There is no other way to say it...

...but this article and its headline is utter bullshit.

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/11/22/an-end-to-conspiracy-rare-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-arrest-suggests-why-hes-guilty/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1

This is what is known as scraping the bottom of the barrel till splinters of shit is all you have under your fingernails.

Well said

Did I miss something?
What exactly is the proof in the photo?

The proof is Lee looks angry. Innocent people don't mind being dragged out by police in handcuffs. )

beowulf wrote:The proof is Lee looks angry. Innocent people don't mind being dragged out by police in handcuffs. )

Well, that settles it then doesn't it. Everyone, pack up your bags. It's over. We can all go home.

Another method of propaganda is to have a big bold headline that makes a big bold point, It doesn't matter if that point is actually supported by the ensuing story or not. Some people don't bother reading the fine print. They get the news from those headlines. And even a percentage of those who do read the story will totally miss that the story fails to justify the headline.

Mack is a propagandist, just as McAdams is.

Here is the attempt by Mack to justify his claim about the photo:

gary mack wrote:Do innocent people take guns to the movies, assault a police officer and try to shoot him?  Does an innocent person start a fight with an armed policeman, then act surprised and angry when the policeman and others defend one of their own?

Try and follow the logic here... Oswald was only "acting" surprised and angry that he was being pummelled by half a dozen cops because an innocent person has no need to be surprised and angry when cops "defend one of their own".  An innocent person understands and knows he has it coming. And they must have been defending one of their own because Oswald actually wasn't innocent - he took a gun to a theater, assaulted a cop and tried to shoot him. And we know he did all that because the cops had to go in and defend one of their own causing Oswald to put on a "surprised and angry" act which an innocent person wouldn't do. 

The photo really truly says all that.

Ask kindly old Uncle Gary.

Jeeze.. Gary that's a new low.

Gary Mack wrote:Do innocent people take guns to the movies, assault a police officer and try to shoot him?  Does an innocent person start a fight with an armed policeman, then act surprised and angry when the policeman and others defend one of their own?

The problem is Oswald did NOT take a gun into the Theatre. Gary Mack needs to get up to speed.

He must be at least a little ashamed to have been a part of that, surely?
Even IF Lee Oswald took a gun to the theater. Ummm... it was 1963, Texas. Were there any people without guns in the theater?

The house lights come on.  Johnny Brewer is allegedly at the front of the theater with a handful of cops.  He is pointing out Oswald "That's him.  He's the one."  Do the police go straight for "him"?  No.  We are told they started searching people in the rows from the front to the back.

Oswald, the "Presidential assassin" and "cold blooded cop killer" is watching this happen.  Did he think they were going to pass him by?  Were Oswald's magical powers going to once again manifest rendering him invisible?

We are asked to believe that he waits.  Biding his time.  Looking around he sees more cops moving in from behind and from the sides.  Does he pull out his magic revolver and start squeezing off rounds?  No.  He waits until the hero officer Nick McDonald has his paws on him and then hits him in the face before trying to pull his magic revolver.  Unfortunately the magical properties of the revolver now fail him and instead fall in the favour of the police because two things happen simultaneously.

1.  McDonald gets his hand over the gun just as Oswald pulls the trigger and the skin between McDonald's thumb and forefinger get between the hammer and frame stopping it from firing.

and at the same time

2. McDonald doesn't get the skin of his hand over the hammer and the hammer does actually strike the bullet but is misfires and creates a dent in the cartridge that a handful of police officers see but while at the station the dent disappears.

It's a damn shame Gary doesn't mention this in his bullshit article because he may have been asked by Paranormal Weekly to write something for them too.

Isn't it weird how it's us that supposedly wear the tinfoil hats when it is us who reject the "magic" and "paranormal" aspects of the case?

And while we're at it why doesn't Gary Mack spend his time looking for the list of patrons that were in the theater that afternoon?  You know, Gary, the fucking evidence that went missing?

Does Mr. Mack have an explanation as to why this list of people got flushed down the toilet?

I read your guys thread at the Ed forum a few years back about the 'magic gun' in the theater. Awesome stuff.
It's really insulting that their egos are big, and they expect people to be stupid enough to buy this rubbish. I can't stand bad lies.
I guess it's indicative of the lack of respect they actually have for the public.
They can't even be bothered to make up a plausible lie.

That's the problem for us Frankie.  We have to deconstruct so much garbage and go into the minutiae of the evidence to show the absurdity of it all that most people don't have the attention span to listen or read through it.

Mack knows this which is why, as Greg rightly points out, he titled his article with the big bold headline when the body of it is just utter tosh.

From the minute the "chase" of Oswald began we have about a couple of dozen things that are incredibly important to understanding what was really going on but are ALWAYS left out of the official narrative.

Just a couple of these are:

1. Detective Gerry Hill being at every single point where dodgy evidence was found.  His story of how he got to Oak Cliff not matching other people's recollections.  His picking up of an unidentified witness to drive around Oak Cliff looking for the suspect and his hanging around the Abundant Life Temple for some unknown reason.  His involvement in the arrest and being the middle man in fucking up the chain of evidence of the revolver. The bullshit library episode thrown in the mix directed by unidentified and unknown "Secret Service" agents.

2. Johnny Brewer's withholding of information in his statements and Warren Commission testimony regarding two unidentified men from IBM who were in his store when "Oswald" entered that afternoon.  We still don't know who they were, why they were there, why they weren't interviewed or why Brewer felt it necessary to keep hold of this information. Add into this the fact that Butch Burroughs claims he believed Oswald was in the Theater much earlier than claimed.  The problem with some officers placing the arrest in the balcony.  The list of theater patrons going astray.  The sightings of an "Oswald" being taken out the back and the allegations of T. F. White and the story begins to become very problematic and leads to Tippit and his connection to Carl Mather from Collins Radio.

Lee Farley wrote:That's the problem for us Frankie.  We have to deconstruct so much garbage and go into the minutiae of the evidence to show the absurdity of it all that most people don't have the attention span to listen or read through it all.

Mack knows this which is why, as Greg rightly points out, he titled his article with the big bold headline when the body of it is just utter tosh.

From the minute the "chase" of Oswald began we have about a couple of dozen things that are incredibly important to understanding what was really going on but are ALWAYS left out of the official narrative.

Just a couple of these are:

1. Detective Gerry Hill being at every single point where dodgy evidence was found.  His story of how he got to Oak Cliff not matching other people's recollections.  His picking up of an unidentified witness to drive around Oak Cliff looking for the suspect and his hanging around the Abundant Life Temple for some unknown reason.  His involvement in the arrest and being the middle man in fucking up the chain of evidence of the revolver. The bullshit library episode thrown in the mix directed by unidentified and unknown "Secret Service" agents.

2. Johnny Brewer's withholding of information in his statements and Warren Commission testimony regarding two unidentified men from IBM who were in his store when "Oswald" entered that afternoon.  We still don't know who they were, why they were there, why they weren't interviewed or why Brewer felt it necessary to keep hold of this information. Add into this the fact that Butch Burroughs claims he believed Oswald was in the Theater much earlier than claimed.  The problem with some officers placing the arrest in the balcony.  The list of theater patrons going astray.  The sightings of an "Oswald" being taken out the back and the allegations of T. F. White and the story begins to become very problematic and leads to Tippit and his connection to someone Collins Radio.

Exactly!
Is there a blog post or a write up of the 'magic gun' work you guys did by any chance?

I've never been able to make sense of the back door arrest. I'm not a believer in the two Oswald's at all, although I know he was being impersonated. But the back door arrest has always had me flummoxed.

I would give a finger to get that theater patrons list. No surprise that it's 'missing'...

Frankie Vegas wrote:Is there a blog post or a write up of the 'magic gun' work you guys did by any chance?

I've never been able to make sense of the back door arrest. I'm not a believer in the two Oswald's at all, although I know he was being impersonated. But the back door arrest has always had me flummoxed.

I would give a finger to get that theater patrons list. No surprise that it's 'missing'...

I think I may have another go at the Oak Cliff chase again.

You know I'm not a two-Oswald fan either, at least not in the John Armstrong sense, but we do know the name of one very specific individual who was mistaken for Oswald in many different parts of Dallas in October and November.

There is a very interesting link between this very individual and the Davis sisters who were witnesses to the Tippit murder and allegedly ID'd Oswald.  Their story, BTW, is another heap of horseshit.

I wonder whether or not Gary Mack, the great "reasearcher", has ever read about two young boys in the Theatre named Bob and David:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/11601/rec/53

Diagram to help Gary out:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/10936/rec/54

From the testimony of Thomas Alexander Hutson:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=17641

Frankie vegas wrote:Is there a blog post or a write up of the 'magic gun' work you guys did by any chance?

Frankie,

This is my blog post on Oswald and the revolver, FWIW:

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/oswald-and-revolver.html

It needs updating, but I have something else planned.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

Frankie vegas wrote:Is there a blog post or a write up of the 'magic gun' work you guys did by any chance?

Frankie,

This is my blog post on Oswald and the revolver, FWIW:

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/oswald-and-revolver.html

It needs updating, but I have something else planned.

Brilliant, Hasan!
Thanks for the link. I'm really crap at writing. But I was just thinking more about how great it would be to have all this fanastic and important research written up on a blog so you can direct people to it, with out them having to read through a 40 page forum thread with interjections from the likes of DVP and co.
Looks like you are already on it.

Thanks, Frankie. I may have a couple of other blog posts to recommend for you.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Thanks, Frankie. I may have a couple of other blog posts to recommend for you.

Please do pass them on to me. Thanks!!

Hi all, just sending all here best wishes and an heartfelt well done to everyone on all the threads... what I'm reading is truly outstanding. Thought I'd add to this thread a couple of things on my mind. One is the Davis / Crafard link mentioned by Lee above. I saw this discussed in McBride's book on Tippet. He has an outstanding couple of pages on the links between the Tippet witnesses and Ruby. Some I was ware of, the Davis sisters being mentioned in Larry's notebook I didn't..I'm sure you all can direct me to info on what this relationship was?... it's intriguing.

The other doesn't belong in this thread, but I'll mention it and if you need to move it or what have you, please do. It's more of a "this may be of service" type information. Was reading the Tenant thread and a lot of it makes sense, however I recall an interview Mark Bridger did with another boarding house member, in the "Dealey Plaza Echo", back in a 2009 issue. Sadly he kept out the mans real name, so I'm not sure what value it has. Seeing it was written a while back, perhaps Mark could give us an update?. I can ask. But do you think the interview has any merit concerning whether it was really Lee or Larry that this tenant in question remembers ?
.http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146508&relPageId=21

I also saw that Ian Grigg's updated edition of "Not Case to Answer" on Kindle has an interview with Andrew Armstrong. Haven't yet read it, but if anyone needs me to give it a look through, no problem. I'll mention as well that the  Johnny Brewer interview from the original has me scratching my head. Brewer claimed Lee had visited the store previously and bought shoes. Griggs supplies a copy of the Beckley possessions recovered by the DPD and amongst them is a pair of Hardy Brand Shoes...I really need to read the tenant thread closer, admittedly, but this is something I thought I'd bring up. Maybe it's already been discussed?
I admit I'm trying to square away a lot of what I'm reading here with my thoughts on Oswald on that Friday, particularly post assassination. Lot's to think about.  The narrative is getting clearer and I know amongst the forum and other blogs like Hasan's most of those questions are probably tackled. Trying to play catch up a little with a brain that's not cooperating...
Best. Steve.

Hi Steve,

This is from my Crafard thread (that I still haven't finished and keep meaning to go back to):

The Davis Sisters

On April 6th, 1964, Virginia Davis appeared before the Warren Commission. Both she and her sister, Barbara Jeanette, lived at 400 East 10th street which is situated on the corner of Patton Avenue. Their home was less than 100 feet away from the scene where Officer J. D. Tippit was shot and killed.
Upon hearing the shots they ran to their door and could hear Mrs. Helen Markham screaming:

Mrs. DAVIS. We heard her say "He shot him. He is dead. Call the police."
Mr. BELIN. Was she saying this in a soft or loud voice?
Mrs. DAVIS. She was screaming it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

The above testimony is pretty clear. They heard the shots, got up and went to their door. Heard HelenMarkham screaming. Then saw Oswald walking across their lawn and he was emptying his shells out of his gun.

Virginia and Jeannette Davis said they heard one shot, they thought it was a backfire, heard a second (Virginia said she only heard two shots in total) and it was at that point that Jeannette got up off the bed where she was laying down, Virginia got up off the couch where she was laying down, they have small children in the house, they tell the kids to stay inside and they both went outside.

However, as with most things in this Godforsaken case, there soon comes along a problem that comes accompanied with something quite curious.
When they first saw the shooter Virginia Davis said he was "3 feet from the main sidewalk." 

Mr. BELIN. About 3 feet or so?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes; when I first saw him.
Mr. BELIN. Then he was cutting across your sidewalk about 3 feet away from the main sidewalk?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then did you see him - how long did you see him? Where did you see him go?
Mrs. DAVIS. We saw him go around the corner of our house.
...
Mr. BELIN. Where was he when you last saw him? He was - was he still in your yard, or was he on the sidewalk on Patton Street?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was still in our yard.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mrs. DAVIS. We already called the police.
Mr. BELIN. You called the police before you saw him?
...
Mrs. DAVIS. ...[Markham] told us to call the police, so Jeanette and I went in there, and Jeannette called the police and we went back and he was cutting across our yard, and we gave him time to go on because we were afraid he might shoot us.

So, the shooter has shot Tippit 100 feet away from the Davis house. One of them gets up out of bed, the other gets up off the couch. They tell the kids to stay indoors and they open their front door. They see Helen Markham screaming across the street that the policeman has been shot and for them to call the police. They go back inside, they call the cops, tell them what has happened, give their location, they then once again tell their kids to stay inside and go back to the front door, they give the impression they do not go back outside because they say they "gave him time to go on" because they were afraid he would shoot them. They were actually looking through a "screen door."

Either the shooter was very slow leaving the scene, or these timings/recollections are off.

David Belin, reenactment extraordinaire, decided it was best not to put this one to the test. Which was probably in the Commission's best interests.

The phone call was important because they could get the precise time of it, which again, is probably the reason they didn't bother. Belin was obviously a bit perturbed by it all because he needed to ask her again even though she had been quite clear in her answers and in a way only David Belin knew how, he actually made things worse:

Mr. BELIN. All right, now, as I understand your testimony, after you made the call, you went out to the front yard, is that it? 
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You then went out to see the policeman in the street?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you went out in the front yard, were you in the front yard when the man was going by there?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; he had already gone when we went outside. 
Mr. BELIN. He had already gone when you went outside?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. I thought you said that when you went outside you went on the sidewalk?
Mrs. DAVIS. See, all the people had already--see, he was already gone. 
Mr. BELIN. Had he gone by at that time?
Mrs. DAVIS. By the time we got back from off the phone, he had already gone. He had already disappeared behind the corner of our house.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see him going in front of your house before you called on the phone?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. When we heard the second shot, we ran to the front door, and that is when we saw the boy cutting across the yard.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me see if I understand your statement now. You went to the front door after you heard the second shot? 
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

The guy certainly knew how to dig holes for himself and he just did not know when to quit:

Mr. BELIN. You saw him go around the corner of your home? 
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do or see then?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we just went out, because we had already called the police, notified them, and we went out in the yard.
Mr. BELIN. You notified the police. Let me ask you this. Did you notify the police before or after you saw 'the boy with the gun? 
Mrs. DAVIS. Let's see, I think it was before.
Mr. BELIN. When you say before, what do you mean?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, before we saw the boy.
Mr. BELIN. Before you saw the boy you notified the police?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

The reason I bring the problems with this testimony up is because of something strange that exists in the record. 

In Larry Crafard's notebook there is the name "Leona Miller." Crafard when questioned said that he thought this woman was someone who has called Jack looking for work. No further investigation took place regarding it.

The phone number for "Leona Miller" that Crafard had written in his book was:

WH 3-8120.

When the Davis sisters were taken to City Hall to a lineup, the phone number they gave was written on their statements. Their phone number was:

WH 3-8120

Golly!

Thanks so much Lee.

Virginia Davis added in her testimony that Tippit "was parked between the hedges that marks the apartment house he lives in and the house next door." (WCH VI p. 458)

Corroboratively, William Scoggins added "I noticed he stopped down there, and I wasn't paying too much attention to the man, you see, just used to see him every day." (WCH III pp.324-325)

Tippit, according to Top Ten Records store clerk Louis Cortinas, had brushed customers aside to use the phone , said nothing over the phone, and  "stood there long enough for it to ring 7 or 8 times." (1981 Earl Golz interview) This at approximately 1:00 PM.

So whether or not Tippit ever spoke to anyone, here is an explanation for why he would drive to a place several miles from his usual patrol district-- he opted to go to a house that he, at the very least, frequented. Like a fly into a spider's web.

James Andrews, who worked for American Life insurance was driving West Tenth Street, when "suddenly a police car also travelling West on West tenth Street came up from behind and forced him to stop. The Police car pulled in front of Andrews car at an angle heading into the curb in order to stop him. ~The officer then jumped out of the patrol car, motioned Andrews to remain stopped, ran back to Andrews car and looked in the space between the front seat and the back seat. Without saying a word, the policeman went back to his patrol car and then drove off quickly." Tippit was wearing a name plate on his uniform. Andrews said that Tippit seemed to be very upset and agitated  and was acting wild."

Was he on a chase to silence Oswald?