Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tommy Tomlinson

Members
  • Posts

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Tommy Tomlinson's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

  1. This is fascinating. Interesting you mention Hosty, because his was the first name that leapt to mind when thinking about "Who might know?" Again, this is not in my wheelhouse, and we are getting WAAY off topic with this but do you know... was there any documented attempt made to determine if Hidell was even real? You know... double check that Oswald wasn't sharing/using an asssociate's I.D that might have stood up to legitimate scrutiny? (In much the same way that his own Identity was being used by others?) Or did they make another of their infamous deductive leaps and just "Know" that it was an alias? As far as they knew Hidell might have been one of the guys using Oswalds i.d. in Mexico! It wouldn't have taken much of the FBI's vast resources to do the sort of search I imagine they were both familiar with and competent at to discover fairly quickly that it was an alias... so if they did and it turned up a bust, then... OK But if they didn't make such a move, that in and of itself is kind of suggestive that they already knew the answer. I mean... were they actually GOOD fake I.D's or obvious phonies? Or was it fairly easy to forge a believeable Marine Corps Service Card? Did he have any "O.H. Lee." stuff too? It's certainly odd that he was carrying that Hidell i.d if he'd only ever previously used it for ordering the weapons he "just happened" to be accused of using that day. Almost as if he were trying to make the FBI's job easier...
  2. Hi David, going to take you up on that offer... I read it all in one go and a couple of points pinged in my brain. I'm now going through it more carefully to make sure I didn't miss the explanations. BUT... This may be the first of several. You mention in the piece that the FBI were keeping tabs on Oswald, including via keeping track of his mail... and talk about them being unlikely to have missed the rifle and pistol. Do we know at what point the identity "Hidell" was known to be Oswald by the authorities ? It does seem odd that if stuff is being improperly delivered to his PO Box addressed to someone else, that the FBI would NOT wish to determine if he's acting as a third party for his pal AJ, or actually IS AJ... particularly if those parcels contain firearms. I'm sure many people believe it was a known alias he was either given, or agreed WITH those agencies. But is there a point where we KNOW that they knew?
  3. As far as the timeline the three witnesses (Markham, Benavides, and Bowley) plus the Police Dispatchers, established goes, it is a very straight forward, linear, common sense explanation of the events. Having followed a lot of true crime investigations, that time line seems better than most police get from multiple witnesses at a crime scene. Beyond the timeline matching it does all go a bit "He said/She said..." and gets a bit all over the place when it comes to identifying the shooter, but that timeline is a pretty solid baseline. What was it that caused anyone to initially question them? What caused them to say? "Maybe she usually caught a different bus, and is wrong? Maybe he didn't hide as long as he said? Maybe his watch was wrong? Maybe the dispatch times were wrong?" What caused that initial lack of trust in those witnesses? A level of trust that with some of them was suddenly re-invigorated as to suggest almost eidetic levels of memory in things other than their fundamental understanding of linear time? And I mean legitimate, substantive cause to doubt the "I set off around at this time and the shots were fired around that time..." "I ducked behind a car and hid, then came out..." "I arrived and checked my watch and it was a time that substantiates the others..." and the police saying "WE recieved a call on our dispatch desk at a time that substantiates all those timings..."? What was it about the incident that made people go... "Hang on... something about this just doesn't add up!" Why shouldn't those times be trusted? Why do people who say Bowley's watch might be wrong, or the dispatch clock may be wrong always make that error in favour of the time being LATER? So Bowley's watch may have been wrong by a couple of minutes? OK, so potentially 1:08 then? Dispatch may have been out by a couple of minutes too and got that call at 1:14! and Markham may have set off bang on 1.00PM!!! Hey, that old lady seems a bit crazy... Oswald might still have been standing outside the house at gone five past!!! But no... THAT line of thinking is, "being ridiculous!" So who WAS the first person to say "These timings simply can't be right!" and what was the reason they gave for WHY the timings couldn't be right? If there is an actual answer beyond "Well... Oswald oviously! They needed to create a window for him to get there on foot" I would genuinely like to know what it is.
  4. So there we have it... they are right when I want them to be and wrong when I need them to be.
  5. In her testimony to the WC she says "1:15" in one of the other interviews she phrases it slightly different, I have neither the time nor inclination to retrace the instance as it's a distracting matter of semantics, entirely irrelevant to the matter of what time she was present at the shooting, unless, as I asked before you are going to contend that The Warren Commissions estimation of the shooting is accurate at 1:16. Markham says that she estimates the time of the shooting was 1:06 to 1:07 having just left her house at a little after 1PM. Benavides says that after the shooter leaves he waits a further 2 minutes, then moves to attend to Tippit, and then moves to try the radio. Bowley arrives around that time, checks his watch and it's 1:10. He moves to Tippit, and attempts to help him before taking over the radio from Benavides, he gets the radio wokring and makes a call to dispatch the time of that call is 1:16. I know people are very keen to argue to the far end of a fart about technical discrepancies in where someone was standing or what angle they were at, or using situations to further theories by postulating "Ah, but what IF????" scenarios... I;m not at that point yet with this part of the case I just want to know how Oswald got there in the time they say he did when the timescales say he couldn't have unless he was runing VERY fast indeed, and am still suprised that with the way DPD decnded on that Movie Theatre, that no one was interest in a guy sprinting hell for leather through the streets. Was that a common occurrence in Dallas in 1963? I don't know! What evidence, suggests that timeline is incorrect (taken from statements made to the WC) and that all three were individually out of whack to almost identical levels of disparity for the Commission to decide, and subsequent people accepted... that everyone was wrong, and they were right?
  6. I don't think you are getting it Bill. I'm not sure if I've explained it badly or you are being wilfully contrarian? I'll ingore the nonsense strawman of me claiming these things as facts other than to say that I've specifically used phrasess such as "I believe" "fairly sure" and "confident" to describe my understanding of the situation. I freely admit I'm way behind the curve on the details of the shooting. Are you trying to say that a the Warren Commissions assertion of a 1:16 shooting was correct? She didn't say the bus arrived at 1:15. She said that she would leave her house just after one, and walk to the bus which would arrive around quarter past. She's clearly not a woman accustomed to taking note of details. (You've read and seen her recollections...) If she was catching that bus with any degree of regularity she would be leaving the house at just after 1:00pm and be arriving there in time to catch a bus that was shceduled to arrive at 1:12. And unless you arre planning a military operation, or maybe a bank heist, most people would accept that twelve minutes past is "around quarter past" If she were regularly having to wait an additional ten minutes, even someone as scatter brained as Helen Markham would have figured that out after a few days, and if she wasn;t even that smart, then... well.. good luck convincing me that anything she said about the shooting has any merit whatsoever. But, the important part is the time she left the house and the time it took her to get to the stop. What MIGHT have happpened at the bus stop in terms of waiting around or quickly boarding, is not what matters, the time she left and the time she took to get to the scene of the shooting is what matters. If you are trying to blow holes in Markham's credibility over her understanding and comprehension of her own, personal, regular routine for getting to work, then any credibility she has over a brief explosive event that gave her several feinting fits should be, by association and at the very least, treated with the same lack of credibility. If you wish to proceed discounting Markham as not being credible, we can talk about the other witnesses who established the timeline, and ignore Markham's testimony, afffidavits and interviews completely, (as several members of the WC seemed eager to do...) Out of interest what was the 1:22 bus? I've seen the schedule for the Number 55 bus, but that ran hourly (or, more accurately, every 58 minutes for some reason...). The "15" Bus would have arrived around 1:36 and the "30" would as I understand it, (happy to be corected on this) have required her to move to a different stop. What was the bus that ran 10 minutes after the 1:12pm "55" at the same stop? From what I can see from the schedule, the next bus would have arrived at around 2:10pm, meaning she would have been stepping off the bus about 5 minutes after her shift started. I'll pop a link to the schedule up when I'm on my proper computer, this notebook is struggling to do one thing at once, let alone multi-task.
  7. I'm fairly sure it was the 1:12 since she described the one she always caught as arriving around quarter past after leaving the house at just after 1.00pm, and it being her daily schedule to arrive in time for a bus that in her brain arrived in under 15 minutes after she left. If her bus were arriving 3 minutes or so AFTER its scheduled time (schedule vs her understanding), I kind of think she'd have eventually figured out that it was closer to 1.30 than "quarter past" and she'd been waiting an extra ten minutes on top of the 3 or minutes she would have waited for the 1:!2 pm bus BY setting off "just after 1.00"? As the conspiracy theorist here, I think it's odd that normally I would be the one supposed to be questioning Helen Markhams cerdibility as a witness, yet whe I given her the benefit of the doubt on an issue she would be far more reliable on than any identification of a man she saw for a few moments, here you are... defending her ID by way of questioning her ability to tell the time and reliably relate her daily work routone. But whatever suits your agenda I suppose. I know we need to follow some crazy "Well... it MIGHT have happened that way!" leaps of credulity to fit the "Oswald did it, alone... and so did Ruby!" theory based on th other witness reports. The entire case is based "Is it potentially, vaguelly theoretically possible for these events to occurr and line up at the same instance and allow us to say that one man could have done it?", why not add another. Anything else about her testimony you think she might have messed up?
  8. Thanks a lot David. I'll open a bottle and make that this evening's reading...
  9. Cheers David... that whole discrepancy between casings and bullets was something I heard a long time ago, and someone told me that it had been resolved through a "miscommunication" or "clerical error" of some kind and that I was being silly for mentioning it. Not being too focused on Tippit at the time I kind of let that fly... but having a recently renewed interest in that side of the mystery I tried to find that explanation. I'm not so sure it WAS put to rest. If you have any more on THAT, or can point me to a source to further expnad on that discrepancy I would be really grateful.
  10. Thanks for that Gil. To me, that journey is the cornerstone of labeling Oswald the Tippit killer. If you can show he covered that distance in the time the evidence establishes you get to say "he could have killed Tippit". If you can't show that a) he DID manage to do that or b) he COULD do that, you have to concede it might have not been him. Both Roberts and Markham have come in for some bruising over the years depending on which side of the fence people are sitting when throwing stones, but both are considered to be pretty reliable in terms of the times. The only reason one could have to doubt them would be to forward an agenda or theory that doesn't fit without them being completely wrong. The Warren Report did itself no favours by asserting the time of the shooting as being at 1:16PM. Helen Markham would have long been at her bus stop by that time, following her daily routine of setting off slightly after 1PM to meet a bus that arrrived at 1:12PM, though she said it was some time around 1:15... Regardless of the possibility of the bus' delayed arrival that day, she would have been there by 1:12PM and nowhere near the scene. Seeing as how she estimated being about a minute and a half to two minutes away from the bus stop... even if her daily routine had her land at exactly the same time as the bus every day, the shooting was no later than 1:10-1:11PM The WC relied on Oswald enterring and leaving "around 1PM" allowed time for him to "briskly" walk the 9/10 of a mile in what the reader was meant to believe was 16 minutes... OK that's fine... PLENTY of time.. But when Roberts reliably placed his leaving at 1:03/1:04PM, and Markham reliably placed herself at the scene at no later than 1:10/1:11PM, that brisk walk suddenly becomes a hard run. Add to the melee that a witness who turned up a couple of minutes after the shooting having the good sense to check his watch for the time, and placing the time at 1:10PM Unless I'm mistaken the timescales mentioned by people who have no credible reason to be disbelieved puts the shooting pretty much around 1:08/1:09PM I did some checks on various times taken to run a mile and simply applied a 9/10 modifer to it... not exactly scientific, but pretty close. This is assuming ideal conditions and wearing suitable running gear... (lightweight vest, shorts, running shoes...) An intermediate level 20-25 yr old middle distance runner could have done it in a little under 6 minutes. Someone who was not a middle distance runner but was in decent shape could do it in around 8 1/2 minutes. (These times are increased significantly if not wearing suitable footwear...) However, in both circumstances, upon stopping their exertion, the runner would have been exhausted! Remember... this isn't "jogging" we are talking about, its running. Normal, healthy, "non-runners" struggle to keep up a full run for more than 2-3 minutes. At best Oswald needed to RUN for 6 to 8 minutes, wearing THREE layers of clothing, and wearing normal shoes. As to questions over things like Scoggins' posture... I'm pretty new to the Tippit discussion, I have Joe's book but to my shame have yet to get round to it... I've pretty much exclusively focused my interest on the Dealey Plaza evidence part of the case and try not to speculate down too many rabbit holes. But I'm to happy to engage in discussionos over the kneeling, prostrate, standing or otherwise positions of ear-witnesses after the basic question of "How the Hell did he get from Here to There within the permitted time frame?" has been put to rest.
  11. OK, sorry I made a mistake about Scoggins and Benavides... like I say, not what I'm interested in. I mentioned Gil by name because it was the polite thing to do since his thread didn't nitially cover what I wanted to know. I had a quick read through his breakdwons of the individual tesimonies and interviews and affidavits and whatever he has extrapolated to reach whatever conclusions it is that you so clearly disapporve of, his access to the details was impressive. By all means if you can give me the list of witnesses who saw Oswald performing his feat of athletic prowess through the leafy(?) suburbs of Dallas I'll take it from wherever it comes. But not the conclusions... I'll try my own first.
  12. I thought he said he was crouched behind the car? I recall he said something about the shooter looking over his left shoulder as he went past, when Scoggins was on his right, which would have made it hard to see his face, or was that someone else? I'm curious, does that have any relevance to people seeing Oswald on his way TO the shooting? Have I missed something?
  13. Hi Gil, I'm hijacking this Thread rather than create a new one, because my questions are all about the Tippit Witneses and this one already existed. First question. You seem to have a damn good grasp on the Tippit witness situation, what I'm trying to find.are witness accounts not of the shooting. or of the escape, but of any witnesses who "observed Oswald" on his high speed forced narch to the scene of Tippit's shooting? Could you point me in the right direction? Second question... I understand that tthe shell casings found at the scene were 2 x Winchester and 2 x Remington, and that Benevides found two, and the Davis gals found the other two. Does history relate what the breakdwon was in terms of who found what? e.g did Benavides find two of the same brand? Many thanks in advance and anticipation!
  14. Thanks everyone. I thought that might be the case, but I'll pass it on to my boy. I think my boys idea might have come from after I pointed out that the parcel length was too short for Oswald to have carried the rifle, and could have been along the lines of Oswald maybe carrying the mechanism in the parcel, and someone having left a woodstock on site... I'm not entirely sure if he'd asked himself WHY they would do it piecemeal, but if he's asking left field questions about this subject, I'd be a bit of a hypcrite if I didn't listen. Cheers guys
  15. Fairly straightforward question, in utter ignorance from someone who knows nothing about firearms. Could the mechanical part of a rifle like the one found in the TSBD be interchangeable with a different or similar woodstock without anyone noticing? Or are the woodstocks very specifically machined to each mechanism? My kid came home from school yesterday and told me his History Teacher had been teaching them about the Kennedy Assassination So we had a chat... and in an "Out of the mouths of babes..." moment when we were discussing the rifle, along with me showing him the backyard photos alongside CE139 and the different strap arrangements, he asked me this question? Could the mechanism from Oswalds rifle (the one bearing the alleged palm print) have been swapped out and put in a woodstock with an inset strap? I said that I had absolutely no idea, that the thought had never occured to me, and that I would ask some American folks that I know, who probably know the answer to that...
×
×
  • Create New...