Bill Brown

"Oswald goes out the door wearing CE 163 and goes to the Theatre, verified in that Oswald was there. So unless he took the jacket off and set it outside somewhere before going in the theater, he wore it into the theater when he bought his ticket and went inside. Then he would do what most people do in warm theaters, take off their coats or jackets." Johnny Brewer was specifically asked (during his Warren Commission testimony) if Oswald was wearing a jacket on Jefferson Blvd., to which Brewer replies "No". Brewer even says the shirt was untucked. Brewer, in his Dec. 6th affidavit, described the shirt Oswald was wearing on Jefferson Blvd. as a "brown sport shirt" and makes no mention of a jacket at all.

"And further, on why it certainly was CE 163 the blue jacket that Earlene saw Lee leave the rooming house with: because Lee only had two jackets, a gray and a blue, and it is absolutely clear that he wore the gray jacket that morning. That can be tracked straight through from Irving to the cab letting him out on N. Beckley that day, witness after witness." No Sir. The gray jacket is CE-162. The heavier blue one is CE-163. Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald approach Buell Frazier's car that morning. She was shown CE-163 and said that it was the jacket/coat Oswald was wearing that morning. She was then shown CE-162 and said that it did not resemble what Oswald was wearing that morning. She was then asked about both items at the same time and she chose 163 as the one Oswald was wearing that morning. Your above statement is simply incorrect. If Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water, obviously. Did you forget about Randle when you claimed (erroneously) that "witness after witness" has Oswald wearing 162 that morning?

"And further, on why it certainly was CE 163 the blue jacket that Earlene saw Lee leave the rooming house with..." Interesting that earlier you tried to build an entire case on how (supposedly) a person (Earlene Roberts) would not be calling a jacket a coat (a coat is much warmer and thicker, etc.). You argued that Oswald left the rooming house in 163, partly because Roberts called it a coat and no way would she call 163 a jacket. Yet, that is exactly what you just called it above, a jacket. Below is what you said before: "And notice Earlene Roberts mentioned the jacket on KLIF-Radio twice, and both times called it a "coat", not a "jacket". Why is that? Because Oswald's blue jacket or coat, CE 163, is heavier and lined and warmer, and although there is overlap in the words, the words are not completely synonymous. "Coat" tends to be used of warmer, heavier outerwear than "jacket". She called Oswald's jacket a "coat" both times on KLIF-Radio because it was Oswald's blue coat, CE 163."

"And notice Earlene Roberts mentioned the jacket on KLIF-Radio twice, and both times called it a "coat", not a "jacket". Why is that? Because Oswald's blue jacket or coat, CE 163, is heavier and lined and warmer, and although there is overlap in the words, the words are not completely synonymous. "Coat" tends to be used of warmer, heavier outerwear than "jacket". She called Oswald's jacket a "coat" both times on KLIF-Radio because it was Oswald's blue coat, CE 163." No Sir. Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same item (jacket/coat). Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw Oswald cut across their yard moments after the shots rang out. Virginia Davis described the jacket Oswald was wearing as "a light brown tan jacket". Barbara Davis described it as a "black coat". You cannot build any case on word play like that. It is obviously very possible for one person to call it a jacket while another calls it a coat.

"Now you can say Earlene got it wrong, really saw a near-white light-tan CE 162 and called it "dark" and "gray". But her description has nothing to do with CE 162. No other witness called CE 162 "dark" (not Barbara Davis by my analysis in the paper), and neither did Earlene because she wasn't describing CE 162." Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw Oswald cut across their yard moments after the shots rang out. Virginia Davis described the jacket Oswald was wearing as "a light brown tan jacket". Barbara Davis described it as a "black coat". These two women were looking at the same man. Yet, one said the outer garment was light brown tan and the other said it was black. Since we know the two women saw the same man, it's useless to argue that a witness like Earlene Roberts couldn't have been mistaken as to the color of the jacket/coat she saw Oswald leave in at the rooming house. One of the Davis girls was wrong. Why can't the same be true for Roberts?

"Now why "gray" (which is compatible with her "dark")? Because she was diabetic and yellow-blue color-blind is why, medically incapable of seeing blue. For those who are yellow-blue colorblind blue appears as gray." Greg, where is your proof that Roberts was yellow-blue color-blind and medically incapable of seeing blue?

Let's not forget, Earlene Roberts has Oswald entering the rooming house with no jacket/coat on at all. Secondly, In his statement to the FBI soon after the assassination, William Whaley described what Oswald was wearing in the cab, even describing the shirt in detail, and no mention of Oswald wearing a jacket. Granted, many months later, Whaley would testify to the Warren Commission that Oswald was wearing two jackets. Personally, I'd take what he told the FBI almost immediately after the assassination over something he was trying to remember roughly a half year later.

So Mary Bledose was telling porky pies when she said she saw Oswald on the McWatters bus, noticing the hole in the elbow of the shirt? How about the fact that 163 was found inside the Depository, nowhere near Oak Cliff?

I read the Sibert & O'Neill Report for the first time almost twenty years ago, early 2000s. Nowhere in that report does it state that Humes and the others thought Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing ice bullets. So yes, I had no clue about the stark raving mad ideas in the head of another forum member here who spouts nonsense and then backpedals when called out on it.

Yes and the same "researchers" believe there were as many as ten shots fired in Dealey Plaza and that Kennedy was hit in the back by a bullet which penetrated only two inches into soft tissue.

Keep telling yourself that.

"I didn’t say Humes et al concluded JFK was hit with a high tech weapon — I used the phrase “seriously considered.” No Sir. You stated what you mistakenly believed "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT. Here is exactly what you said: "The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body." I then called that statement "pure nonsense". Judging by your own backpedaling, it seems you now realize how nonsensical your original statement was. Moving on.

You quoted O'Neill: "“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK." First, you're quoting O'Neill and automatically attributing that to what "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT happened. Second, even IF "Humes et al" believed Kennedy was struck by a soft-nosed bullet, how does that automatically translate to your claim that "Humes et al" THOUGHT Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing missiles which would dissolve? Look. I get it. You said something you shouldn't have. It happens.

Sibert and O'Neill observed "Humes et al" considering the possibility that the President was struck by a "high tech weapon" (your words, no one else's). Somehow, you're foolishly attempting to get that to evolve into "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing off missiles that would eventually dissolve. It's sad that you don't understand the difference.

Sure thing. From the Pathological Examination Report: "The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

Except that you are wrong when you say that Kennedy suffered a shallow wound in soft tissue. The wound was completely tracked from back to front. You'd know this if you would read the autopsy report. I always find it comical when one criticizes something which they have obviously never read. Well, comical and pathetic at the same time.

"The night of the autopsy Humes et al seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon." What are you failing to understand here? You stated that Humes et al THOUGHT Kennedy was hit with a high tech weapon firing missiles which would not show up in an X-ray. I am telling you that they considered all possibilities, yes. But that is not to say that they actually thought it was true or that they ever believed it. You twist reality in order to get it to fit your foolishness. Just stop.

No Sir. You clearly stated: "The autopsists THOUGHT JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body." That is a far cry from the reality that they were simply considering all possibilities at that moment.

I'm talking about real bullets, copper, steel, lead. You keep talking about ice bullets.

Are you aware that after the Y incision was made, they were able to find and track the wound through Kennedy?

"The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body." Pure nonsense. "Humes et al" thought no such thing.

Again... In the real world, bullets do not hit soft tissue, penetrate two inches and stop.

Typical. "The bullet hit the back but only entered a couple inches in the soft tissue. No, I can't support my silly nonsense but conspiracy authors said it, so..."

Okay but that isn't an answer.

If it's in a movie, then it must be true? Why can't it just be a movie for entertainment's sake? The movies aren't real life. Haven't you seen Oliver Stone's JFK?