HIJACKED TOPIC - Maybe Shelley & Lovelady didn't lie after all.

[Ray Mitcham]

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ray,

If you will read carefully, you will notice that I placed the word "run" in quotation marks.  That means it is a figure of speech.  You are taking it literally.  That is your literary mistake.   

My point -- and I repeat it -- is that there is no way that Vickie Adams walked -- in three-inch high-heels -- from the 4th floor South of the TSBD to the North of the TSBD, down to the 1st floor, met Shelley-Lovelady, outside the Northern dock of the TSBD, out to the Grassy Knoll parking lot, met a DPD cop there, turned around, returned to the TSBD at the South, front entrance, met Molina-Davis there, then proceeded West to the corner of Houston and Elm where she listened to a DPD motorcycle radio report, observed people on the corner, one of whom she wondered later might have been Jack Ruby, then returned to the entrance of the TSBD, which was being guarded by a DPD cop, and re-entered the building...

...all within 5 minutes.

I repeat that the three-inch high-heels would have slowed her down, even if she was in a hurry.   This is common sense.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

"If you will read carefully, you will notice that I placed the word "run" in quotation marks.  That means it is a figure of speech.  You are taking it literally.  That is your literary mistake.   "

 

Sorry, Paul, It wasn't a figure of speech. You were quoting what Adams said to Belin.

 

Mr. BELIN - Those stairs would be in the northwest comer of the building, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running. 
Mr. BELIN - What kind of shoes did you have on?
Miss ADAMS - Three-inch heels.

I just showed that you were wrong when you tried to show that women couldn't run in high heels in order to get the "facts" to fit your time line.

They can. Get over it.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

"If you will read carefully, you will notice that I placed the word "run" in quotation marks.  That means it is a figure of speech.  You are taking it literally.  That is your literary mistake.   "

Sorry, Paul, It wasn't a figure of speech. You were quoting what Adams said to Belin.

Mr. BELIN - Those stairs would be in the northwest comer of the building, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running. 
Mr. BELIN - What kind of shoes did you have on?
Miss ADAMS - Three-inch heels.

I just showed that you were wrong when you tried to show that women couldn't run in high heels in order to get the "facts" to fit your time line.

They can. Get over it.

Ray,

On your logic, it is possible for any person, wearing 3-inch heels, to do all of the following in "less than five minutes" as Vickie Adams claimed:

(1) "run" from the South end of the TSBD 4th floor, to the North end, to get the stairs,

(2) "run" down the stairs to the 1st floor, speak briefly with Shelley-Lovelady,

(3) "run" out the North dock stairs

(4) "run" from the dock to the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll, and speak briefly with a DPD cop

(5) "run" from the Grassy Knoll parking lot to the front steps of the TSBD, and speak briefly with Molina-Davis

(6) "run" to the corner of Houston and Elm, to listen to a police motorcycle broadcast, and observe a possible Jack Ruby speaking with young Negro boy,

(7) "run" back to the TSBD steps, to negotiate being permitted back inside the TSBD during a lockdown;

(8) "run" back to the 2nd floor TSBD and spend "a few minutes" listening to workers speculate about the JFK crisis; and

(9) "run" back to the elevator on the 2nd floor, with two Detectives, find out it doesn't work, then accompany them back to the 4th floor TSBD.

Your logic doesn't add up to common sense TIMING, Ray.  My more careful accounting demonstrates that Vickie Adams needed a bare minimum of 10 minutes to do all that, even sharply minimizing her TALKING with the people at each stop.

If you really think it can be done, Ray, then let's see you try it. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo  

Edited January 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ray Mitcham]

51 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ray,

On your logic, it is possible for any person, wearing 3-inch heels, to do all of the following in "less than five minutes" as Vickie Adams claimed:

(1) "run" from the South end of the TSBD 4th floor, to the North end, to get the stairs,

(2) "run" down the stairs to the 1st floor, speak briefly with Shelley-Lovelady,

(3) "run" out the North dock stairs

(4) "run" from the dock to the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll, and speak briefly with a DPD cop

(5) "run" from the Grassy Knoll parking lot to the front steps of the TSBD, and speak briefly with Molina-Davis

(6) "run" to the corner of Houston and Elm, to listen to a police motorcycle broadcast, and observe a possible Jack Ruby speaking with young Negro boy,

(7) "run" back to the TSBD steps, to negotiate being permitted back inside the TSBD during a lockdown;

(8) "run" back to the 2nd floor TSBD and spend "a few minutes" listening to workers speculate about the JFK crisis; and

(9) "run" back to the elevator on the 2nd floor, with two Detectives, find out it doesn't work, then accompany them back to the 4th floor TSBD.

Your logic doesn't add up to common sense TIMING, Ray.  My more careful accounting demonstrates that Vickie Adams needed a bare minimum of 10 minutes to do all that, even sharply minimizing her TALKING with the people at each stop.

If you really think it can be done, Ray, then let's see you try it. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo  

Straw men arguments, Paul. I don't have to try anything.

You said that women can't  run in high heels.  I showed they can. As I said, get over it

[Alistair Briggs]

Paul,

The statement nobody can "run" while wearing three-inch heels  only needs one example of somebody running while wearing heels to prove that the statement is false. Ray has given one example and that alone has falsified the statement.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean 'nobody' in such a literal sense...

Anyroads, what also has to be taken in to consideration on this subject is we are talking about what Vickie Adams could have done in heels. I think it is fair to say that Adams would have worn such heels on a regular basis and would have been more than comfortable walking in them at a speed similar if not the same as she would have done had she been wearing non-heeled shoes. The argument that if Adams was wearing trainers she could have ran faster than she could have if she were on heels is axiomatic. But that doesn't mean that Adams couldn't have run in her heels - especially when 'run' (as I mentioned earlier on) could be an umbrella term for any kind of speed.

Lets just say that when Adams said running she meant simply faster than walking... the actual speed is not that important. If she thought that the timing between the shots and re-entering the building was 'no more than 5 minutes' that was what she thought. I think it's safe to say that she was underplaying her timing and that it did take longer than 5 minutes...

In this earlier post I mentioned that I thought Adams journey from the time of the shots to re-entering the building was not 10 minutes, but that it was less than 10 and more than 5. Closer to 10 than 5 perhaps but not that close to 10!  I think now I can put it at 8 minutes approx.

Anyway, I think that we should now progress on to the testimony of Lovelady? Paul, you have already in this thread mentioned your thoughts on the timeline of Lovelady - in case you missed my response to it, here is the link to it. I have read some of your thoughts on Lovelady's use of grammar and what that may imply in the other thread. I think you may almost have a point... not necessarily on 'use of grammar' but on how much he cared.

To be upfront, my current thinking is that the 3 minutes mentioned by lovelady was the time it took from the steps to re-entering the building at the back, rather than the 3 minutes being the time to leave the steps.

Thoughts?

Regards

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

To be upfront, my current thinking is that the 3 minutes mentioned by lovelady was the time it took from the steps to re-entering the building at the back, rather than the 3 minutes being the time to leave the steps.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Only that that is not what Lovelady said. Nor what Shelley said.

You're putting words in Lovelady's mouth.

[Alistair Briggs]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thoughts?

Only that that is not what Lovelady said. Nor what Shelley said.

You're putting words in Lovelady's mouth.

Sandy, first of all, don't get me wrong, from reading the testimony of Lovelady and Shelley I can actually agree, well, at least see how you came up with your original posited timeline in the first post of this thread.

Secondly, my words that you highlighted in red, on reflection, I should have maybe worded that differently. My current thinking is that (perhaps) it took Lovelady 3 minutes (approx.) from the time of the shots to re-entering the building and that the 3 minutes mentioned by Lovelady was either a gross exagerration or a misunderstanding of the question.

On the subject of 'putting words in Lovelady's mouth' - I have no need to put words in his mouth directly, all I am doing is looking at the whole testimony from start to finish, looking at what Lovelady said and what Mr Ball said and drawing conclusions from it.. (and that is the same thing that others, including yourself have done).

What I am saying is that I can make different arguments based just on the testimony of Lovelady - one of which agrees with your original posited timeline and others that don't agree with it to varying degrees...

I feel that, just from analysing Lovelady's WC tesimony it can be shown that the questioning was neither in depth nor particulary accurate and in fact that Lovelady consistently showed a lack of clarity in his answers or indeed a 'misunderstanding' of the questions and that Mr Ball did not do enough clarification etc etc etc...

Regards

P.S. I realise that it is going to be a hard sell - moreso with Shelley when I get round to that.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Secondly, my words that you highlighted in red, on reflection, I should have maybe worded that differently. My current thinking is that (perhaps) it took Lovelady 3 minutes (approx.) from the time of the shots to re-entering the building and that the 3 minutes mentioned by Lovelady was either a gross exagerration or a misunderstanding of the question.

Ohhhhhh! Okay, I see your point. Never mind my response.

In this post I said that I could accept a range of 4.1 to 13 minutes. So we differ by a minute on the short end of the range.

[Alistair Briggs]

As something of an aside, a thought just popped in to my head... a kind of hold on a second moment, back to the start and the basics.

Darnell clip shows Baker running across road after 'parking' his bike approx. 30 seconds after shots.
The Darnell clip does not show where Baker actually went (whether directly up the steps, or indeed right past them)!

So...

(1) Baker either did run up the steps at that time and the Shelley/Lovelady timing of 3-4 minutes (approx.) of seeing Baker enter is wrong.

(2) The Shelley/Lovelady timing of 3-4 minutes (approx.) of seeing Baker enter is correct and Baker ran somewhere else before coming back

What implications are there for each of those? And especially (2)!

Can either of them alone, for example, prove that Oswald was or wasn't Prayer Man? Can either of them alone, for example, prove that the 2nd floor meeting of Oswald did or didn't happen? What else could they mean in terms of other things. etc etc etc

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

As something of an aside, a thought just popped in to my head... a kind of hold on a second moment, back to the start and the basics.

Darnell clip shows Baker running across road after 'parking' his bike approx. 30 seconds after shots.
The Darnell clip does not show where Baker actually went (whether directly up the steps, or indeed right past them)!

So...

(1) Baker either did run up the steps at that time and the Shelley/Lovelady timing of 3-4 minutes (approx.) of seeing Baker enter is wrong.

(2) The Shelley/Lovelady timing of 3-4 minutes (approx.) of seeing Baker enter is correct and Baker ran somewhere else before coming back

What implications are there for each of those? And especially (2)!

Can either of them alone, for example, prove that Oswald was or wasn't Prayer Man? Can either of them alone, for example, prove that the 2nd floor meeting of Oswald did or didn't happen? What else could they mean in terms of other things. etc etc etc

Alistair,

For me to show the implications that you ask about, first you need to understand the importance of the Baker/Oswald 2nd floor encounter, and the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley & Lovelady. These are both very important for the official WC story.

When interrogated, Oswald claimed to be on the first floor and "out with Shelley" around the time of the shooting. It was therefore important for the WC to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at that time (or could have been), and not even close to the front entrance in the seconds following the shooting. Having Baker and Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor just 90 seconds after the shooting did just that for the WC. (The real Baker encounter occurred on the 3rd or 4th floor, and it was not with Oswald. So Baker had to be convinced that it was for national security that he fudge his story a little.)

But a problem popped up. Oswald was supposed to have run down the north-west stairway to get from the 6th floor after the shooting to the 2nd floor lunchroom. And yet there was Victoria Jackson testifying that there was nobody on the steps as she descended them. She heard neither Oswald running down nor Baker/Truly running up during those most-important early seconds!

This was a big problem for the official WC story!

So how did the WC fix this problem? By discrediting Victoria's timing. The WC added to Victoria's testimony that she saw Shelley & Lovelady as she emerged from the staircase on the first floor. Since Shelley and Lovelady arrived well after that all-important initial 90 seconds, this proved that Victoria did NOT descend the steps as quickly as she said she did.

Problem solved!

Now let's look at the implications of your two scenarios, #1 and #2.

Scenario #1 that you describe is what Bart Kamp and a lot of others believe happened.

Scenario #2 is what I'm postulating happened in this thread. (I used to believe #1, but now I'm seriously leaning #2.)

Implications

If Scenario #1 is correct, then the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter could have happened. And the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley and Lovelady could have happened if Adams moved a little slow and Shelley/Lovelady moved a little fast. However, Bart uses other evidence and arguments to show that neither encounter occurred.

If Scenario #2 is correct, then the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter occurred a few minutes later than the official story states (assuming that it did happen). But because of this delay, the encounter (if it happened) would no longer prove that Oswald wasn't near the TSBD entrance ("out with Shelley") during the shooting. In addition, the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley & Lovelady could not have happened due to the delay. Because they weren't there yet when she arrived on the first floor. This in turn would substantiate Victoria's claim that somebody added the Shelley/Lovelady encounter to her testimony.

Either that, or Victoria (and her friends) were completely confused and she actually did descend the stairs late, and actually did encounter Shelley & Lovelady late, and actually did testify to that.

Either way, the purpose of the 2nd floor encounter is destroyed by the delay.

Now, let's assume for a moment the Victoria and her friends weren't totally confused. She arrived down the steps quickly and thus didn't see Shelley & Lovelady. What this means is that her testimony stands, that she heard nobody going up or down the stairs those early 90 seconds. She didn't hear Truly & Baker going up, but that is to be expected, because remember, they went up late. She also didn't hear Oswald coming down, which means he wasn't on the 6th floor during the shooting.

So, in scenario #2, the Baker/Oswald 2nd floor encounter could have happened. But it happened late, if it did happen. And if it did happen, Oswald must have gone to the 2nd floor after being near the TSBD entrance and out with Shelley during the shooting.

Having said that, there is other evidence that indicates that the encounter didn't happen. Just like there is with Scenario #1.

 

Anybody... let me know of any mistakes I've made above.

[Paul Trejo]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...When interrogated, Oswald claimed to be on the first floor and "out with Shelley" around the time of the shooting...

 Implications

If Scenario #1 is correct, then the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter could have happened. And the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley and Lovelady could have happened if Adams moved a little slow and Shelley/Lovelady moved a little fast...

If Scenario #2 is correct, then the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter occurred a few minutes later than the official story states (assuming that it did happen)...

Either way, the purpose of the 2nd floor encounter is destroyed by the delay...

Anybody... let me know of any mistakes I've made above.

Sandy,

IMHO, it is a mistake to say that "When interrogated, Oswald claimed that..." anything.

We have no proof that Oswald actually said what Captain Fritz, James Bookhout, James Hosty, Forrest Sorrels or Harry Holmes testified that Oswald said while at the Dallas City Jail -- and we have plenty of sworn testimony to the contrary.   LHO was nowhere near the front steps of the TSBD during the moments of the JFK shooting, according to many eye-witnesses.

This alone should flood plenty of doubt on the "Prayer Man" CT.

IMHO, the question is not really whether Adams-Truly-Baker contradicted Shelley-Lovelady about the TIMING of the Truly-Baker sighting.  

Rather, the question is really whether Fritz-Bookhout-Hosty-Sorrels-Holmes truthfully contradicted Shelley-Lovelady about whether LHO was there near the TSBD front entrance.

That's the whole ball game, IMHO.

So -- I guess I'm board with Scenario #1 -- but I deny that this destroys the LHO-on-the-2nd-floor scenario.  They are both possible. 

In my reading, Vickie arrived at the 1st floor just a little bit ahead of Shelley-Lovelady, who could have been at the 1st floor in 3-4 minutes.  Truly and Baker had already encountered LHO, and let him go.   LHO escaped from the TSBD without detection (except perhaps by Deputy Roger Craig, which is another story).

In my reading, the Baker/Oswald 2nd floor encounter happened within 75-90 seconds of the JFK shooting.  LHO was never near the TSBD entrance during the shooting.   Prayer Man is some other person.

The real key is that Captain Fritz totally falsified what LHO actually said when interrogated without a tape recorder or any notes of any kind.  That's the substance of the frame-up, right there.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Alistair Briggs]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The real key is that Captain Fritz totally falsified what LHO actually said when interrogated without a tape recorder or any notes of any kind.  That's the substance of the frame-up, right there.

Paul,

If Fritz totally falsified what LHO actually said when interrogated, presumably he would have done so to frame Oswald as the 6th floor shooter, why then would, in the 1st interrogation, he have Oswald claiming that he was on the 1st floor at the time and went up to the 2nd

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anybody... let me know of any mistakes I've made above.

Nope, no 'mistakes' there - in as much as everything you have mentioned is something I have considered. However, there are additions of thoughts that could be added, and/or alternatives that could be proposed... and some things that could be disagreed on

*Keep in mind I am limiting myself somewhat to just the WC testimony of each person.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Alistair,

For me to show the implications that you ask about, first you need to understand the importance of the Baker/Oswald 2nd floor encounter, and the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley & Lovelady. These are both very important for the official WC story.

When interrogated, Oswald claimed to be on the first floor and "out with Shelley" around the time of the shooting. It was therefore important for the WC to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at that time (or could have been), and not even close to the front entrance in the seconds following the shooting. Having Baker and Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor just 90 seconds after the shooting did just that for the WC. (The real Baker encounter occurred on the 3rd or 4th floor, and it was not with Oswald. So Baker had to be convinced that it was for national security that he fudge his story a little.)

But a problem popped up. Oswald was supposed to have run down the north-west stairway to get from the 6th floor after the shooting to the 2nd floor lunchroom. And yet there was Victoria Jackson testifying that there was nobody on the steps as she descended them. She heard neither Oswald running down nor Baker/Truly running up during those most-important early seconds!

This was a big problem for the official WC story!

So how did the WC fix this problem? By discrediting Victoria's timing. The WC added to Victoria's testimony that she saw Shelley & Lovelady as she emerged from the staircase on the first floor. Since Shelley and Lovelady arrived well after that all-important initial 90 seconds, this proved that Victoria did NOT descend the steps as quickly as she said she did.

Problem solved!

As per the 'official WC' story. Oswald in his first interrogation by Fritz made no mention of being out with Shelley around the time of the shooting! What he did say was that at the time of the shots he was on the first floor eating lunch and just after the shots went up to the second floor to buy a Coke and that's when the officer came in. Then after that encounter he went back down to the first floor and went to leave the building and while doing so encountered Shelley on the doorstep... Oswald later also claims that when he was about to leave a 'young crew-cut man' rushed up and asked where the phone was and Oswald pointed him towards it and then left!

If the 2nd floor meeting was needed by the WC to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time (or could have been)... well, it does no such thing anyway. Oswald could have gone up to the 2nd floor from the first floor as long as he did so either before Adams came down of after Adams came down, and before Truly/Baker went up.

The 2nd floor encounter (as per the official WC story) does not preculde Oswald being on the first floor at the time of the shots, and indeed does not preclude Oswald being Prayer Man. If the 2nd floor encounter was an invention by the WC it really doesn't do what they wanted it to do!

Also if the WC fixed the problem of Adams not seeing anyone on the steps by adding the 'seeing Shelley/Lovelady to Vickie Adams testimony, for the purpose of giving Oswald enough time to get down from the 6th floor to the 2nd then they have created a problem with Truly and Baker's testimony as well because Adams was down before they went up... the knock on effect of the WC having to add time to Adams to allow Oswald enough time to go down, means they have to then add on more time for Truly and Baker too, and the knock on effect of that is they have to then start adding on time for everything else that happened too (domino effect)... seems like quite a complicated fix for what in essence wasn't actually a problem to start with!

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Implications

 

If Scenario #1 is correct, then the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter could have happened. And the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley and Lovelady could have happened if Adams moved a little slow and Shelley/Lovelady moved a little fast. However, Bart uses other evidence and arguments to show that neither encounter occurred.

And in that Scenario, Oswald could have been on the steps at the time of the shooting, or on the first floor at the time of the shooting, or on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and could have made it to the 2nd floor as long as it was before Adams made it down! (I have read the 'evidence' and 'arguments' that neithr encounter occurred, and both are fair logical proposals... I do find myself asking why would the WC need to invent either a 2nd floor meeting between Oswald and Baker, or invent a first floor meeting between Lovelady and Adams when they could have Oswald making the journey down from 6th to 2nd by just saying that either Baker or Adams were slightly off with their timings!)

 

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Scenario #2 is correct, then the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter occurred a few minutes later than the official story states (assuming that it did happen). But because of this delay, the encounter (if it happened) would no longer prove that Oswald wasn't near the TSBD entrance ("out with Shelley") during the shooting. In addition, the Victoria Adams encounter with Shelley & Lovelady could not have happened due to the delay. Because they weren't there yet when she arrived on the first floor. This in turn would substantiate Victoria's claim that somebody added the Shelley/Lovelady encounter to her testimony.

As already mentioned, as per the official WC story Oswald didn't claim to be out with Shelley at the time of the shots, he claimed he was on the first floor! Either way, the encounter on the 2nd floor doesn't prove that Oswald wasn't near the TSBD entrance even without the long delay - as long as Oswald made the journey up to the 2nd floor before Adams came down to the first floor and before Baker went up the stairs from the 1st floor.

That's what it all comes down to, no matter how it is dressed up, it all comes down to Adam's journey on the stairs, Truly/Bakers journey on the stairs and Oswald's movements... Shelley and Lovelady are something of a distraction (I'm not saying they have no importance, it's just that they are less important) in fact, whether Shelley/Lovelady did or didn't leave the steps after 30 seconds, or if they did or didn't see Adams after entering the back of the building, whatever Shelley/Lovelady did or did not do or see, none of it fundamentally proves anything to do with Oswald and the 2nd floor encounter.

Think about it...

(1)If Shelley/Lovelady left the steps just before Baker ran across the road and Baker ran straight in to the TSBD then Oswald could have been Prayer Man and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Baker started up and after Adams made it down.

(1a) If Shelley/Lovelady did see Adams after re-entering the back of the building then Oswald could have been Prayer Man and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made it down.

(1b) If Shelley/Lovelady did not see Adams after re-entering the back of the building then Oswald could have been Prayer Man and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made it down.

(2) If Shelley/Lovelady left the steps just before Baker ran across the road and Baker ran straight in to the TSBD then Oswald could have been on the first floor itself and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Baker started up and after Adams made it down.

(2a) If Shelley/Lovelady did see Adams after re-entering the back of the building then Oswald could have been on the first floor itself and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made it down.

(2b) If Shelley/Lovelady did not see Adams after re-entering the back of the building then Oswald could have been on the first floor itself and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made it down.

(3)If Shelley/Lovelady left the steps just before Baker ran across the road and Baker ran straight in to the TSBD then Oswald could have been on the 6th floor and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made her journey.

(3a) If Shelley/Lovelady did see Adams after re-entering the back of the building then Oswald could have been on the 6th floor and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made her journey.

(3b) If Shelley/Lovelady did not see Adams after re-entering the back of the building then Oswald could have been on 6th floor and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Adams made her journey.

(4) If Shelley/Lovelady didn't leave the steps till minutes later and Baker made an extra journey before entering the TSBD then Oswald could have been Prayer Man and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Baker started up and after Adams made it down.

(4a) Same as (1a)

(4b) same as (1b)

(5) If Shelley/Lovelady didn't leave the steps till minutes later and Baker made an extra journey before entering the TSBD then Oswald could have been on the first floor itself and made it to the 2nd floor as long as he made the journey on the stairs before Baker started up and after Adams made it down.

(5a) same as (2a)

(5b) same as (5b)

(6)If Shelley/Lovelady didn't leave the steps till minutes later and Baker made an extra journey before entering the TSBD then Oswald could have been on the 6th floor and made it to the 2nd floor either before Adams made her journey or after Adams made her journey.

(6a) same as (3a)

(6b) same as (6b)

*I've gone more in depth there than I ought to have, but that's more for having a reference for myself than anything else.

Holding up Shelley/Lovelady's testimonies as being the (exact) 'truth' it must ultimately lead to a conclusion, and that conclusion must be in reference to where Oswald was at the time of the shots - whatever that conlusion may be, as shown, it is not itself dependent on Shelley/Lovelady's testimony being the exact truth!

Holding up Shelley/Lovelady's testimonies as being the (exact) 'truth' leads (on a basic level) to either Adams & Styles & Truly &  Baker & Frazier & Fritz & Bookhout & Sims & Boyd & Hosty et al all, at best, being wrong (to whatever extent), or at worst lying (to whatever extent), and whatever conclusion that ultimately leads to, as shown, it is not itself dependent on Shelley/Lovelady's testimony being the exact truth!

Edited January 10, 2017 by Alistair Briggs

[Paul Trejo]

Alistair,

You say you will rely only on WC testimony, and yet you are ignoring large amounts of WC testimony.  The TSBD employee witnesses who were on the first floor at the time of the JFK assassination are UNANIMOUS -- LHO was not on the first floor.  Nowhere to be seen.  Period.

As for Will Fritz, you keep defending his "claims" about what LHO "claimed," based on your belief that if Fritz wanted to lie, he would have made a better lie.   It's not a strong argument.

The key to the lies of Will Fritz is in his contradiction of all the TSBD employees who were on the first floor at the time of the JFK assassination.

The key to the lies of Harry Holmes includes something more -- namely -- his claim that LHO gave a detailed account of his Mexico City trip, with a correct explanation, only minutes before LHO was gunned down by Jack Ruby.  (Nobody outside the CIA had that top-secret data except the JFK conspirators; as verified by The Lopez Report, 2003.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Alistair Briggs]

Paul

One has to start somewhere.

None of the TSBD employee witnesses who were on the first floor said that Oswald was there, where was he then?

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

You say you will rely only on WC testimony, and yet you are ignoring large amounts of WC testimony.

Nope, not ignoring large amounts of WC testimony at all, I'm merely starting from a start point and seeing where it leads with no pre-concieved ideas of what the outcome is! Don't for one second think that that speaks of naivety on what others have said, either in their WC testimony or before or after...

Ah wait, that's not what you are meaning though, as your next sentence alludes to...

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The TSBD employee witnesses who were on the first floor at the time of the JFK assassination are UNANIMOUS -- LHO was not on the first floor.  Nowhere to be seen.  Period.

I have never stated that I believe that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the JFk, so never having said that I can hardly be ignoring the fact that no witnesses saw him there.

Taking the point you raise about no witnesses seeing Oswald on the first floor... therefore? Oswald wasn't on the 1st floor, where was he then? Oswald was on the 1st floor and was like a ghost and no one saw him? Oswald was on the 1st floor and was seen but no one admitted to it? Take any of those questions and then follow on with why?

Oswald must have been somewhere at the time of the shots! What 'evidence' do we have of where he was? Hell, he could have been anywhere - maybe he was taking his lunchtime constituional. One has to start somewhere and then follow the logical inferences that lead on from it, and as part of that either count or discount things depending on how plausible they are - that can only work if one doesn't have a pre-concieved notion of what they would like the answer to be. Every aspect leads on to another question and another question...

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

As for Will Fritz, you keep defending his "claims" about what LHO "claimed," based on your belief that if Fritz wanted to lie, he would have made a better lie.   It's not a strong argument.

I'm not defending his claim... per se, but one has to start somewhere. Without a recording of the interrogations we can't know for sure what was said! So what Fritz claimed Oswald said may not be verbatim, but we have to take it on face value and consider whether it is True or False, we have to scrutinise it to see where that leads...

If Fritz was part of a 'cover-up' to nail Oswald as the 6th floor shooter when Oswald wasn't the 6th floor shooter, then, with Oswald dead, Fritz could have him saying anything to nail Oswald as the 6th floor shooter - he could have him saying all kinds of things that would implicate him further. Reading through everything that Fritz claims Oswald said in the interogrations it comes across as Oswald wasn't the 6th floor shooter. Therefore?... If what Fritz is claiming Oswald said points to Oswald not being the 6th floor shooter then Fritz can't be said to be making it up to implicate Oswald as the 6th floor shooter. That is a strong agrument!

To believe that Fritz was making it up and thus everything Oswald is claimed to have said has to be dismissed out of hand is not a strong argument!

The irony is, a lot of theories put forward that Oswald was innocent/set up can be deduced from what is claimed Oswald told Fritz... on the first floor at the time - out front with Shelley - didn't shoot the president - didn't shoot tippit - didn't carry a package of 'curtain rods' to work' - backyard photos faked...

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The key to the lies of Will Fritz is in his contradiction of all the TSBD employees who were on the first floor at the time of the JFK assassination.

Wait, what? Nobody saw Oswald on the first floor therefore because Fritz said that Oswald said he was on the first floor then Fritz is lying - do you see the problem with that thinking?

 

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The key to the lies of Harry Holmes includes something more -- namely -- his claim that LHO gave a detailed account of his Mexico City trip, with a correct explanation, only minutes before LHO was gunned down by Jack Ruby.

For clarity, can you back that up with links to that claim?

Regards

Edited January 10, 2017 by Alistair Briggs

[Paul Trejo]

Alistair,

First, you deny that there is a major problem between the FACT that several eye-witnesses from the TSBD front steps affirm that LHO was nowhere on the 1st floor -- or outside the TSBD steps, or anywhere in their eye-sight, and the FACT that Captain Will Fritz and his pals "claim" that LHO "said" that he was there.  I see a problem of major proportions.  I don't see why you don't see it.

As for the Mexico City testimony of Harry Holmes, it is in his second session of WC testimony  Here is an extract:

--- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF HARRY HOLMES ------------------

Mr. BELIN. Did he admit that he went to Mexico?

Mr. HOLMES. Oh, yes.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say what community in Mexico he went to?

Mr. HOLMES. Mexico City.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say what he did while he was there?

Mr. HOLMES. He went to the Mexican consulate, I guess.

Mr. BELIN. Now, with regard to this Mexican trip, did he say who he saw in Mexico?

Mr. HOLMES. Only that he went to the Mexican consulate or Embassy or something and wanted to get permission, or whatever it took to get to Cuba. They refused him and he became angry and he said he burst out of there, and I don't know. I don't recall now why he went into the business about how mad it made him. He goes over to the Russian Embassy. He was already at the American. This was the Mexican -- he wanted to go to Cuba. Then he went to the Russian Embassy and he said, because he said then he wanted to go to Russia by way of Cuba, still trying to get to Cuba and try that angle and they refused and said, "Come back in 30 days," or something like that.  And, he went out of there angry and disgusted.

Mr. BELIN. Did he go to the Cuban Embassy, did he say or not?

Mr. HOLMES. He may have gone there first, but the best of my recollection, it might have been Cuban and then the Russian, wherever he went at first, he wanted to get to Cuba, and then he went to the Russian to go by Cuba.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say why he wanted to go to Cuba?

Mr. HOLMES. No.

Mr. BELIN. This wasn't reported in your interview in the memorandum that you wrote?

Mr. HOLMES. No.

Mr. BELIN. Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers, or is this something you remember hearing?

Mr. HOLMES. That is what he said in there.

--- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF HARRY HOLMES ------------------

So, even WC attorney Belin, was moved to ask, "Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers?"

The details of LHO's Mexico City trip were given by Harry Holmes as accurately as if they were read straight out of The Lopez Report (2003).  Would the tight-lipped Oswald  go into such great detail about his Mexico City trip before he spoke to his lawyer?   It makes no sense.  

If this is correct, then we must discount anything that Harry Holmes (or any of his co-conspirators) said about LHO being at the front door of the TSBD at the time of the JFK assassination. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo
emphasis

[Alistair Briggs]

Paul

*On the subject of Harry Holmes, I'm not quite up to speed on all of that. I have read his testimony and am trying to cross-reference it with other information - one of the books I have on the matter omits that part about Mexico and that has raised my eyebrows... nevertheless something there doesn't add up and I agree with you that it makes no sense!

5 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

First, you deny that there is a major problem between the FACT that several eye-witnesses from the TSBD front steps affirm that LHO was nowhere on the 1st floor -- or outside the TSBD steps, or anywhere in their eye-sight, and the FACT that Captain Will Fritz and his pals "claim" that LHO "said" that he was there.

I see a problem of major proportions.  I don't see why you don't see it.

 

I don't deny that there is a problem between all that. I do see what the problem is... I haven't concluded what the solution is though. From what you have said previously, am I right in thinking that you are of the opinion (in simplistic terms) that...

nobody saw Oswald on the first floor therefore because Fritz said that Oswald said he was on the first floor then Fritz is lying?