Bill Brown

Speaking of flawed summaries... Gil... Have you retracted your claim that William Scoggins was lying in the street beside his cab and therefore never saw the fleeing gunman's face? I mean, actually lying down in the street?

Oswald had McWatters' transfer on his person and we know this because McWatters testified that he gave a transfer to only one man and placed his very distinct mark on that transfer before issuing the transfer, the same distinct mark on the transfer taken from Oswald.

King is the original source. You still haven't provided anything from King. All you're doing is taking hearsay as gospel.

The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt the determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house. Based on McWatters' statement of where it was that Oswald boarded the bus (we know Oswald boarded that bus because he had McWatters' specific bus transfer and McWatters said he issued that transfer to only one woman and only one man), Oswald walked about seven blocks east (into the downtown area) after he left the Depository within three minutes of the shooting. "So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks (back) asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did. It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street." -- Cecil McWatters They concluded, based on what McWatters told them (along with the Secret Service agents and FBI agents walking the route in an average time of six and a half minutes), that Oswald boarded the bus around 12:40 near the intersection of Field St. and Elm St. and then, after being on the bus for no more than four minutes, Oswald got off the bus near Lamar St. and Elm St. (asking for the transfer as he got off the bus). So now we have Oswald leaving the bus around 12:44. Oswald then walked three to four short blocks to the Greyhound station where he boarded Whaley's cab. This has Oswald entering the cab around 12:48. They then, with Whaley, reconstructed the cab ride from the Greyhound to the intersection of Beckley and Neely (Oswald got out of the cab on Beckley just north of the intersection with Neely). They concluded (using a stopwatch) that the cab ride took five minutes and thirty seconds. So now we have Oswald exiting Whaley's cab on Beckley at 12:53-12:54. Still using the stopwatch, they concluded that it was a five minute and forty-five second walk from the point Oswald exited the cab back to the rooming house. I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00 and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door, zipping up the jacket as he went out the door.

If you can tell all of that just by looking at that photo, then you're a better man than I.

Buell Wesley Frazier

Connally knew he was not hit by the first shot. Connally assumed (incorrectly) that the President was hit by the first shot. Therefore, Connally believed he and the President were hit by separate shots. The Zapruder film clearly shows Connally was incorrect about that.

You're comparing a burst of bullets being fired into a crowd of people (and therefore, people reacting at the same time)... to.... one bullet at a time being fired into a car. Unless you're saying that a burst of bullets were fired into the limo in much the same way a burst of bullets were fired into a crowd.

Where can I get a look at your work proving that whatever caused the dent "came from an angle further right than anything hitting JFK's skull" and that it "came in higher than JFK's skull and not from an upward angle as it would have if it was a bullet fragment from the head wound"?

Maybe the problem here is that you (apparently) consider Fetzer the original source. This would require Fetzer to be in conversation with the members of the Dallas Police Department who (supposedly) stated that a security guard left the rifle up on the roof of the Depository building. When did Fetzer talk to these guys? What are the identities of these police officers?

🤣 So you're not even going to try to cite the original source?

So Kennedy and Connally react at the same split second in time... So the wounds of the two men line up in so similar a way that they could be mistaken for having been caused by just one bullet... Yet they were hit by different bullets. No. Ain't buying that nonsense.

Joseph D. Nichol did testify to that, but other experts disagreed. No Sir. You're thinking of the bullet. Nicol said he was able to link one of the bullets to the revolver, while the other experts (Frazier, Killion, Cunningham) could not do so. All four experts agreed that the four shells found at the scene were linked to Oswald's revolver.

I don't think there's any question that the dent (dent, not hole) occurred during the assassination. Either from a bullet fragment or bone fragment (bullet fragment, in my opinion). Two larger fragments were found on the floor of the limo (CE-567 and CE-569). Don't you believe that a bullet fragment could have caused that damage to the frame? Must it be from a direct strike from a bullet? As for Kellerman, he did not say a flurry of "shots" came into the interior of the limo. He said a flurry of shells came into the car. Later in his testimony, he did use the phrase "after the flurry of shots" when describing the happenings once the shooting was over. There is a difference. Just a week after the assassination he described only three shots.

So no cite (from the original source) for the claim that the DPD claimed it had been left on the roof by a security guard when asked about it in 1967. Alrighty then.

In this context, the purpose of throwing a weapon out a car window in downtown Dallas, as opposed to a dumpster out back of the Carousel Club in case that was searched, in the scenario proposed, is not to destroy the weapon or ensure or care that the revolver not be found, but to have it not be traceable to the one who threw it out the car window or to those who carried out the killing. So that's it? Either throw it out a car window or hide it in a dumpster behind the Carousel Club? These are the only two options to dispose the weapon? Again, the shells found at the scene were linked, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world, to Oswald's revolver, not this "paper-bag revolver".

My apologies Mark, if you do not believe the revolver found on the ground was used in the Tippit murder. Let's separate the wheat from the chaff. Do you believe that Crafard/Ruby threw the revolver from a car window?

Cite please. (I'm betting you can't cite the original source)

No bullet passed through the windshield. Robert Frazier testified that the windshield was actually two sheets of glass molded together to form one and that only the inner portion was damaged. The outer portion had no damage at all. There was no hole in the windshield; only a bit of damage (from a fragment, most likely) to the inner portion.

British Enfield? Try Dallas police-issued shotgun. I could just as easily claim that the Mentesana film shows an officer holding his own shotgun, which of course would not have a scope attached.

Then please fell free to continue to ignore my posts, like you've done for the past few weeks. Thankfully, you don't set the rules around here. Bill cut out the snark. Members can be offended by such comments and characterisation of fwllow members. Be aware you have already come to the admins attention before. Admin

Good questions. But because they can't be answered means the revolver was discarded because it was used in a murder? You guys are making quite the leap.

A first question is: do you think a scenario of the paper-bag revolver as a disposal of a weapon used in a homicide is a reasonable explanation of that revolver's find circumstances? Never mind which homicide, please answer the question strictly construed as asked, if you would. Your scenario (that it was disposed of because it was used in a homicide) is not reasonable to me because (if what you said is true) there is no other known Dallas area homicide in the recent days. How could this revolver be used in a homicide if there was no other homicides besides Tippit's? This is not a circular argument I am making because the actual murder weapon was taken from the same man who multiple witnesses said was there at the scene with a gun in his hands and that gun ended up being linked, through ballistic testing, to the shells found at the scene where Tippit was shot and killed. You wonder why, in a scenario in which Craford was the killer of Tippit, Craford, who did not have a car, would not have driven to a river to throw the weapon in a river instead of out the window of a car in which he was being driven that morning. There you go with the revolver being thrown out a car window again. You can't possibly know this to be true. Perhaps Craford did the best he could given the opportunity available to him. If Ruby was witting to the weapon disposal in this scenario, Ruby had an unwitting alibi passenger, George Senator, in the car who had been told a purpose of the trip inconsistent with driving to the Trinity River in order to dispose of a bag with fruit in it. Fair point. But.... Do you really believe that disposing of this weapon by simply throwing it out a car window, if used in the Tippit murder, is the best they could have come up with? Aren't there at least a half dozen better ways to dispose of this weapon, in your scenario? If your scenario is true, couldn't Ruby and Crafard be sure to be alone at some point in the last 18 hours and dispose of the revolver then? I never said their only chance would have been that particular trip to Stemmons when Senator was in the car with them; you are implying that, not me. The point there is as long as the weapon is untraceable, it does not matter if the weapon is found--and the sooner the killer can have the weapon not on his person in case he is picked up for questioning, the better. Now you have the conspirators throwing a revolver out a car window that, if used in the Tippit murder, could be linked (through ballistic testing) to that murder. This is a foolish way to frame a patsy, who is supposed to have the murder weapon on him. A ditching of a Tippit murder weapon out a car window where the paper-bag revolver landed next to a street curb in downtown Dallas is not on its face obviously illogical in this scenario. It is illogical if the conspirators have a patsy to frame, a patsy who is not tied to this particular revolver found lying on the ground in downtown Dallas.

I accept that the "paper-bag revolver" looks like it was discarded by someone for any number of reasons. What does a revolver discarded to the ground because it was was used in a homicide even look like? Then explain to me what a revolver discarded to the ground that never was used in a homicide would look like. Okay? Would one somehow look different than the other? If so, how do you make that determination? Or... Are you saying that all revolvers discarded to the ground are definitely homicide-related?

Honestly Greg, I'm not sure what you don't understand here. It is not incumbent upon me to provide an explanation for how a revolver came to be found lying on the ground wrapped inside a bag. You've yet to make a reasonable case for this revolver (found on the ground about four miles from Tenth & Patton) being tied to the Tippit murder. The shells found at the scene were linked to a different weapon from this one. Also, you've ignored the point that if your scenario is true, then these clowns couldn't come up with a better manner to get rid of the murder weapon than to simply throw it to the ground. Much like your posts on the prints lifted from the patrol car, a lot of what you try to pass off as fact is not factual at all; not even close.