Bill Brown
-
Posts
1,135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Brown
-
-
10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
No. You are using trickery by using "lightweight" instead of "gray", then trying to have me say CE 162 since it is lightweight "resembles" Oswald's gray jacket which was also lightweight "as opposed to" a heavyweight jacket/coat. No.
Every man in America had a lightweight jacket. That doesn't make for calling two random lightweight jackets owned by ca. 100 percent of men who exist, a "resemblance" in any two such lightweight jackets. That's what you're trying to set me up to say here.
Bait not taken.
You can go to pp. 42-44 of my paper if you're honestly puzzled (I don't think you are) about wanting to know my definitions and narrative.
Why don't you just make whatever points you want to make.
Why don't you lower your defenses? I'm not trying to bait you at all. I am calling one of Oswald's jackets lightweight and the other somewhat heavyweight for no other reason than to distinguish the two from each other.
One of Oswald's jackets was lightweight and lighter in color than the other jacket/coat which was a little more heavyweight and darker in color. Right?
-
2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
No, my Bledsoe interpretation has nothing to do with a "lighter-colored jacket of the two" of Oswald. I am not sure that Oswald's gray jacket was lighter in color tone than his CE 162 blue jacket which was called faded. You are putting in "lighter-colored".
Nothing in Bledsoe or the Minsk photo or Oswald's gray jacket has the least bit to do with CE 162.
There's the lightweight jacket and then there's the darker, somewhat heavyweight jacket/coat.
You have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket. You have the Tippit witnesses saying the killer was wearing a jacket resembling the lightweight jacket, as opposed to the heavyweight jacket/coat.
If you have Oswald leaving the Depository in the lightweight jacket, then you have Bledsoe seeing Oswald on the bus wearing this lightweight jacket that you somehow believe has a hole in the elbow.
You have Oswald wearing this lightweight jacket in the Minsk photo, as opposed to the heavier, darker jacket/coat.
Am I right so far?
-
42 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
No.
Bit it seems to me that you are, indeed.
You cite the Bledsoe scenario (hole in the elbow of the lighter-colored jacket of the two that Oswald owned) and then you tie that in to the jacket/coat (which you believe shows a hole in the elbow) seen in the Minsk photo.
-
9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Wait a minute Bill. Where did I ever say Oswald's jacket in Minsk was "light-colored"? I said it was his gray jacket, I did not say "light-colored". You are misquoting me. I am not saying that.
I think Oswald's gray jacket was a medium-gray, because of witness descriptions, not a near-white or off-white or "light" in color. The only mention of Oswald's gray jacket being "light" in color I know of is when Buell Frazier was asked whether Oswald's gray jacket was light or dark (those two choices) and he said "light gray" which I take to mean it was not dark gray but consistent with a medium gray as opposed to dark gray.
And Marina when she said Oswald had a "light" gray jacket in Russia, that was referring to weight or warmth of the jacket, not color.
Would you explain why the jacket worn by Oswald in those Minsk photos is not "a lightweight gray jacket"? How do you speak so categorically on what it was not? Looks like a lightweight jacket to me. Its a jacket, and its not a heavy jacket. What's your basis for the negative certainty?
Let me get this straight.
Regardless of actual color (white versus gray, etc.), you are saying that the jacket/coat Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo is close enough in nature so as to be confused with 162. Right?
My point is that this jacket/coat in the Minsk photo is darker in color and a more heavy-duty jacket/coat.
-
On 6/8/2023 at 11:26 PM, Greg Doudna said:
Bill just say whatever your point is.
My point should be obvious. You're saying that Oswald is seen, in a photo taken in Minsk, wearing a light-colored jacket (much like CE-162) with a hole in the elbow. I am telling you, in the Minsk photos, Oswald is not wearing a lightweight gray jacket.
-
18 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
I think Dr Shaw mentioned in his WC testimony that he couldn't be sure if the 1.5 cm entry wound was the result of tumbling or the downward angle of the trajectory. But he did say the clothing might have "occasioned" it. I take that to mean a tumbling bullet would have left an oblong hole in the clothing.
Joseph Dolce mentioned that the tip of ce399 was pristine. That gets pretty hard to explain if the bullet struck the fifth rib nose first.
I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged. But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second.
The SBT claim is that the bullets slowed down enough to prevent deforming while still damaging bone. but the Myers test struck the pine at full velocity and still didn't damage the bullet. What they proved was that Pine is too soft to test for bullet deformation since even at full velocity it couldn't damage the bullet.
"I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged."
Haag. Not Myers.
"But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second."
From only ten feet away? No. I don't think so. Your comment that the Haags fired the bullet from only ten feet away is not true at all.
You're confusing their statement that the bullet was traveling just under 2100 feet per second when it was ten feet from the muzzle to mean they fired at the pine boards from ten feet away.
-
2 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:
Marina's testimony on pretty much anything is not to be believed. She was constantly changing her story. Not a good witness, would have been destroyed if she testified at a trial. No points for bringing up Marina's testimony.
You can believe her or dismiss her; up to you. Nevertheless, she said 162 belonged to Lee.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:
Very informative reply, Sandy. Nice work.
Speaking of the hat, how in the world could Connally have kept holding it if a bullet had just shattered the radius bone in his wrist? Clearly, the wrist wound was caused by a separate bullet that came after the chest bullet.
And what in the devil to WC apologists say slammed Connally's right shoulder downward from Z238-243? And why do his cheeks suddenly puff at Z238? In one interview, Connally said the shot felt like someone punched him in the back.
It is curious that WC defenders dismiss the fact that Connally himself, the guy who experienced the shot, said he was certain he was not hit before he began to turn his head leftward, which starts no later than Z224. Connally told Life magazine,
"You can see my leftward movement clearly," Connally told Life as he studied these frames. "I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I'm turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about It. I haven't been hit yet." (LINK)
But JFK was clearly hit well before Z225. The HSCA PEP said JFK was first hit by a shot fired at Z190.
Connally selected Z234 as the moment he was struck by a bullet, and less than 1/4-second later (or less than 250 milliseconds later), his right shoulder is slammed downward and his cheeks puff.
"Speaking of the hat, how in the world could Connally have kept holding it if a bullet had just shattered the radius bone in his wrist? Clearly, the wrist wound was caused by a separate bullet that came after the chest bullet."
Nellie Connally stated John Connally was still holding his hat when they arrived at the emergency entrance at Parkland.
-
2 hours ago, Ron Ege said:
Greg,
Thank you; as I surmised - but did not want to assume. IMO, you've done a masterful job of presenting your case - although others may still believe otherwise.
Based on your paper and so much other information that I've read over the years, it seems more than reasonable that there are just two logical reasonable options for the "discovery" of the "third jacket.
1. Tippit's actual killer (not Oswald) discarded it so as to be less likely to eventually be identified as such.
or
2. The jacket was a "plant" to incriminate Oswald.
Of course, one could proffer a third option - totally illogical - that coincidentally, someone just arbitrarily discarded a perfectly serviceable jacket along the route from the Tippit shooting to the TT. because . . . Makes no sense.
To me, the most telling issue about the "third jacket" is that no one has ever presented a decent explanation - as to how - relative to the size, manufacturer, cities/stores where sold, and the laundry/dry cleaning marks on it - just how it could've ever belonged to Oswald.
"To me, the most telling issue about the "third jacket" is that no one has ever presented a decent explanation - as to how - relative to the size, manufacturer, cities/stores where sold, and the laundry/dry cleaning marks on it - just how it could've ever belonged to Oswald."
By "third jacket", you're referring to CE-162, the jacket found behind the Texaco station.
Marina was shown 162 and said it belonged to Lee.
-
Re: An Oswald motive, Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.
I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that." -
2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
Here are three of the same photo of Oswald in Minsk wearing a jacket. I am unable to post because I get a message of overlimit. Is someone else able to post any of these? I see what looks like a small tear in the middle of the right forearm.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24945209
And somehow you've got it in your head that what you see in that photo is Oswald wearing a lighter duty gray jacket?
-
4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
Pages 27-28 from the paper (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1553).
"Précis of the argument to follow: why Oswald’s gray jacket was not CE 162, the Tippit killer’s jacket
o Because Oswald’s gray jacket was gray, but CE 162 is a different color, an off-white light tan (to be discussed below).
o Because with the exception of a manipulated and mistaken identification by Marina of CE 162 in her Warren Commission testimony in February 1964 (the only time Marina was shown that jacket and then in a contrived context), no one who saw Oswald wearing his gray jacket to Irving and to work, identified CE 162 as Oswald’s gray jacket. Buell Wesley Frazier categorically rejected that CE 162 was Oswald’s gray jacket with which Frazier was familiar.
o Because Buell Wesley Frazier described Oswald’s gray jacket as flannel or woolen-like in material, which does not describe CE 162.
o Because the FBI, in all of their interviews of Marina before her Warren Commission testimony, never showed her CE 162 to ask if she recognized it, an unusual omission, one explanation of which could be awareness of risk that her answer might not be what was wanted.
o Because Oswald’s gray jacket appears identifiable in a photo of Oswald taken in Minsk, when Oswald was in the Soviet Union, and that jacket is not CE 162.
o Because Oswald wore his gray jacket to Irving on Thursday Nov 21, and to work at the Book Depository on the morning of Friday Nov 22, according to testimony of Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle and supported by testimony of Marina, which is inconsistent with Oswald newly putting on his gray jacket at his rooming house in Oak Cliff when he changed clothes there at 1:00 pm Friday according to the Warren Commission reconstruction in which Oswald’s gray jacket was CE 162.
o Because Mary Bledsoe’s strange description of a “shirt” she saw Oswald wearing on a bus after Oswald left the Book Depository is to be understood as a description of Oswald’s gray jacket, with no buttons and a torn right elbow matching the jacket in the Oswald Minsk photo, which is not CE 162.
o Because there is no photograph of Oswald wearing CE 162 among the photos of Oswald in the Soviet Union, contrary to what might be expected if CE 162 were Oswald’s gray jacket.
o Because there is no photo of Oswald wearing CE 162 at all.
o Because Ruth Paine did not confirm ever seeing CE 162 worn by Oswald. In all of the voluminous testimony of Ruth Paine, she was never shown CE 162 and asked if she recognized it. One possible reason Ruth Paine was not asked could be because Ruth Paine’s answer to that question might not be wanted on the record.
o For the above reasons, although CE 162 was the Tippit killer’s jacket, CE 162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket."
"o Because Mary Bledsoe’s strange description of a “shirt” she saw Oswald wearing on a bus after Oswald left the Book Depository is to be understood as a description of Oswald’s gray jacket, with no buttons and a torn right elbow matching the jacket in the Oswald Minsk photo, which is not CE 162."
Please post the photo of Oswald in Minsk wearing a jacket with a torn right elbow.
-
15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
Pages 105-106 from the paper.
"Why did Earlene on KLIF-Radio call Oswald's jacket a 'coat'?
"There is a further detail which has gone largely unremarked. In the KLIF-Radio interview of Earlene Roberts of Nov 22, 1963 (https://soundcloud.com/beauweaver/the-fateful-hours-klif-dallas), Earlene does not speak of Oswald’s 'jacket' but rather of Oswald’s 'coat'. Why is that? This occurs twice in that interview. At 25:42, 'a short coat'. At 26:38, 'a short gray coat'. My transcriptions:
'he rushed in in shirt sleeves and got a short coat and went back out… he acted as if he was in a hurry… and I spoke to him and he just ignored me, but that’s not unusual, sometimes he’d speak to you and sometimes he didn’t…' (25:42f)
'and he come in and got a short gray coat and went right on back out in a hurry. And when I looked out the window he was standing at the bus stop…' (26:38f)
"Although there is overlap and interchangeability in uses of 'jacket' and 'coat' in English, the two words are not exactly synonymous. Generally a 'coat' tends to connote a somewhat heavier or warmer outerwear than a 'jacket.
'Coat vs. Jacket: What is the Difference? ...
'[C]oats often provide more warmth and insulation than jackets ... A coat is a warm outer garment worn over top of other clothing meant to protect the wearer from extreme temperatures. Coats often have a hip-length or longer length, though they can also end at the waist ... coats almost always use heavier, more insulating fabric than jackets. This makes them much warmer... A jacket is a kind of outwear for the upper body that usually ends at the waist or the hips ... provide less warmth than a coat ...' (https://silverbobbin.com/coat-vs-jacket/)
"Oswald’s blue jacket or coat, CE 163, was warmer and heavier than his lighter-weight gray jacket (the gray jacket Oswald ditched for good just before entering the rooming house; the jacket of the Minsk photograph noted earlier).
"Compare the way William Whaley, the cab driver, in his Warren Commission testimony unconsciously associated—just from looking at the items—CE 162 as a 'jacket' whereas he called the blue CE 163 a 'coat':
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket [CE 162] now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here [CE 163] on over that other jacket [CE 162], I am sure, sir.
"Therefore, although due to variability in actual usage this point would not be decisive in itself, when combined with other evidence Earlene’s word choice of 'coat' in her KLIF-Radio interview supports that Oswald left the rooming house with CE 163."
I have already shown you, through the testimonies of Barbara Davis (which you already knew about), Warren Reynolds and Bill Smith (both of which you were unaware of), it is indeed possible for one to call a lighter weight jacket like 162 a "coat".
If Davis, Reynolds and Smith can call 162 a "coat", why can't Earlene Roberts?
-
5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
Your answer indicates extreme bias.
Katzenbach wrote that memo just three days after the assassination, before anyone had had enough time to do anything resembling a thorough investigation. Heck, the DPD still had not claimed that Lt. Day had found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle yet. Even if Oswald was guilty, Katzenbach's memo was highly irresponsible and inappropriate.
As for you comment about Arnold Rowland's account, are you seriously suggesting that it's no big deal that he saw two men with rifles on the sixth floor because he saw them shortly before the shooting occurred and not during the shooting itself?!
"As for you comment about Arnold Rowland's account, are you seriously suggesting that it's no big deal that he saw two men with rifles on the sixth floor because he saw them shortly before the shooting occurred and not during the shooting itself?!"
What are you talking about? Rowland never said he saw two men with rifles. Learn the testimonial record, please.
-
11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Ball was a veteran very experienced trial attorney, top of his game.
The trick question Ball asked was "now if you had to choose between these two?"
And she had to answer the question. Because that is what witnesses are to do: answer the question asked.
And she answered, "I would choose the dark one [CE 163].
Her reason: because CE 162 was way too light. She protested Oswald's jacket could not have been CE 162 because, she said, Oswald's jacket was gray.
Ball gave her a forced choice between two false alternatives.
I think Pat Speer goes into the Belin and Ball lawyerly team doing numbers on witnesses, in one of the chapters on his website.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket [CE 162] which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one [CE 162] is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you [CE 162] is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray [CE 163] is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one [CE 163].
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn’t pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.But here is the bottom line: Linnie Mae said the jacket she saw Oswald wearing was gray. She never said the jacket she saw was any color other than gray. Not "light gray". Not "blue-gray". Just gray.
“he had a gray jacket, I believe.”
“It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
“No, sir [it was not CE 162]; I remember its being gray.”
And Buell Wesley Frazier, describing the same Oswald jacket, the same one Linnie Mae saw (and in a much better position to know it more familiarly than Linnie Mae):
Frazier to the FBI:
“At about 4:45 PM, on November 21, 1963, Frazier and Oswald departed the TSBD Building, walked to Frazier’s car and drove to Irving … As Frazier recalls, Oswald was wearing a reddish shirt and a grey jacket, waist length.” (FBI interview, 12/1/63)
Frazier to the Secret Service:
“All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray wool jacket.” (Buell Wesley Frazier affidavit for the Secret Service, 12/5/63, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232975#relPageId=45)
FBI again:
“The only thing Frazier can recall about Oswald’s clothing on November 22, 1963, was that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket.” (FBI report, 12/7/63, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232975#relPageId=49)
From Buell Wesley Frazier’s Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don’t.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don’t believe I have.
Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit No. 162, which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I haven’t.(…)
Mr. BALL. On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL. Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL. It isn’t one of these two zipper jackets we have shown? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.(...)
Mr. BALL. (…) That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was light gray.
Mr. BALL. You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER. To be frank with you, I didn’t notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.(…)
Mr. BALL. On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; he didn’t.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER. That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn’t go outside with just a plain shirt on.
Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.Buell Wesley Frazier is a credible witness, about as credible as it gets, drove Lee back and forth, sitting right next to him in the car, saw Lee's gray jacket.
"The trick question Ball asked was "now if you had to choose between these two?"
And she had to answer the question. Because that is what witnesses are to do: answer the question asked.
And she answered, "I would choose the dark one [CE 163]."
Before Ball ever asked her the "if you had to choose" question, Randle had already stated that the item worn by Oswald that morning was similar to 163 and she also stated that Oswald was not wearing 162. The "if you had to choose" question was redundant.
-
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theater on suspicion he did not pay for a ticket.
Things escalated from there.
But it appears someone dropped his wallet at 10th and Patton. One of approximately four wallets that Oswald had.
"Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theater on suspicion he did not pay for a ticket."
Only a person completely unfamiliar with the events surrounding Tippit's death and the Dallas Police Department's frantic search for the killer would make a comment like this one above.
-
44 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
See pp. 47-50 of my paper.
I just checked out pages 47-50. As I've pointed out earlier, Linnie Mae Randle clearly says that Oswald, that morning, was wearing a garment much more like 163 than 162. Shown both, she chose 163.
She did not have to pick either. She could easily have said that neither 162 nor 163 resemble what she saw Oswald wearing that morning.
You think Joseph Ball was performing Jedi mind tricks on witnesses. Personally, I don't think he possessed that ability.
-
6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Why the air quotes around "paper"?
And no, Barbara Davis even if she was thinking of the near-white CE 162 months later and had it changed in her memory to a black coat, does not prove the point I was trying to make is "completely invalid". That shows you have not understood the point. See pages 105-106.
Let me put it another way. I'll spell it out for you.
One of your points here in this thread... You stated (sans Barbara Davis) that 100% of the Tippit witnesses called it a jacket and zero per cent called it a coat. I pointed out that Warren Reynolds and Bill Smith also used the word "coat". These are facts. Therefore, your point that no one would dare call an item like 162 a "coat" is simply incorrect. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Let's move on.
-
Just now, Greg Doudna said:
Bill that never was in my paper. I never claimed that in my paper, and never claimed it was in my paper. Its not there now because it never was. Look it up for yourself in my discussion at pages 105-106.
Show the quote in the paper or retract your above.
It would improve discussion if you criticize a paper based on what it says, rather than on what it doesn't say.
I get the impression you never read pages 105-106 before attacking what isn't there, despite my attempts to explain.
I haven't read your 117 page "paper". I've been going by only your posts in this thread. My apologies if I've mistakenly attributed things you've said in this thread and assumed you also said them in your "paper". In this thread, you excluded Barbara Davis and then stated as a fact that 100% of the witnesses used the word "jacket" instead of "coat". This mistake of yours proves that the point you were trying to make is completely invalid.
-
On 6/4/2023 at 8:07 PM, Greg Doudna said:
Bill I give what I believe is a heretofore overlooked solution to what Mary Bledsoe saw originally: that was the gray jacket of Oswald, which can be seen to have a hole in its right elbow in a photo of Oswald’s gray jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk. This also resolves how two others on the bus, McWatters and Jones, remembered a jacket on Oswald which conflicts with the notion that Bledsoe was seeing details of a shirt including a hole in an elbow worn under a jacket. The brown color and the CE 150 ID isn’t right, that was secondary influenced, but the torn hole, no buttons, dirty and tucked in under his belt was true, plus the gray jacket is what Oswald was wearing at the time Mary Bledsoe saw whatever she saw, which was that. Argument in the paper.
I address the relocation of CE 163 from the theater to its find in the TSBD three weeks later.
"Bill I give what I believe is a heretofore overlooked solution to what Mary Bledsoe saw originally: that was the gray jacket of Oswald, which can be seen to have a hole in its right elbow in a photo of Oswald’s gray jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk."
Which photo would that be? I don't believe there are any photos of Oswald wearing the lighter-colored jacket (162) in Russia. Surely you aren't referring to the photo of Oswald sitting with buddies and wearing sunglasses.
-
Then, after Brewer, we can discuss Linnie Mae Randle.
You (again, incorrectly) stated that it is "absolutely clear" that Oswald wore the gray jacket (162) that morning. But you must have missed perhaps the most important witness, re: what Oswald was wearing that morning.
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.
Now obviously if Oswald was wearing 163 that morning (per Randle), then your entire thesis is blown out of the water.
-
7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
Just to be clear Bill, I have been saying all along this was an argument from tendency or statistical incidence, in which "coat" is more natural for CE 163, without ruling out occasional uses applied to CE 162. You keep trying to characterize and represent me as speaking in absolutes.
You claim 3 out of 15 witnesses called CE 162 a coat (by including a "sport coat" and Barbara Davis's black coat), and I say its 1 out of 15 of the witnesses I inventoried (originally by mistake counted 0 of those particular 15) and I never denied CE 162 could be called a "coat" occasionally.
And when I point to only 1 out of 15 in that database called CE 162 a "coat" I mean as Earlene used the word "coat", I mean actually was calling CE 162 a "coat" and by "coat" i mean a coat (not a technical term for a particular style of jacket which has in that technical term as one of its two words "coat", which is not the same meaning as "coat"). 1 out of 15 is not a high incidence. (Even if it were 3 out of 15 that's not so high either.) I have not done counts on CE 163 but it probably would be higher for CE 163.
And that agrees intuitively, because, be real (and you never did answer this question): would you personally call CE 162 a "coat"? (I wouldn't.) How about CE 163? (I would, would call it either a coat or a jacket.)
And although 1 (or your 3) out of 15 did refer to CE 162 as a "coat", are most witnesses calling it that? But we know from e.g. Whaley that when he saw CE 163 he called it a "coat" naturally. spontaneously. He looks at CE 162, calls it a "jacket". He looks at CE 163, to him that's a "coat".
You keep wanting to make this an issue of all or nothing and cast me as saying such, and if you find a counterexample (which I have acknowledged all along are likely to be there, that this is a spectrum or statistical incidence or tendency) you go "AHA!" and think MY point is refuted, instead of your straw man attributed to me being refuted.
Actually, the 1 versus 3 disagreement out of 15 aside, I think you and I already agree on the basics:
- that most witnesses were not calling CE 162 a "coat";
- that Earlene called something a "coat";
- and that one of Oswald's two jackets was more naturally called a "coat" than the other: CE 163.
Why not just accept we already agree on those, and then you keep your belief that Earlene was one of the minority of cases that called something a "coat" that few others did and that you wouldn't and I wouldn't, but she could have. There, ended this argument with agreement on all points! 🙂
Below is what I have been saying on this thread, which is not the all-or-nothing you want to attribute (emphasis added):
June 5 1:32 am. 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. I noted that William Whaley, the cab driver, when he was being shown both CE 162 and CE 163 during his Warren Commission testimony, unconsciously called CE 162 a "jacket" and CE 163 a "coat". It was unconscious. Just how those two looked to Whaley. Similarly with Earlene Roberts' "coat".
June 5 1:45 pm. No there is a point: she called the jacket Oswald left with a "coat" in both of her references to it on KLIF-Radio. That is a reasonable word to use for CE 163, and an unreasonable word to use for CE 162. Do you actually dispute those statements? What logical conclusion do you draw from that? Would you call CE 162 a coat? That was my point. I don't mean she, or I or you or anyone, would call CE 163 a coat all the time, and never a jacket. Only that if someone speaks of a "coat", that CAN apply to CE 163 but is not likely to be a person speaking of CE 162. As noted, speaking of most of the time, most people, tendency.
"Below is what I have been saying on this thread, which is not the all-or-nothing you want to attribute"
Greg, the "all or nothing" was put forth by yourself when you incorrectly stated that none of the Tippit witnesses called it a coat. Reynolds, Smith and B. Davis called it such. You've built your house based on many bricks and this particular brick (that none of the witnesses called it a coat) simply needs to be removed. This missing brick, at least a little bit, weakens the structure.
And for the record, me personally, no, I would not call 162 a coat. The word I would use is jacket. However, Reynolds, Smith and B. Davis indeed called the killer's garment a coat, Reynolds even describing the same garment as both a coat and a jacket.
My advice: Just accept that your particular point that none of the Tippit witnesses called the killer's garment a coat is simply invalid, remove it from your "paper" and spend your efforts defending the other points you bring up.
Next on the list should be Johnny Brewer, who told the Warren Commission that the man on Jefferson was NOT wearing a jacket at all despite your claim that Oswald entered the theater wearing 163.
-
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:
Here's my guess....
Earlene's sister just didn't know how to spell her sister's first name. Because it would seem the only time we find "EARLINE" in the record is when it's coming directly from sister Bertha as the source (e.g., death certificate, that Nov. 27th document you just posted above, and (likely) the newspaper obit. too).
What we need to find is the original version of Roberts' Dec. 5, 1963, affidavit (which would have her actual signature on it). But if we can trust the WC at 7 H 439, she DID spell it with an E, not an I, on her affidavit.
"Here's my guess....
Earlene's sister just didn't know how to spell her sister's first name."
My thoughts, too.
Though I do accept that Steve Roe could be onto something and maybe the census report from 1930 (which lists two children as belonging to Earlene and her husband) is somehow faulty.
-
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:
And to add more confusion to the "EARLENE / EARLINE" mix....
Check out the following link, which has BOTH spellings of her name presented. It says "EARLINE" on her death certificate. But it would seem (per the site below and the signed affidavit I presented earlier) that she herself might have gone by "EARLENE". ~shrug~
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/28123630/earlene-doke-roberts
Keep in mind, there are Dallas Police documents which spell the fallen officer's name as Tippett or Tippet.
Lee Harvey Oswald's two jackets and why the Tippit killer's jacket was not one of them
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Point being, the jacket/coat Oswald is wearing in the Minsk photo is too much of a heavier weight jacket/coat than one that could be confused for CE-162.