Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Alistair Briggs]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I would say the odds of PM being Oswald, in my mind, have decreased a bit. But not a lot, because Harry Holmes was just sitting in and may have remembered some things wrong. As far as I know he didn't take notes and didn't write a report. He was going on memory. AFAIK.

In terms of the 'interrogation' of Oswald that Holmes was at, he wasn't just sitting in, he did also ask Oswald questions too. If he was just going on memory, and as fallible as memory can be, it has to be taken in to account that Holmes recollections was that Oswald went downstairs at the time of the commotion and that a Coke was involved. From other sources we can infer that the only place a Coke was available was on the 2nd floor. At some point Oswald, to have a Coke, must have gone to the second floor. Anyway, from Holmes testimony it can be read that the Baker/Oswald encounter happened on the 1st floor near the front door, as you said though, he was going from memory, so why can't it be that bit that he is misremembering...

... comparing it to other things. In an earlier testimony Oswald claimed to be on the first floor eating lunch and then when asked where he was at the time the officer stopped him Oswald said he was on the second floor drinking a Coke. Oswald then is unequivocal when he says: "There's a soda machine in the lunchroom there. I went up to get a Coke".

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The FBI reports on Oswald's interrogation state that he was having lunch during the shooting. If correct, then PM cannot be Oswald. On the other hand, suppose Oswald told his interrogators that he first ate lunch and then went outside to see Kennedy. Would the interrogators have written that down? They may well have decided not to write it down, at least not so explicitly. So they decide that Oswald was still at lunch during the procession. And he goes outside later, after the shooting.

I know what you are saying... The way I look at it though is Oswald wouldn't have said he was outside because he wasn't outside! And wouldn't have claimed to have been outside if he hadn't because he knew that would be quite easily debunked. If he had been outside at the time (and thus innocent) I feel he would have been screaming about it... where's the evidence placing Oswald outside at the time of the shooting?

(NB, the only time Oswald claimed to have been out front (with Shelley) was after the 2nd floor encounter with Baker and at the time he was about to leave. And we can place the time of Oswald leaving from other sources...)

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It seems to me that 15 seconds is closer to reality, because (alleged) Lovelady and (alleged) Shelley are seen already walking down the street by the time Baker gets there. Maybe we should compromise and say 22 seconds. It's hard for me to believe that 1) Calvery got there within that time frame, and 2) that a man wouldn't instinctively know the difference between 22 seconds and a few minutes.

There's no need to compromise! Whether it's 15 seconds, or 22 seconds, or 30 seconds. As I said, I agree, in principle, that surely someone can't confuse that with 3 or 4 minutes as it is a big difference.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah, but he wasn't just reasoning through it like we are here. He was actually there and experienced it. I think he mentioned the time Calvery would have gotten there just to support his recollection of 3 or 4 minutes.

Shelley would have reasoned through it either directly or indirectly; from the time of the assassination to the time of giving his testimony to the WC the whole thing would have been the talk of the place, no doubt people like Lovelady/Frazier/Molina/Williams/Shelley would have discussed it, talking about what they saw/ thought and listening to what the others saw/thought etc, and whenever people get more details about things it 'elongates' the thought process and can lead to thinking something took longer than it actually did.

(Example: I once during a conversation with somebody was talking about the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans, I described all the scenes in it and what happened, and afterwards the person asked if it had been a Christmas Special, when I asked why they thought that, they told me because from what I had described it sounded like there was no way it would have fitted in to the normal 30 minute episode and it must have been either 45 minutes or an hour long. Nope was just a normal 30 minutes episode. When describing it, as there was more going on, he thought it must have taken longer than it actually did)

Don't get me wrong though Sandy, I'm not proposing that as a definitive answer to the '3 minutes' issue. However, it is interesting to note, as Bill has pointed out, earlier in Shelley's testimony he places it at about 1 minute before leaving the stairs...

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Shelley could very well still be out on the steps. It's hard to make people out. Another possibility is that he went inside just long enough to call his wife, as he said in his affidavit. Though it seems to me that he would have wanted to get more information before calling her. He may have stepped inside for a moment.

Yep hard to make people out on the steps, and yes there is the possibility that Shelley could still be there. (I don't think he is, but can't deny the possibility). And yes Shelley said he called his wife, but he said that was after his sojourn with Lovelady not before it. If Shelley was wrong about that (and he called her before his trip with Lovelady) then why can't he also be wrong about the 3-4 minutes.

I realise some of the objections that can be raised against what I have just written, but everything needs to be taken in context to see what parts are the mistake. I don't think we need to continually go round the houses on this subject as it's not leading anywhere. If you want to persue it Sandy that's not a problem, and I encourage you to do so... as you may be correct. It's just, personally, I have tried to look at it all from your perspecitve to see if it's feasible and every time I do so I eventually come across a bigger problem that can't just be explained away. But seriously I hope you do persue it further and I look forward to seeing how you fit other bits of the jigsaw in to it... and I'm happy to help you do that, genuinely.

...it's just I've looked at the whole, and the whole fits quite nicely (with the only 'problem' being the 3 minutes) and yet, even still, it doesn't really help nail down Oswald's location (which surely has to be the main point )

Regards

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

49 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Where's the evidence placing Oswald outside at the time of the shooting?

Well where's the evidence placing Oswald inside at the time of the shooting?

Anyway, why wouldn't Oswald be outside to see the President of the United States passing by? Most the others were.

If we had nothing else to go by (and we may not, really), odds are that Oswald was outside watching Kennedy. (If he wasn't inside shooting him.) That's what the statistics say.

I don't know if Oswald was outside or not during the shooting. But there is no proof he wasn't.

(NB, the only time Oswald claimed to have been out front (with Shelley) was after the 2nd floor encounter with Baker ....

Which never occurred.

....and at the time he was about to leave.

Your opinion. (Which of course is fine, I've stated mine here too.)

And we can place the time of Oswald leaving from other sources...)
 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Alistair Briggs]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, why wouldn't Oswald be outside to see the President of the United States passing by? Most the others were.

Maybe he had no interest. Maybe he didn't care. Maybe he thought it was too cold. Maybe he was too engrossed reading a paper. Maybe he was too busy tucking in to his delicious lunch. Maybe he just wanted to view it from a window. Maybe because his handlers couldn't have him outside as part of their set up of him. Maybe he was the 6th floor shooter. Maybe he was pre-occupied taking his lunchtime constitutional. There are many different reasons why Oswald wouldn't be outside, and only one of them could be proof of 'guilt'.

*Why were none of the following outside to see the President passing by? - Eddie Piper, Vickie Adams, Elsie Dorman, Sandra Styles, Dorothy Garner, Bonnie Ray Williams, Hank Norman, James Jarman. They were all inside and innocent, so why can't Oswald be inside an innocent... and I ask that question because you go on to say...

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If we had nothing else to go by (and we may not, really), odds are that Oswald was outside watching Kennedy. (If he wasn't inside shooting him.) That's what the statistics say.

You are proposing a 'False Dichotomy'! Either that Oswald was outside watching Kennedy or he was inside shooting him! You might be dressing it up by saying 'odds are' and 'what the staistics say' but it's still a false dichotomy.

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well where's the evidence placing Oswald inside at the time of the shooting?

AND

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know if Oswald was outside or not during the shooting. But there is no proof he wasn't

The record states that Oswald said he was in the building in front of a camera, Oswald told Fritz he was inside (on the 1st floor), Oswald told Fritz (and Holmes) he was inside (above the 1st floor!). Oswald never said he was outside and no one else said he was outside at the time...

 

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(NB, the only time Oswald claimed to have been out front (with Shelley) was after the 2nd floor encounter with Baker ....

Which never occurred.

As you have said, that the 2nd floor encounter never occurred is your opinion, and I have said that I encourage you to persue that... but Oswald said it happened, Baker said it happened, Truly said it happened... you are saying that it didn't happen (the burden of proof is on you to prove it didn't happen - it's not on me, or anyone else here, to prove it did happen)... the record states that it happened.

39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

....and at the time he was about to leave.

Your opinion. (Which is fine, I've stated mine here too.)

No, it's not my opinion that it was at the time he was about to leave. That is what the record states!

You want to try and find holes in what the record states, that's fine, and I encourage you to do so, and using your opinion and reasoning to do so is a good thing, but when someone is refuting your opinion/reasoning by showing what the record states - they are showing you what the record states and not their own opinion/reasoning. You seem to be trying to show that what I say is wrong when you should be trying to show what the record states is wrong (there is a difference btw )

Sandy, instead of goind round the houses on the issue, why not just state your case in it's entirety and then it can be tested!

I will leave you with a quote from David K Johnson in his book The Big Questions of Philosophy

Quote

We should never forget that our reasoning process can go wrong. This is why you always want to check your careful reasoning for flaws. Make sure that no fallacious, instincitve reasoning slipped in. Try to find errors, even look for evidence that you're wrong. After all, how hard is it to confirm your beliefs if that's all you're trying to do?  Anyone can find some evidence for anything! If you want to prove yourself right — try to prove yourself wrong. Because if you try to prove yourself wrong — and can't? Then it's a really good indication that you're right. Want to be even more assured? Invite others to prove you wrong. And remember — admit it when you are wrong.

Regards

[Bill Miller]

10 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I will leave you with a quote from David K Johnson in his book The Big Questions of Philosophy

" We should never forget that our reasoning process can go wrong. This is why you always want to check your careful reasoning for flaws. Make sure that no fallacious, instincitve reasoning slipped in. Try to find errors, even look for evidence that you're wrong. After all, how hard is it to confirm your beliefs if that's all you're trying to do?  Anyone can find some evidence for anything! If you want to prove yourself right — try to prove yourself wrong. Because if you try to prove yourself wrong — and can't? Then it's a really good indication that you're right. Want to be even more assured? Invite others to prove you wrong. And remember — admit it when you are wrong."

Regards

Well said!

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, why wouldn't Oswald be outside to see the President of the United States passing by? Most the others were.

Maybe he had no interest. Maybe he didn't care. Maybe he thought it was too cold. Maybe he was too engrossed reading a paper. Maybe he was too busy tucking in to his delicious lunch. Maybe he just wanted to view it from a window. Maybe because his handlers couldn't have him outside as part of their set up of him. Maybe he was the 6th floor shooter. Maybe he was pre-occupied taking his lunchtime constitutional. There are many different reasons why Oswald wouldn't be outside, and only one of them could be proof of 'guilt'.

I meant what I sais this way, and should have said it this way:

Anyway, why wouldn't Oswald likely have been outside to see the President of the United States passing by? Most the others were.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If we had nothing else to go by (and we may not, really), odds are that Oswald was outside watching Kennedy. (If he wasn't inside shooting him.) That's what the statistics say.

You are proposing a 'False Dichotomy'! Either that Oswald was outside watching Kennedy or he was inside shooting him!

I was being facetious about the "shooting him" part. Even so, what I said is true. If Oswald was inside shooting at Kennedy, then obviously odds weren't that he was outside.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well where's the evidence placing Oswald inside at the time of the shooting?

AND

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know if Oswald was outside or not during the shooting. But there is no proof he wasn't.

The record states that Oswald said he was in the building in front of a camera, Oswald told Fritz he was inside (on the 1st floor), Oswald told Fritz (and Holmes) he was inside (above the 1st floor!).

This is evidence, not proof. And there is very little reason to believe it is necessarily true.

Oswald never said he was outside....

You don't know that.

....and no one else said he was outside at the time...

No one said he was inside at the time either.

Alistair,

Somehow you don't get the fact that officials lied when it was to their advantage to do so. You treat what they said Oswald said as if was all factual. (Even though it contradicts itself!) Which brings me to this question...

Do you believe there was NO cover-up of the assassination?

I ask because, in the threads I follow, I've noticed that your goal is inevitably to show that nobody lied. That every contradiction can (hopefully) be explained away as being faulty estimates, false memories, and misunderstandings.*

But then, perhaps in the threads I follow, you are just trying to maintain your favorite notions of what happened.

*Obviously things should be explained as innocently as possible. But when doing so stretches explanations beyond limits of reason, then other, less innocent explanations should be explored. Otherwise one will end up doing what the Warren Commission did... rationalizing everything to fit its preconceived notions.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

did happen)... the record states that it happened.

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

....and at the time he was about to leave.

Your opinion. (Which is fine, I've stated mine here too.)

No, it's not my opinion that it was at the time he was about to leave. That is what the record states!

Not all the records state that. It is your opinion that the particular record that does state that got it right.

[Michael Clark]

On January 31, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

The reason Captain Will Fritz contradicted himself in his re-telling of the LHO dialog is because Captain Will Fritz was lying as fast as a race car.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I'm not sure if this point was mentioned and isolated so I'll post it. Sorry if this is repeated.

Fritz said that LHO told him that he had brought his lunch, and had it with him in the front seat or at his side while driving with Frazier.

Frazier said that LHO did not bring a lunch with him. 

It seems clear to me who would be telling the truth here, and who would have a motive to lie. It seems to me like Frazier is telling the truth.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[Alistair Briggs]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I meant what I sais this way, and should have said it this way:

Anyway, why wouldn't Oswald likely have been outside to see the President of the United States passing by? Most the others were.

 

By changing the word 'be' to 'likely have been' doesn't in any way change what my answer to that would be, so the answer I give to that is the same as I gave the first time...

I notice you didn't respond to what my answer was, perhaps you missed it or just didn't understand it. In simple terms, if you were to take the name of any other person that was inside the building and replace it with Oswald in your question, you should be able to see how meaningless the question is fundamentally.

If you want to place Oswald outside the building (and thus prove his innocence) then good for you, have at it, offer up the evidence that points to it and take it from there... the thing is though Oswald doesn't need to be outside to be innocent.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I was being facetious about the "shooting him" part. Even so, what I said is true. If Oswald was inside shooting at Kennedy, then obviously odds weren't that he was outside.

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are just putting words together that sound good to you, because see when you say "If Oswald was inside shooting at Kennedy, then obviously odds weren't that he was outside" well, there are no odds about it, it's really simple:

"If Oswald was inside shooting at Kennedy, then he wasn't outside" Period.
then again,
If Oswald was inside not shooting at Kennedy, then he wasn't outside.

You don't need to put Oswald outside to make him innocent, he can be inside and innocent.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Alistair,

Somehow you don't get the fact that officials lied when it was to their advantage to do so. You treat what they said Oswald said as if was all factual. (Even though it contradicts itself!) Which brings me to this question...

Do you believe there was NO cover-up of the assassination?

I ask because, in the threads I follow, I've noticed that your goal is inevitably to show that nobody lied. That every contradiction can (hopefully) be explained away as being faulty estimates, false memories, and misunderstandings.

But then, perhaps in the threads I follow, you are just trying to maintain your current notions of what really happened.

First of all whether I think there was a cover-up or not is irrelevant.

From all the times you have stated that I have claimed something when I haven't actually claimed it I can infer that you are either not reading all that I say or you are not understanding it, and that inference is backed up once again when you come out with things like 'just trying to maintain your current notions of what really happened' - I don't have a current notion of what really happened... and no my goal is not to inevitably show that nobody lied. Then again 'being wrong' and 'lying' aren't the same thing (although some people think it is).

On that last point however, it's not a case of explaining away every contradiction as being faulty estimates, false memories and misunderstandings, it's about considering it all and considering the knock on effect and where it all leads to see where the mistakes could be, and I repeat, could be (not ARE). Not ruling anything in and not ruling anything out, merely seeing where it goes and drawing inferences from it and then testing it, trying to find the parts that could prove it wrong and see where that leads... looking at it from all angles and seeing how it fits.

And do you know what? And I have said this numerous times, the research I have done in to the timings of Lovelady/Shelley (either way) and/or Baker/Truly (either way) and/or Adams (either way) and/or anyone else relevant (either way) could, and I repeat could, all be reconciled and it still doesn't nail down where Oswald was. I realise, as you have said it often enough, that you have Truly and Baker as liars and Adams having bits added to her testimony - I have no issue with that being the case, if it's the case. All I'm saying is that I don't need to have anyone lying to make things reconcile, but whether it is right or wrong it still doesn't nail down where Oswald was.

And surely that is the most important thing?

It wasn't that long ago (the day before yesterday) that you said that there was no reason to doubt what Fritz claimed Oswald said, and here you are saying that it is a fact that 'officials lied when it was their advantage to do so' and then admonishing me for treating' what they said Oswald said as if was all factual'. Did Paul's response to you 20 hours ago change your mind? (No problem if it did) Or are you just not sure (no problem with that) Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? (no problem with that, I'm happy to indulge )

Even though you fail to answer direct questions I ask you, I will directly answer the question you asked me (although you might not like the answer. lol)

You asked if I believe there was NO cover up of the assassination...

Simple answer - NO! Slightly less simple answer - I don't know. A longer answer? Well, let's put it this way, I reckon there could have been a cover-up either before or after the event, and I also believe that Oswald could have been set-up either directly or indirectly, it's just I have not yet discounted Oswald as being a shooter either. (As I said earlier, I have not ruled anything in or anything out.)

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Not all the records state that. It is your opinion that the particular record that does state that got it right.

Setting aside your 'admonishment' of 'it is your opinion'... first of all it is not a particular record that states it, it is actually more than one that coincide with each other. Irrespective, by all means show us the records that don't state it.

Sandy, it's really quite simple, instead of going round the houses on the issue, why not just state your case in it's entirety and then it can be tested!

Regards

P.S. Sandy, I'm merely being an opponent here not your enemy.

 

[Alistair Briggs]

7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I'm not sure if this point was mentioned and isolated so I'll post it. Sorry if this is repeated.

Fritz said that LHO told him that he had brought his lunch, and had it with him in the front seat or at his side while driving with Frazier.

Frazier said that LHO did not bring a lunch with him. 

It seems clear to me who would be telling the truth here, and who would have a motive to lie. It seems to me like Frazier is telling the truth.

Cheers,

Michael

 

A good call imo, Michael. :)

[Ray Mitcham]

If Oswald didn't take his lunch to work, what did he have for his lunch?

 There is no record of him buying his lunch from any other source.

 

Where did he get his cheese sandwich and an apple?

[Alistair Briggs]

18 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Where did he get his cheese sandwich and an apple?

Ray, just a quickie (as I might have missed something), can you point me in the direction of who said he had a cheese sandwich and an apple?

Kind regards.

 

EDIT: If memory serves, Marina said it in her WC testimony. Did Oswald say it too?
EDIT2: Nowhere in Marina's WC testimony can the word apple be found.
EDIT5: Marina mentions that Oswald usually took sandwiches; doesn't say (either way) he took lunch on that day.
EDIT3: Just found in Fritz's testimony that he said that Oswald told him he had a cheese sandwich and Coke (no mention of apple though)
EDIT4: later Fritz mentions that Oswald told him cheese sandwich and some fruit.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Alistair Briggs

[Michael Clark]

I just located this from Will Fritz WC testimony.

Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

 

And Fraser's testimony...

 

Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.

Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

15 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Ray, just a quickie (as I might have missed something), can you point me in the direction of who said he had a cheese sandwich and an apple?

Kind regards.

 

EDIT: If memory serves, Marina said it in her WC testimony. Did Oswald say it too?
EDIT2: Nowhere in Marina's WC testimony can the word apple be found.

 

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what he was eating?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me, I believe, that he had, I am doing this from memory, a cheese sandwich, and he also mentioned he had some fruit, I had forgotten about the fruit until I looked at this report.