Oswald?

[Pat Speer]

Let me just add that it doesn't matter one bit if the spot on "Tan Man" is a bald spot or if it is merely white in his hair. What is significant is that it matches the supposed image of the man in the sniper's nest, and could be the spot observed by Euins and Brennan.

If the footage of "Tan Man" in the sniper's nest could be cleared up the way it is in the one still posted by Duncan, it could really help us determine if what we are seeing is a face, or if it's simply a blob.

[Kathleen Collins]

Let me just add that it doesn't matter one bit if the spot on "Tan Man" is a bald spot or if it is merely white in his hair. What is significant is that it matches the supposed image of the man in the sniper's nest, and could be the spot observed by Euins and Brennan.

If the footage of "Tan Man" in the sniper's nest could be cleared up the way it is in the one still posted by Duncan, it could really help us determine if what we are seeing is a face, or if it's simply a blob.

I don't know why there are so many naysayers here. It's more than a coincidence the way that man's hair is in the blow up and in the parking lot. Duncan has blown the image up to an extraordinary degree. I say his head is "big" because it's blown up so much so we can see it. And it's not Oswald.

It's curious that the man had that weird bald spot. Maybe it served as an identification mark to someone else involved in the Assassination. And that bald spot or whatever it is shouts out at you. He might have been walking around waiting for someone else involved in the Assassination to give him a ride. Or tell him what to do next. He's probably dead now. Too bad we don't know his name. I guess he's not Mac Wallace.

Kathy C

[David Von Pein]

I guess it doesn't bother anybody here that the "man's" head is way too big (when compared to the Dillard picture of Norman & Williams).

This same "the head is too big" type of thing arose several years ago at the JFK-Lancer forum when Bill Miller insisted that "Sandy Haired Man" in the west-end 6th-Floor TSBD window was a conspirator. His head was way too big too.

Edited November 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Eunis [Euins?] also says that while waiting around by the front door, a hard hat worker (not Brennan) told a policeman he had seen a man with a bald spot leave the side or back door of the TSBD - so it could be the guy - especially if he worked there - and why not just stick around and blend in the crowd - as it would provide an alibi? You think Oswald did it and he didn't high tail it out of there, but stayed around and got a coke.

You've got to be joking with this post, Bill.

You think that the killer of JFK would have wandered around in the TSBD parking lot many minutes AFTER the assassination, in order to get himself photographed? And you somehow think that since the man was seen in the parking lot many minutes AFTER the shooting, this somehow provides the man with an alibi for THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION?

You've got to be kidding.

And you think that I think Oswald "stayed around" for any lengthy period of time after he shot Kennedy? He did no such thing. Yes, he bought a Coke (or possibly swiped one off of a table in the second-floor lunchroom, instead of actually putting a dime in the Coke machine), but he certainly didn't hang around and wander the Depository parking lots. He did "high-tail it" away from the scene as soon as he could, which was just three measly minutes after he killed the President. Was he supposed to shinny down the side of the TSBD in order to get away sooner?

This junk about "Tan Jacket Man" is just more wishful-thinking on the part of CTers. And it's interesting to see how eager and willing some CTers are to embrace the flimsiest of "evidence" (in quotes there for a good reason).

That blurry, grainy, noisy image of a supposed "man" in the SN window is essentially worthless. We can't even tell if it's a human figure at all. It's impossible to tell WHAT it is from the blow-ups I've seen produced at this forum.

Now, perhaps Max Holland and his restoration team will, indeed, provide better-quality blow-ups of the "man" in the window on the new "JFK: The Lost Bullet" documentary, airing tonight [November 20, 2011] on the National Geographic Channel. [EDIT: They didn't. The "Lost Bullet" special showed nothing that comes even remotely close to a super-clear Hughes Film frame that could even identify ANYTHING in the window.]

But I'm extremely dubious [EDIT: and rightly so] about Holland's blow-ups of the Robert Hughes film frames being so crystal-clear as to make the sniper's identity definitive. It sounds like an interesting program, though.

But I still maintain that the man's "head" in the window is way too big to be a real human head (via the blow-ups provided by Duncan MacRae). The "head" is taking up too much space in the window frame on the sixth floor, IMO.

Do Bonnie Ray Williams' or Harold Norman's heads take up that much space in their respective windows on the fifth floor?

Edited November 21, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

Let me just add that it doesn't matter one bit if the spot on "Tan Man" is a bald spot or if it is merely white in his hair. What is significant is that it matches the supposed image of the man in the sniper's nest, and could be the spot observed by Euins and Brennan.

If the footage of "Tan Man" in the sniper's nest could be cleared up the way it is in the one still posted by Duncan, it could really help us determine if what we are seeing is a face, or if it's simply a blob.

I don't know why there are so many naysayers here. It's more than a coincidence the way that man's hair is in the blow up and in the parking lot. Duncan has blown the image up to an extraordinary degree. I say his head is "big" because it's blown up so much so we can see it. And it's not Oswald.

It's curious that the man had that weird bald spot. Maybe it served as an identification mark to someone else involved in the Assassination. And that bald spot or whatever it is shouts out at you. He might have been walking around waiting for someone else involved in the Assassination to give him a ride. Or tell him what to do next. He's probably dead now. Too bad we don't know his name. I guess he's not Mac Wallace.

Kathy C (color="#FF0000"][/color] added by T. Graves)

I've been thinking the same thing, Kathy. However, I don't think it's a bald spot. I think the hair on that part of his head is much lighter than the rest of his hair, either naturally or the application of hydrogen peroxide or something. Now here's a wild thought: Maybe it was artificially lightened and he didn't even know it.

--Tommy

Edited November 20, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[David Von Pein]

But now you're accusing Oswald of soft drink theft?

Possibly. But it's doubtful he would have been prosecuted for it. After all, no matter what type of crime Lee Harvey committed on 11/22/63 (including 2 murders), we're not allowed to ever suspect LHO of any wrong-doing. Right, Lee?

Edited November 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And tell us, Dave, how does a lone assassin theorists [sic] like yourself deal with the knowledge that [Marrion] Baker completed his first day written affidavit in the same room as Oswald and not ID the guy in the affidavit?

You're still chasing that chaff, aren't you Lee F.?

We've got both Baker AND Roy Truly verifying (at various times) that the man they saw in the 2nd-floor lunchroom was positively Lee Harvey Oswald, and yet you want to nitpick something meaningless regarding Officer Baker's written affidavit. Nice.

Was Baker supposed to write the following comment in his written statement?:

"The man I saw in the lunchroom is sitting in the same room I'm in right now."

Why would Baker write his affidavit in such a manner?

And where is the confirmation that Oswald was definitely within the line of sight of Baker when Baker was filling out his affidavit?

BTW, where's the confirmation they were in the same room? Who confirms that for a fact? Was it Baker himself? (I'm just not sure. And you'll pardon me if I'm skeptical about pretty much everything uttered by conspiracy theorists. It's become a habit with me to second guess all statements made by the Anybody-But-Oswald crowd. A great example of this is the "Eddy Benavides Died In 1964" misinformation that some CTers are still peddling to this day. Eddy, btw, died in 1965, not '64.)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

Edited November 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Craig Lamson]

Let me just add that it doesn't matter one bit if the spot on "Tan Man" is a bald spot or if it is merely white in his hair. What is significant is that it matches the supposed image of the man in the sniper's nest, and could be the spot observed by Euins and Brennan.

If the footage of "Tan Man" in the sniper's nest could be cleared up the way it is in the one still posted by Duncan, it could really help us determine if what we are seeing is a face, or if it's simply a blob.

What utter claptrap, not unexpected coming from from Speer.

IF the spot on tan jacket man is in fact a simple highlight from the sun, it's TRANSIENT. You do know what that word means don't you Speer?

Edited November 20, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[David Von Pein]

It's in Baker's testimony. He said Oswald was in the same room as him when he was writing his affidavit. So yes. I would have expected him to have given a bit of a better ID than the one he wrote. He could have even included his name.

So, therefore, Lee, are you suggesting it WASN'T Lee Oswald that Baker saw in the second-floor lunchroom (even though Roy Truly, who hired Oswald, was standing right there with Baker and said it was definitely LHO)?

IOW--Where do you want to go with this?

[David Von Pein]

I've simply stated a fact; that Oswald was in the room with Oswald [one of these Oswalds is actually Marrion Baker; because if Oswald was in the room, then he was in the same room with himself, yes ] when Baker wrote his statement and this was by Baker's own admission.

OK. Great.

Up close Oswald must have looked mid-twenties to Baker.

So now you're going to read Officer Baker's mind, eh? And while you're putting words in Baker's mouth, make sure you ignore his affidavit, where he says Oswald was "approximately 30 years old". (Baker was wrong about LHO's age, true; but then, too, so was Howard Brennan, who also thought Oswald was in his "early 30s".)

Roy Truly, TSBD crimefighter? On his way as a tour guide in the apprehension of a Presidential assassin?

Where are you going with this xxxx, Lee? I suppose Truly was a xxxx and a co-plotter too, huh?

Mrs. Robert Reid, then, must also be a shady character in your eyes too, because Reid saw (and spoke to) LHO right after Lee exited the lunchroom -- meaning: Reid's testimony perfectly dovetails and corroborates the observations of Roy S. Truly and Marrion L. Baker. Meaning further -- Lee Harvey Oswald was positively on the second floor (near or in the lunchroom) within minutes of JFK's assassination.

Why do some conspiracists want to pretend that Oswald WASN'T on the second floor at about 12:32-12:33 PM on 11/22/63? Bizarre.

Edited November 20, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

Let me just add that it doesn't matter one bit if the spot on "Tan Man" is a bald spot or if it is merely white in his hair. What is significant is that it matches the supposed image of the man in the sniper's nest, and could be the spot observed by Euins and Brennan.

If the footage of "Tan Man" in the sniper's nest could be cleared up the way it is in the one still posted by Duncan, it could really help us determine if what we are seeing is a face, or if it's simply a blob.

What utter claptrap, not unexpected coming from from Speer.

IF the spot on tan jacket man is in fact a simple highlight from the sun, it's TRANSIENT. You do know what that word means don't you Speer?

Craig,

Where does Speer say that it wouldn't matter if the so-called white spot was just the result of the sun's shining a certain way on the dude's hair?

He does say that it wouldn't matter if the white spot was "white in his hair" (emphasis added).

I understand what Speer's trying to say, and I agree with him.

--Tommy

Edited November 21, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Kathleen Collins]

Plus: I think there's a problem with the "sizing" of the so-called "balding head" in Duncan MacRae's enhanced blow-up. I haven't done any measurements on this or anything, but just from eyeballing these pictures side-by-side, it's my opinion that the "person" in Duncan's blow-up can't possibly be a "person", unless this "person" has a very, very large head. When compared with the Dillard blow-up of Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman on the left, it would appear as if this "person's" head in the right photo is taking up more than HALF of the entire window frame. Was a balding King Kong shooting at President Kennedy perhaps?:

2009 Documentary -- "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America"

I think it's quite possible that this man shaved or bleached that patch in his hair as a way of identification. As far as the man having a big head, take a look at his forehead in the picture then look at the man in the parking lot -- the guy has a big forehead!

[David Von Pein]

I think it's quite possible that this man shaved or bleached that patch in his hair as a way of identification.

Yeah, if there's one thing a paid/hired assassin would want to do, it would be to do something to his appearance to make himself STAND OUT and be MORE NOTICEABLE and MORE EASILY IDENTIFIED in case anyone might see him firing at the President.

Edited November 21, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Craig Lamson]

Let me just add that it doesn't matter one bit if the spot on "Tan Man" is a bald spot or if it is merely white in his hair. What is significant is that it matches the supposed image of the man in the sniper's nest, and could be the spot observed by Euins and Brennan.

If the footage of "Tan Man" in the sniper's nest could be cleared up the way it is in the one still posted by Duncan, it could really help us determine if what we are seeing is a face, or if it's simply a blob.

What utter claptrap, not unexpected coming from from Speer.

IF the spot on tan jacket man is in fact a simple highlight from the sun, it's TRANSIENT. You do know what that word means don't you Speer?

Craig,

Where does Speer say that it wouldn't matter if the so-called white spot was just the result of the sun's shining a certain way on the dude's hair?

He does say that it wouldn't matter if the white spot was "white in his hair" (emphasis added). IMHO, Pat could have phrased that part a little better. He could have said, for example, "It wouldn't matter if the perception of "the white spot" was due to the natural color of the dude's hair right there, or,"... even if the dude's hair had been dyed right there."

I understand what Speer's trying to say, and I gotta say that I agree with him.

--Tommy

If you "understand" you are as clueless as Speer....

Speer fails to understand how sunlight and shadow work, as it appears you do too.

Since none of you can establish the spot is ANYTHING but a common reflection of the sun from the hair of this man, which is the LOGICAL AND EXPECTED (not to mention photographically sound)reason for this this artifact, Speer's entire point is just a very silly ( again quite common for Speer) and very clueless piece of claptrap. As usual he has jumped the shark based on ignorance of the simple properties of light and shadow.

Try to keep up....

Edited November 21, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Ron Ecker]

The man walking towards Tan Man (and whom Tan Man is turning away from) looks just like Barack Obama. But of course it can't be him, since Obama was born only two years before in Kenya.