Another Myers omission covers for the Davises

[donald willis]

Another Myers omission covers for the Davises

His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.

The two-minute gap before the mention of the Davis address may suggest a corresponding gap in the time the Davises called. Which further suggests that the Davises did not see all that they said they had seen, in their WC interviews. In those few minutes, or less, the killer would have already been going down Patton. In fact, Virginia Davis wrote as much in her original affidavit: "We ran to the side door on Patton St. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."

It seems that--unlike her sister-in-law--poor Virginia Davis couldn't be weaned quite quickly enough from what had actually happened. She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street" (v6p461). A slip, but a devastating one. It means that (a) the two picked up the westward progress of the perp too late to have seen him in their front yard palming shells, and (b) they saw the guy as he was crossing Patton, away from them, which means that they did not get a very good look at him.

Further, the sisters-in-law very closely coordinated their spotting of the "boy" with the concurrent screaming of Mrs. Markham (Virginia: v6p457 / Barbara v3p343). Unfortunately for them, the latter averred that she did not start screaming--understandably--until the boy was walking away from her and cutting across Patton (v3p321).

All the above signs: the belated phone call, Virginia Davis's "street" slip, and Mrs. Markham's belated screaming: point to a retrospectively diminished role for the Davises in the Oak Cliff story.

dcw

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

This is too noisy for me. But it wouldn't surprise me that Myers would tailor the evidence in the telling since I think he just made up shit whenever he felt he needed to and could get away with it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
>
> His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the
> Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.

That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
They only tell you what they want you to know.
They NEVER tell you the whole story.
It's called deception by omission.

[John Corbett]

As if any of this changes the fact that Oswald shot Tippit.

You guys keep focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You are a lame brain.

[John Corbett]

As I said. You are focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 03:22:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>> Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
>>>
>>> His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the
>>> Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.
>> That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
>> They only tell you what they want you to know.
>> They NEVER tell you the whole story.
>> It's called deception by omission.
>
>As if any of this changes the fact that Oswald shot Tippit.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

>You guys keep focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.

And just like Chickenshit, you can't define this...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As I said. You are focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.

You can't define what the "right things" are.

The truth is: the "right things" are only that evidence that supports
your faith.

[Bud]

It`s a concept, stupid. Look up the words used in the concept if you don`t understand them.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:45:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As I said. You are focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.
> You can't define what the "right things" are.

Look up the word "right" and look up the word "thing(s)" if you don`t understand them.

> The truth is: the "right things" are only that evidence that supports
> your faith.

It might seem that way to an idiot. Looking at things correctly entails looking at them in the correct context, for what they actually are and with the proper application of reason. The opposite of the approach of conspiracy hobbyists.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?

[donald willis]

Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.

[donald willis]

Looking more & more like "Oswald shot Tippit" isn't a fact. Thank you, though, for accepting what I wrote. Pretend you didn't notice that the latter took away two lineup IDs of Oswald, as well as two pistol "IDs".

[Bud]

I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're looking at the wrong ideas incorrectly, Li'l Bud.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> It`s a concept...

One that you can't define or defend.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:54:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:45:27?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As I said. You are focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.
>> You can't define what the "right things" are.
>
> Look up the word "right" and look up the word "thing(s)" if you don`t understand them.

And again Chickenshit proves me right.

>> The truth is: the "right things" are only that evidence that supports
>> your faith.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>> Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
>>>
>>> His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the
>>> Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.
>> That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
>> They only tell you what they want you to know.
>> They NEVER tell you the whole story.
>> It's called deception by omission.
>

> So Willis decides ...

Lying about what others post is a tactic done only by dishonest
people.

[donald willis]

What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....

dcw

[Bud]

A concept you can`t seem to understand, even when it is explained to you.

Read what you cowardly removed for comprehension....

[Bud]

Startling admission.

[Bud]

You wrote this...

"She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street"

This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.

> dcw

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:29:52 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:54:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:45:27?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> >> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>As I said. You are focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.
> >> You can't define what the "right things" are.
> >
> > Look up the word "right" and look up the word "thing(s)" if you don`t understand them.
> And again Chickenshit proves me right.

You have to tell me what part of the concept has you stumped and perhaps I can help you out.

But the fact is you don`t want to understand the concept because it is the truth, and you hate the truth.

> >> The truth is: the "right things" are only that evidence that supports
> >> your faith.
> Logical fallacy deleted.

<snicker> Ben is back, just as yellow as always.

[donald willis]

That one word "street" reinforces Virginia Davis' statement in her original affidavit that she was at the side door on Patton. The gunman was then not in the yard, but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.

[John Corbett]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the
> > > > > > > > Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.
> > > > > > > That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
> > > > > > > They only tell you what they want you to know.
> > > > > > > They NEVER tell you the whole story.
> > > > > > > It's called deception by omission.
> > > > > > So Willis decides to take one word of context (from a witness he ignores 97% of the information she related) and somehow this reflects poorly on us?
> > > > > Sometimes all it takes is a word or a few words--remember "Z", which was based on fact: the phrase "lithe like a tiger" gave it all away.
> > > > I didn`t care about your ideas at all, which is why I didn`t respond to your silly game playing. I objected to Gil`s idea that your silly game playing reflected poorly on us.
> > > What's silly about showing that Myers omits only the dispatcher's response to the Davis call, which response came about 2 minutes after his response to the Wright call? I guess it's like Kryptonite to both of you superboys....
> > You wrote this...
> > "She gives away the deception with one slip--one word--in her Commission testimony, which brings her affidavit into even sharper focus. Her affidavit's "I saw the boy cutting across our yard" becomes--at one point in her testimony--"We saw the boy cutting across the street"
> > This is silly game playing not worthy of a response.

This is what is meant by the expression "picking the fly shit out of the pepper.".

[Bud]

From her affidavit...

"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."

"Yard", not "street".

> The gunman was then not in the yard,

From her affidavit...

"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."

She said Oswald was in the yard.

> but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.

You are playing silly games, Don.

[Hank Sienzant]

I would phrase it as “grasping at straws”.

(”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)

The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.

Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).

Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).

Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?

Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.

Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.

The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.

Pretty damning evidence.

To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.

Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.

At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.

[donald willis]

No--it's called finding the cracks in the cover-up. Have to admit it was a very good cover-up by Fritz, Sawyer, etc., but not perfect. And those imperfections give it away.

[donald willis]

Good. Quoting from her affidavit, where she says the two of them were at the "side door" on "Patton". Which means that all their testimony re seeing, from the *front* door, the gunman load shells, was false testimony. Thanks, Bud.

> > The gunman was then not in the yard,
> From her affidavit...
> "I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
> She said Oswald was in the yard.

Again, many thanks for using her affidavit! Go, Bud!

> > but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.
> You are playing silly games, Don.

And you are mounting a silly, actually (see above) counter-productive defense of the cover-up.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Imperfections are a part of almost every human endeavor. We didn't get a perfect investigation
into JFK's assassination and there is no reason to think we should have. Mistakes were made.
That doesn't prevent us from determining the truth which is that Oswald killed JFK and Tippit
and there is zero credible evidence he had accomplices in either crime.

[donald willis]

And, as noted above, with Bud, it was a very good cover-up, hence the small but significant chinks in its armor.

>
> (”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
>
> The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
>
> Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
>
> Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
>
> Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?

Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).

>
> Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.
>

You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?

> Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
>

A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.

> The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
>
> Pretty damning evidence.
>

If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly, and falsely witnessed by the Davises.

> To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
>
> Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.

Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews. McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation! Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.

dcw

[John Corbett]

I guess it was too difficult to figure out that after he cut across the yard, he could have crossed
Patton.

> >
> > Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.
> >
> You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?

Why would you think it changes anything if he crossed Patton as he fled? He was heading toward
Jefferson. What difference does it make which side of Patton he did that on? Your insistence
on focusing on these trivialities are the reason you have such a hard time figuring out the easy
things.

> > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> >
> A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.

You're loony, Don.

> > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> >
> > Pretty damning evidence.
> >
> If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly, and falsely witnessed by the Davises.

How would those civilians have gotten shells that could only have been fired by Oswald's gun?

> > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
> >
> > Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.

> Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews. McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation! Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
>

It's amazing the things you find significant while ignoring the truly significant things. The
witnesses IDed Oswald and he had the murder weapon in his possession roughly a half hour
later. You have to be incredibly bad at weighing evidence to believe Oswald didn't kill Tippit.

You need to find a new hobby, Don. I love playing golf but if I sucked at it as bad as you suck at
this hobby, I'd find something else to occupy my time.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Makes sense that the Chevette Capitalist sucks at golf.

[Bud]

How does her saying "yard" reinforce "street"?

> > > The gunman was then not in the yard,
> > From her affidavit...
> > "I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
> > She said Oswald was in the yard.
> Again, many thanks for using her affidavit! Go, Bud!

"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."

How does her saying "yard" reinforce "street"?

> > > but further away, too far for an accurate ID, and nowhere near where the spent shells were supposed to have been found, near the walk & window on the side.
> > You are playing silly games, Don.
> And you are mounting a silly, actually (see above) counter-productive defense of the cover-up.

You cite Virginia Davis` affidavit then you ignore what it says.

Because you are playing silly games.

> dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

That’s the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have to do more than simply allege your interpretation of the evidence is the correct one. You need to post the evidence establishing your interpretation.

Hint: It's not contained in anything you posted to date. That is simply your interpretation of the conflicts in one person’s testimony. When do you intend to post the evidence establishing your interpretation is the correct one?

[Hank Sienzant]

No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning. Here
you simply use the conclusion (it was a very good coverup) to support the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony). Originally, you were using the premise (your interpretation of the discrepancies in testimony) to support your conclusion (there was a coverup).

Please read up on circular reasoning and try to eliminate it from your arguments.

Your argument is fallacious.

> >
> > (”The idiom 'grasping at straws' is used to mean an attempt to succeed—such as in an argument, debate or attempt at a solution—when nothing you choose is likely to work.”)
> >
> > The affidavit was on the afternoon of 11/22/63, within a few hours of Tippit’s murder. Let’s call it three hours later.
> >
> > Let's call these three hours one unit of time, thus there are eight such units per day (3 hours x 8 = 24).
> >
> > Her testimony was on April 2nd, 1964 - 132 days later. Or more than 1056 such units unitsof time (8 x 132 = 1056).
> >
> > Which is more likely to be accurate, her memory from one unit of time later, or her memory from over a thousand units of time later?
> Take your pick--the Virginia Davis of "side door on Patton" (affidavit), or the Virginia Davis of "saw him crossing the STREET" (testimony).

Those are not the only choices. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

In the affidavit, for example, she said “I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun.” You ignored this.

In her testimony, she said “Then we heard the second shot and that is when we ran to the front door.”

So please tell us how you determined which version is correct. You appear to be starting with the idea that a coverup existed, and interpreting all those statements through that coverup lens.

> >
> > Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.
> >
> You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?

She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.

Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.

> > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> >
> A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.

You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.

> > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> >
> > Pretty damning evidence.
> >
> If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,

Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?

> and falsely witnessed by the Davises.

Another unproven allegation by you.

> > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.

Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.

> >
> > Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.
> Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.

People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error. It doesn't work that way.

> McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!

He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?

> Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.

Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?

>
> >
> > At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.

Do you disagree?

[donald willis]

Unfortunately for you, Virginia D, in her testimony, said both that she was in the front yard at the time and that she couldn't see him cross Patton! So for her to say that they saw him crossing Patton means that she was right, originally--they were in the side yard on Patton. Which means all that folderol re unloading shells out front was phony, meant only to incriminate Oswald.

> > >
> > > Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.
> > >
> > You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?
> Why would you think it changes anything if he crossed Patton as he fled? He was heading toward
> Jefferson. What difference does it make which side of Patton he did that on? Your insistence
> on focusing on these trivialities are the reason you have such a hard time figuring out the easy
> things.

See above.

> > > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> > >
> > A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.
> You're loony, Don.

You're such a master of wordplay!

> > > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> > >
> > > Pretty damning evidence.
> > >
> > If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly, and falsely witnessed by the Davises.
> How would those civilians have gotten shells that could only have been fired by Oswald's gun?
> > > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
> > >
> > > Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.
>
> > Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews. McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation! Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
> >
> It's amazing the things you find significant while ignoring the truly significant things. The
> witnesses IDed Oswald

McWatters recanted on his ID; Scoggins was with the cops as early as 1:30pm on Friday, couldn't bring himself to ID Oswald until about the same time Saturday. (I guess no one notified him re the 3 lineups on Friday!)

dcw

[donald willis]

If she saw him cutting across a street, it had to have been Patton, which means (well, see my comments to JC, above)...

dcw

[Bud]

She said she saw him go around the corner of the house.

>So for her to say that they saw him crossing Patton means that she was right, originally--they were in the side yard on Patton.

There is no yard on that side of the house.

> Which means all that folderol re unloading shells out front was phony, meant only to incriminate Oswald.

The usual "this must mean this" conspiracy retard figuring.

[Bud]

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 5:12:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:53:31 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

> > I guess it was too difficult to figure out that after he cut across the yard, he could have crossed
> > Patton.
> Unfortunately for you, Virginia D, in her testimony, said both that she was in the front yard at the time and that she couldn't see him cross Patton! So for her to say that they saw him crossing Patton means that she was right, originally--they were in the side yard on Patton. Which means all that folderol re unloading shells out front was phony, meant only to incriminate Oswald.

Yet shells that could only have come from Oswald's gun magically appeared where the shooter
was seen dumping them. How could that could happen if Oswald wasn't the one that dumped
them there.

> > > >
> > > > Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.
> > > >
> > > You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?
> > Why would you think it changes anything if he crossed Patton as he fled? He was heading toward
> > Jefferson. What difference does it make which side of Patton he did that on? Your insistence
> > on focusing on these trivialities are the reason you have such a hard time figuring out the easy
> > things.
> See above.

That's what I thought. You have no explanation.

> > > > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> > > >
> > > A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.
> > You're loony, Don.
> You're such a master of wordplay!
> > > > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty damning evidence.
> > > >
> > > If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly, and falsely witnessed by the Davises.
> > How would those civilians have gotten shells that could only have been fired by Oswald's gun?

No answer, Don?

> > > > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.

> > It's amazing the things you find significant while ignoring the truly significant things. The
> > witnesses IDed Oswald
> McWatters recanted on his ID;

McWatters didn't witness the Tippit murder.

> Scoggins was with the cops as early as 1:30pm on Friday, couldn't bring himself to ID Oswald until about the same time Saturday. (I guess no one notified him re the 3 lineups on Friday!)
>

Scoggins IDed the guy who had the murder weapon in his possession a half hour after the
murder. Got any explanation for that, Don?

[donald willis]

Unfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.

>
> Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.
> > > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> > >
> > A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.
> You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
> You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
> > > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> > >
> > > Pretty damning evidence.
> > >
> > If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,
> Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
> > and falsely witnessed by the Davises.
> Another unproven allegation by you.
> > > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
> Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.
> > >
> > > Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.
> > Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
> People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.

Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.

It doesn't work that way.
> > McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!
> He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
> > Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
> Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?

Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?

> >
> > >
> > > At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
> Do you disagree?

Both were necessary to the villains.

dcw

[donald willis]

So what did Virginia D mean when she said she saw the guy crossing the yard from the SIDE door on PATTON??

dcw

[John Corbett]

Just a hunch but my guess is she saw the guy crossing the yard from the side door on Patton.

[donald willis]

Fine--then all the Davises' blather re how the guy unloaded the shells into his hand is a lie, since they weren't at the front door to see that, as they said they were in their testimony. And if her "side door" story is true, then Virginia D. should have spotted the shells right away below the window & by the walk in the side yard--not 2 hours later! She painted herself into a corner....

dcw

[John Corbett]

The only ones painting themselves into a corner are the CTs who desperately try to find excuses
to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.

[Bud]

It means that she actually went to the door that did have a view of the yard.

[donald willis]

The question is, Why when Scoggins was with the police as early as 1:30pm Friday did he wait until about the same time Saturday? Got any explanation for that, John? The cover-up for this 24-hour delay was that the cops didn't want to talk to him at the scene, which was Scoggins' first version, but later in his testimony not only did he admit that he talked to them, he went with them looking for the perp. (The famous Sgt. Hill was the cop he was with.) So his blew his part here in the cover-up!

dcw

[donald willis]

I have--that "street" confirms her affidavit, where she says she went to the side door on Patton, the only street she could have meant. Which confirmation negates all the minute details re their seeing the unloading of the gun on the front yard--the details which were meant to clinch Oswald's ownership of the gun. That this clinching never happened means that it was not O's gun.

dcw

[Bud]

Where she says "yard".

[John Corbett]

It is comical that the only resolution you can come up with for these anomalies is that everybody
was taking part in a cover up and that nobody has come clean in the 60 years since.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Corbett himself is taking part in the coverup, and he can't come at all anymore, let alone come clean.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 12:58:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:29:52?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:54:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:45:27?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>As I said. You are focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.
>>>> You can't define what the "right things" are.
>>>
>>> Look up the word "right" and look up the word "thing(s)" if you don`t understand them.
>> And again Chickenshit proves me right.
>
> You have to tell me...

Nope.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 12:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:28:20?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:44:19?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 03:22:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>> Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the
>>>>>>> Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.
>>>>>> That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
>>>>>> They only tell you what they want you to know.
>>>>>> They NEVER tell you the whole story.
>>>>>> It's called deception by omission.
>>>>>

>>>>>As if any of this changes the fact that Oswald shot Tippit.
>>>> Can you name this logical fallacy?
>>>>>You guys keep focusing on the wrong things and doing it incorrectly.
>>>> And just like Chickenshit, you can't define this...
>>>
>>> It`s a concept...
>>
>> One that you can't define or defend.
>
> A concept ...

You STILL refuse to define or defend.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 12:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:30:22?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:15:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 9:00:44?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>> Another Myers omission covers for the Davises
>>>>>
>>>>> His deep-sixing of the phrase "in the head" wasn't the only time that Dale Myers misled by omission. In "With Malice", he has witnesses Mary Wright and Barbara Davis, respectively, calling the DPD at the same time, > 1:15pm (p383). The dispatchers then cite Wright's address, on the police radio--three times--four minutes later, at 1:19pm (CE 1974:57) However, it's about six minutes later, about 1:21, before the Davis address, 400 > E. 10th, is broadcast (CE 1974:57). Apparently, the Davises called a little later than did Wright. And Mr. Myers seems aware of the prickly problem here: Although he scrupulously records the broadcast times of the
>>>>> Wright address, on the police radio, in his text (pp104-105), he omits the only, belated mention of the Davis address.
>>>> That's what these Warren Commission supporters do.
>>>> They only tell you what they want you to know.
>>>> They NEVER tell you the whole story.
>>>> It's called deception by omission.
>>>

>>> So Willis decides ...
>>
>> Lying about what others post is a tactic done only by dishonest
>> people.
>
> Startling admission.

Is that what you think?

Can you defend such a wacky lie?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning.

It's amazing how Huckster can spot a logical fallacy - unless it's
coming from him or any other believer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Imperfections are a part of almost every human endeavor. We didn't get a perfect investigation
>into JFK's assassination and there is no reason to think we should have. Mistakes were made.

None that you're willing to publicly acknowledge... or explain.

Such as James Chaney.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>That’s the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have to do more than simply allege your interpretation of the evidence is the correct one. You need to post the evidence establishing your interpretation.
>
>Hint: It's not contained in anything you posted to date. That is simply your interpretation of the conflicts in one person’s testimony. When do you intend to post the evidence establishing your interpretation is the correct one?

Huckster's projecting again...

[Hank Sienzant]

Thank you for admitting Don committed a logical fallacy. Its a start. Now maybe Don can post the evidence that establishes his begged question and circular reasoning interpretation.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, I’m relying on the eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that establishes Oswald was the shooter. I’m not the one trying to argue everyone was lying to frame Oswald and claiming the evidence that indicts Oswald was all planted or swapped or otherwise falsified.

That’s a job for conspiracy buffs, of which I used to be one.

[Hank Sienzant]

Evidence he was with Hill, and not Ted Callaway?

Callaway executed this document on the same day as the Tippit shooting:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/callaway.htm

== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Ted Callaway 2/m/40 of 805 West 8th Street, WH-67-8045 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

I am the manager of the Used Car lot at 501 E. Jefferson. I was working today when I heard some shots. This was about 1 pm. I ran out into Patton Street and looked to see what the shooting was about. I saw a white man running South on Patton with a pistol in hand. I hollered at him and he looked around at me, then kept on going. I ran around on 10th Street and saw a Police officer laying in the street. He looked dead to me. I got the officer's gun and hollered at a cab driver to come on, We might catch the man. We got into his cab, number 213 and drove up Patton to Jefferson and looked all around, but did not see him. The number 2 man in the line up that I saw at City Hall is the man I saw with the gun in his hand.

/s/ Ted Callaway

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== unquoted ==

[eyeroll]
I’m certain once you put it through your magic interpretation decoder, it will not only establish Callaway was lying, but give us an anagram revealing the real shooter on the knoll.
[/eyeroll]

>
> dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

Don ignored this point.

> > > >
> > > > Don asserts - without evidence - the Tippit witnesses were all lying in their signed affidavits on the afternoon of the assassination, and then plucks a word or a phrase out of their testimony or affidavit to attempt to turn what they each clearly said into something none of them said.
> > > >
> > > You tell me how the word "street" got into her testimony. It doesn't fit. Unless she means "crossing Patton", as in her affidavit. What other street would the guy be crossing?
> > She also says “yard” in her affidavit and testimony.
> > The gunman had to cross her yard before he crossed the street.
> Unfortunately for you and JC, the Davises testified that they couldn't see the guy after he went around the corner of the front yard. So they couldn't have seen him cross ANY street.

Barb Davis affidavit from the day of the shooting:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm

== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator and reported this to the police. When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun.

/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Mary Rattan

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

== unquote ==


Virginia Davis affidavit:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

== quote ==
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun. We walked outside and a woman was hollering "he's dead, he's dead, he's shot". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.

/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

== unquote ==

Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?

> >
> > Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.
> > > > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> > > >
> > > A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.
> > You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
> > You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.

Don ignored this point.

> > > > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty damning evidence.
> > > >
> > > If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,
> > Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?

Don ignored this point.

> > > and falsely witnessed by the Davises.
> > Another unproven allegation by you.

Don ignored this point.

> > > > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
> > Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.

Don ignored this point.

> > > >
> > > > Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.
> > > Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
> > People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.
> Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.
> It doesn't work that way.

You’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?

> > > McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!
> > He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?

Don ignored this point.

> > > Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
> > Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?
> Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?

If there was ever a perp there at all. Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing so.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
> > Do you disagree?
> Both were necessary to the villains.

Explain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.

Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.


>
> dcw

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben attempts to change the subject.

The logical fallacy known as a RED HERRING:
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/a-red-herring-meaning-origin-revealed/
== quote ==
A red herring is a logical fallacy where information is presented to distract from the main argument and shift the focus to something tangential or completely unrelated. The information presented in the fallacy may or may not be true, but its veracity isn’t the point. A red herring is an attempt to obfuscate and distract from the original point.
== unquote ==

That’s exactly what Ben is trying to do. Obfuscate and distract from the original point.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

So, Hank, what do you think of the credibility of Jack Tatum? Come up with anything yet?

[Hank Sienzant]

I’m ready to discuss it when you are. Put forward your argument about his credibility in the original thread (where I invited you too) and we can discuss.

PS: That’s another example of the logical fallacy of a RED HERRING. You guys are consistent if nothing else.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Why can't you just answer the question? Do you think that Jack Tatum is a credible witness? Why are you afraid?

[Hank Sienzant]

Why can’t you make an argument that he’s not credible? It’s your contention. I don’t have to take position on your argument for you to put it forward.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank is afraid to say whether or not Jack Tatum is credible.

[Hank Sienzant]

As I’ve said, make an argument in the original thread, and we can discuss. Ball in your court.

[Hank Sienzant]

PS: Still a red herring logical fallacy.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank is still unable to answer the question, "Is Jack Tatum a credible witness?" He's shaking in his ruby slippers. Soon he will click his heels and run away back to Kansas.

[Hank Sienzant]

Don?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank? Why not tell us what you think of the credibility of Jack Tatum? Hank?

[donald willis]

I did not see this post until just now. I've been dealing with your confreres Corbett and Buddy elsewhere. I'll try to get to this tomorrow.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Careful, Willis. It is a trick question. Of course the answer is that it is necessary for the murderers to frame somebody so that they themselves, the murderers, won't be punished for their crime. Any idiot, even Hank, knows that. Hank is setting you up to prove, right here, to Hank's satisfaction, that there was such a conspiracy. And Hank, who has read the 26 volumes twice, already "knows" that there isn't a shred of credible evidence of such a conspiracy, and all the burden will be upon you to convince Hank beyond all possible doubt that there was such a conspiracy. And Hank will refuse any burden to explain your concerns. Hank will refuse to be convinced. He will refuse to see a shred of credible evidence because that is his programming.

[donald willis]

What does this affidavit have to do with Sgt. Hill???

[donald willis]

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT

>
> Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?

Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
"I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).

Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.

> > >
> > > Since other witnesses claim the gunman discarded the shells from a revolver as he crossed the yard, it makes more sense to understand she simply spoke of witnessing both him crossing yard and then the street. But you need a conflict, so you simply assume it is an either/or situation, and artificially ignore the possibility of both occurring.
> > > > > Reading their affidavits and testimony, one story emerges: a young, slender white male shot Tippit and emptied and reloaded his revolver as he walked away, discarding the shells as he did so.
> > > > >
> > > > A false tale, as Virginia's affidavit shows.
> > > You need do more than simply allege this, based on your interpretation of her claims.
> > > You are begging the question and using circular reasoning here once more.
> Don ignored this point.

A point lost in a thicket of >>>>,,,

> > > > > The discarded shells in evidence match the gun linked to Oswald through paperwork, that was wrested from his hand in the movie theatre after he slugged Officer McDonald.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pretty damning evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > If you believe in shells initially handled by civilians, supposedly,
> > > Yes, civilians reported finding shells in the yard. So?
> Don ignored this point.

I say "supposedly" because Sgt Hill later said that Benavides didn't handle any shells. And it took some 4 months for Benavides, in his testimony, to say that he did see the perp drop shells and that he did pick them up. Problems on both sides, temporally, of his testimony.

> > > > and falsely witnessed by the Davises.
> > > Another unproven allegation by you.
> Don ignored this point.

1) According to the police radio logs, the Davises called the dispatcher about a minute AFTER the first witness called from the scene. (Myers avoided the issue of this delayed response by not including it in his timeline.)
2) Both Davises testified that they first saw the perp when Mrs. Markham started shouting about him. Mrs. M testified that she did not start shouting UNTIL the perp was running down Patton! Again, "falsely witnessed".

> > > > > To get around this, critics alleged the witness lied and/or their testimony altered, the shells in evidence were planted or swapped, the revolver in evidence was swapped, the paperwork tying Oswald to the revolver was falsified.
> > > Did I summarize your beliefs correctly here? You didn't quibble over this, so it appears I did.
> Don ignored this point.

Again, point lost in a thicket of >>>>

> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, in the 60 years since the murder (ok, minus a few months - conspiracy mongers do like to quibble, don't they?) none of the Tippit witnesses recanted and none admitted to anything like Don and other critics suggest.
> > > > Mrs. Markham kept insisting that the gunman ran down the alley off Patton, in later interviews.
> > > People are human. Everyone makes mistakes. You are looking at one witness in isolation, and attempting to throw out everything she said based on one error.
> > Who the fuck said it was an error? You're assuming.
> > It doesn't work that way.
> You’re assuming it was as well, an error where she inadvertently stated the truth and revealed the coverup. Aren’t you?

As it happen, No. The initial crime scene sketch of the 10th/Patton area notes that the perp went "W on all(e)y to Crawford". The sketch was drawn by Sgt. Barnes, who mentioned only one witness in his WC testimony--Mrs M. And Mrs. M later told interviewers that she saw the suspect run into the alley.

You were assuming that I was assuming, when the finger is actually pointing at you....

> > > > McWatters recanted on his ID of Oswald in the lineup. Then, yes, later, in his testimony, he recanted on his recantation!
> > > He was the bus driver, wasn't he? What's that got to do with the Tippit shooting?
> Don ignored this point.

It's got everything to do with the broader subject of witness lineup IDs. The McW case shows that the IDs are as problematic as their testimony.

> > > > Same-day TV footage showed that Warren Reynolds changed his story for the Commission, where he testified that he last saw the guy headed for the parking lot. (The footage shows him before one of the two old houses, where he was telling police that he last saw the guy headed.) In fact, that footage is better than a recantation.
> > > Didn't the police search those old houses and find nothing suspicious?
> > Yeah--15 minutes or so after the guy would have left. You think perps are going to hang around for the police?
> If there was ever a perp there at all.

Ah! Time for you to go into your "fallacy" mode... It took me several postings to convince Bud--some years back--that Reynolds was telling police that the guy ran into one of the old houses--one of the convincers was a clip from news footage, in With Malice.

> Once more you are assuming what you need to prove and imbedding that assumption in your argument as a given. That’s the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. I’ve asked you to stop committing these logical fallacies but you just keep doing so.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point it looks from here more like the purpose of the plot was to frame Oswald, and the killing of Kennedy was merely incidental to that frame-up.
> > > Do you disagree?
> > Both were necessary to the villains.
> Explain why killing Tippit was necessary to frame Oswald for a crime of killing Kennedy. You are alleging Oswald was framed for killing Tippit.

SEE ABOVE

> Explain why framing Oswald (or anyone) was necessary to kill Kennedy.

SEE ABOVE.

dcw
>
> >
> > dcw
>
> Hank

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I hope Hank finds his trousers and argues against this well-constructed tar baby trap...and than that Willis bothers to follow-up. Lots of potential laughs here.

[donald willis]

He seems to have skipped town after Sunday

[John Corbett]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> >
> > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
>
> Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.

So it's your theory that roughly 45 minutes after JFK was killed, the DPD decided to sacrifice
one of their own officers so that the could frame Oswald for it in case they couldn't pin the
assassination on him. Do you have any idea how hysterically funny that is?

At the time Tippit was shot, Oswald was person of interest because he had left the TSBD
after the shooting. The rifle had not yet been determined to belong to him so he would not
yet be the prime suspect but you think the DPD was already working to frame him for the
Tippit murder. You are Looney Tunes, Don.

[Bud]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> >
> > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).

How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination? How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?

As usual you are playing games with what is available after the fact, when everything is static.

[donald willis]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:23:53 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > >
> > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> >
> > Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
> So it's your theory that roughly 45 minutes after JFK was killed, the DPD decided to sacrifice
> one of their own officers

Actually, No. Tippit's death was part of the plan from before JFK was shot. Fritz & co. knew that identifications of a suspect 5 (or 6) floors up would be sketchy. Proof: Hardly anyone who supposedly saw Oswald 5 (or 6) floors up was invited to a lineup. Not Euins. Not Edwards. Not Fischer. And, perhaps, not even Brennan--there are two versions of the lineup he supposedly attended with Sorrels, his sponsor.

dcw

[donald willis]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > >
> > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?

See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.

How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?

The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting, although I think that one photo of the suspect got out--the Weaver Polaroid. But it was taken from such a distance that the image isn't very clear. SE corner window, 5th floor. Yes, supposedly, it's Norman in that window, but your boy Brennan testified that he saw NO ONE in that window. Look it up.

Connie Kritzberg in her book detailed how the authorities (she thought FBI; might have been SS) "edited" her article for the Dallas paper--just changed a few words is all!

dcw

[Bud]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > >
> > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
> See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
> How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
> The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,

So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed and these were your assignments post assassination.

That is what you are suggesting (what instructions could be made?), and as usual what you are suggesting is childish and stupid.

>although I think that one photo of the suspect got out--the Weaver Polaroid. But it was taken from such a distance that the image isn't very clear. SE corner window, 5th floor. Yes, supposedly, it's Norman in that window, but your boy Brennan testified that he saw NO ONE in that window. Look it up.

How does this help any of your ideas?

[donald willis]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > > >
> > > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > > How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
> > See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
> > How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
> > The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
> So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed

Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:58:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:23:53 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > >
> > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > >
> > > Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
> > So it's your theory that roughly 45 minutes after JFK was killed, the DPD decided to sacrifice
> > one of their own officers
> Actually, No. Tippit's death was part of the plan from before JFK was shot. Fritz & co. knew that identifications of a suspect 5 (or 6) floors up would be sketchy. Proof: Hardly anyone who supposedly saw Oswald 5 (or 6) floors up was invited to a lineup. Not Euins. Not Edwards. Not Fischer. And, perhaps, not even Brennan--there are two versions of the lineup he supposedly attended with Sorrels, his sponsor.

Captain of my own ship (and baseball team, btw), of course I disagree with Willis about why the Tippit murder was planned in advance. The DPD is not going to murder a cop willis nillis, to get a better ID position on Oswald. They're not that psychotic. The CIA maybe, but not the DPD. Tippit was murdered because he was involved in a Communist plot to murder the President, both he and Oswald. True, US intelligence persons wanted JFK dead, too, but they are not going to let two commies get away with something like that. Tippit and Oswald both had to die for the same reason, to hide the conspiracy. Tippit knows stuff, so he must die. And the Lone Nut Solution is necessary to protect the US conspirators, so Oswald has to kill Tippit in a seemingly random encounter. That's why Tippit must be killed immediately, in Dealey Plaza, and the charade must be played out on Tenth Street. That's why Callaway ran off with "Tippit's gun." It really was RC Nelson's gun, and it had to be switched with Tippit's. This was a grand US intelligence scheme, a CIA plot by some asshole like Allen Dulles. And Tippit's death was part of the plan.

[Bud]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > > > How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
> > > See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
> > > How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
> > > The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
> > So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed
> Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.

You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassination or they were reached by telepathy afterwards.

Your ideas don`t stand to the slightest scrutiny, so you just ignore the scrutiny. They don`t fare well to critical examination, they don`t make sense and they are silly.

[donald willis]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:57:25 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:58:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:23:53 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > > >
> > > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Willy. You'll make Hank very happy.
> > > So it's your theory that roughly 45 minutes after JFK was killed, the DPD decided to sacrifice
> > > one of their own officers
> > Actually, No. Tippit's death was part of the plan from before JFK was shot. Fritz & co. knew that identifications of a suspect 5 (or 6) floors up would be sketchy. Proof: Hardly anyone who supposedly saw Oswald 5 (or 6) floors up was invited to a lineup. Not Euins. Not Edwards. Not Fischer. And, perhaps, not even Brennan--there are two versions of the lineup he supposedly attended with Sorrels, his sponsor.
> Captain of my own ship (and baseball team, btw), of course I disagree with Willis about why the Tippit murder was planned in advance. The DPD is not going to murder a cop willis nillis, to get a better ID position on Oswald. They're not that psychotic. The CIA maybe, but not the DPD. Tippit was murdered because he was involved in a Communist plot to murder the President, both he and Oswald. True, US intelligence persons wanted JFK dead, too, but they are not going to let two commies get away with something like that. Tippit and Oswald both had to die for the same reason, to hide the conspiracy. Tippit knows stuff, so he must die. And the Lone Nut Solution is necessary to protect the US conspirators, so Oswald has to kill Tippit in a seemingly random encounter. That's why Tippit must be killed immediately, in Dealey Plaza, and the charade must be played out on Tenth Street. That's why Callaway ran off with "Tippit's gun." It really was RC Nelson's gun, and it had to be switched with Tippit's. This was a grand US intelligence scheme, a CIA plot by some asshole like Allen Dulles. And Tippit's death was part of the plan.

In basic agreement, then...

[donald willis]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > > > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > > > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > > > > How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
> > > > See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
> > > > How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
> > > > The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
> > > So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed
> > Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.
> You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassination

Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.

dcw

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > > > > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > > > > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > > > > > How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
> > > > > See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
> > > > > How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
> > > > > The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
> > > > So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed
> > > Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.
> > You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassination
> Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.
>

I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?

As for Jarman. How would your conspirators know neither he, nor anyone else was going to
take up a position on the 5th floor. That would have forced Oswald to pick another floor. Like
maybe the 6th floor. Oh, wait. Maybe that's what happened.

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40 PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
> > > > > > > Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
> > > > > > > "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
> > > > > > How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
> > > > > See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
> > > > > How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
> > > > > The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
> > > > So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed
> > > Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.
> > You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassination
> Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance,

Off on a tangent right away. Focus Don, you said...

"The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting"

Your idea requires that they *do* need instructions right away. What form could those instructions take?

>you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.

I realize that you believe any anomaly in the evidence gives you a green light to break out your crayons and write in anything you like. That is your stupid hobby in a nutshell.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 15:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 8:20:03?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, that’s still the logical fallacy of begging the question with a large dash of circular reasoning.
>>

>> It's amazing how Huckster can spot a logical fallacy - unless it's
>> coming from him or any other believer...
>
>Thank you for admitting ...

It's amazing that Huckster can admit that he molests his own mother. I
find it despicable.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 18:22:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I’m ready to discuss it when you are.

You're lying again, Huckster.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:23:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>So it's your theory that ...

Believers are TERRIFIED of responding to what people actually say...
they must first twist it into something else so they can answer it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28?PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37?PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07?AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40?PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
>>>>>>>> Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
>>>>>>>> "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
>>>>>>> How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
>>>>>> See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
>>>>>> How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
>>>>>> The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
>>>>> So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed
>>>> Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.
>>> You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassination
>> Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance,
>
> Off on a tangent right away. Focus Don, you said...
>
> "The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting"
>
> Your idea requires that they *do* need instructions right away. What form could those instructions take?

Let's examine what this moron is saying.

The cameras should have been taken PRIOR to the motorcade.

Sadly, Chickenshit can't explain what happened, so he relies on
logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 03:28:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas

No-one who's intelligent would wish to be "accountable" for your wacky
"inferences."

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:47:44?AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:28:14?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:03:13?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:25:28?PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 4:12:24?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:17:49?AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:20:20?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:16:37?PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:07:14?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:36:07?AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:09:07?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:53:40?PM UTC-7, Hank Sie CUT

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your theory is everyone was lying on the day of the murder to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit, right? Explain why this was necessary (the murder of Tippit, and the framing of Oswald for that murder), I thought the goal was to frame him for the murder of the President. Did the conspirators have a boatload of money to spend before the end of the year and decided to do a two-for-one deal, or what? Why throw in a second shooting at all?
>>>>>>>> Oh, an easy one! I'll turn the podium over to my good friend, Capt. J.W. Fritz:
>>>>>>>> "I instructed my officers to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing, where WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES." (With Malice p207).
>>>>>>> How would the conspiracy know how many witnesses to the shooter they would have before the assassination?
>>>>>> See my answer to John (Mooney Tunes) Corbett.
>>>>>> How would they know there wouldn`t be photos or film of the shooter?
>>>>>> The SS and/or the FBI and the DPD controlled witness evidence immediately after the shooting,
>>>>> So a whole bunch of people (how many people would it take to make sure all the film and photos were confiscated?) were told before the assassination that the President was going to be killed
>>>> Technically, this is called Jumping to Concussions.
>>> You just don`t want to be held accountable for the inferences of your ideas, and what naturally follows from them. You have a large number of people acting in concert, and either they got instruction on what to do before the assassination
>> Very few had to know anything *beforehand*. For instance, you can see that Jarman didn't have a clue before 11/23/63. His affidavit puts him out front with Williams, in the time just before and/or during the shooting, and Williams (as even you know) was upstairs around 12:30. Jarman was not, as his placement of Williams downstairs & outside clearly shows. It's these fortunate little rips in the fabric of the cover-up that reveal that cover-up.
>>
>I think what Bud was alluding to was all those people who immediately went out and started
>gathering up cameras. Wouldn't they have to know ahead of time to do that?

And you have no explanation for this FACT.

Just as you don't for the immediate attempts to wash out the limo at
Parkland.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 8:22:03?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That’s the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have to do more than simply allege your interpretation of the evidence is the correct one. You need to post the evidence establishing your interpretation.
>>>
>>>Hint: It's not contained in anything you posted to date. That is simply your interpretation of the conflicts in one person’s testimony. When do you intend to post the evidence establishing your interpretation is the correct one?
>>
>> Huckster's projecting again...
>
>No...

Yes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 8:21:39?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Imperfections are a part of almost every human endeavor. We didn't get a perfect investigation
>>>into JFK's assassination and there is no reason to think we should have. Mistakes were made.
>>
>> None that you're willing to publicly acknowledge... or explain.
>>
>> Such as James Chaney.
>
>Ben attempts to change the subject.


Au contraire, I gave an EXAMPLE that fits the claim that "mistakes
were made."

And you're too much a coward to address it.