David Josephs Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 Doesn't this seem a bit unreal to the readers, posters and lurkers here? A number of WCR critics spending post after post and their precious time trying to convince DVP that in the REAL WORLD, transactions in business are recorded... IRS is a bit of a stickler about getting their money... Seaport would have initiated "something" with the reciept of the $10 deposit and the order form..... yet there was no envelope, and while the coupon has Seaport's address, do you suppose Hidell paperclipped a $10 bill to the coupon and dropped it in the mail? Of course not... Mr. BALL. Now, this particular mail order, did you have anything to do with filling that order? Mr. MICHAELIS. No. Mr. BALL. And all of these records are under your control, are they? Mr. MICHAELIS. Well, not particularly at that time because my actual supervision of the Seaport Traders, Inc., activities started later during the year. mean in September and October, when the girl in charge left. Mr. BALL. You have no personal knowledge, then, of the transaction by which the gun was shipped and sold? Mr. MICHAELIS. Not prior to the first investigation. So of course he's the PERFECT person to call regarding THIS transaction... as opposed to Emma Vaughn who actually handled and fulfilled the order... so in essence here... Michaelis is trying to interpret what happened as much as the WC lawyers Mr. BALL. It is given a No. DL-29. Will you describe it, please? Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes; that is a copy of the receipt which we got from the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one carton with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. It shows, furthermore, that Railway Express is instructed to collect a c.o.d. fee of $19.95. And it shows furthermore the number of the original receipt, which is 70638. Mr. BALL. Number of original receipt? Which receipt? Mr. MICHAELIS. Of the Railway Express receipt. Mr. BALL. IS this it here? Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes. Mr. BALL. Original receipt, Railway Express receipt, is that correct? Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes Mr. BALL. Does it identify the invoice in any way? Mr. MICHAELIS. No. So REA would have an original receipt with 70638... whereby "70638" would be PRINTED as opposed to handwritten, since REA would ALSO have to keep records... REA writes "70638" referencing some OTHER DOCUMENT yet Michaelis feels this "COPY OF EXPRESS RECEIPT - (Contract on Original)" as written on its face - IS the orignal?... Sorry but NO WAY... the exhibit itself says it's not the original... wonder where THAT might be and it gets better - he is trying to say that Ex#5, DL-30, which is a document dated 3/20/63.. the SHIPPING DATE, is the proof that subsequent to delivery approx a week later $19.95 was rec'd by REA and sent to Seaport... YOU GETTING THIS? a DOC created prior to shipping describing what needs to be COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTOMER is proof of the customer having paid? Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95? Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one? Mr. BALL. Five. Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice. Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being---- Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number---- Mr. BALL. Two. Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received. Mr. BALL. Is there anything else that you know about this particular transaction that you would like to tell me? Mr. MICHAELIS. No, sir; I believe I answered all the questions of this transaction. Uh, not so much.... Klein's kept the envelope since one was sent with the order Seaport nor the WCR has any answer as to how the $10 deposit was sent or rec'd... DVP can rant all he likes about this, but there is no evidentary record of what happens to the ordering coupon from whatever that date is (I blew it up as you can see... and it is STILL impossible to tell, 1/2/?? 1/27/??) but it had to be before 3/13/63 since that's the Seaport invoice date... Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes; Mr. Rose usually opens the mail and distributes the mail. This particular order would have gone to the person in charge at that time of the Seaport Traders, who was Emma Vaughn. Mr. BALL. Who? Mr. MICHAELIS. Emma Vaughn, V-a-u-g-h-n. Mr. BALL. Then what would have happened? Mr. MICHAELIS. She would have processed the order in writing up invoice No. 5371. After 1 week she gave out the order to the order filler and packer. Mr. MICHAELIS. The order received by mail is written up and invoiced in quadruplicate on a snap-out form. The first white copy remains in the office and is filed on a numerical order. The second copy is used as a packing slip whereby the upper part of the invoice is torn off and used as a shipping label and the lower part used as a packing slip. The third copy is filed permanently in the office under the name of the respective customer after the order has been shipped. The fourth copy is the acknowledgment of the order copy and lists on the back side a statement which has to be signed by the respective customer. Since we do not know when Hidell mailed the coupon, or in what... we have no idea how/when the order gets to Emma... what was there to open? Further more - there is nothing here to suggest that Emma would have sat on that order PRIOR to 3/13... as obvious from the TYPE WRITTEN invoice on 3/13 versus the STAMP from 3/20, the shipping date, there is No REASON to believe that this order arrived much PRIOR to 3/13 at Seaport... To recap so far... 1) No one directly involved with the order receipt, the packing, the shipping or collection of money ever spoke to anyone related to the WC/FBI investigation 2) The physical evidence is not offered related to the deposit of a $10 cash-deposit for this order, supposedly sent with the order coupon... envelopes can be thrown away, - but a simple look at the cash deposits, or the deposits at all, for the month of March 1963 compared to the COD orders received and documented with a cash deposit - should be easy to find the - missing $10. No? They did it for Klein's and got that one wrong... pointed to the wrong MO... 3) Where is the original REA document from which Michaelis4 was created? - a Doc that says COPY on it cannot be considered an Original in anybody's world. 4) There is no physical evidence that REA sent Seaport $19.95, that Seaport deposited $19.95 or that REA rec'd/deposited $1.27 for shipping 5) There is no physical evidence that Hidell, Oswald or anyone else ever picked up that gun 6) There is no physical evidence regarding what happens to the S&W 38 Spec once it leaves the Texas Theater Does anyone have this document? - BOX 9 Folder 1 #15. CSS Form (Crime Scene Section), by R. A. Davenport. Original form concerning a Smith & Wesson SN Special, (Original), 11/22/63. 00002560 1 page 09 01 015 (no scan) 7) The bullets supposedly recovered from the pistol all had markings that HILL describes as scotch tape... yet what is quite obvious is that the sticky 1/2 inch patch could also be caused by leaving bullets in a gunbelt... ther is NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that sctoch tape was ever used with these bullets... that's absurd... Mr. HILL. There were six in the chambers of the gun. One of them had an indention in the primer that appeared to be caused by the hammer. There were five others. All of the shells at this time had indentions. All of the shells appeared to have at one time or another scotch tape on them because in an area that would have been the width of a half inch strip of scotch tape, there was kind of a bit of lint and residue on the jacket of the shell. Instead of all this back and forth with DVP's constant backpeddling and excuses for why normal people did not do normal daily business activites at a time when HIDELL was a nobody... LEt him keep posting and trying to explain it all away... We all get it... DVP and the WCR evidence is bure BS... has always been pure BS... and will always be pure BS.... and the DVP's of the world simply cannot swallow that pill. Cheers DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 Now this puzzles me a bit... Exhibit M4, the COPY of the REA contract, has the MIRROR IMAGE of Exhibit M2 copied onto it... For it to be Mirror image, M4 would have had to be laid onto the BACK of M2 and all the M2 info has to show thru not only itself but also the back of M4... or M4 was copied onto the back of the copy of M2?? Not sure I get how this worked... Robin? thx DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) And another thing... Here are four seperate SEAPORT CUSTOMER shipments... and this testimony: Mr. BALL. Now I also show you a white copy of invoice No. A-5371 which has been marked on the face as DL-27. Can you tell me what that document is? Mr. MICHAELIS. This document is the first copy of the invoice No. 5371 which is kept in the office as permanent record and is filed in the numerical order. NUMERICAL ORDER... suggesting that the orders are filled using an order pad with sequential numbers... just like REAL BUSINESSES USE! Three of these orders are marked 3/21/63... the Hidell order was shipped 3/20 so Michaelis recording THE NEXT DAY that his pistols was sold via a certain invoice is not so hard to imagine... he gets his sales report and marks them off.... simple. Problem is with the NUMERICAL ORDER of these serial numbers... is that a bit further down the sheet is a sales recorded 3/25 also to a Seaport customer, yet the Inv # is BETWEEN the dates on 3/21... This is an entire CASE OF .38 specials as Michaelis testifies to.... there is no problem shipping a pistol at any time... Why are the only 4 digit invoice numbers on the page not in the correct order and how is there over 2000 of these orders processed in a single day?? Edited December 16, 2011 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 BOTH the Warren Commission AND the HSCA were satisfied that Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Revolver V510210 and Rifle C2766. Do you really want to think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (14 years apart, with a different group of investigators and committee members and lawyers) didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they concluded that Lee Oswald bought and possessed both of those weapons? Do conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that? Amazing if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 David, Its simple really, Emma held onto the envelope...no scratch that. Emma held on to the order for two months and....no no scratch that too. Mrs Vaughn held the order till the $10 dollars cash cleared ...umm no no no. Emma Vaughn held the order till the same day as the rifle was to be shipp... oh drats. Seaport holds orders for a week, just to see if you'll call and check on them...oh I shouldn't have said check. Try again,,, The order was held for the one week cooling off period as is customary with all mail orders? huh... There that was simple. And Emma thought gee I have held this order for such a long time I'll send a $10 more expensive gun than the ".38 St (standard?)W. (with) 2" barrel" to this nice man. See a pattern with Oswald "supposedly" ordering a weapon of a certain size or model only to get another of different length or make??? Fish are not the only smelly things in the sea(port) Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 BOTH the Warren Commission AND the HSCA were satisfied that Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Revolver V510210 and Rifle C2766. Do you really want to think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (14 years apart, with a different group of investigators and committee members and lawyers) didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they concluded that Lee Oswald bought and possessed both of those weapons? Do conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that? Amazing if they do. And before they sailed around the world - it was flat... FACT before it was discovered we were NOT the center of the universe - the EARTH WAS, FACT Before it was discovered there ARE NO WITCHES - women were burned for being one - FACT The WC and the HSCA saying something is so DOES NOT MAKE IT SO... sorry DVP... just doesn't work that way... If the evidence is not there to support their conclusions, their conclusions ARE INVALID... My handing you a business card saying I'm Pablo Picasso - DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.... Do LNers and the infamous DVP believe EVERYTHING coming out of the government as explanations fro what they do, did and will do? THAT'S amazing David... we have a name for people like that... Lemmings. The sheer FACT you don't have the sense God gave a child to question the BASIS for these conclusions is what's amazing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) So now Seaport is part of the ever-growing plot to frame that innocent schmuck named Oswald, eh? I love it. Please continue. Because I'm sure you can find a way to get Railway Express "in" on the plot too. Right, Ed? Edited December 16, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) The sheer FACT you don't have the sense God gave a child to question the BASIS for these conclusions is what's amazing. A conspiracy theorist who thinks it was "THE WORLD AGAINST OSWALD" is preaching to me about God-given "sense". It's a new zenith in irony. And Pot/Kettle-ism. I'm lovin' it. Edited December 16, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 My attempt at humor is probably way closer to the truth than anything you have posted. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) My attempt at humor is probably way closer to the truth than anything you have posted. And you say that because you (being an Internet conspiracy theorist) fail to ever examine the sheer implausibility of your own theories and "research". To an Internet CTer, every inconsistency or unanswered question is a sign of conspiracy or cover-up. Always. But just answer the following question truthfully for me, Ed LeDoux: Do you really believe that Seaport Traders, Inc. of Los Angeles, California, was part of some kind of plot or cover-up operation connected with Lee Harvey Oswald's 1963 revolver purchase? If your answer is "No" (as it surely must be, if you're a reasonable man), then why even post the "humor" in Post #272 above? Edited December 16, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 The sheer FACT you don't have the sense God gave a child to question the BASIS for these conclusions is what's amazing. A conspiracy theorist who thinks it was "THE WORLD AGAINST OSWALD" is preaching to me about God-given "sense". It's a new zenith in irony. And Pot/Kettle-ism. I'm lovin' it. Are you really that stoopid and naive David? You debate like a child, you don't have the sense or awareness to know how ridiculous you sound yet day after day you present yourself as the poster child for sheer ignorance.... and you think you are convincing anyone, illuminating anything... From my POV, your posts are without a doubt the BEST EVIDENCE for how impossible it is to defend the WCR in all its glory... You stumble over physical evidence like a clod and massacre the analysis each and every time... Congrats are in order though... you continually achieve OUR goals in showing how impotent the WCR really was and remains in anything other than proving Oswald's innocence and the government's complicity.. So PLEASE keep posting your attempts at rationalization, wit, intelligence and apology - the LNers have GOT to cringe whenever they see you coming... much appreciated... I'd talk facts and evidence with you yet you still can't see your own hand in front of your face... here's the ONLY piece of evidence offered has ANYTHING to do with a pistol similiar to what the DPD claims was taken from Oswald... you'd think with evidence THAT GOOD, they'd have kept track of it.... BOX 9 Folder 1 #15. CSS Form (Crime Scene Section), by R. A. Davenport. Original form concerning a Smith & Wesson SN Special, (Original), 11/22/63. 00002560 1 page 09 01 015 (no scan) and of course, it does not really exist - you of course can show us the DPD docs related to the 38 taken from Oswald, right? . Toodles David... if the otheres here want to play your game, so be it. You sir ought to be elected Head Lone Nut of the bewildered herds wandering lost throughout this world.... you're a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) you're a joke Thanks. That's the best compliment I could ever receive from an Internet CTer. I wouldn't expect anything less from anyone who belongs to the strange CT circus that has been assembled here at this and other Internet forums. But at least I'm not "stoopid" enough to believe that ALL of the evidence collected by the DPD, the SS, and the FBI has been (or even could have been) faked to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald. Edited December 17, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) you're a joke Thanks. That's the best compliment I could ever receive from an Internet CTer. I wouldn't expect anything less from anyone who belongs to the strange CT circus that has been assembled here at this and other Internet forums. But at least I'm not "stoopid" enough to believe that ALL of the evidence collected by the DPD, the SS, and the FBI has been (or even could have been) faked to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald. This is neither about belief or being stoopid.... when anyone investigates the authenticity of the evidence, they find the evidence available to us is not sufficient enough to authenticate it. There is invariably something wrong with it.... A document on its own stating that "something" happened, is NOT on its own, proof of anything. It requires substantiation, corroboration and authentication for it to be taken seriously by serious people... if YOU on the other hand want to accept whatever crap the WCR tells you, that's your problem. So instead of trying to make this THREAD about ALL the evidence... try for once to stay on topic... There is corroborated testimony that McDonald gave it immediately to Carroll, who ultimately give it to Hill while in the car... Hill SAYS he gives it to TL Baker and AT THAT POINT he and the others finally marks the weapon AT headquarters. (btw - they do not bother to search Oswald until midnight) Problem is that TL Baker NEVER states this anywhere in his lengthy report nor does he tell us what happened next to the pistol Box05 05 004 Report On Officer's Duties date unknown T. L. Baker Photocopy Photocopy of report by T. L. Baker regarding various aspects of his duties from November 22 through 24, 1963 UNTIL: ....as I am looking thru the Dallas Archives I come across this: DAVENPORT - who is not mentioned at all during this whole process finally turns the 38 over to CSS ... While Box 9, folder 1 #15. does not exist as mentioned - I found the CSS form in Box 8 CSS Form (Crime Scene Section), by R. A. Davenport. Original form concerning a Smith & Wesson SN Special, (Original), 11/22/63. 00002560 1 page 09 01 015 (no scan) When did Davenport get it? surprise surprise... Davenport never testified.... and the "original" is no available... and our friend TL Baker is no where to be seen... Between Baker and Davenport... we do not know what happens... as the form says that Dhority/Barnes receive it yet Davenport supplies it? and if you notice THIS TOO WAS TAKEN BY the FBI, DRAIN, that evening.... along 400 or so other items of evidence... again, per Lt. Day... So basically, from midnight 11/22 until 11/26 when it appears on the list to be given to the FBI ONCE AGAIN... we have no idea what happens to this pistol... perfect, just perfect. Edited December 17, 2011 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) James DiEugenio said: As I have often said, the sale of the handgun and the rifle were things that were pretty much accepted by the first generation of critics. They should not have been. They are simply too full of holes for any rational person to accept at face value. But you, Jimbo, as a "Patsy" believer, really should be accepting the undeniable fact that Oswald ordered and took possession of both the rifle and the revolver (and it is a conclusive fact that those two items were ordered and possessed by LHO, despite the weird protestations of the conspiracists like Jimbo D.). Why should you believe that? Because, as I mentioned to you previously (and this is only garden-variety common sense of the first order) -- It makes much more logical sense in a frame-up (or "Patsy") theory to have your make-believe conspirators running around attempting to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS, versus the incredibly complicated and laughable cloak-and-dagger version of events surrounding the gun purchases that you want to believe is true. Don't you agree, James? So why don't you stop pretending Oswald never even had C2766 or V510210 in his hands at all in the year 1963....because there's ample proof you are dead wrong, including photos showing him holding the Carcano (yes, I know you want to pretend those pics are frauds too), and the little fact that Oswald was caught with the revolver in his hands in the theater. Seems to me you'd be wise to go back to siding with those first-generation critics and just admit what is obviously the truth -- Oswald owned the two guns. And then your make-believe Patsy plot is easier to swallow too. Of course, there are still many bumps in the Patsy road even if you accept the guns as being Oswald's -- e.g.: You'd still have to totally ignore all the lies told by your patsy on Nov. 21 and 22. And you'd still have to totally ignore Oswald's own incriminating actions on Nov. 22. But I'm sure you're up to that easy task of ignoring (or mangling) all of that unimportant stuff, right Jimmy? Edited April 16, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 It's a question of the evidence being strong enough to withstand questions and arguments against it... But, as everybody knows, the evidence in the JFK, Tippit, and Walker cases against Oswald could never be strong enough or withstand the scrutiny of Internet conspiracy theorists. Never. No way. Regardless of its strength. And that's because Internet conspiracy theorists have set the bar so high for "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt", that no amount of evidence could ever hurdle it. And a great example of this "infinitely high bar" is the Tippit murder. Here's a case with a dozen witnesses who positively IDed Oswald as either the one and only killer of Officer Tippit or the one man fleeing the scene of the murder with a gun in his hands (many of those witnesses saw the gun at any rate), plus the ballistics evidence (the shells) dumped at the murder scene by the killer himself (Oswald), plus the fact that Oswald is arrested nearby with the Tippit murder weapon in his own hands -- and yet that aggregation of evidence is still not even NEARLY enough to convince many CTers that Oswald could have been guilty. And I'd still like to know how the CTers deal with Ted Callaway's IDing of Oswald (plus other after-the-shooting witnesses too)? Witness testimony is downplayed when someone in Dealey Plaza said something about what they'd seen or heard that seems to contradict a theory, but suddenly becomes paramount when it can be used bolster another. Example (without weighing in on the validity of any observation): We have a sheriff's deputy, a trained LEO, who says he saw Oswald running down the slope toward the street (and him) and get into a Rambler station wagon. Granted that he didn't ID Oswald in a lineup, but is such an identification invalid (e.g., victim sees perp walking down the hall, yells "that's him!")? He is nevertheless quite clearly wrong, in part because Oswald was "already somewhere else" blocks away at the time he was supposedly catching a ride. We know he was elsewhere because an elderly woman said she saw him on a bus - she was the only one on the bus who even thought they saw him - doing things that nobody else on the same bus saw him do, including the guy that sat directly behind him. On the other hand, we have mechanics and cab drivers, waitresses and used car salesmen (the epitome of those you can count on accuracy from ... at least when a shooting's involved!) all saying "it was Oswald that I saw" and there is no question about the accuracy of their observations despite the fact that most of them saw the perp from 50-100 feet or more away, and none more than momentarily. Why would their ID be more accurate and valid than a LEO's ... even though, it might be noted, none of them could tell time? If witness testimony is "notoriously unreliable," then that must apply to all witnesses and not just the ones we don't agree with. If Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th & Patton in time to kill Tippit, how then DID he manage to be on Patton Avenue (with a gun) just SECONDS after Tippit was shot? Isn't that a great question? Presuming that BOTH Earlene Roberts' and all of the 10th&Patton witnesses' IDs of Oswald are correct, then he was in two places a mile and only minutes apart, with enough - but barely enough - time to get between them by the only known means of transportation he had: his feet. We can even allow for the supposition that Oswald didn't really spend 3-4 minutes searching for a jacket and pistol in his room, but really only a minute or less before scooting back out the door to his next rendezvous with history to ensure that there's plenty of time. We can now say that Oswald shot Tippit at or around 1:16 after having covered 9/10 of a mile at approximately 4.5 mph walking speed, or about 1½ times the "normal" rate of an adult male. In so doing, we must discount what the only two witnesses to the event or its aftermath who had reason to be paying attention to the time had to say. Even setting Markham and her "1:06 or 1:07" estimate aside for the moment, we not only have to put Tom Bowley ("1:10") on the scene only bare seconds after the shooting and have a small crowd assemble almost instantaneously if in fact the "citizen call" - unquestionably attributable to Bowley no matter what Donnie Benavides or the WC had to say about it - was made within a minute or so of the shooting. This would seemingly "make sense." It is, at least, the effect of any insistence on a 1:15-1:16 shooting time. ... OR we could go with Markham and Bowley's just-as-sensible testimony that Tippit was shot between 1:05 and 1:07, that Bowley drove up around three to five minutes later, and he didn't get immediately on the radio but did like most other decisive people would do: assess the situation before taking action. We also have the choice of credit Benavides' testimony that he ducked down in his truck "for a few minutes" or that he "really meant" a few seconds because it "makes better sense" ... that is, to believe Donnie Benavides knew what he did and that he had a rudimentary sense of the passing of time, or to assume that he panicked, had no sense of time, and was wrong. If he was wrong, 1:15-1:16 works; if he was right, it doesn't. We have, in essence, the options to take witnesses' time and timing statements at face value, eliminate those that are impossible (e.g., statements saying the shooting took place after it was called in on the radio), and arrive at a working hypothesis, or we can start with the working hypothesis and mold witnesses' statements to make the hypothesis possible, and then declare it factual. Using the unfiltered and unmodified data, we have Oswald two places almost a mile apart in less than 10 minutes (actually a bit more than five). If we do that, then we have these options: Oswald was an Olympics-level athlete; He was never at the rooming house, but walked directly to the 10th & Patton area (and must've had the gun with him or hidden somewhere else?); He was at the rooming house and got a ride from a person or persons unknown to the 10th & Patton area, and either (a) asked to be dropped off there for an unknown reason ("hey, I've gotta kill a cop near here"), or ( was let off there, possibly forced from the car(?), for another uknown reason, or © was heading somewhere we don't know about or have suspicions of, or (d) he wanted to get some exercise before sitting through a couple of movies; He was at the rooming house but not at 10th & Patton; or He was at neither location. Only one of those options allows for no mistaken identities and only one person involved. The only option available to supporters of the ODI theory is that Tippit actually got shot later than the evidence would suggest, further meaning that a crowd was waiting just offstage to gather immediately, and Tom Bowley was parked around the corner on Denver resetting his watch to the wrong time and waiting for a "bang! bang-bang! ... bang!" so he could drive down the street, jump from his car, shove the quick-thinking and "mistaken" Donnie Benavides out of the way to get on the radio to call in the shooting, all of this and more occuring within less than 90 seconds to two minutes of the shooting. As Professor McAdams would say, "Think Scenario." Instead of addressing these things directly, they are simply set aside amid the rant of "conspiracists' distortions and cockamamie theories," and claims of what "makes sense" to "reasonable people," withstanding or not the "impossibly high standard set by internet conspiracy theorists" that "no amount of evidence could ever hurdle" the bar of what constitutes, for them, "reasonable doubt." The only proofs, it would seem, are those that either side of the argument are willing to accept (and ne'er the twain shall meet!); all others are mistaken, delusional, paranoid, conspiratorial, naive, or apropos of some other dismissive descriptor. It does concern me, however, that LNers are just as willing to make accomodations to make the evidence better fit the theory as CTers are willing to consider virtually any far-out theory that doesn't leave Oswald guilty as charged. Each group is just as selective and manipulative as they accuse the other of being, it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now