Tippit, Oswald, and the Dobbs House

[Bill Brown]

On 9/26/2024 at 1:55 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Respectfully disagree.

I have never engaged with the Tippit murder debate. Just not inclined to studying that event. And not sure enough to know whether Tippit had anything to do with the JFKA.

Yet, what I share about Tippit and his last years personal life is based on what I see as very credible truth based on the research findings of at least a few good investigative journalists ( Joseph McBride especially) but also under oath testimony given by many in investigation committee hearings such as the HSCA.

Has anyone here done 100th the time and work effort McBride has done regards Tippit?

And what are we saying about Tippit that is so wrong?

We know his history. Both personal and his police work history.

We know he had an affair with a woman while he was married to another not long before the day he was murdered. We know that at least one and maybe two people who worked in the establishments he visited frequently or even worked at part time stated that they saw him sitting with Ruby at least once.

Guess it all boils down to either believing those witnesses or not.

After so many years of reading about all the different aspects of the JFKA and those involved, even peripherally, with the main characters... I realized that the effort to marginalize and dismiss the testimonies of people who reported observations that didn't fit the WC narrative were way more pushed and promoted than the opposite.

Too much so in my life time experience, logical and common sense thinking mind.

At some point...you can't dismiss every witness account that doesn't adhere to the nutcase, lone gunman all alone who just did what he was alleged to have done on impulse and got lucky in defeating an army of security doing so.

I simply believe this one waitress who verifiably worked at the establishments where Tippit visited on a regular basis ( and during the right times ) and who claimed she saw Tippt sitting with Jack Ruby...and Lee Harvey Oswald sitting with a man "who looked about 40" in her workplace and them speaking in a foreign language. Her observations are bomb shell ones if true.

 

Also, if you knew Brownlow as I did, you would not be asking these questions.  He's a proven liar, over and over again.

 

[Joe Bauer]

On 9/27/2024 at 12:30 PM, Bill Brown said:

Also, if you knew Brownlow as I did, you would not be asking these questions.  He's a proven liar, over and over again.

It's the interviewee whom I believe.

Brownlow's questions were basic ones anyone would ask of her regards her employment at the establishments she claims, the time frames of her employment and what she observed as she states.

In this interview we hear this former waitress describe "her" Tippit recollections and story.

Brownlow isn't answering for her. Nor is he leading her to answer in a certain way. A few times Brownlow seemed to almost do this by the way he framed the questions but I noticed she immediately and firmly redirected his own inferences and state something much more independently in line with her own points and views.  She really impressed me with her courage and integrity to not let anyone try to steer her away from her story truth.

My observation also was that Brownlow's college professor friend who helped interview the woman, was impressed with her recollection confidence and personal integrity to stand by them to the point of redirecting questions that she felt were not adhering to her specific point sharing.

So, imo, Brownlow's integrity isn't the issue regards this interview.

You say Brownlow is a proven liar.

What about this woman? Former waitress at real establishments where it's "proven" Tippit either worked at or dropped in for coffee and during her employment tenure there?

Can you say with any investigative proof that "she" was a proven liar?

Dan Rather could have asked this woman the same questions Brownlow did.

It's not about the integrity of the person asking her questions about her Tippit recollections, it's about her and her answers to them.

IMO.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:29 PM by Joe Bauer

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

It's the interviewee whom I believe.

Brownlow's questions were basic ones anyone would ask of her regards her employment at the establishments she claims, the time frames of her employment and what she observed as she states.

In this interview we hear this former waitress describe "her" Tippit recollections and story.

Brownlow isn't answering for her. Nor is he leading her to answer in a certain way. A few times Brownlow seemed to almost do this by the way he framed the questions but I noticed she immediately and firmly redirected his own inferences and state something much more independently in line with her own points and views.  She really impressed me with her courage and integrity to not let anyone try to steer her away from her story truth.

My observation also was that Brownlow's college professor friend who helped interview the woman, was impressed with her recollection confidence and personal integrity to stand by them to the point of redirecting questions that she felt were not adhering to her specific point sharing.

So, imo, Brownlow's integrity isn't the issue regards this interview.

You say Brownlow is a proven liar.

What about this woman? Former waitress at real establishments where it's "proven" Tippit either worked at or dropped in for coffee and during her employment tenure there?

Can you say with any investigative proof that "she" was a proven liar?

Dan Rather could have asked this woman the same questions Brownlow did.

It's not about the integrity of the person asking her questions about her Tippit recollections, it's about her and her answers to them.

IMO.

 

 

You have no idea whether or not the woman is who she claims to be in the interview.  Brownlow is utterly dishonest.  You also skipped right over my point, re: anonymous witnesses.

 

[Joe Bauer]

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

You have no idea whether or not the woman is who she claims to be in the interview.  Brownlow is utterly dishonest.  You also skipped right over my point, re: anonymous witnesses.

 

Brownlow and his professor friend just found this unconnected person, fabricated her credentials and put her up to tell this completely made-up story?

Kept her face and name hidden with the excuse that she was still afraid for her personal safety for revealing her story even decades after 11,22,1963?

Brownlow probably paid this randomly found woman ( 1 to 2 hundred dollars maybe ) to participate in this low budget charade?

Low income appearing home, funky couch, poorly dressed Brownlow and friend, hot day, no air conditioning, Brownlow occasionally wiping the sweat off his face, cheap recording and filming equipment?

Strong indication proof this Tippit/Ruby, Oswald/foreign speaking man meet-up eyewitness and her story was all just a cheap made up show to promote Brownlow as a serious researcher?

No one has ever identified the woman interviewee? Not even Brownlow? How about his professor buddy that was right there as well?

This woman wasn't Mary Dowling?

BB...do you also dismiss Sylvia Odio's story of being introduced to a "Leon Oswald" at her Dallas Area apartment door in late September, 1963...with her sister Anna who was present with her and who has always backed up her story 100%?

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:54 PM by Joe Bauer