The Tippit Witnesses --- Part V

[Gil Jesus]

THE DEFENSE WITNESSES

On my Youtube Channel, there is a 1966 interview by attorney Mark Lane of witness Acquilla Clemons. Mrs. Clemons heard the shots and ran out into the street and saw two men on opposite sides of the street. 

She said the man she saw with the gun was "short and kind of chunky" and the other was tall, thin and had a white shirt on and light colored khakis. She said that the men seemed like they were not together and ran off in opposite directions.
She claimed that she never told anyone what she saw.
In spite of this, two days after the shooting, she was told by a plain clothes "man with a gun" to "keep quiet" or she might get hurt. 
Were the authorities warning her that the killer lived in the neighborhood and was still at large ? 
BTW, Mrs. Clemons was never called to testify nor was she ever interviewed by the FBI.

The FBI used intimidation tactics against witnesses who said that the gunman was not Oswald. While questioning these witnesses, the FBI told them that by saying that the gunman was not Oswald, they were making a "statement" and if they were wrong and it turned out to be Oswald, they could be charged with making a false statement to a Federal Agent and faced a five year prison term. The only way to avoid this charge, the witnesses were told, was to say that they "could not identify" the gunman. Of course, witnesses feared a prison term for just being wrong, so many of them changed what they said and went on the record as having been unable to identify the gunman.
This is why, I believe, the FBI was present at all, if not most of the witness interviews involving the assassination and the murder of Tippit.
They had no jurisdiction in either of those cases.
But they were there to intimidate the witnesses.

The story of  witness William Smith is a perfect example of this. William Smith was allegedly visiting a friend of his and was about a block away from the shooting. He told someone that he saw the gunman and it was not Oswald. Either the person he told or someone else who heard about it sent a letter to the FBI.
This is the FBI teletype describing the letter:

 

 

The receipt of this letter AFTER Oswald's guilt had already been determined caused FBI to interview Smith on December 13, 1963. Not surprisingly, he told them that he was "too far away from the individual to positively identify him". ( CD 205, pg. 243 )
 

But apparently he was close enough to be able to see that he was wearing a white shirt. (ibid.)
A shirt that witnesses who were much closer than he was couldn't see.
 

By the time he gave his deposition on April 2, 1964, Smith was ready to identify Oswald.
 

Mr. Ball. What did you see? What did you tell the FBI agent about the appearance of the man in the picture? 
Mr. Smith. I said it looked more like him than it did on television. 
Mr. Ball. And did you think when he showed you the picture that it looked anything like the man you had seen running away?
Mr. Smith. What I saw of him ; yes. 
Mr. Ball. First time you ever saw this man was after you heard these shots? 
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. ( 7 H 85 )
 

Of course, the Commission's counsel never asked him about the letter that was sent to the FBI stating that he saw the gunman and that it was NOT Oswald. Neither the Commission nor the FBI was able to determine who sent the letter or why.

Frank Wright lived in a ground floor apartment on 10th Street, about half a block east of the murder site. He was never interviewed by the FBI and not called to give testimony as a witness. He WAS interviewed by George and Patricia Nash in 1964 and his description of a man he saw fleeing the scene in a car was NOT Oswald.
  “I was sitting watching television with my wife. I was sitting in a chair next to the door. I wasn’t but two steps from the door. I heard shots. I knew it wasn’t backfire. I knew it was shots. As soon as I heard them, I went out the door. I could see a police car in the next block. It was toward the end of the next block. I could see it clearly. The police car was headed toward me. It was parked on the south side of the street. In other words, it was parked across the street from our apartment house. I saw a person right by the car. He had fallen down. It seems as if he had just fallen down. He was on the ground, and then he turned over face down. Part of him was under the left front fender of the car. It seems to me that I saw him just as he hit the ground. I saw him turn over and he didn’t move any more.
    “I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man. The man who was standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat. It ended just above his hands. I didn’t see any gun. He ran around on the passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go and he got into his car. He car was a grey, little old coupe. It was about a 1950–1951, maybe a Plymouth. It was a grey car, parked on the same side of the street as the police car but beyond it from me. It was heading away from me. He got in that car and he drove away as quick as you could see. He drove down 10th Street, away from me. I don’t know how far he drove. After he got into the middle of the next block between Patton and Crawford, I didn’t look at him any more.
    “I looked at the car where the man was. I looked to see what had happened there. About the same time as I came out, or maybe a little while after, a woman came down from her porch. She was at the house about three or four doors from the intersection of 10th and Patton. The house was on the same side of the street as the police car. Just as the man in the car pulled away she came toward the police car and then she stepped back. I heard her shout, ‘Oh, he’s been shot!’ throwing up her hands. Then she went back toward the house. There was no one out there except me and that woman when I got there, except for the man I described earlier. I couldn’t figure out who did the shooting. I didn’t see a gun on the man who was standing in front of the car. There wasn’t anyone else but the man who drove away and the woman who came down from her porch. I was the first person out. I knew there wasn’t anyone else there at all. It wasn’t any time at all until the ambulance got there. By the time the ambulance got there, there were maybe 25 more people outside. Then after a while, the police came up. I tried to tell two or three people what I saw. They didn’t pay any attention. I’ve seen what came out on television and in the papers but I know that’s not what happened. I know a man drove off in a grey car. Nothing in the world’s going to change my opinion. I saw that man drive off in a grey coupe just as clear as I was born. I know what I saw They can say all they want about a fellow running away, but I can’t accept this because I saw a fellow get in a car and drive away."

 

We have no way of knowing how the investigation could have ignored Wright, whether his memory is accurate, or whether a plausible explanation for the mysterious man in the car might be a passerby unwilling to be a witness. 
 

Why didn’t this account come to the Commission’s attention ? 
 

The question becomes all the more relevant when it is realized that it was a call from Mrs. Wright which was responsible for the ambulance being dispatched, and the police had her address. The operator took Mrs. Wright’s address, 501 East 10th, and called the police. The police noted there was a shooting at 501 East 10th.
 

So why didn't they interview anyone at that address ?
 

If this were a legitimate investigation, they would have. But this was no investigation to find the truth, this was a collection of "evidence" to prove Oswald was guilty.

Another witness who "could not identify" Oswald was L J Lewis. Lewis was at the Johnny Reynolds car lot with Harold Russell and Pat Patterson when they heard the shots and witnessed the gunman running south on Patton Ave.. He was interviewed by the FBI on January 21, 1964 at which time he was shown Oswald's New Orleans mugshot.
In spite of this, he told the FBI that "he would hesitate to state whether the individual was identical with Oswald".

 

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/lewis-1-22.png

 

Lewis was interviewed a second time, on August 25, 1964 at which time he twice described the man he saw as an "unknown individual". ( 21 H 26 )
Not Oswald.
Lewis was never called to testify.

Butch Burroughs was a ticket-taker and concession stand operator at the Texas Theater. In this video on my Youtube channel, Burroughs says that Oswald entered the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm, making it impossible for him to have been at the Tippit murder scene.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4AvezLnG0

 

Another witness who "could not positively identify" Oswald as the man he saw was Robert Brock. Brock and his wife ran the Ballew Texaco Service Station on Jefferson Ave. Brock told the FBI that a young white male passed him and his wife and proceeded north into the parking lot behind the station.

 

The FBI report doesn't state which photograph was shown to Brock, but I assume it was the same mugshot from New Orleans that was shown to his wife on the same date.

These were witnesses who either described someone who was not Oswald, said that the killer was not Oswald and then changed their minds after he was dead, or "could not identify" Oswald as Tippit's killer.

NEXT WEEKEND THE CONCLUSION: Eyewitnesses, wrongful convictions and the science of memory loss.
 

[Denny Zartman]

I admire Acquilla Clemons. All witnesses who spoke about events that conflicted with the official story had courage, but in my opinion Ms. Clemons had the most courage of them all. According to Mark Lane, she only spoke to him because she had recognized him as one of the Freedom Riders.

Frank Wright is such a huge puzzle. I was not aware that his wife called for an ambulance. If so, it seems to me that would tend to support Frank's story.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Denny Zartman

[Denny Zartman]

Does anyone know if there is a map showing all the locations of the Tippit witnesses?

Part of my continuing fascination with this case is that it seems like every corner has a mystery. And the closer one looks, the farther away the truth seems to be.

To me, the official story itself reeks of conspiracy. But if Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, who was? And why did he (or they) do it? I believe Clemons and Wright, but accepting their stories as true just brings more questions, not answers.

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Does anyone know if there is a map showing all the locations of the Tippit witnesses?

Part of my continuing fascination with this case is that it seems like every corner has a mystery. And the closer one looks, the farther away the truth seems to be.

To me, the official story itself reeks of conspiracy. But if Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, who was? And why did he (or they) do it? I believe Clemons and Wright, but accepting their stories as true just brings more questions, not answers.

I agree. The point of these witnesses is that they described someone who was NOT Oswald. In the case of Wright, I'm not sure if the man he saw was the gunman or someone who had stopped and didn't want to get involved. But the FBI and the Commission made no effort to find out who he was and what he was doing there. But as I said, this was not a normal investigation. They were running all over looking for "the suspect", at a library, a church, anyone seen running was being reported as the "suspect". That's the term they were using on the police radio, "the suspect".

And what ever happened to the guy whose car was broken down on Patton Ave ? The guy who Domingo Benavides was supposed to be getting the carburetor part for his car when he came across the Tippit murder ?

What ever happened to that guy ? Vanished into history.

[David Josephs]

On 10/9/2021 at 9:53 AM, Denny Zartman said:

Does anyone know if there is a map showing all the locations of the Tippit witnesses?

Part of my continuing fascination with this case is that it seems like every corner has a mystery. And the closer one looks, the farther away the truth seems to be.

To me, the official story itself reeks of conspiracy. But if Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, who was? And why did he (or they) do it? I believe Clemons and Wright, but accepting their stories as true just brings more questions, not answers.

here u go…

 

[David Josephs]

Here are a couple other witnesses including the ambulance driver who adds detail.

 

If he was lying on his face how did he get that last shot to the temple?

[David Andrews]

I haven't before seen a map of the scene with Jack Ruby's apartment labeled.  All things being equal, could Oswald have been walking from Ruby's place, rather than to it?

If he were walking to Texas Theater, better tradecraft would be to hide (walk) in plain sight on Jefferson Blvd.

Edited October 13, 2021 by David Andrews

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

here u go…

 

Thanks very much!

[John Butler]

On 10/13/2021 at 5:51 PM, David Josephs said:

Here are a couple other witnesses including the ambulance driver who adds detail.

 

If he was lying on his face how did he get that last shot to the temple?

David,

There is something wrong with the autopsy report done by Earl Rose.  He gives two different descriptions for gunshot wound No. 1.  This is the head wound.  He first describes, but does not give a medical or an anatomical location for the first description.  He simply gives a description/measurement in inches that leads one over to the forehead where there is a gunshot wound and contusion ring present in that location.  This was in an Unger photo and a diagram (by Rose I think).  The next description falsifies the first.  

Later, he gives the second description of gunshot wound No. 1 that has the bullet entering the base of the skull (right middle cranial fossa) traveling through the right temporal lobe and striking the brainstem severing functions there.  The bullet then leaves the brainstem area when it strikes the rear portion of the skull (occiptal/parietal bone) then moves upward towards the top of the skull ending about an inch from the top of the skull (Calcarine Gyrus which I believe is in the front of the skull). {correction here rear of skull}

Which of these descriptions do you like?  It seems that the forehead wound with contusion ring (frontal bone wound near the sphenoid bone) is the one that most people think is what occurred.

But, if you prefer the second description based on medical/anatomical locations then the first description is a fraud.  So, what does one do with the Unger picture showing a forehead wound and contusion ring?  And, what about the diagram?  Are these faked according to Rose's autopsy?

and,

If Tippit was laying face down went shot the fourth and last time that the bullet would have had to go into the area under his jaw and travel upward to course through the temporal lobe and strike the brainstem.

If Tippit was lying on his face and stomach it is hard to imagine how this wound came about.  Perhaps the shooter rolled him over?  Perhaps the shooter squatted and shot Tippit from a low angle.  The autopsy report said the bullet entered the right middle cranial fossa which is a bone at the bottom of the skull. 

If he was lying on his face then the bullet wound have went in the other direction hitting structures in the front of the head. 

All I know is something is wrong with this autopsy report.  

  

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by John Butler

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

David,

There is something wrong with the autopsy report done by Earl Rose.  He gives two different descriptions for gunshot wound No. 1.  This is the head wound.  He first describes, but does not give a medical or an anatomical location for the first description.  He simply gives a description/measurement in inches that leads one over to the forehead where there is a gunshot wound and contusion ring present in that location.  This was in an Unger photo and a diagram (by Rose I think).  The next description falsifies the first.  

Later, he gives the second description of gunshot wound No. 1 that has the bullet entering the base of the skull (right middle cranial fossa) traveling through the right temporal lobe and striking the brainstem severing functions there.  The bullet then leaves the brainstem area when it strikes the rear portion of the skull (occiptal/parietal bone) then moves upward towards the top of the skull ending about an inch from the top of the skull (Calcarine Gyrus which I believe is in the front of the skull).

Which of these descriptions do you like?  It seems that the forehead wound with contusion ring (frontal bone wound near the sphenoid bone) is the one that most people think is what occurred.

But, if you prefer the second description based on medical/anatomical locations then the first description is a fraud.  So, what does one do with the Unger picture showing a forehead wound and contusion ring?  And, what about the diagram?  Are these faked according to Rose's autopsy?

and,

If Tippit was laying face down went shot the fourth and last time that the bullet would have had to go into the area under his jaw and travel upward to course through the temporal lobe and strike the brainstem.

If Tippit was lying on his face and stomach it is hard to imagine how this wound came about.  Perhaps the shooter rolled him over?  Perhaps the shooter squatted and shot Tippit from a low angle.  The autopsy report said the bullet entered the right middle cranial fossa which is a bone at the bottom of the skull. 

If he was lying on his face then the bullet wound have went in the other direction hitting structures in the front of the head. 

All I know is something is wrong with this autopsy report.  

  

 

I am not following your point. How is a bullet entering at the "right middle cranial fossa" different from the description and photo of the bullet entering at the right temple?  

[David Josephs]

“Thru temporal lobe, cutting brain stem (sounds familiar) severing cerebral peduncles (in pink)exiting brain at at “calcarino gyrum” to the left of midline

John, discovered and posted a while back, in agreement.  The face sheet changes the Tippit course possibly NOT to look so much like JFK’s head shot.   Read Humes’ description of the wound in his testimony, WCR.  If u look carefully u can see numbers on the colored brain… 1, 3, 4 are the locations of the wounds as described by Humes.

I don’t see how the bullet can enter by the temple coursing downward to hit those internal brain parts and then exit the TOP of his head…  the entry is really on the line between Middle and Anterior fosse just under the right eyebrow.

And whose coat is covering Tippit when the ambulance driver arrives? 1. Why make it up, 2. No one else sees this.  Was this large white man Croy claiming to have been there first?  Sorry that I don’t have that person’s name on the top of my head…

  

[John Butler]

Greg,

David Josephs did a great job pointing out the problems with the Tippit autopsy almost 10 years ago.

To answer your question, they are not the same areas of the head.  The right middle Cranial Fossa is a skull bone  at the bottom of the skull in the mid right portion.  This is demonstrated in your post. 

The right temple is a different area of the skull.  There is no temple bone, but there is a Temporal Bone. The temple is an area where 4 skull bones come together on the side of the head.  These are the Frontal Bone, the Parietal Bone, the Sphenoid Bone, and the Temporal Bone.  In anatomy, these are accurately detailed anatomical areas and must be defined by preciseness.  A loose description such as temple is not acceptable for any scientific report. 

People often confuse the forehead (Frontal Bone) with the temple.  The temple is best described by the being the area around the ear (Temporal Bone) that joins the Sphenoid, Parietal, and Frontal bones.

There are two autopsy descriptions for the gunshot head wound, No. 1.  The first of these I believe is fraudulent.  This describes a gunshot wound to the head by location in inches from locations on the skull in non-anatomical terms.

This is demonstrated by a sketch from the autopsy.  David Josephs first posted this in 2012.  In that post he posted this:

And,

 

With the following text:

“Can ANYONE provide PROOF, that Tippit was shot in the head at 10th and Patton... according to this FBI report... Dr. Liguori does not mention a headwound at all

and bullets are removed in the ambulance, at Methodist AND at Parkland???

We KNOW he was shot in the head....

Why didn't anybody see it?

How is it possible that these three BEST WITNESSES do not recall an execution style shot to the head?”

This calls into question the autopsy sketch.  This sketch indicates a gunshot wound just off the corner of the right eye, about an inch or so.  This sits directly above the Sphenoid bone of the skull.  You can feel this area if you place your finger about an inch or so from the corner of your eye and just above your cheek bone (Zygomatic Arch or bone).

Nowhere in the autopsy report does it mention this area.  It does mention the right temple in connection with this sketch and in the Unger photo.

 

This wound shown here is not in the right temple or in the right middle cranial fossa at the bottom of the skull. So, what do we make of this?

I take it to be a fraud.  Both the diagram and the photo.  I base this on the FBI report indicating there were only 3 gunshot wounds and the second description of gunshot wound No. 1 in Earl Rose’s autopsy report.  The autopsy clearly states “Examination of the wound of the right temple is made.  It is found to enter in the right middle cranial fossa…”

These are two different areas of the brain!!!  One can’t really use the right temple this way as a description by saying the wound went through the right Temporal Lobe as the right temple.

When talking about the “right temple wound” Rose uses non-anatomical terms.  This is for those folks who do not read autopsy reports and understand medical terminology.  This type of description is used to describe gunshot wound No. 1 in the first description.    Then he goes on to describe it as it should be using the correct terms.

If the bullet enters the right middle cranial fossa then that wound is at the bottom of the skull and not the side.

The right temple/Temporal bone is a different area then the right middle Cranial Fossa.  Neither are in the area of the Sphenoid bone.

First off the head wound is questionable by reading the FBI report.  Secondly, the autopsy description is questionable by having two different descriptions of the No. 1 wound.  Neither mention a wound as described by the photo and diagram.

Here is my best description, at this point, of how the wound is descripted in the autopsy report second description of gunshot wound No. 1:

 

The autopsy report says, “and, is found to exit the brain substance in the Calcarine Gyrus at the left of the midline.”

OBTW, you can’t have a sulcus without a gyrus.  These are terms that describe the brains surface structure or ridges and fissures.  Sulcus is a crevasse of fissure and Gyrus is a ridge or mound.

This description is quite different from the autopsy sketch or the Unger photo. 

What do I make of this?  Rose obviously is giving an autopsy description that matches what the Dallas police and authorities want in the murder of Tippit.  But, at the same time he is saying to those who thoroughly read the report the true conditions.

People in positions of authority such as Rose who dealt with the Kennedy/Tippit murders were put into impossible positions by coercion of the cover up operators, the local and federal authorities.

[John Butler]

Earl Rose’s Duplicity

This concerns some of the reasons why Earl Rose chose to do the autopsy of Officer Tippit in the manner that he did.

1.      Earl Rose was a M.D. in Dallas, Texas.  He did autopsies there.  He is generally accounted as a good guy because he tried to keep Kennedy’s body in Dallas as the law required.  He was over run by the Secret Service and the body was taken from Parkland.

2.      Was Earl Rose a good guy in this circumstance of the Kennedy/Tippit murders?  He couldn’t autopsy President Kennedy, but he did do an autopsy on Patrolman Tippit.

3.     As we have seen elsewhere, his autopsy on Tippit is questionable.

4.     I suppose one could rationalize Rose’s use of non-anatomical terms to describe the Tippit No. 1 gunshot, head wound.  This could easily be explained as a way for non-medical or anatomically trained individuals to read an autopsy report.  I have no problems with this.  It is a good way to share information.

5.     However, this non-technical information should not vary from the technical in any significant way.  They should be as close as possible.  Anatomical change of even the slightest bit indicates different structure, function, and use.

6.     This is not the case in the Tippit autopsy.  The non-anatomical varies significantly from the anatomical descriptions.

7.     There is variation in body structures due to random, minute genetic changes.  That’s why there is a whole system of anatomical direction measurement terms.  Some are listed below.  There are many more than these and often used in combination: 

a.     Superior and Inferior – Superior means above, inferior means below. E.g. The elbow is superior (above) to the hand. The foot is inferior (below) to the knee.

b.     Anterior and Posterior – Anterior means toward the front (chest side) of the body, posterior means toward the back.

c.     Medial and Lateral – Medial means toward the midline of the body, lateral means away from the midline.

7. 4. Proximal and Distal – Proximal means closest to the point of origin or trunk of the body, distal means farthest away. These terms are often used to describe the arms and legs. If you were describing the shin bone, the proximal end would be the end closest to the knee and the distal end would be the end closest to the foot. In the fingers, a proximal joint is the one closest to the wrist and a distal joint is the one farthest from the wrist.

8.      Notice in the description of the head wound, No. 1 he does not use terms similar to these.  But, he does in describing other wounds and features in combination with standard direction measurements.

9.     Why?  I think he wanted to do a correct and truthful job.

 

I can only repeat the above reasoning.  I believe he consciously altered the location of the wound in order to satisfy the coercion of others involved in the cover up.  What would have been the response if he didn’t?  The authorities in Dallas would have found someone else to do the job in the manner they desired.  And, probably his career would have been ruined.  Consider the Dr. Perry story as an example of the kind of coercion a person can come under from the authorities. 

Many people, witnesses and others, died during the period 1963 until the ARRB termination.  So many that it is statistically impossible to rationalize their deaths other than by sinister forces being involved.  Others think this kind of cover up continues.

The autopsy photo of the wound in Tippit's head is hard to deal with.  3 wounds or 4 wounds?  That is one question.  A second might be if the photo is false (according to the autopsy report it is) then who shot Tippit in the head might be a good question.  Or, is it just a fake as many other pieces of evidence were?

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by John Butler

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Greg,

David Josephs did a great job pointing out the problems with the Tippit autopsy almost 10 years ago.

To answer your question, they are not the same areas of the head.  The right middle Cranial Fossa is a skull bone  at the bottom of the skull in the mid right portion.  This is demonstrated in your post. 

The right temple is a different area of the skull. 

 

I sure do not follow you. The photo shows a bullet in the temple, that is Dr. Liguori's description ("one in the right temple") in the FBI report of Nov 29, 1963, and a bullet entering in the right temple would go right into the middle cranial fossa which is right there according to this visual. 

This is from a medical lecture slide labeled "Middle Cranial Fossa Technique Lecture Slides" I found at this link: https://medicine.uiowa.edu/iowaprotocols/middle-cranial-fossa-technique-lecture-slides. Sure looks like a temple entrance to me. 

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

 

This wound shown here is not in the right temple or in the right middle cranial fossa at the bottom of the skull. So, what do we make of this?

I take it to be a fraud.  Both the diagram and the photo.  I base this on the FBI report indicating there were only 3 gunshot wounds and the second description of gunshot wound No. 1 in Earl Rose’s autopsy report.  The autopsy clearly states “Examination of the wound of the right temple is made.  It is found to enter in the right middle cranial fossa…”

Sure looks to me like photo of bullet hole = right temple = middle cranial fossa.  

You allege the photo of Tippit with the bullet hole in his forehead is a "fraud" citing "the FBI report indicating there were only 3 gunshot wounds". 

I looked up the FBI report I think you and David Josephs mean, the one citing Dr. Liguori on Nov 29, 1963. He told the FBI "there appeared three wounds in the body, one being in the right temple which in the opinion of Dr. Liguori could have caused instant death, one wound in the left chest, the bullet being deflected by a brass button of the uniform worn by Officer Tippit and the bullet being found only about one inch under the surface, and the third wound in the upper abdomen" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697#relPageId=90&search=tippit_liguori three bullets). 

I am failing to follow the logic in claiming an early doctor's statement to the FBI telling of a bullet wound to the right temple of Tippit proves a photo with a bullet wound to the right temple of Tippit is fake. However thanks for answering my question and I have no more questions on that, which may be going afield from Gil Jesus's topic.

[John Butler]

Greg,

I can see that we don't see eye to eye, so to speak.  That's not a problem with me.  People of good will and good intent can reasonably disagree.  Thanks for your comments on my thoughts and I'm sorry you were confused and didn't catch the concepts I was trying to convey.  Thanks for your civility which is often lacking in folks that don't agree with what I try to say.

Edited October 14, 2021 by John Butler