Bill Brown

You don't get it. Do you think I'm lying? Jack Myers sent me the article for feedback long before it was ever posted.

This is real simple. Michael Griffith misquoted Benavides.

Greg, my post to Michael Griffith corrected Griffith's mistaken claim that Benavides said the killer's hairline squared off ABOVE the collar. Benavides never said such a thing and your quote of Benavides supports my statement to Griffith that he (Griffith) was wrong. Nothing in your above post changes any of that. Now, we can argue back and forth over whether or not the killer's collar line squared off or tapered off 'til the cows come home, but that wasn't even remotely close to the point of my post to Griffith. My post was about Griffith's misquote of Benavides and I thought I was pretty clear on that.

And how does any of that change the fact that she identified Oswald as the killer on the late afternoon of 11/22/63?

"Shall we mention that the one guy who was actually close to the shooting when it occurred, Domingo Benavides, said that the gunman had a squared-off (blocked) haircut that ended on the back of his neck above his "Eisenhower" jacket..." Now you're just making stuff up. Why do you guys continually do things like this? Benavides said the killer had a squared off haircut, yes. But he did NOT say the hair was cut "above" the collar of the jacket. You muddy the waters with this stuff. Since Benavides did not say that the hair was cut above the collar, it is indeed possible that the jacket's collar itself gave the appearance of a squared off haircut. The killer could have had a pony tail tucked inside the collar of the jacket and still have the appearance of a squared off haircut.

"This was wrong. You made this mistake because you were ignorant of Jack Myers' source. After being made aware of Jack Myers' source, you quoted it as follows..." No Sir. You have made a foolish statement (most likely because of your own ignorance, again). I was fully aware of Jack Myers' source (since anyone who knows anything about the Tippit case is fully aware of the Tatum interview for the 1993 Frontline special). Also, I discussed this specific point with Jack Myers long before I ever posted here on the Ed Forum. Seriously, stop trolling. By the way, Once I pointed it out to him, Jack Myers accepted that he was wrong and that Tatum is saying that he noticed the curling of Oswald's mouth as he passed within ten to fifteen feet of Oswald as Oswald and Tippit were talking through the window. You wouldn't know this, though, because you're ignorant of the facts (just as you were, regarding your ludicrous claim about how T.F. Bowley drove past Tippit's body lying in the street before parking one block west of the scene, when the reality is that Bowley pulled over east of the scene and never drove past the body lying in the street). You should be embarrassed but you don't know any better.

Except, I do not believe Landis would have found a bullet in or on the back seat. Another location inside the limo, possibly (having already worked it's way out of Connally's thigh).

You're just trolling. "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." - Amos Bronson Alcott

Look, this is real simple... Landis is saying he placed the bullet on Kennedy's gurney right next to Kennedy's body. But we know this goes against the known facts. The Parkland doctors did not take Kennedy off of that gurney, it's the same gurney he was on as they were trying to save his life in Trauma Room One. None of the Parkland doctors ever mention a bullet lying on the gurney. It simply did not happen.

The idea that the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was "undercharged" and traveling at a significantly lower rate of speed even though it had yet to strike anything is laughable.

Do you really believe the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was traveling at the same low rate of speed as was the bullet when it hit Connally's thigh? Really?

It's entirely possible that Landis is not lying. Perhaps he did find the bullet inside the car and placed it on A GURNEY, but not necessarily the President's gurney. None of the Parkland doctors recall a bullet lying on Kennedy's gurney as they tried to save his life inside Trauma Room One.

"1. Landis' explanation is that CE 399 is a projectile that made the shallow wound in JFK's back, and then fell out." There is no chance that a bullet struck Kennedy in the back and penetrated only to such a shallow depth that it could later simply fall out of the entry wound. Complete nonsense. Whatever did occur, it wasn't this.

First, you do realize that Tippit was indeed shot in the head. Right? Second, you do realize that Tatum has the killer going out into the street and fire off a final shot. Right? I'm just trying to find out what you do know and don't know, since you've shown in the past that you're pretty much clueless about the events in Oak Cliff. No offense intended.

Myers didn't interview Tatum in the Frontline special. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Just like when you argued for a week that Bowley squeezed past the body lying in the street before parking in the 300 block of East Tenth.

Why not simply answer my question? What does any of the above (her testimony in 1964) have to do with the fact that she identified Oswald back on 11/22/63?

Obvious confusion during her testimony on exactly what Ball was trying to ask her. But, I'm curious. What does any of the above have to do with the fact that she identified Oswald back on 11/22/63? What if she never testified to the Warren Commission? Before Markham ever heard of Joseph Ball, she picked Oswald on the afternoon of the murder. "Number two is the one I picked." -- Helen Markham "Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." -- Helen Markham

You guys need to use your heads. "I realized that there was one thing that made him stand out; and that was his mouth that curled up. I couldn't mistake that. Kind of a smile. And I was within ten to fifteen feet of that individual." -- Jack Tatum

Whether or not Jack Tatum was really there is another topic entirely. As for my comments above, you didn't change anything. Jack Myers misrepresented what Tatum said.

That would require me to actually go read your work. If what I've read from you here on this forum is any indication, then no thanks.

The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C). The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes. During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast. These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark. In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints. In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints. The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures. The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast. Both photos (CE-133A and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D. This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph. When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis. Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane. Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected. One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically. Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.

@Steve Roe @Gerry Down Re: Oswald, leaflets and the USS Wasp... Commission Exhibit 1412... https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1412.pdf "In a letter to Mr. V.T. Lee, then National Director of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, Oswald said that "we also managed to picket the fleet when it came in and I was surprised at the number of officers which were interested in our leaflets".

"So, she ran from the back to the living room and threw the curtain back and looked out the window and she could see this officer – Dallas police officer laying in the street; saw his squad car." -- Mike Brownlow (on what Doris Holan supposedly told him) There is zero line of sight from Holan's apartment window on Patton to the location of Tippit's patrol car around the corner on Tenth.

You "forgot" that the Top Ten Record store ever existed. Your opinion doesn't really matter, regarding anything related to Oak Cliff.

"I think the odds are about 80% that Mrs. Holan told Brownlow some form of a patrol car in the alley. You think (I think) somewhere close to 0%. Neither you nor I know for certain. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "And so it goes."" This is where you're wrong. Holan did not say anything to anyone in all the years between 11/22/63 and the time of the supposed interview about seeing the killer flee, the body lying in the street, etc. Same goes for Sam Guinyard. Brownlow stated as a fact that Holan told him that she went to her window and "threw the curtain back and looked out the window and she could see this officer – Dallas police officer laying in the street; saw his squad car." Come on, Greg. Face it. Brownlow mistakenly believed Holan lived on Tenth Street and made up this story. We know Holan never said such a thing to him since she couldn't have seen the body from her window on Patton. You're so desperate to believe Brownlow that you're changing what he said to get it to fit your narrative.