Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

It wasn't that long ago (the day before yesterday) that you said that there was no reason to doubt what Fritz claimed Oswald said,

No sir, I qualified that. I said that there was no reason to doubt what Fritz claimed if what he claimed served to exonerate Oswald. I will also say this, that even though there is no reason to doubt what Fritz said, that doesn't necessarily mean what he said was true. What it does mean is that what he said should be seriously considered. (I may be over-clarifying here. I do so only because I don't recall precisely what the nature of that exchange was.)

and here you are saying that it is a fact that 'officials lied when it was their advantage to do so' and then admonishing me for treating' what they said Oswald said as if was all factual'.

 

[Michael Clark]

And, just as they are discussing where Oswald was, and what he was doing around the time of the assassination, Ball diverts to the tasty communist connection. 

Mr. BALL. But he said he had had lunch with Junior?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and with someone else.
Mr. BALL. Did you find out that there was an employee named Junior at the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. FRITZ. Probably we have it here, some of the officers probably did, we had all these people checked out. I didn't do it myself probably.
Mr. BALL. That same morning, you asked him also about his affiliations, didn't you ask him if he belonged to the Communist Party?

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Alistair,

Somehow you don't get the fact that officials lied when it was to their advantage to do so. You treat what they said Oswald said as if was all factual. (Even though it contradicts itself!) Which brings me to this question...

Do you believe there was NO cover-up of the assassination?

I ask because, in the threads I follow, I've noticed that your goal is inevitably to show that nobody lied. That every contradiction can (hopefully) be explained away as being faulty estimates, false memories, and misunderstandings.

But then, perhaps in the threads I follow, you are just trying to maintain your current notions of what really happened.

First of all whether I think there was a cover-up or not is irrelevant.

If you were to answer that you don't believe there was a cover up, then that would show you have a pro-WC bias in this matter. And that, I believe, would be relevant.

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No sir, I qualified that. I said that there was no reason to doubt what Fritz claimed if what he claimed served to exonerate Oswald. I will also say this, that even though there is no reason to doubt what Fritz said, that doesn't necessarily mean what he said was true. What it does mean is that what he said should be seriously considered. (I may be over-clarifying here. I do so only because I don't recall precisely what the nature of that exchange was.)

No problem, Sandy, I don't disagree. I feel that when considering what Fritz is claiming Oswald said that we should consider it on its own merits. As you said, a lot of it 'exonerates' Oswald. (We seem to be in agreement on something - makes a change eh. lol ) From where my research has thus taken me I have not come across any part that I feel Fritz is making up, whilst it may not be a verbatim account of what Oswald actually said, I haven't yet found anything that, to me, stands out as being a 'falsehood' on Fritz's part.

What I like to do when reading what it is claimed Oswald is saying is to consider it from the perspective of Oswald being guilty and to consider it from the perspective of Oswald being set-up knowingly and to consider it from the perspective of Oswald being set-up unnkowingly and to consider it from the perspective of Oswald being innocent... each time cross-referencing it with what others have said.

Regards.

[Alistair Briggs]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you were to answer that you don't believe there was a cover up, then that would show you have a pro-WC bias in this matter. And that, I believe, would be relevant.

Sandy, before responding to one part of my comment why not read the entire comment, if you did you will see I directly answered your question, and if you had seen that then why post a response starting 'if you were to answer that' when I did actually answer it...

First of all whether I think there was a cover-up or not is irrelevant. Why is it not relevant, because it would be what I thought personally, and I'm not pushing it forward here (despite what you may think) so it is irrelvant. And secondly, even if someone did not believe in a cover up that doesn't show a pro-WC bias; a person can believe there was no cover up AND that the WC were wrong... how so? If it was a 'set-up' before the fact!

So, when you say 'cover-up' , do you mean a 'cover-up' (after the fact)? Or are you using it as something of an umbrella term? Are you including a 'set-up' in it or not?

[Ray Mitcham]

Anybody know where Oswald could've gotten "a cheese sandwich and an apple"* from, on the morning of the assassination?

 

* from Fritz's handwritten notes.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you were to answer that you don't believe there was a cover up, then that would show you have a pro-WC bias in this matter. And that, I believe, would be relevant.

Sandy, before responding to one part of my comment why not read the entire comment, if you did you will see I directly answered your question, and if you had seen that then why post a response starting 'if you were to answer that' when I did actually answer it...

Because I sometimes break long posts up into sections and respond to one section at a time. Other times I read till I reach a part I want to respond to, and I respond then instead of after reading the whole thing. This usually is not problematic. In this case, even though you eventually answered my question, I'm still glad I responded to your "it's irrelevant" statement.

First of all whether I think there was a cover-up or not is irrelevant. Why is it not relevant, because it would be what I thought personally, and I'm not pushing it forward here (despite what you may think) so it is irrelvant. And secondly, even if someone did not believe in a cover up that doesn't show a pro-WC bias; a person can believe there was no cover up AND that the WC were wrong... how so? If it was a 'set-up' before the fact!

So, when you say 'cover-up' , do you mean a 'cover-up' (after the fact)? Or are you using it as something of an umbrella term? Are you including a 'set-up' in it or not?

It's pretty obvious to me that the purpose of the WC was to placate the American people by covering up what really happened in Dallas (and New Orleans, and Mexico City, etc) and blaming the assassination on a "lone nut."

In other words, that the WC and cover-up are synonymous.

It is my experience that a person who doesn't believe there was a cover-up is usually pro-WC.

As for the WC possibly being "set--up" before or after the fact, I'm not sure what you mean. But I think it's pretty clear that the WC was created after the assassination occurred.

 

[Bill Miller]

18 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Anybody know where Oswald could've gotten "a cheese sandwich and an apple"* from, on the morning of the assassination?

 

* from Fritz's handwritten notes.

   I once knew an old fellow who I worked with at Caterpillar who would carry a cheese sandwich in his back pants pocket. It would remain there until time for lunch. He was a quiet fellow who kept to himself a lot. If Lee came to work with a jacket on that day .... I supposed he could have had a sandwich and an apple in his coat pocket.

[Alistair Briggs]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's pretty obvious to me that the purpose of the WC was to placate the American people by covering up what really happened in Dallas (and New Orleans, and Mexico City, etc) and blaming the assassination on a "lone nut."

I understand your pov.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In other words, that the WC and cover-up are synonymous.

I understand your pov.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is my experience that a person who doesn't believe there was a cover-up is usually pro-WC.

I understand your pov.

I'm not like most people though. lol Not suggesting this is what actually happened or is the reality of the situation, but I can consider there being no 'cover up' and the WC's conclusions being wrong. (For clarity, it is my genuine belief that the WC's conclusion is wrong (not necessarily fully wrong though) but I've not ruled it in or ruled it out. )

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As for the WC possibly being "set--up" before or after the fact, I'm not sure what you mean. But I think it's pretty clear that the WC was created after the assassination occurred.

Ah perhaps you misread me or I didn't make it clear enough. lol I didn't mean that the WC was set-up before the fact; clearly, as you said, the WC was created after the assassination occurred. What I meant was if the assassination itself was a set-up... (the assassination was the fact)... ie if Oswald was set-up directly or indirectly as the 'Patsy'.

Hope that helps to clear it up, if not just ask and I will try again. ;)

[Ray Mitcham]

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

   I once knew an old fellow who I worked with at Caterpillar who would carry a cheese sandwich in his back pants pocket. It would remain there until time for lunch. He was a quiet fellow who kept to himself a lot. If Lee came to work with a jacket on that day .... I supposed he could have had a sandwich and an apple in his coat pocket.

Or even in a paper bag as he said.

[Alistair Briggs]

Random question for anyone... see the door at the TSBD, did it swing both ways?

Regards

[Michael Clark]

59 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Random question for anyone... see the door at the TSBD, did it swing both ways?

Regards

Was wondering that myself. Then it looked to me like there is no real landing at the top, so I'm figuring it must open to the inside only. I am curious to hear the correct answer.

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Was wondering that myself. Then it looked to me like there is no real landing at the top, so I'm figuring it must open to the inside only. I am curious to hear the correct answer.

Interestingly that's what I thought originally, the narrowness of the landing means the door has to open inside only. And yet, the only photos I can find (thus far) all show the door opening outwards. I can't yet find a photo that shows the door opening inwards. I did find a First Floor Plan that shows the door could swing both ways, but in a comment from William Kelly from 2009 in a thread entitled Why Oswald Is Innocent, he makes note that those plans were made specifically for the WC and are NOT architectural renderings - he points out a couple of things erroneous about them - so I don't know.

The door definetly opens out the way though (one example)

I'm still digging around to find even just one photo that shows it opening inwards (has to be a 'contemporary' photo though, as I understand they redesigned the landing at some later point and moved the door backwards, if memory serves me right).

Regards.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Or even in a paper bag as he said.

 

Ray,

Do you think Frazier was mistaken about the lunch bag? (He said LHO didn't have one that day, right?)

Speaking of Frazier... I've seen him say on more than one occasions that the long paper bag was too short for a rifle. But I could have sworn that one time I heard him go along with with the bag being able to hold the rifle. It seems like it was at that mock trial with Bugliosi and Spence, but I'm not sure.

Does this ring true to anybody?

[Michael Clark]

Cool, thanks Alistair