Texas Theatre Theatrics

First topic message reminder :

Ed Ledoux wrote:




When police were called to the Texas Theater the description was of a man sneaking into the theater with a shotgun.
This was broadcast by the Dallas Police Department dispatcher. 
Why else would police descend upon the TT in such force? Dozens of armed cops for a kid sneaking into the balcony? 
So,,,Whom gave Julia Postal this description? Since she claims not to have actually seen the individual whom Brewer asked her about.
Brewer claims he is responsible for that description since he followed the person from down the street. Wouldn't Julia tell police this?
Surely she did not tell them she saw the person, so she had to rely on Brewer for this. Yet where did a shotgun get introduced if not by Postal. 

1. At least one of the cops testified to having his pistol drawn. I'd hav to go through the testimonies to find who it was again. McDonald told the media he had his pistol drawn on the way up the aisle, but dropped that not insignificant detail from his WC testimony.

2. There is testimony that one of them ordered another to cover Oswald's face. Oswald protested that he hadn't done anything and did not need to hide his face. 

3. Not sure if this is in testimony, a document, or from an interview for a book, but again, one of the arresting officers did say they phoned immediately to advise of the arrest. I believe the object is a police cap. 

Sorry for the vagueness, Mark, but haven't the time right now to chase up the citations.

Regarding photo 1...his own gun should be holstered one would think. A suspects gun would not be carried in such a cavalier fashion one would think. He appears to be carrying a species of fish he didn't intend to catch. I think.

Thanks Mick.

I've never looked up any photos of Carroll. I feel stupid about the second part, it clearly is his hat. I do think he's doing something with it though, maybe even trying to cover Oswald's face, which I would find understandable. Thanks for the information on the last part, I didn't recall that.

SS Agent Roger Warner Report on Oswald’s arrest.
Bledshoe and so forth.....,
Thx to Malcolm Blunt

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ec7tczBWpDFzS6BPpbT-G8F2MM4JtPIZ/view?usp=drivesdk

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt and John Armstrong.
Hope these are of some use.

Thanks Bart,

but to go full colloquial.... "yeah, nah".

Shorthand for "Yeah, I hear you, but no, I'm not buying it"

Davis, Goltz, Pregnant Lady as Potential Contact, Burroughs, Marrs, Ruby in the theatrer.

Blah.

this is what misinfo looks like.

A belief is not enough Greg. Others do this already.

Armstrong only went thru the statements and these drawings are the result of pasting the statements together.

Not everything Armstrong does is fake......

barto wrote:A belief is not enough Greg. Others do this already.

Armstrong only went thru the statements and these drawings are the result of pasting the statements together.

Not everything Armstrong does is fake......

Bart, doing a drawing based on BS statements is still misinfo.

I'l be as clear as I can be. What you posted was the height of JFK research in the post Stone JFK years. Just about everyone was either completely on board with the White-Armstrong strategy, or at least following progress closely. That includes some bright and astute people.

But we know a lot more about Armstrong and his methods and his witnesses now, and there is  no longer any excuse for anyone still being "on board" the White-Armstrong express unless they are more interested in saving face than they are in the facts.

This is Jack Davis... or "Gospel Jack" as he likes to be called. http://kaam-am.itmwpb.com/show/the-am-show-with-jack-davis/

Texas evangelists are right up there with intel officers, terrorists and used car salesmen in the trustworthy stakes.

Burroughs' various stories bent toward the needs of whoever he spoke to.

Marrs was a  flake.

Goltz's earnestness still garners him a big following, but those who follow him are mistaking earnestness for competence. 

The pregnant woman? No need to plot where she was (assuming she even existed) unless she was a key player in the whole bollox "Oswald was looking for his contact" bedtime fable.

This is not an attack on Blunty. Or you. Information is is just information. It all has to be evaluated and the sources, authors and witnesses involved need to be a part of the evaluation.

You and anyone at all reading this can feel free to disagree and form different conclusions. That's all part of the pathway to progress. I'm open to changing my mind if corroborating evidence is unearthed from believable sources - but as it stands, if this pregnant lady went up to the balcony, why is she not mentioned by Jim Ewell, or any of the cops that went up there? Ewell specifically said that there were a bunch of high school boys up there? A pregnant woman would kinda stick out in that bunch I would have thought. I would also think, given the volitile situation, that a cop or some other White Knight in Shining Armor would have escorted the young lady out to safety because who knows what might happen? Did they know Oswald was alone? Did they know he never had a bomb on him, or have one planted somewhere?

The radio station for which Gospel Jack works, was and is owned by evangelicals. A local evangelical church has a close association with the station - The Main  Street Church of Christ.

This church and the station itself, target an older audience. Those who are easy prey to hucksters in the finance industry -- an industry which takes up a lot of air time on the station.

But beyond that I could not help but notice some of the surnames of those working with or for this station and in this church...

McLarry (the surname of a kid who wa arrested for threatening to shoot Kennedy from a high window)

Frazier

McClendon (name of an influential owner of radio stations and known to Ruby)

Scoggins (name of a Tippit witness)

Reynolds (surname of another Tippit witness)

Boyd (surname of a Dallas cop)

Campbell (surname of Randle pastor)

Aguilar (surname of JFK researcher)'

Thayer (name of a reporter who caused all sorts of headaches during the investigation)

http://kaam-am.itmwpb.com/about-us/
http://kaam-am.itmwpb.com/kaam-partners/
http://www.churchofchristpreaching.com/Directory-1.shtml

greg_parker wrote:

barto wrote:A belief is not enough Greg. Others do this already.

Armstrong only went thru the statements and these drawings are the result of pasting the statements together.

Not everything Armstrong does is fake......

Bart, doing a drawing based on BS statements is still misinfo.

I'l be as clear as I can be. What you posted was the height of JFK research in the post Stone JFK years. Just about everyone was either completely on board with the White-Armstrong strategy, or at least following progress closely. That includes some bright and astute people.

But we know a lot more about Armstrong and his methods and his witnesses now, and there is  no longer any excuse for anyone still being "on board" the White-Armstrong express unless they are more interested in saving face than they are in the facts.

This is Jack Davis... or "Gospel Jack" as he likes to be called. http://kaam-am.itmwpb.com/show/the-am-show-with-jack-davis/

Texas evangelists are right up there with intel officers, terrorists and used car salesmen in the trustworthy stakes.

Burroughs' various stories bent toward the needs of whoever he spoke to.

Marrs was a  flake.

Goltz's earnestness still garners him a big following, but those who follow him are mistaking earnestness for competence. 

The pregnant woman? No need to plot where she was (assuming she even existed) unless she was a key player in the whole bollox "Oswald was looking for his contact" bedtime fable.

This is not an attack on Blunty. Or you. Information is is just information. It all has to be evaluated and the sources, authors and witnesses involved need to be a part of the evaluation.

You and anyone at all reading this can feel free to disagree and form different conclusions. That's all part of the pathway to progress. I'm open to changing my mind if corroborating evidence is unearthed from believable sources - but as it stands, if this pregnant lady went up to the balcony, why is she not mentioned by Jim Ewell, or any of the cops that went up there? Ewell specifically said that there were a bunch of high school boys up there? A pregnant woman would kinda stick out in that bunch I would have thought. I would also think, given the volitile situation, that a cop or some other White Knight in Shining Armor would have escorted the young lady out to safety because who knows what might happen? Did they know Oswald was alone? Did they know he never had a bomb on him, or have one planted somewhere?

Greg, I see a lot of wrong with your post, but I simply cannot be asked to debate this one second longer.

That's that then.

Greg, I see a lot of wrong with your post, but I simply cannot be asked to debate this one second longer.

That's that then.

All good, Bart.

It's just information you and Blunty are providing. I understand providing information does not necessarily equal an endorsement. I also understand different people might have different opinions on it. 

You are both providing an exceptional sevice to all and if I don't say it often enough, let me emphasise that I am one of the many grateful.

John Gibson

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RyjXD5yR2yy35nMp1kRU_egNhsx-TwrV/view?usp=drivesdk

barto wrote:John Gibson

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RyjXD5yR2yy35nMp1kRU_egNhsx-TwrV/view?usp=drivesdk

There is zero evidence that Gibson was even there.  He testified that he was not asked for his details and that he left as soon as Oswald was arrested. We therefore don't even know how they knew he was there.

His story of why he was there even sounds like bullshit.   

Mr. BALL On November 22, 1963, did you go to a picture show that day?
Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. About what time of day?
Mr. GIBSON. It was at 1 o'clock.
Mr. BALL. Do you go to the picture show very often--that particular theatre--the Texas Theatre?
Mr. GIBSON. Like I said--that's on Friday and that is depending on business.
Mr. BALL. About what time of day do you usually go on Friday?
Mr. GIBSON. About 1 o'clock--the same time I always go to lunch.


So he goes to the movies on slow days? What a very understanding and generous employer he must have had!

By sheer coincidence. Gibson was ex-navy and was the only witness to claim that Oswald was standing with gun drawn well before the cops got to him.

Picture the scene... the cops get a call about someone acting suspiciously and matching the description of the Dealey Plaza assassin. They converge on the theater. Oswald knows they are after him, so he stands, draws his pistol, preparing to shoot it out. 

But to his utter amazement, the cops hold fire and keep advancing... until they are upon him and manage to wrestle the pistol away from him!

McDonald should have been given the highest civilian award the US has to offer!

This is Gibson Ex A. It does not state when it was taken, or why. Was it taken during the WC hearings so that Gibson could show his "usual" seat? Was it taken during or shortly after the arrest?

Who knows? All you can say about the photo is that it is as useful as tits on bull. 



Afterthought:


Early reports indicated that there had been a shootout at the Texas Theatre. 

Maybe that was the script, leaked too early to the press and then conflated with the Tippit murder - causing some reports to read that a cop was shot during a shootout at the theatre, instead of the "fugitive"?

Whether it was part of a script leaked too early to the press or not, the Dallas police being the Dallas police, would have gone in there with the intent of looking for the slightest reason to kill him on the spot. Oswald spoiled the party by making sure everyone in earshot - which included some reporters -heard him saying that he was not resisting. Even his initial actions show cooporation - standing with arms raised. That changed only when McDonald reached into Oswald's waistband during an initial search. I believe Oswald punched him at that stage because McDonald was trying to plant something on him.

Some case studies:

The police requested this guy to pull over because of a busted tail light, Fair enough.

He pulled into a Wallmart (which may have been the only place he could park) and was then boxed in by police cars.  Some might say (and I might be one of them - that this was now "overkill" given we are still only talking "busted tail light".  Whether he panicked, or whether he was just an idiot, he tried to ram his way through, before giving up. He was now surrounded by cops with guns drawn ordering him out of the car and to get on the ground.

At this point, the police claim he reached for his waistband, so they opened fire on him, killing him instantly.

The ruling came down to whether or not he really did reach into his waistband. If he did, hiss shooting was justified (whether or not he was reaching for a weapon as presumed).

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/29/when-unarmed-men-reach-for-their-waistbands/

To decide this case a jury would have to answer just one simple question: Did the police see Cruz reach for his waistband? If they did, they were entitled to shoot; if they didn’t, they weren’t. But for a judge ruling on the officers’ motion for summary judgment, this translates to a different question: Could any reasonable jury find it more likely than not that Cruz didn’t reach for his waistband? In ruling for the officers, the district court answered this question “No.” The evidence it relied on in reaching this conclusion—indeed, the only evidence that suggests this is what happened—is the testimony of the officers, four of whom say they saw Cruz make the fateful reach.

In this case, there’s circumstantial evidence that could give a reasonable jury pause. Most obvious is the fact that Cruz didn’t have a gun on him, so why would he have reached for his waistband? Cruz probably saw that he was surrounded by officers with guns drawn. In that circumstance, it would have been foolish—but not wholly implausible—for him to have tried to fast-draw his weapon in an attempt to shoot his way out. But for him to make such a gesture when no gun is there makes no sense whatsoever.

Amazingly, in the above case, no gun was planted.

But what I want to draw attention to is the "reaching for his waistband" as if about to draw a gun. 

NM McDDONALD: As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
-------

Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
------------
Mr. BALL - Did you notice where the pistol was concealed on this man's person?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. It was under his right waist band, right side.
Mr. BALL - Was it under the shirt?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; it was underneath the shirt.
-----------
Mr. HAWKINS. I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.


Here is another story, this time from London. The story suggests the possibility that the police shot the suspect and then planted a gun near the scene which they claim he threw away after they had shot him. 

The truth here could go either way, but at very least, the evidence suggests reasonable doubt that the police version is accurate. That is that the suspect reached into his waistband and produced a weapon...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Here is another interesting case, buried in a study of wrongful convictions caused by police misconduct.
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6013&context=law_lawreview

Several of the Rampart exonerees falsely confessed, or were reported to have done so. Clinton Harris, for example, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon after police reported that they had observed Harris wearing a gun in the waistband of his pants, and that he had admitted that the gun was his, saying “[d]amn, I knew I shouldn’t have bought the gun. . . .”125 In fact, Harris never made any such statement. At the time of arrest Harris was seated on the couch of a friend’s apartment. Police officers entered the apartment without consent and found a gun on a table. According to Officer Perez, they decided to attribute the gun to Harris “because he was an ex-con.”126

What makes this so interesting is that the cops are putting false statements in the mouth of arrestee confessing ownership and possession of the gun.

Recall that the arresting cops and interrogators claimed that Oswald admitted ownership and possession of the gun. 

Again, I want to stress as strongly as possible that there is nothing new or unusual about the Oswald case and the way he was framed. Others before him and more after him, were framed in the same way.

What makes this case different is simply how big it is and that the authorities were able to cobble together an incrimnating narative due solely to Oswald's murder and the lack of a trial and normal legal protections, procedures, protocols and rights.

Actually, that is just one small part of the problem.

Before science, Man tried to explain the natural world by making up stories. It happened in all cultures. Thunder? What else could it be but Thor pounding his hammer? The platypus? When first seen by the English, they were sure it was made up of animal spare parts in some sort of Island of Dr Moreau scenario. 

And that is what happened with the assassination. Attempts at replacing the false government narrative have only resulted in even more desultory ludiocrity.

And I use those two words with much purpose.

Try for example to get a theorist to explain what the purpose was of having a false Oswald attempting to buy trucks while the real Oswald was known to be in the Soviet Union. The answer - if you can actually elicit one - will be a massive ludiocrity. 

Same with asking what the purpose would be of a throwdown wallet at the Tippit scene when it was well estalished that Oswald had his wallet on him when arrrested?

Or what plot advantage was to be gained by having Oswald inpersonated at Sylvia Odio's place using the wrong first name and not having shaved recently - something anathema to the real Oswald?

Or you could ask in what universe do major players in an assassination plot appear at the scene ala George Bush, Ed Lansdale and etc.?

You can go through book after book, forum after forum. If you can stop yourself being blinded by the sheer magnitude of the confidence and assuredness, you will soon start to see the questions that have not been addressed, the plot flaws papered over and the vagueness of the relationship to the evidencen - and sometimes to reality itself.

Nearly 60 years of absurd fairy tales to tell each other. 

Meanwhile, the simple frame used against Oswald stares out of the pages of newspapers every other day. 

Please buy my upcoming book where I prove that Thor was the grassy knoll shooter. His cue to shoot would come from TUM after Percy Platypus, disguised as a dog and sitting on Jackies knee, hit Kennedy with his poison spur... it is all true. You can't make this shit up.

Gibson proves to be a terrible witness, more by just relaying what the cops want him to say.
No different from Whaley and the rest of them lot.

barto wrote:Gibson proves to be a terrible witness, more by just relaying what the cops want him to say.
No different from Whaley and the rest of them lot.

Exactly mate.

C.F. Bentley

http://www.billdrenas.com/articles/OverlookedTheaterWitness.html

Hot clutch Hutson!
Click click click... Definitely not a loaded Pistol with a working firing mechanism.
Maybe Nick had three nicks.  

Good stuff Bart.

3 clicks and you're out. Silliness - hot clutch Hutson.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Hot clutch Hutson!
Click click click... Definitely not a loaded Pistol with a working firing mechanism.
Maybe Nick had three nicks.  

Good stuff Bart.

Nice catch Ed.
Nick said he had the skin between his thumb and forefinger stuck in so the hammer couldn't hit the cartridge.
No clicky Nicky.
Empty as a socket.

What the '78 interview with Hutson does show is that the story of the jamming firing pin talked about over the weekend of the assassination is just more of the same BS as most everything else the Dallas Cops came up with regarding Oswald and his movements. They couldn't lie straight in bed. Clickety click click.