Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect

[Donald Willis]

Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect

As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

Accepting all that for the sake of argument, how does that:
A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:48:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street

names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)

Post by Donald Willis
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Or will you run away like the coward you are again?

[Bud]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

I`m also very confused, but asking Don for clarification never leads to clarity.

Don seems to be arguing for Oswald being dropped at Neches. That is very close to Oswald`s boardinghouse, much closer than Neely.

And the whole idea (as I understand it) makes little sense. Whaley saw Oswald on TV and came forward to tell that he had Oswald in his cab. Now if it isn`t Oswald then Whaley just happened to take someone other than Oswald from near Oswald`s work to near where Oswald was staying around the time of the assassination, an astounding coincidence.

[Ben Holmes]

I`m also very confused...

Of course you are...

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

I`m also very confused...

Of course you are...

Trying to follow conspiracy hobbyist ideas will do that to you.

Post by Ben Holmes
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

I`m also very confused...

Of course you are...

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

Post by Bud

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

I`m also very confused, but asking Don for clarification never leads to clarity.
Don seems to be arguing for Oswald being dropped at Neches. That is very close to Oswald`s boardinghouse, much closer than Neely.

OK. You got that part of it.

Post by Bud
And the whole idea (as I understand it) makes little sense. Whaley saw Oswald on TV and came forward to tell that he had Oswald in his cab. Now if it isn`t Oswald then Whaley just happened to take someone other than Oswald from near Oswald`s work to near where Oswald was staying around the time of the assassination, an astounding coincidence.

Where do I say that it *wasn't* Oswald?

Many, many times.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud
Many, many times.

You've run.

Yep.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:33:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?

Why are *YOU* afraid to do so?

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Donald Willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?

I did that in my first post: "Whaley's "Neches" wrecks WR's Oswald/TIppit timeline". If Whaley dropped O off just across the street from the rooming house, instead of 5 or 6 blocks past it (then walked back)--that's 4 or 5 minutes shaved off his arrival time at 10th & Patton, & he gets there about 1:11, And catches up on his whittling while patiently waiting for Tippit to show up. Sure.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.

It's sweet you're keeping up with my posts. This is an alternate take. I began to wonder how it would play out if I accepted Whaley's testimony, basically. Now I'm leaning more towards the Whaley/Oswald to Neches scenario, which Whaley actually limns. In which case your question here is irrelevant--I don't say, now, that O took the bus all the way...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus

I don't think I ever posited that. I think that's No True Flags who does.

dcw

, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?

I did that in my first post: "Whaley's "Neches" wrecks WR's Oswald/TIppit timeline". If Whaley dropped O off just across the street from the rooming house, instead of 5 or 6 blocks past it (then walked back)--that's 4 or 5 minutes shaved off his arrival time at 10th & Patton, & he gets there about 1:11, And catches up on his whittling while patiently waiting for Tippit to show up. Sure.

Bizarre. For *six Deades* critics have been arguing Oswald didn’t have enough time to get to 10th & Patton, thereby establishing he couldn’t have done it.

You turn that on it’s head, argue he had more than enough time, and therefore couldn’t have done it.

Do I have that right?

You seem to think that having more than enough time to do something establishes an alibi of sorts. I regret to inform you it doesn’t. Maybe he stopped to tie his shoe, or had to go to the john, and stopped at a gas station to relieve himself. Allowing him more time does NOT give him an alibi.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.

It's sweet you're keeping up with my posts. This is an alternate take. I began to wonder how it would play out if I accepted Whaley's testimony, basically. Now I'm leaning more towards the Whaley/Oswald to Neches scenario, which Whaley actually limns. In which case your question here is irrelevant--I don't say, now, that O took the bus all the way...

So you admit you were wrong? How refreshing. I wonder now how long it will take for you to admit Oswald had enough time to get to 10th & Patton and shoot Tippit.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus

I don't think I ever posited that. I think that's No True Flags who does.

What do you posit regarding the bus ride? Was Oswald on the bus or off the bus (with apologies to the Merry Pranksters). How far did he take it? Is the bus transfer legit? Is his former landlady correct in putting him on the bus? Did the bus driver and several passengers alll note the same man depart the bus shortly after a woman did? Was that man Oswald, as the bus transfer indicates?

All the best, i probably won’t post again, but I will check back to see if you respond here and put a true scenario on the table … instead of a disjointed series of meanderings.

dcw
, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:33:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
Bizarre.

What's bizarre is that you think you can lie to support the "truth."

If the truth requires lies to support it, it's not the truth.

Don't you understand that?

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Bud]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?

I did that in my first post: "Whaley's "Neches" wrecks WR's Oswald/TIppit timeline". If Whaley dropped O off just across the street from the rooming house, instead of 5 or 6 blocks past it (then walked back)--that's 4 or 5 minutes shaved off his arrival time at 10th & Patton, & he gets there about 1:11, And catches up on his whittling while patiently waiting for Tippit to show up. Sure.

Bizarre. For *six Deades* critics have been arguing Oswald didn’t have enough time to get to 10th & Patton, thereby establishing he couldn’t have done it.

And for years he argued that Oswald never went to the boardinghouse.

Time to get off this merry-go-round.

Post by Hank Sienzant
You turn that on it’s head, argue he had more than enough time, and therefore couldn’t have done it.
Do I have that right?
You seem to think that having more than enough time to do something establishes an alibi of sorts. I regret to inform you it doesn’t. Maybe he stopped to tie his shoe, or had to go to the john, and stopped at a gas station to relieve himself. Allowing him more time does NOT give him an alibi.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.

It's sweet you're keeping up with my posts. This is an alternate take. I began to wonder how it would play out if I accepted Whaley's testimony, basically. Now I'm leaning more towards the Whaley/Oswald to Neches scenario, which Whaley actually limns. In which case your question here is irrelevant--I don't say, now, that O took the bus all the way...

So you admit you were wrong? How refreshing. I wonder now how long it will take for you to admit Oswald had enough time to get to 10th & Patton and shoot Tippit.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus

I don't think I ever posited that. I think that's No True Flags who does.

What do you posit regarding the bus ride? Was Oswald on the bus or off the bus (with apologies to the Merry Pranksters). How far did he take it? Is the bus transfer legit? Is his former landlady correct in putting him on the bus? Did the bus driver and several passengers alll note the same man depart the bus shortly after a woman did? Was that man Oswald, as the bus transfer indicates?
All the best, i probably won’t post again, but I will check back to see if you respond here and put a true scenario on the table … instead of a disjointed series of meanderings.

dcw
, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?

[Ben Holmes]

And for years ...

You've been running.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Donald Willis]

Post by Bud

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?

I did that in my first post: "Whaley's "Neches" wrecks WR's Oswald/TIppit timeline". If Whaley dropped O off just across the street from the rooming house, instead of 5 or 6 blocks past it (then walked back)--that's 4 or 5 minutes shaved off his arrival time at 10th & Patton, & he gets there about 1:11, And catches up on his whittling while patiently waiting for Tippit to show up. Sure.

Bizarre. For *six Deades* critics have been arguing Oswald didn’t have enough time to get to 10th & Patton, thereby establishing he couldn’t have done it.

And for years he argued that Oswald never went to the boardinghouse.

I did not. I argued that Mrs. Roberts' sighting of Oswald at about 1pm was probably wrong, that it happened later, if at all.

Post by Bud
Time to get off this merry-go-round.

Post by Hank Sienzant
You turn that on it’s head, argue he had more than enough time, and therefore couldn’t have done it.
Do I have that right?
You seem to think that having more than enough time to do something establishes an alibi of sorts. I regret to inform you it doesn’t. Maybe he stopped to tie his shoe, or had to go to the john, and stopped at a gas station to relieve himself. Allowing him more time does NOT give him an alibi.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.

It's sweet you're keeping up with my posts. This is an alternate take. I began to wonder how it would play out if I accepted Whaley's testimony, basically. Now I'm leaning more towards the Whaley/Oswald to Neches scenario, which Whaley actually limns. In which case your question here is irrelevant--I don't say, now, that O took the bus all the way...

So you admit you were wrong? How refreshing. I wonder now how long it will take for you to admit Oswald had enough time to get to 10th & Patton and shoot Tippit.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus

I don't think I ever posited that. I think that's No True Flags who does.

What do you posit regarding the bus ride? Was Oswald on the bus or off the bus (with apologies to the Merry Pranksters). How far did he take it? Is the bus transfer legit? Is his former landlady correct in putting him on the bus? Did the bus driver and several passengers alll note the same man depart the bus shortly after a woman did? Was that man Oswald, as the bus transfer indicates?
All the best, i probably won’t post again, but I will check back to see if you respond here and put a true scenario on the table … instead of a disjointed series of meanderings.

dcw
, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?
B. Come close to explaining how Oswald rode the bus all the way to near his rooming house? A few months ago, you were arguing Oswald never took the cab, and he rode the bus all the way into Oak Cliff. Now you're agreeing the Commission got the cab ride right, but merely got where Oswald departed that cab wrong.
C. What about the bus ride? Are you conceding Oswald rode the bus a few blocks, then departed it when it got stuck in traffic? Or are you going to argue Oswald was never on the bus, after being so certain a few months ago that he stayed on it far longer than the Commission concluded?

Sienzanr refuses to follow along with anything unless he can proove beforehand that Oswald is not exonerated.

[Bud]

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

Yes, that is not where he dropped him off. Watch the re-enactment. You can see he passes fifth street...

[Donald Willis]

Post by Bud

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

Yes, that is not where he dropped him off. Watch the re-enactment. You can see he passes fifth street...
http://youtu.be/grgFgBEU0PY

*Listen* to the reenactment, Bud. On the map (CE 471), Whaley's "X" marked the spot, Neches & Beckley. OK. Oswald tells him he wants to go to the 500 block of N. Beckley, in his affidavit, right? On 3/12/64, however, Whaley tells the Commission that he dropped Oswald off at "Neches and North Beckley." Two scenarios have apparently become crisscrossed in his mind. The 500 block becomes the 1000 block. Neely becomes Neches. By the time that he has become convinced that he dropped Oswald off at Neely & Beckley, he has also become convinced that the 500 block is Neches & Beckley:

Ball: You drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Whaley: No, sir. I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block. I drove until I reached Beckley & Neely. (4/8/64 testimony)

He doesn't realize that these locations are one and the same. The first of his two contradictory statements here negates his "500 block of N. Beckley" affidavit. And that "Four Days in November" segment you helpfully provided clarifies the contradictions: "So I carried him off across the viaduct, turned left at the 500 block of North Beckley, and when I got over on North Beckley came on the intersection of Neely , North Beckley." I think that what screwed Whaley up was Oswald's 'This will do fine." He may have initially told Whaley "500 block", but while in the cab seemed to change his mind, while Whaley was turning onto Beckley, near Neches--perhaps he saw that there were no cops out infront of the rooming house. That's where Whaley's big "X" is, and that "X" settles the Whaley contradictions.

dcw

[Bud]

Post by Donald Willis

Post by Bud

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

Yes, that is not where he dropped him off. Watch the re-enactment. You can see he passes fifth street...
http://youtu.be/grgFgBEU0PY

*Listen* to the reenactment, Bud.

*Watch* the re-enactment, Don. The cab passes fifth street.

Post by Donald Willis
Ball: You drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Whaley: No, sir. I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block. I drove until I reached Beckley & Neely. (4/8/64 testimony)
He doesn't realize that these locations are one and the same. The first of his two contradictory statements here negates his "500 block of N. Beckley" affidavit. And that "Four Days in November" segment you helpfully provided clarifies the contradictions: "So I carried him off across the viaduct, turned left at the 500 block of North Beckley, and when I got over on North Beckley came on the intersection of Neely , North Beckley." I think that what screwed Whaley up was Oswald's 'This will do fine." He may have initially told Whaley "500 block", but while in the cab seemed to change his mind, while Whaley was turning onto Beckley, near Neches--perhaps he saw that there were no cops out infront of the rooming house. That's where Whaley's big "X" is, and that "X" settles the Whaley contradictions.
dcw

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud
*Watch*

READ!

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud
*Watch*

READ!

You don`t read a video stupid.

Post by Ben Holmes
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

Post by Bud

Post by Donald Willis

Post by Bud

Post by Donald Willis
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)
dcw

Yes, that is not where he dropped him off. Watch the re-enactment. You can see he passes fifth street...
http://youtu.be/grgFgBEU0PY

*Listen* to the reenactment, Bud.

*Watch* the re-enactment, Don. The cab passes fifth street.

THe key word is "re-enactment". It wasn't same-day newsreel footage, Bud.

It was a reenactment, where he reenacted what he did that day.

Post by Bud

Post by Donald Willis
Ball: You drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Whaley: No, sir. I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block. I drove until I reached Beckley & Neely. (4/8/64 testimony)
He doesn't realize that these locations are one and the same. The first of his two contradictory statements here negates his "500 block of N. Beckley" affidavit. And that "Four Days in November" segment you helpfully provided clarifies the contradictions: "So I carried him off across the viaduct, turned left at the 500 block of North Beckley, and when I got over on North Beckley came on the intersection of Neely , North Beckley." I think that what screwed Whaley up was Oswald's 'This will do fine." He may have initially told Whaley "500 block", but while in the cab seemed to change his mind, while Whaley was turning onto Beckley, near Neches--perhaps he saw that there were no cops out infront of the rooming house. That's where Whaley's big "X" is, and that "X" settles the Whaley contradictions.
dcw

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:41:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

That's not what Bugliosi said... read the book.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.