comes to witness testimony.

Ironic, you pour through the testimony looking you reasons to disregard the witnesses who gave information that goes against your silly ideas. "Bledsoe had a stroke, can`t use her."

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:29:13 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:03:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
> >
> > Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
> >
> > You won`t see Greg or any other conspiracy hobbyist quoting that.
> That's because terms like "looks like", "resembles", "similar" and "I figured" are not considered positive identifications.

But it is an indication that it was Oswald he saw. It tends to corroborate the people who did positively ID Oswald as the man with the gun.

I can imagine how significant you idiots would find it had he said "It didn`t look like Oswald to me." I wonder how many times I would have seen it quoted by you guys then.

> A positive identification is something like,
>
> "That's the guy. I'll never forget that face.
> That's the guy I saw. No doubt.
> I'm positive".

You`ll notice that when Mark Lane called Markham, he didn`t ask "Are you sure it was Oswald you saw?" He was only interested in trying to get information from her he thought could be used to move Oswald away as the suspect.

> Being ignorant to what constitutes a positive identification and what doesn't, I'm not surprised you make
> the mistake of considering these descriptions as "evidence".

Everything you write betrays that you are an idiot, I never represented this as a positive identification. You get nothing right.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:29:13 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

It appears Gil is clueless to Armstrong's claim...



It is based on the actual witness Benavides saying the Oswald he saw at the Tippit scene had a squared-off hair style on the back of his neck...This had to be important because the spooks killed Benavides' brother over it...

[Bud]

Conspiracy myths never die, Domingo`s brother was killed in a bar about a year after Domingo testified...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/IO-XNR1_A-8/m/IuteIXt3rcwJ

[Scrum Drum]

The slaughter of witnesses went on for decades after the assassination...Richard Nagell was killed in the 90's and his evidence was stolen in a box under his bed...

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:47:12 AM UTC-4, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:41:01 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:05:57 AM UTC-4, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:29:13 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:03:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Conspiracy myths never die, Domingo`s brother was killed in a bar about a year after Domingo testified...
> >
> The slaughter of witnesses went on for decades after the assassination

Hard to influence testimony after the fact.

>...Richard Nagell was killed in the 90's and his evidence was stolen in a box under his bed...

Serves him right.

[I C McGurkenfarkle]

It is an endless war only of you are both welded to your positions and are constitutionally incapable of being swayed by any other evidence. Building consensus positions is the way forward. Granted, not too much of that happens on this board.

Parker hasn't mentioned here the point he has made in the past that most swayed me - Hootkins' family was part of the White Russian community. He could have learned Russian from a native speaker. Instead, he is having "paid" lessons from an imperfect non-native speaker - but one who does have access to a native speaker in her home. If I was one of Bill's parents, I would have been lining up one of the native speakers they had access to from any number of clubs they were mutual members of. Parker hints at something else afoot with Bill having lessons from Ruth.

Add also that Hosty was investigating Ruth prior to the assassination and already knew she was teaching young Bill. Despite that, it never occurs to him after the assassination to make any inquiries at all about Hootkins specifically in regard to the barber shop? Not buying that for a second.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'm not a researcher, just an occasional lurker who tries with mixed success to sort wheat from chaff on these boards.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:29:58 PM UTC-4, mcgurke...@protonmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 14:48:44 UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:54:12 PM UTC-4, mcgurke...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 at 03:13:28 UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 12:22:52 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 1:15:37 AM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

The on-topic subject of this thread is Benavides' observation of Oswald's hair style on the back of his neck...



The squared-off hair cut at the base of Oswald's neck differed from the tapering style seen on Oswald at the Police Station...

[Greg Parker]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 9:44:15 PM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:29:26 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Pointing out that someone looks like someone, is not the purpose of lineups.
> Is it to point out someone who doesn`t look like the suspect?

As you no doubt already know, the purpose is as Gil said. The making of a clear unambiguous identification. They were building a case for court, and they could now scratch Benavides from the witness list.

> Regardless of whether Benavides made a positive identification it is still an indication of Oswald`s guilt, as he is saying the person looked like the guy other people positively identified. Note if it wasn`t Oswald but someone else Benavides could have easily said the person didn`t look like Oswald (as could be expected if it wasn`t). And Oswald was just unlucky enough that someone who looked like him who was carrying a gun in the same area he was apprehended with a gun?

Babbling brook. Witnesses stand or fall on their own statements, not the statements of others. Do you think they would put Benavides on the stand and make the stream of consciousness argument you just made?

> > Imagine if Belin had been wandering around Oak Cliff that day and was picked up on the basis that he matched the vague description of the suspect?

> Did Belin match the description that went out over police radio at the time?

The description was very vague. He was certainly closer in age and weight than Oswald to the given description.

Here he is with Team Warren - in the front with the bow tie.
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/news/warren-commisionstaff-web.jpg

> And all you are doing is reinforcing my point that it is hard to give a description of someone using words. And the description is probably as much to rule out people so as to narrow down the possibilities. The description pretty much rules out women, blacks, fatties, ect. You conflate the use of words to describe the characteristics of someone with the the inability of such a crude tool to narrow it down to an individual. It isn`t meant to do that.

You jest. Please tell me you jest. He said he looked like the person he saw. That is NOT an identification.

> My favorite comedian is/was Norm MacDonald. I`ve watched many hours of him performing. If you ask me to describe him in words I would struggle. Someone I saw in a brief, traumatic event would be many times more difficult.

Then we should throw all the witnesses out as potentially mistaken, too traumatized, too eager to help, unable to verbalize the words "that's him" and etc.

> > Imagine if he was put in a lineup and Benavides said "he looks like the guy who did it..." and that was enough to convince the cops who then go about creating a case out of thin air against Belin. They were desperate to close the case as quickly as possible. Any suspect would do.
> That is just the world your silly ideas require, you can`t show in any meaningful way that world has ever existed. By far the most likely possibility is they wanted the man who killed Tippit, and JFK. That you can`t come to grips with the fact that it was Oswald does not reflect poorly on them.

That is the world that existed in Dallas under Wade and Fritz. Do I have to remind you that in a 10 year stretch, Fritz "solved" 656 out of 666 murder cases? That is 98%. Even the best forces today, using modern techniques struggle to close to 60%. There is only one reasonable explanation. Fritz framed a lot of innocent people.

> > Look at McWatters' testimony:
> >
> > Mr. McWATTERS - Well, just like I say, he was the shortest man in the lineup, in other words, when they brought these men out there, in other words, he was about the shortest, and the lightest weight one, I guess, was the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men than--
> >
> > "The man" McWatters thought he was there to identify was the "laughing man" - and that was true,. Based on what Bedsloe had told them., the cops believed "Laughing man" was Oswald. But as McWatters himself was to point out, he later learned it was a teenager named Milton Jones.
> >
> > Mr. BALL - Let's get back to that lineup.
> > Did you pick out one man or two men that night as people you had seen, as a person you had seen before?
> > Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I picked out, the only one that I told them it was the short man that I picked out up there.
> > Mr. BALL - And you thought he was the teenager whom you described?
> > Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, first that is what I thought he was.
> > Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
> > Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--
> >
> > So... McWatters picked Oswald as looking most like Milton Jones. Good enough for the cops. He picked Oswald and that was all they wanted. Didn't matter to them why he picked him.
> >
> > Let's see how much it matters to you?
> It doesn`t matter to me because I don`t use McWatters to conclude Oswald was on the bus.

You can't use Milton, either. Which means you're stuck with an even worse witness - Bledsoe - who needed not only a lawyer with her, but also notes which the Secret Service were so kind in helping put together for her.

> > At the moment, it looks pretty much like you want it both ways. You want the witnesses to be both vague " because it is difficult to describe some using words" but also accurate.

> Where do you see me demanding accuracy? The two descriptions of Oswald that went out over police radio for the two murders he committed were pretty good, but not flawless.

Pretty good? Way out on age and weight and clothing. The white male bit, they get a pass for.

> > Typical None Nutter - the homogeneous glam-rockers of this community, swinging all ways when it comes to witness testimony.

> Ironic, you pour through the testimony looking you reasons to disregard the witnesses who gave information that goes against your silly ideas. "Bledsoe had a stroke, can`t use her."

LOL. Never mentioned her stroke. But there are sound reasons not to use very young children or anyone else with diminished faculties as witnesses. One being they are easily led...two being their memory is not likely to be reliable...

Thanks for assisting me to show just how bad the case was from the witness list alone.

[Greg Parker]

Brian, even though he more or less hinted I'm a drunk, I'll defend McGurke here. It appears that anyone with any sense can easily see there is no match there. No need to dwell on it any longer. There are other hair witnesses to consider now. Like Shasteen. And it is difficult to discuss Shasteen without getting onto the subject of the kid.

You can always start your own Warren Commission Twilight Zone thread with 3 Oswalds, 2 Marguerites and a Rubenstein in a Jew tree.

Or a thread on the moderators at the Education Forum. It's been hours since we've had one. Are you trying to make us all go cold turkey?

[Scrum Drum]

Benavides was a credible witness who was there...He witnessed a key piece of evidence...Harvey was in to the Theater at 1:05 or so, so Benavides' Oswald can't be Harvey...Therefore there being two different hair styles lines up with the other evidence...



You are an internet troll and evidence-hacker from a notorious troll farm...



Armstrong has a good case even though the research community is somewhat dysfunctional and self-indulgent...



Greg Parker failed to answer for the fact Hargrove showed a photo where Robinson's Cadillac and the Station Wagon were visible on Elm by the Knoll with the clock on the roof of the Depository showing "12:40"...Therefore proving Parker is full of it when he says Oswald did not leave the Depository before 12:50...



Parker also trollishly ignored Helen Forrest who said "If it wasn't Oswald it was his identical twin"...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

"Parker hints?" C'mon! I'm all for hints, but Parker says you're disingenuous if you don't take his "hints" as gospel truth. I don't know about Hootkins' White Russian pals, but he was taking Russian lessons at a school that taught the course. Then when the semester ended, he continued to take private lessons from that same teacher. I don't see the problem there. Sure, he could have done this and he could have done that, but I see no reason to doubt that story. Those White Russians, most of them, were busy people working good-paying jobs. And there's lots of stuff Hosty should have been investigating before he got around to Bill Hootkins, but sure, he should have done a better job there, too. I don't see any interview for Bill Hootkins. He should have talked to the kid. I am capable of being swayed by good evidence, which is how I came to believe that Alan Tippit is Shasteen's boy. If I find better evidence that the boy has another name, then I will be swayed again. But Parker can go fuck himself. He does not own any evidence. I don't need to talk to him.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8

I see that the clown show keeps kicking this around, so I will spell it out for my Lurker. Benavides said the suspects hair in the back looked squared off instead of tapered because he needed a haircut. What this means is that Benavides thought that the suspect's last haircut was with a tapered back and that about two weeks worth of growth made it look squared off. This means that he could see the tapered cut and that it was hairier than the part that had grown for two weeks to make it look square. And this is exactly what we see in the photo of Oswald in custody. In the linked photo below I have circled the areas of new growth which turned Oswald's tapered cut into a square.
https://postimg.cc/c65HMkQQ
I don't know whether Benavides saw Oswald on Tenth Street, but his back-of-the-head description does match to what we see in the photography of Oswald in custody.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:07:25 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 9:44:15 PM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:29:26 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Pointing out that someone looks like someone, is not the purpose of lineups.
> > Is it to point out someone who doesn`t look like the suspect?
> As you no doubt already know, the purpose is as Gil said. The making of a clear unambiguous identification. They were building a case for court, and they could now scratch Benavides from the witness list.

Only from the witnesses who said they could make a positive ID.

> > Regardless of whether Benavides made a positive identification it is still an indication of Oswald`s guilt, as he is saying the person looked like the guy other people positively identified. Note if it wasn`t Oswald but someone else Benavides could have easily said the person didn`t look like Oswald (as could be expected if it wasn`t). And Oswald was just unlucky enough that someone who looked like him who was carrying a gun in the same area he was apprehended with a gun?
> Babbling brook. Witnesses stand or fall on their own statements, not the statements of others. Do you think they would put Benavides on the stand and make the stream of consciousness argument you just made?

It`s called reasoning, if everyone could do it there would be no CTers. There were two points made, and they apparently overloaded you.

1) If Benavides saw the shooter and it was not Oswald he could very well say he was sure it wasn`t. He didn`t do this.

2) Saying someone looks like someone you saw with a gun, and a person who looks like that person being caught in the area with a gun is a strong indication it is the person who was seen.

If some saws he saw someone walking an alligator, and when someone is found nearby walking an alligator and the person who saw this says "That looks like the guy I saw walking an alligator" it is a very strong possibility it was, even if it isn`t a positive identification.

> > > Imagine if Belin had been wandering around Oak Cliff that day and was picked up on the basis that he matched the vague description of the suspect?
>
> > Did Belin match the description that went out over police radio at the time?
> The description was very vague.

Why would you expect it to be more precise?

>He was certainly closer in age and weight than Oswald to the given description.

Support that.

> Here he is with Team Warren - in the front with the bow tie.
> https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/news/warren-commisionstaff-web.jpg
> > And all you are doing is reinforcing my point that it is hard to give a description of someone using words. And the description is probably as much to rule out people so as to narrow down the possibilities. The description pretty much rules out women, blacks, fatties, ect. You conflate the use of words to describe the characteristics of someone with the the inability of such a crude tool to narrow it down to an individual. It isn`t meant to do that.
> You jest.

No, I apply reason. It rolls off you like water off a duck.

> Please tell me you jest. He said he looked like the person he saw. That is NOT an identification.

You should read what you reply to, and maybe try to contest it.

When you give a description you gives estimates of the characteristics you observed. If you say the guy was six foot, of course there were a slew of people that share that characteristic. But it tends to cut out a slew of people from consideration also.

> > My favorite comedian is/was Norm MacDonald. I`ve watched many hours of him performing. If you ask me to describe him in words I would struggle. Someone I saw in a brief, traumatic event would be many times more difficult.
> Then we should throw all the witnesses out as potentially mistaken, too traumatized, too eager to help, unable to verbalize the words "that's him" and etc.

Or we could look at it correctly, for what it actually is.

> > > Imagine if he was put in a lineup and Benavides said "he looks like the guy who did it..." and that was enough to convince the cops who then go about creating a case out of thin air against Belin. They were desperate to close the case as quickly as possible. Any suspect would do.
> > That is just the world your silly ideas require, you can`t show in any meaningful way that world has ever existed. By far the most likely possibility is they wanted the man who killed Tippit, and JFK. That you can`t come to grips with the fact that it was Oswald does not reflect poorly on them.
> That is the world that existed in Dallas under Wade and Fritz. Do I have to remind you that in a 10 year stretch, Fritz "solved" 656 out of 666 murder cases? That is 98%. Even the best forces today, using modern techniques struggle to close to 60%. There is only one reasonable explanation. Fritz framed a lot of innocent people.

It seems you are conflating two different things (even if your numbers are correct, which I have no idea whether they are), cases that go to trial and murders that are solved. When you say "cases", you are talking about cases brought to trial. Murder cases brought to trial have a 70% conviction rate. It could be that Fritz was careful not to go to trial unless he was sure he could secure a conviction.

> > > Look at McWatters' testimony:
> > >
> > > Mr. McWATTERS - Well, just like I say, he was the shortest man in the lineup, in other words, when they brought these men out there, in other words, he was about the shortest, and the lightest weight one, I guess, was the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men than--
> > >
> > > "The man" McWatters thought he was there to identify was the "laughing man" - and that was true,. Based on what Bedsloe had told them., the cops believed "Laughing man" was Oswald. But as McWatters himself was to point out, he later learned it was a teenager named Milton Jones.
> > >
> > > Mr. BALL - Let's get back to that lineup.
> > > Did you pick out one man or two men that night as people you had seen, as a person you had seen before?
> > > Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I picked out, the only one that I told them it was the short man that I picked out up there.
> > > Mr. BALL - And you thought he was the teenager whom you described?
> > > Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, first that is what I thought he was.
> > > Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
> > > Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--
> > >
> > > So... McWatters picked Oswald as looking most like Milton Jones. Good enough for the cops. He picked Oswald and that was all they wanted. Didn't matter to them why he picked him.
> > >
> > > Let's see how much it matters to you?
> > It doesn`t matter to me because I don`t use McWatters to conclude Oswald was on the bus.
> You can't use Milton, either. Which means you're stuck with an even worse witness - Bledsoe - who needed not only a lawyer with her,

That increases her credibility with me.

>but also notes which the Secret Service were so kind in helping put together for her.

Show the SS wrote her notes for her.

> > > At the moment, it looks pretty much like you want it both ways. You want the witnesses to be both vague " because it is difficult to describe some using words" but also accurate.
>
> > Where do you see me demanding accuracy? The two descriptions of Oswald that went out over police radio for the two murders he committed were pretty good, but not flawless.
> Pretty good? Way out on age and weight and clothing.

Not that far out. A few inches, a few pounds, a few years. Many said "slender" a perfect description of Oswald`s build.

As far as clothing, I doubt I could offer much. If you waited outside a store I just frequented and asked me what the cashier who waited on me was wearing I would probably answer "Did they have clothes on?"

>The white male bit, they get a pass for.
> > > Typical None Nutter - the homogeneous glam-rockers of this community, swinging all ways when it comes to witness testimony.
>
> > Ironic, you pour through the testimony looking you reasons to disregard the witnesses who gave information that goes against your silly ideas. "Bledsoe had a stroke, can`t use her."
> LOL. Never mentioned her stroke. But there are sound reasons not to use very young children or anyone else with diminished faculties as witnesses. One being they are easily led...two being their memory is not likely to be reliable...

Hence the notes. She checked her records to get the dates. I would have to do the same thing.

[Scrum Drum]

You're a nut and your explanation above is as idiotic as it is incoherent...



We know Harvey went in to the Texas Theater around 1:05 or so...Since Mrs Higgins said the TV announcer said it was 1:06 when the shots rang out therefore we know the Oswald Benavides saw was a different person than the Oswald who entered the Texas Theater early on...Julia Postal ran out of the room and could not answer if she sold Oswald a ticket because she sold Harvey a ticket at 1:03...



Since we have confirmed witnessings that make the Oswald at the Tippit scene a different Oswald than the one who went in to the Theater at 1:05 we can assume the squared-off hair style was visibly different than Harvey's tapered style...Your explanation is demented and makes a weird attempt to get around the fact tapered and squared-off are two completely different things...

[I C McGurkenfarkle]

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 14:38:52 UTC+10, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:47:54 AM UTC+10, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:29:58 PM UTC-4, mcgurke...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 14:48:44 UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:54:12 PM UTC-4, mcgurke...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 at 03:13:28 UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 12:22:52 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 1:15:37 AM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > The on-topic subject of this thread is Benavides' observation of Oswald's hair style on the back of his neck...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The squared-off hair cut at the base of Oswald's neck differed from the tapering style seen on Oswald at the Police Station...
> > Brian, even though he more or less hinted I'm a drunk, I'll defend McGurke here. It appears that anyone with any sense can easily see there is no match there. No need to dwell on it any longer. There are other hair witnesses to consider now. Like Shasteen. And it is difficult to discuss Shasteen without getting onto the subject of the kid.
> >
> > You can always start your own Warren Commission Twilight Zone thread with 3 Oswalds, 2 Marguerites and a Rubenstein in a Jew tree.
> >
> > Or a thread on the moderators at the Education Forum. It's been hours since we've had one. Are you trying to make us all go cold turkey?
> Benavides was a credible witness who was there...He witnessed a key piece of evidence...Harvey was in to the Theater at 1:05 or so, so Benavides' Oswald can't be Harvey...Therefore there being two different hair styles lines up with the other evidence...

He was indeed. He never said he was positive, which makes him honest - and useless as a witness.

> You are an internet troll and evidence-hacker from a notorious troll farm...

A bit harsh there, Tropp, don't you think? You say you held out an olive branch to Jimmy di? Why not to Parker? Be the bigger man. You know he will probably just came back at you trying to top your insult. It is not dignified, and certainly not professional.

> Armstrong has a good case even though the research community is somewhat dysfunctional and self-indulgent...

A good case of what...? Covid? Dysentery? Let's hope he gets better soon. He has made a lot of important discoveries when it comes to raw research materials.

> Greg Parker failed to answer for the fact Hargrove showed a photo where Robinson's Cadillac and the Station Wagon were visible on Elm by the Knoll with the clock on the roof of the Depository showing "12:40"...Therefore proving Parker is full of it when he says Oswald did not leave the Depository before 12:50...

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone doubts there was a station wagon and that a white male got into said station wagon. Not an unusual event.

> Parker also trollishly ignored Helen Forrest who said "If it wasn't Oswald it was his identical twin"...

I'm confused. Trolls by definition, don't IGNORE something - they comment on it. "If it wasn't Oswald..." does indicate she herself had some doubt. But even if you take her at her word and it was such a lookalike that it could be an identical twin... that in itself goes against your theory, surely? Your "Harvey" and "Lee" were not peas in a pod. One one was noticeably taller and looked like a footballer, the other was a skinny dweeb.

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:20:00 PM UTC-4, mcgurke...@protonmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 14:38:52 UTC+10, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:47:54 AM UTC+10, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:

If Harvey was in the Theater by 1:05 and was seen with a tapered hair style on the back of his neck then the squared-off hair style seen by Benavides was almost certainly on Kittrell's Lee...

[I C McGurkenfarkle]

Okay. Thanks. But you seem to be suggesting there are no other possibilities?

[Greg Parker]

In Harvey and Lee World, the only Truths are in the Holy Book.

"Harvey and Lee" is both the alternative universe version of the Warren Commission report AND a metaphor for the betrayal of Christ - here played by Harvey. It was no surprise Harvey wanted to watch Cry of Battle. Harvey itself means "Battle Worthy" - as in a Christlike figure battling for the souls of Mankind.

"Lee" of course, represents the Judas of the story.. He took his 30 pieces of silver and disappeared - the silver bought him a one way ticket to Hell. But they do say Norway is nice.

Gee, you even have the DPD as the Romans and Earl Warren as Pilot.

They say Harvey's father died before he was born. Don't believe it,. He was a fictional character all along. We know who REALLY got Marguerite #2 pregnant That bearded old goat in the sky, that's who.

[Scrum Drum]

Troll impersonating Greg Parker...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 04:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:29:13 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:03:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
>> >
>> > Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
>> >
>> > You won`t see Greg or any other conspiracy hobbyist quoting that.
>> That's because terms like "looks like", "resembles", "similar" and "I figured" are not considered positive identifications.

LFD.

Begging the question...

>> A positive identification is something like,
>>
>> "That's the guy. I'll never forget that face.
>> That's the guy I saw. No doubt.
>> I'm positive".

LFD.

>> Being ignorant to what constitutes a positive identification and what doesn't, I'm not surprised you make
>> the mistake of considering these descriptions as "evidence".

LFD.

Sadly, Chickenshit tends to use more logical fallacies than even
Huckster does...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 May 2022 16:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:22:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:09:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:32:02 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> This came up recently, and I did not clarify my opinion on the matter. Since I know how vital it is to the Lurker to know my opinion, I want to make it clear that I believe that Benavides' description of the suspect's hair, the suspect on 10th Street who supposedly shot JD Tippit, matches Oswald's hair as it appears in this photograph of Oswald in police custody. That is, the Back Of The Head Description matches Oswald. https://postimg.cc/MX12pzt8
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I expect that it was the collar of the light colored windbreaker that he was wearing at the time that made Oswald`s hairline look squared off from a distance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is known as "speculation," favored evidence of kook believers...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is only speculation...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snicker> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Quick someone... write down the date! Chickenshit agreed with me!
>>>
>>> You agreed with me.
>>
>> I stated that you supplied speculation - you agreed.
>
> Wrong.

And yet, it's still immediately above...

>> So clearly, *YOU*
>> agreed with what *I* stated.
>
> You hate then truth ...

You'll have to correct your grammar...

>> Tell us Chickenshit - why do you lie so blatantly? Do you think
>> you're fooling anyone?
>
> Why...

Not an answer.