Did Gladys Shastid See Lee Oswald At 4:00 AM On 11/22/63?

[David Von Pein]

Here's another item destined for the "Bogus Oswald Sightings" file. This is one I had never heard about before....

A waitress named Gladys Shastid claimed in the 11/23/63 affidavit linked below that Lee Oswald visited the cafe where she worked at 4:00 AM on 11/22/63, with Oswald allegedly saying to her that President Kennedy might not get out of Dallas alive.

So, does anyone think that Lee could have sneaked out of Ruth Paine's house in the middle of the night to get a slice of pie without Marina noticing? I kinda doubt it. 😉

But this kind of obscure story is fun to read about all these years after the assassination, especially since this one is brand-new to me. I had never heard of Mrs. Shastid until today (5/9/2021):

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190252

[John Corbett]

It's easy for people to think someone they see on TV is someone they saw earlier. I remember
when I made my trip to Dealey Plaza in 2008 I saw Robert Groden sitting at a table near the
stockade fence selling his latest self published book. There was a guy sitting next to him
wearing wire rimmed glasses that I didn't recognize at the time. He was doing most of the
talking to potential customers. At the end of the afternoon, I saw them folding up their table
and Groden split the day's take with him. A few years later I first saw Gary Mack on a History Channel documentary and thought he looked like the guy who was with Groden. I convinced
myself they were one and the same. A few years after that I saw a YouTube video of Groden
in Dealey Plaza with the same guy next to him. Other than the wire rim glasses, he didn't look
like Gary Mack at all. I'll bet it was the same thing with this waitress. She had somebody come
in that looked vaguely like Oswald. Later one when she saw Oswald on TV, she convinced
herself he was the man she had waited on early that morning.

[donald willis]

I think that witness Sam Guinyard saw someone that "looked vaguely like Oswald".

[Hank Sienzant]

Weren't you claiming elsewhere that some of the other witnesses mistook Guinyard for the gunman who shot Tippit?

Did any of the witnesses get anything right?

Hank

[19e...@mail.com]

> Did any of the witnesses get anything right? Morons never
>
> Hank

According to Nutter Logic, the witnesses were always right when they supported wacky Nutter theories and always wrong when they didn't. Fucktard.

[BT George]

Not exactly. We don't make a hard assumption when we cannot validate their testimony with other evidence, though we may consider it if it's sensible and not in conflict with other forms of evidence. When it is contradicted by other forms of evidence, we assume they got it wrong. When it generally (as it rarely fully) accords with other forms of evidence, we assume they remembered correctly. If testimony is *all* there is, we are then, and only then, compelled to consider it as dispositive, assuming it is sensible and shows a *general* concordance with know facts.

[John Corbett]

This is something these loons can't grasp. When a witness tells us something, that witness
might be right or wrong or some parts might be right and others wrong. We don't judge a
witness' credibility based on how it fits with a predetermined conclusion. We judge it by how
well it fits with the body of evidence. In some cases we can confirm what the witness has
told us and in some cases we can determine what the witness told us is wrong. Sometimes
what the witness has said can neither be confirmed or refuted by other evidence. In that case,
the logical thing is to allow for the possibility that the witness could be right or wrong, or maybe
even partially right. The WC found themselves in that situation on a number of occasions. For
example the conflicting testimony and lack of definitive evidence made it impossible for them
to determine with any certainty whether Oswald's first, second, or third shot missed. They even
allowed for the possibility he only fired twice and had no misses. They presented the pros and
cons for each scenario but did not speculate as to probability for any of the possibilities. That
is the only sensible approach when it comes to witnesses.

As it applies to the number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza, estimates ranged from 2 to 8. There
is only one correct answer. We have physical evidence that suggests 3 shots in the form of the
3 spent shells. It is possible a spent shell was ejected before Oswald commenced firing meaning
he would have only fired twice, and ejected each shell. Since the round in the chamber was
unfired, we can conclude he had not fired a fourth shot and left the spent shell in the chamber.
There is no forensic evidence of any other shots fired at JFK. No other weapon was found except
for Oswald's Carcano. Three spent shells from that Carcano were found. Two bullets from that
Carcano were found. Not other shells or bullets were found. There were eyewitnesses to a
shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest. There were no eyewitnesses who saw a gunman in any
other location. The medical evidence indicates JFK was struck twice by two shots fired from
above and behind him. There is no medical evidence that he was struck by any other shots.
To believe the witnesses who thought they heard more than three shots, we have to believe
that the other shooter(s) fired shots without being seen, without striking JFK or anybody else
in the limo, without their bullets striking anywhere inside the limo, that they left no shells
behind, and escaped from Dealey Plaza without being seen.

Here's where Holmes will type "Logical fallacy deleted" without addressing any of them above
points made.

[Bud]

Who cares what you think? Can you show Guinyard said this?

[19e...@mail.com]

"Colored porter" Sam Guinyard of 1963 Texas was smart enough not to contradict what Mass'r Ted said.