Chuck Robbins

I think that Bill means to agree with me in larger part because I've certainly never suggested that Tippit was a part of any conspiracy, but rather an intended victim of one. There again we seem to be going down the same path different ways. What I thought I was saying is that the Andrews story just doesn't make sense. It does not fit with either known facts nor even assumed ones that I've examined and found that "fit" with those that are known. A quick recap: The guys at Top Ten Records last claim to have seen Tippit leave northbound, then eastbound. This jibes, at least, with the fact that Tippit died north and east of where these guys saw him. The Andrews stop - if it ever happened - was north and west of Top Ten, and afterward, "Tippit" took off, again going west. Then, in what could only have been a few minutes later at most, he was several blocks east of the stop location, going easterly. "Tippit" "sped off" from the "Andrews scene" and is described as acting like a "wild man." That short time later, in addition to the above disparities, he was cruising slowly across 10th and approached his killer slowly and "real friendly like." Why would Tippit approach a man in a car, in the direction opposite he was last seen, like "a wild man," yet approach another on foot in a diametrically opposing manner? Why would he "speed off" westbound and end up east of this location, cruising slowly? Do you notice police officers' name tags when you get a ticket? And if you do, do you really remember it for any period of time? Imagine a cop "herding" you to the side of the road, jumping out of his car, sprinting back to you, looking into your car and then sprinting back to his without saying a word: if you weren't going to make a complaint or an inquiry, why would you even look at his name badge, much less remember it? And then not say a word to anyone for a couple of decades, but recall what is ultimately an insignificant detail with utter clarity? I simply don't buy it. It doesn't "listen" well, and runs counter to the facts, particularly where, how far away, and when Tippit died. Just because Andrews claimed "his" cop was acting "like a wild man" does not incite me to re-think whether Helen Markham and Bill Scoggins might both have gotten his demeanor entirely wrong. As to: ... the problem is that this car was not reported over the radio - the only way Tippit could have known about it - until after the "citizen call" when he was already dead. It doesn't seem fruitful, then, to consider that there is any connection between the incidents, at least not insofar as Tippit was concerned or involved. Either the incident never happened, it was another cop, or Tippit was the fastest guy on the department, and/or the only one who could get to a point in the east by driving west. The only other cop acknowledged to be in the area - WD Mentzel, the only patrol cop on break throughout the city - was eating lunch at Luby's. If we can't name the "other cop," then there's only one other conclusion. Wasn't Parker in the area at that time? We discussed this long ago. He went out for 5 on e. Jefferson and was not heard from again that day. Dispatch tried to contact him, with no success. I'll leave my suspicions about Parker for another topic.

I may be wrong, but, I read a book by Wm. Manchester about 30 years ago and in it I remember Manchester describing, moment by moment, the details of how Greer nearly came to a stop turning onto Elm from Houston, and how he nearly had to back the car up in order to negotiate the turn. Where did he get his information from? Witnesses or a film? If it was from film, he might have seen the "other film". I am currently unable to obtain the book to find the answer. No, I am not too lazy to find out for myself, I have been without work for some time now and I am fortunate to get infrequent access to the net. However, life is good and I expect to see better days again so I will not complain. Keep up the good work gang! Chuck

Hi Duke, I'm not familiar enough with the story to know about the rabbit part. Was he actually heard asking if the rabbit was dead? I only ask because wasn't Oswald known as Ozzie Rabbit in the Marines?

Initially Morrow had SOME credibility. But with each new posting he diminishes himself. Jack Guess what Jack White. I believe 1) Man landed on the moon 2) 9/11 was NOT an inside job but rather an attack of Islamic terrorism Is that how you define "credibility?" With the vast majority of Americans you have NO credibility on those issues. Really? Jack has NO credibility with..."the vast majority of Americans"? How many Americans have you asked about his credibility? Of course, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. This is known as an opinion when no evidence is available to support a claim. Opinions are valid for whomsoever holds said opinion. Claiming that your opinion is the belief of "the vast majority of Americans" would be, shall we say, out of line? Can we stop the pointless and counter-productive arguing and try to make our points without resorting to personal attacks?

God, Dennis, I didn't realize I was talking to idiots who can't quite handle compound sentences. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Or are you asking me to put it in terms that you can understand? I'd suggest that if you can understand it, most other people can too. I don't see any need to "dumb it down" for "the folks," but I'm sure they appreciate your concern for my overtaxing their intellect. I present facts and tell you what I think of them, or what I think they mean. You don't have to agree, but your disagreement doesn't establish a different fact.Tell you what: start at 1:16 and work your way backward to 12:30 or earlier. Use the WC times, as well as conflicting statements under oath (e.g., Whaley's statement of how long it took him to drive the cab route in his own vehicle, versus how long it took the AAG to drive Whaley's cab over the same route with Whaley as a passenger), as well as reasonable estimates for other things to have occurred, such as the gathering of the crowd before Bowley's arrival. If 1:16 is the late end of the timeline, the early end is when McWatters was let go from the check point at St Paul Street. You do the work this time and I'll tell you where I think it's wrong. Feel free to explain it in detail for "the folks." I think they'll "get it" even if you don't. No that's fine for me Duke, I understand it all perfectly well thank you. You've made it abundantly clear that neither you nor anyone else can claim a definitive time for the Tippit slaying, the witness testimony is just too contradictory, and yet you still keep trying to state as fact that "Oswald couldn't have done it" or "Oswald couldn't have got there in time", like I said Duke, you are blowing hot air. And you damn well know it. P.S. Do try not to keep throwing these little hissy fits and tantrums every time someone 'dares' to disagree with you please. I realize you've had some articles published but frankly your head is so far up your own backside I truly do worry about you suffocating. Is there no evidence which indicates that Tippit was shot at a time that Oswald was somewhere else? How do you explain a time of death reported to be 1:15? Could you give a reasonable timeline for an ambulance to be dispatched, drive to the victim, pick up the victim, drive to the hospital, drop off the victim, have a Dr. examine a victim, then make a determination that the victim is dead, then, finally call the time of death? Let's not forget the initial confusion in the transcripts regarding the location where the shooting occurred.

That statement is not accurate Duke. Read the information contained in Judge Joe Brown's Autopsy Permit. Consider that the time given [1:15 p.m.] would have been after Tippett had been picked up and transported to the hospital.You're right: the statement is not accurate. It was made with tongue firmly in cheek. It was made in response to an earlier comment that it "isn't possible" to determine any kind of timeline regarding Tippit's death, which claim began by questioning Earlene Roberts' reliability ... as if anything that Oswald was doing at any time had anything at all to do with the murder. First we begin with the conclusion and then we examine the possibilities: Oswald shot Tippit, so could he have gotten there in time? The answer, of course, is "yes" ... but only if we first make the underlying presumption that Tippit was shot at a time late enough for Oswald to have been able to cover the 9/10-mile distance. I think we're safe in saying that Oswald couldn't have run a four-minute mile; does anyone disagree? (I didn't think so.) So, if Tippit was killed in less time after LHO was seen elsewhere (in other cases, we'd call that an alibi!), then it means that ... whoa! Tippit couldn't have been killed that early! Get it? The proof is that he could have gotten there in under 12 minutes, which was before the shooting had been reported (and clearly the report wasn't made before Tippit was shot; we can all agree on that, too). That the shooting likewise could have occurred at any time prior to the 1:16 report is limited by the least amount of time it could take Oswald to get from one place to the next: if he could run a six-minute mile, then the shooting could have occurred as early as 1:10, but since there's no evidence that he could do that, it's not possible for Tippit to have been shot that early. Simple, isn't it? All you have to do is start with a firm conclusion - Oswald shot Tippit - and the evidence will support it. Where it might not, it's simple enough to realize that people's perceptions are not always correct - Earlene Roberts' time estimates were probably wrong, as Bowley's watch probably was, too - so at the very least, they don't undermine the conclusion. Since there's no way that unreliable evidence can prove anything beyond the all-too-obvious conclusion, then the conclusion must be correct. Judge Brown's order can't be correct, at least not relative to DPD radio time, since the shooting wasn't reported over the radio until 1:16; at that time, the body was still in the street. It would imply that Judge Brown knew Tippit was dead before DPD did. If it is correct, then it's not based upon the time he signed the order nor on the time Tippit arrived at the hospital dead, but possibly on the time the ambulance attendants estimated that they had picked him up, already dead. Today, EMTs can pronounce; then, it's not impossible that medically trained ambulance drivers could do so, but that, not being doctors, they'd have nevertheless rushed him to the hospital "just in case." So, once again, we are left with this evidence: For a 1:05 estimate: An unanswered radio call to the officer prior to 1:04 A woman who took the bus to work every day at the same time who said, first, that it was 1:06 and later that she'd "be willing to bet" that it was 1;06 or 1:07 (and being adjudged "confused" because of these markedly different times); A man who got out of his car after the officer was on the ground and after a crowd had gathered who looked at his watch and said it was 1:10. For a later estimate: A "citizen" radio call at 1:16 Oswald couldn't get there any sooner Arguing against the latter are these: prior to Bowley making the radio call, Donnie Benavides had been trying to do so unsuccessfully for a minute or longer; prior to taking the mike from Benavides, Bowley had gotten close enough to Tippit to give him a cursory examination and decide that he was "beyond help" (and had picked up his gun from the street); Bowley had walked half-a-block from his parked car after having driven it a half-block from Denver Street; A small crowd had already gathered when Bowley first saw Tippit lying in the street; and The small crowd had time to gather. So unless one is willing to suggest that Oswald shot Tippit with an audience surrounding him, it's pretty clear that Tippit was dead at least two, three or four minutes before the radio call, and very possibly longer, giving him eight minutes to get there with a crowd present, or even less if one considers that crowds don't form instantaneously. If there's a problem with that, then one simply realizes that Earlene Roberts was wrong, and it wasn't even as late as 1:00 when Oswald arrived at the rooming house, and/or that he didn't stay anywhere near as long as she'd estimated. And Whaley and the FBI were wrong, that it either took less time to get to where Whaley had dropped Oswald off or that he'd left his cab stand earlier than presumed. In the latter case, it also means that Cecil McWatters' estimates were wrong, as was the route supervisor's releasing him from the time-check stop too early. This in turn means either that Oswald got to where he'd gotten onto the bus earlier than presumed, and again that the FBI agents who timed the walk to that location did it entirely too slow, or that Oswald had left the TSBD well before 12:33 and therefore before he encountered Baker and Truly in the lunch room and possibly before he'd even shot the President. Ultimately, it proves that JFK was not shot at 12:30 as we've all suspected, and that both the clock over the TSBD on the Hertz sign was also wrong, and so was the DPD clock that we've all been using as a gauge of time. So, back to my inaccurate statement: there is no evidence, and since there's no evidence, it must have occurred exactly as proposed. Please don't let facts get in the way; they have a way of working themselves out to our satisfaction. I believe that you and I agree that Oswald did not kill Tippit. There are some people here that will never accept any perspective other than an Oswald killed Tippit scenario. Back to the original topic, was Tippit involved in the conspiracy? That is a hard question for me to answer. I still reserve judgement on that issue.

Tsk. Despite your truly enlightening and enlivening sense of humor, please try to stay on topic. Nobody cares about my beathing or your opinion of it. Have I? If you say so. I've also made it abundantly clear that it wasn't at 1:16 or even a minute or two before that, but at least several minutes before that. Whether that was at 1:05 or 1:07 or 1:09, if it took Oswald more than 11 minutes but less than 12 to get there, then he had to have left the rooming house earlier than 1:00 to make that walk. Each preceding milestone must then be moved correspondingly backward to accomodate "known" time lapses. Ultimately, it has Oswald leaving the TSBD before the shots were fired.If Oswald left 1026 after 1:00 and the shooting took place before 1:10 or even 1:12 (when Helen Markham should have been getting onto her bus), and especially if it took place between 1:06 (Markham's estimate) and 1:10 (when Bowley arrived after the shooting), then Oswald either ran there or had other transportation. OR it was someone other than Oswald who pulled the trigger. Just for curiosity: any guesses why two other cops - one whose normal patrol was out east by Garland, the other whose beat was up north by Carrollton and Farmers Branch - happened to be in Oak Cliff before and during Tippit's reassignment? Since you said guess, I'll be happy to. My guess is that one or both of them could be the shooter(s) of Tippit. I have wondered for years now why the one cop did not respond when paged by dispatch, and further, why his call sign (I believe it was 56) was not mentioned again in the available transcript after being paged by dispatch.

Duke, that statement is in sore need of corroboration.Absolutely ... but I fear that such a thing might not ever be forthcoming from very many of his fellow officers, so we need to either take it at face value or discard it unequivocably. I am not sure that Scoggins positively identified Tippit as someone he knew by sight. He may have meant only that he used to see cop cars all the time, and paid no particular attention to this one. Even if Scoggins was referring specifically to Tippit, Scoggins did not state that he'd "seen [Tippit] all the time" AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION."I just seen him all the time" probably could mean any cop. Could be, too, that Scoggins wasn't referring to himself when he made that remark, but about any cab driver. Or maybe he just didn't realize that he was being asked about a particular incident at a particular location on a particular day: "well, y'know, sometimes I'd see him downtown, and at other times I'd see him in the south part of town, and other times over by the river there, so when I saw him here, well, of course it just seemed perfectly natural."That "the boys" in the gentlemen's club on Patton would be "joking" with him about the President getting shot likewise seems pretty normal: Texas is a friendly place, and chances are that people are going to strike up a conversation and try to pull the leg of just about any stranger who comes walking into their little neighborhood clubhouse. For all we know, it could have been his first time there, so "all the time" could mean just that once. Posner (&ors) argue that Davis meant the house WE lived in, and there is no other testimony that Tippit "lived" next door to the Davis girls.I know. "He" and "we" sound an awful lot alike, and the court steno could simply have gotten it wrong, too. But funny thing: there was a hedgerow between the house next door to the Davis girls and the house beyond that one, but not one between the Davis's house and the one next door, so how could she have meant that? Maybe she meant a bush. All that required was backing the car up one house and dragging the body a short ways down the street, which might explain why Helen Markham put her work shoes on top of the patrol car, too. I think I'm going to go back to the Hoffman thread where everyone believes every word he speaks. When Ed says he saw three cars of different colors and makes than Lee Bowers, it's quite clear that Bowers must be "mistaken;" when Ed says he saw "suit man" get into a green Rambler parked between Bowers' tower and the Pullman cars (which were between Hoffman and Bowers), it's a "significant detail."There is no evidence, Ray. Earlene Roberts is unreliable, Markham's time estimate "doesn't inspire confidence," Bowley's watch could be wrong, Scoggins wasn't specific enough, Davis was misquoted and didn't mean what she said anyway, and more cops need to speak up about JD's girlfriend. Given the large number of other witnesses who were interviewed by the WC who lived in the immediate area, you'd think that at least one of them would've said something, eh? I mean, other than Jimmy Smith, who was AWOL and consequently must be entirely unreliable. It's clear that Oswald did it at 1:15 because there's nothing to say that he didn't or couldn't have. That statement is not accurate Duke. Read the information contained in Judge Joe Brown's Autopsy Permit. Consider that the time given would have been after Tippett had been picked up and transported to the hospital.

It has not been proven, to my satisfaction, that any rifle was fired inside the TSBD that day. What I find curious is that Tippett was killed within minutes of the announcement that JFK had died. Was that the incentive for his death, needing to "prove" that Oswald had the capacity to murder JFK, because he had the capacity to kill a cop?

I see your point. Once again I have allowed myself to be duped into a no-win argument which does nothing to enhance our stature in the community. Thank you for your input.

I'm the slanderer? As opposed to the valentines he sends my way time and again? I guess your "purpose" is to shill for a thin-skinned buddy. Clue me in: exactly how did I "disrupt" the discussion? By responding? By doing some homework on Rybka and his duties that day? For having the audacity to disagree with the hateful premise? What is it about a dialogue that terrifies you so? FYI, some motives (9-11 an inside job; US never landed on the moon; Holocaust denials) deserve to be demeaned. NO, censorious a-holes like yourself are a far bigger threat to civilization. And I don't like blowhards who profess to value dissent and free speech, yet brutally suppress it whenever possible. My rights trump your eggshell-thin ego. Get lost. Did you just say something or is that your sphincter again?

Oh dear. My very own personal stalker has returned. He sits back, waits for me to post, then pounces. Quite a life you got there, Mark. Guess it beats playing Scrabble at the 4-H Center. Wilson posted about Rybka, and I calmly and methodically responded. Exactly how is that "stifling" discussion? By merely disagreeing? If so, are you mentally ill? Whose interests are you representing, Mark? Aging nerds who live with their parents? The mystery widens ... What makes you think you have your own personal stalker? (delusional?) Are you that great of a disinformation specialist? (rhetorical) No, you are just a sorry specimen who specializes in denigration as his favorite debate tactic. (bully) You talk about others being nerds? Look in the mirror, you are the leader of planet nerd. (projection) Fire away, your barbs only make me laugh. Your statements carry the weight of a gnat. (inconsequential)

As we have since found out, Barbara Bush herself put GHWB in Dallas on the 22nd of Nov. in her autobiography. Thank you Barbara for your contribution to true history.

A statement made the day of the assassination versus a statement made much later to the Warren Commission? I prefer the earlier statement. Later testimony is made after months of hearing or reading or being told "what really happened".

I thought it was a given that any object, when moving at speed, gains weight exponentially? Therefore, (and i am not a physicist) a bullet would weigh much more when traveling at supersonic speed. Oh, and by the way, I was shot once, by a measly .22 round, and it knocked me to the deck, and I weighed 165 pounds at the time. Don't tell me that a bullet won't throw someone's head around like a rag doll, i know better from personal experience. My 2 cents worth.

Wim, I will humor you only for a few moments before moving on because I personally don't believe you are interested in knowing this or you would have presented it to some experts on your own before wanting to debate something that you probably know little about. And while I understand your 'stick' example, it hardly applies to a small head sitting atop a large trunk separated by a pivot point. Had you tested the physics by doing as I requested, then you could have not wasted yours or my time with the stick nonsense. To start with, the Zapruder frames (Z312 and Z313) catches only one single moment in time. Let me say this again ... ONE SINGLE MOMENT IN TIME! You cannot have the head moving forward from one bullet and the body moving backwards from a second bullet if both bullets hit JFK in the head. You can have something hit JFK in the rear of the head and rock it forward while something slams into him from the front and below the neck which drives his trunk rearward at the same instant, but that isn't the evidence, nor is it the scenario that you just presented. Instead we are presented with a single moment in time which shows two different parts of the body moving in opposite directions at the same moment. This means that a single action caused this to happen and that is why I presented this and sought his opinion. Al then took it to some experts that he knew and asked them to consider this evidence and see if it was correct. I posted the results and Carriers presentation of it should still be in the Lancer archives. I'm just the messenger, Wim ... I'm not here to make you like what you are hearing ... just offering what I discovered and was able to substantiate. I will also add that I just didn't wait for Al Carrier to get back with me, I presented this single frame observation to some medical personnel who specialized in the neck and back. These were doctors who was treating me at the time. In simple terms - their opinions were that the head sits atop of the spine and the shock wave of the bullet slamming into the top of JFK's head on a downward angle would send a shock-wave down the trunk which would rock the head forward and push the shoulders rearward within the same instance. The information Carrier posted said the same, but in a more technical way. Bill Miller Bill, A single moment in time is not shared by two consecutive frames from one film. One moment per frame is all you get. Also, for what it's worth, I don't give a damn what any "expert" says about any event. We all come stock from the factory with our own unique set of BS detectors which give us the ability to figure things out for ourselves. Here's my own view of the BS which has been spread about so liberally regarding the JFK assassination... If I were to listen to the "experts" regarding their view of what happened to JFK, I would have never become interested in trying to find out for myself what happened. We have already been told what to believe and being told what to believe or what to think just rubs me the wrong way. I like to think for myself. I'm sure you like to think for yourself as well. Your opinions are valid for you, my opinions are valid for me and everyone else is entitled to their opinion as well. I look forward to the day when you will accept that your opinion means no more and no less than anyone else's opinion. I like to think that anyone who drops by to read our discussions here will have the sense to understand that no opinions voiced here are facts. There are very few facts available regarding the events surrounding JFK's assassination. I believe this is the main reason why, after 45 years, we still search doggedly for more information.

Harris makes several mistakes. One that comes to mind is the notion that at Z323, Jackie had her hand on JFK's head and removed it like she had touched something hot. Jackie's hand wasn't on JFK's head. Harris should have cross referenced this moment with films taken from other angles. This is often a mistake made by people. Does the evidence really support the above claim ... I do not believe that it does. The cranial fluid is released upon impact and occurs in the top portion of a head that is tilted forward. The head is rocked forward as the shoulders are shoved backward. No rearward back spatter is captured on any assassination film, thus I do not believe that JFK's was hit in the back of the head with a second bullet. It is true that when a bullet strikes - the debris upon impact will leave a wider cone of matter than it does upon exiting. Below is the debris seen closer to impact on the Nix film. I believe the reason why Jackie's white glove is seen is because she reached around JFK's head and placed her hand over the avulsion. Bill Miller In the Nix portion there appear to be two separate impacts. One looks like it strikes the base of the rear skull and there is a small spray of red fluid ejected backwards. The other looks like it came from the front and the result of that strike is very obvious.

Could it have been used by someone to hold the assembled rifle close to the body underneath a long coat?

According to a report in the dallas news jfk files, Kaiser applied at alright parking and told Mr. Hallmark, the manager, that he had quit the depository the day before the assassination. That doesn't match the other info which has been reported in this topic. He was 24 at the time. box 75 file 3221

Maybe it's time to start holding the CIA representatives in contempt of court and jail them. From what I have heard the incarceration could be continued until the documents which have been demanded are surrendered. What good is a court if it cannot or will not use every means at it's disposal to enforce it's orders and/or rulings? ultimatums in the form of time limits would put some teeth in the court's rulings. Until then, it's just the same old song and dance we have come to know so well.

Man that Oswald sure was a hell of a magician wasn't he? Poe has the suspect running WEST in the alley, then, in his supplemental report, the suspect is running EAST in the alley. He was pulling jackets out of his sleeve the way common magicians pull scarves out of their sleeves. Ed, You have managed to put together many tidbits in this topic which, together, help to show how evidence has been methodically changed, time after time, to fit whatever scenario was needed, at any particular time, during the commission's investigation. Glad to see your work.

The author of the cable's second paragraph, Ann Goodpasture, was an assistant to Station Chief Winston Scott, who supervised the work of three photo bases operating against the Soviet Embassy. (16) Her explanation to the House Select Committee (supported in part by other Station officers) was that, out of the four or five day period of Oswald's visit, this "was the only non-Latin appearing person's photograph that we found that we could not identify as somebody else." (17) In other words, if they had a photo of the person identified as Oswald, and they had known who that person was, this response would have been truthful even though it avoided the subject of exactly who it was that had been identified impersonating Oswald. How about asking if the man earlier identified as "Oswald" had subsequently been identified as someone else?

I prefer to be called insane, after all, we do live in this politically correct era. Anyway, Tosh, glad to see you're still hanging in there. Thank God we live in a place where everyone, even people you think are crazy, have the right to speak about what they believe to be their version of truth. I believe you fought to help preserve this right for us? Thank you.

Nice to hear from you again. Your input has always been interesting, informative, and, nearly always, met with much resistance. Considering the type of work you've done it doesn't surprise me at all that your records might contain a few inconsistencies. You have your hands tied, i think. If you reveal information which is still "classified" you would certainly be prosecuted and spend the rest of your life in prison. I think the fact that you still try to guide people to where they may find some answers is admirable. Thanks for coming back.

I have two names for the series. One is TV history of Vietnam and the other is Vietnam a TV history. Richard Ellison put the series together. I believe the short clip I referred to is in the 3rd show in the series. I will have to find the shot in the 3 hour tape before I can say for sure. I will try to get a digital photo of the man from my TV screen. I have a large screen TV so I'm hoping the image might be good enough for a comparison.