Further, she did not initially describe Oswald as "short, a little on the heavy side," with "somewhat bushy" hair.

I have looked at the transcript, which includes the following...

Mr. Lane. Well, would you say that he was stocky?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, he was short.

Mr. Lane. He was short.

Mrs. Markham. Yes.

Mr. Lane. And was he a little bit on the heavy side?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, not too heavy.

Mr. Lane. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?

Mrs. Markham. Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too
heavy, uh-uh.

Mr. Lane. He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather
bushy hair, kind of hair?

Mrs. Markham. Yeh, just a little bit bushy, uh huh.

Mr. Lane. It was a little bit bushy.

Mrs. Markham. Yes.

(Emphasis mine)

She said he was short, not too heavy, and his hair was a little bit bushy.

...according to her, he misrepresented himself as an official of the Dallas police when he called. Also, she testified that he had called her at work, and she was attempting to end the conversation as quickly as possible, so that she wouldn't get into trouble. This would explain her attempts at mild agreement with Lane's statements--e.g., telling him what she thought he wanted to hear, in order to get rid of him (note that this could have been a sub-conscious reaction). Finally, a detective testified that Mrs. Markham broke down when Oswald was brought into the line-up room.

Markham first claimed that she never even spoke to Lane, then claimed it was not her voice on the tape. So then she claimed that Lane misrepresented himself as a police officer. Strike three - the tape recording itself proves that Lane did not misrepresent or identify himself as a police officer. So this is hardly a valid supposition to dismiss her "...mild agreement with Lane's statements...in order to get rid of him...". And even if Lane had said he was a police officer, that explanation is absurd.

As for "lying," she initially claimed never to have spoken with Lane because, according to her, he misrepresented himself as an official of the Dallas police when he called.

Already discussed above. She lied about never talking to Lane, she lied about her voice not being on the tape, and she lied about Lane misrepresenting himself as a police officer.

Finally, a detective testified that Mrs. Markham broke down when Oswald was brought into the line-up room.

Ah, the lineup. What does she say to the WC about identifying Oswald?

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

D'oh! She has repeatedly stated she didn't identify or recognize anyone. Better 'suggest' who she is supposed to have seen before. So out of nowhere, we get the following banter....

Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

LOL! Let's see if this could be all a simple case of misunderstanding!

B: "Remember the number two man?"
M: "Oh, right, I picked number two!"
B: "But you just said you hadn't..."
M: "Oh that? I thought you kept asking me if I had seen any of their clothes before!"

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mrs. Markham must have thought he actually said...

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone's clothing in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

She may easily have thought he said...

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody's clothing from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

She probably heard...

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody's clothing in that lineup look like anybody's clothing you had seen before?

And she probably meant to reply...

Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men's clothing.

Holy unsubstantiated quotes, Batman! So Connally shot Kennedy in the throat, or was it the driver? Where did that bullet go and the one from the back? I know! Jackie stabbed him with an icecicle while poor poor Oswald was selling flowers on a corner in Oakcliff to earn enough money to go see a movie but he couldn't make enough so the poor man was forced to sneak into the theater where the evil gestapolice came and dragged him away while he was singing Kumbiya. Gotcha.

So once somebody says something on the spot they are not allowed to change that, ever?

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Holy unsubstantiated quotes, Batman!

Not at all, Boy Wonder! They truly exist in the Warren Report.

So Connally shot Kennedy in the throat, or was it the driver? Where did that bullet go and the one from the back? I know! Jackie stabbed him with an icecicle while poor poor Oswald was selling flowers on a corner in Oakcliff to earn enough money to go see a movie but he couldn't make enough so the poor man was forced to sneak into the theater where the evil gestapolice came and dragged him away while he was singing Kumbiya. Gotcha.

Nah, Oswald was the lone nut assassin. He must have been ecstatic to see the limo slow to a crawl so he could hit the President and Governor in one shot. But wait - he got even luckier! After firing off a couple of shots, the limo driver slowed down even more - nearly to a stop! He and his front seat passenger kept looking back and staring at the President. Hmm...they must have just been really curious to see why he wasn't waving at the crowd and smiling anymore! He was just grimacing and clutching his throat! What's he doing that for?

Limo driver:

"Hey, I think I hear fireworks!"..(turns head back).."How's it going, Mr. President? You OK back there? You look a little pale...". (keeps staring back)......(turns head forward, keeps riding brakes)....(turns head back again)...."Governor, why are you doubled over? Getting car sick or something?".....(keeps staring back)....."Turn that frown upside down, Mr. President! Want a lozenge for your sore throat?".....(keeps staring back).....

You know, it all makes perfect sense now!

So once somebody says something on the spot they are not allowed to change that, ever?

Sure, but the credibility factor lowers somewhat when you change your story in the very next sentence....

Wow... leading the witness anyone?

She seems really suggestible to me, at least based on this. Rather than ask what his hair looked like, she was given ONE choice and selected from those options.

As for the limo driver slowing and turning around, did that happen before or after the bullet struck the window frame. I would think that a sudden, load 'crack' on the window might have made the driver look around and maybe see what hit the window. He may not have realized it was a bullet at that point. Granted, his reactions were<n't> the best looking back at it, but human error seems more reasonable than to say he was involved and driving slowly to make it easier.

I'd always thought that this was a publicity trip. Get out there, show your face sort of thing. Tough to do ripping through the city at 70 mph in a closed car. If the driver was driving too slow to make the shot easier, why didn't anyone in the car tell him to get a move on? Surely if the Predisent says, "go faster", a reply of "no, wait, hold on" would have seemed a bit
suspicious after the fact.

edit to insert the bracked 'n't' to complelety change the meaning, and to spell suspicous a little to closer to accepted norm.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Turbonium. Could I just ask what the motive for murdering Kennedy was?
A lone gunman nutcase would be more likely to actually kill in my opinion than an organization or powerfull group. The powerfull group would surely find it easier to kill the presidency rather than the man. Just one pants down photo or a cigar incident would be a start.
I have no real opinion on this either way .
Sorry for spelling its late.

Alright, I guess I'm going to have to find time to read that thing then. A link would have been nice though.

Why is it nobody is ever wrong if they agree with you though? The doctors who actually saw the neck wound later said it could have been an exit wound but you insist that they are wrong and their initial opinion was right even though they disagreed later.

Pathologists don't just look at the body and figure out what happened. They use outside information too. Such as when determining time of death. A coroner is not going to render a report that sets a time of death when the police report says the victim was seen at a mall during that time, unless they are absolutely sure. They use all available information and then give their best estimate. So it's not out of line for the commision to furnish information which makes it easier for them to render an opinion.

I'm glad we agree. After all the depository, where he worked, was the only no deflection angle in the plaza and from the top floor, it did line up Kennedy and Conally quit nicely. Although I disagree that the limo slowed down. It was already going pretty slow, not that it mattered since it was heading directly away from Oswald.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Man, Oswald had such an unlucky day. He was in Dealey Plaza when the President was shot and he was in SW Dallas when Tippit was shot in SW Dallas. And dang, the cops found the Tippit-shooting pistol on him when he was arrested, and they found his Carcano in the Book Depository. What an unlucky day. I hate when things like that happen to me. And man, if a guy sneaks into a movie theater with a pistol, and without buying a ticket, and he gets into trouble for it, what is this country coming to! It used to be that we could sneak into movie theaters with machine guns, grenades, and bazooks, and never buy a ticket, and the cops would leave us alone. And we could take our sniper’s rifles to work and never get into trouble for it. The good old days are just gone forever.

You can't use Dr. Crenshaw's testimony as evidence without addressing the objections McAdams has raised. See my post #258.

You use Dr. Peters' Warren Commission testimony as evidence because it supports your case, but you claim that Dr. Perry's and Dr. Carrico's Warren Commission testimony that the wound could have been either an entry wound or an exit wound is irrelevant. See my post #248.

You are attempting to imply, by handwaving, that an expert can be presumed to be able to guess with near 100% certainty based on highly incomplete information.

Direct question, turbonium: Please explain how this implied claim of near-perfect guess accuracy squares with Dr. Perry's Warren Commission testimony that he "was unable to determine [whether it was an entry wound or an exit wound] since [he] did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile," and his statement that the autopsy report was "quite consistent" with his findings and opinions and "explained very nicely the facts and circumstances as [he and his colleagues] observed them at the time." See my post #248 for the relevant testimony.

I was referring to his statement that all the doctors' "educated guesses" about gunshot wounds were uncertain, which you have failed to address. Further, Dr. Crenshaw claimed that he arrived with Dr. McClelland, and Dr. McClelland confirmed this (see my post #258). So how can you accept Dr. Crenshaw's testimony while simultaneously rejecting Dr. McClelland's?

Good work, turbonium--the quote above is not from Dr. Marion Jenkins of Parkland Hospital; it is purported to be from JFK autopsy technician James Jenkins. You have previously quoted James Jenkins' statements in support of your "shallow back wound" mantra, so I'm rather perplexed that you could have missed this.

Again, you accept Dr. Crenshaw's testimony, but you reject Dr. Akin's testimony on the grounds that he didn't see the unaltered wound. Also, the fact that Dr. Akin had seen more entry wounds than exit wounds does not invalidate his opinion; it merely means his opinon carries less weight. And such weight as it does carry is against your assertion that the throat wound was "solidly established" as an entry wound at Parkland.

Dr. Perry's and Dr. Carrico's, to name two, in their Warren Commission testimony. See my post #248.

As I have demonstrated (and, as usual, you have ignored), the hypothesis was not unfounded. You have failed to identify a single fact or assumption in Specter's question that could not have been resonably inferred from some piece of Commission evidence or previous testimony.

Additionally, as I pointed out, the question shows that the doctors felt that the throat wound could have been an exit wound in certain circumstances. Do you dispute this? If you do not, then please explain how they could have been absolutely certain, just from looking at it, that it was an entrance wound?

Yet again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the burden of proof in this case. As I have shown, you have claimed, in effect, that the Single Bullet Theory is at best virtually impossible. Therefore, any unrefuted demonstration that it is even remotely possible destroys your claim. A demonstration that the back wound might be an exit wound does not help your case, because that does not tend to prove that the SBT is "virtually impossible." In order to help your case, you would need to show that the back wound is almost certainly an exit wound.

Wow, you got me, turbonium. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. After all, how could a study showing that emergency physicians frequently confuse entry and exit wounds possibly be relevant to the issue of whether or not the doctors at Parkland correctly identified the throat wound as an entry wound? Thanks for setting me straight on that.

As for this other study, please do cite it, by all means.

You have ignored two equally relevant issues, and I suspect you will continue to do so, because they destroy your case. First, as Dr. McClelland mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony, and as supported by the JAMA study, gunshot wound identifications by emergency physicians are frequently uncertain. Second, and related, more information that just a cursory examination is frequently required to determine accurately whether a gunshot wound is an entry wound or an exit wound. As has been demonstrated, an exit wound can sometimes appear very similar to an entrance wound; as has also been demonstrated, a 6.5x55 mm round fired from above and behind Kennedy could have made such an exit wound. But you can't admit to either of those facts, because, as noted, they destroy your argument.

Although these quotes provide a convienent vehicle for you to cast aspersions on the Warren Commission's work and findings, they are irrelevant to your original attempt to question my statement that the Warren Commission was a nonjudicial proceeding.

To recap:

I originally stated something to the effect that because the Warren Commission was not a trial, attorney Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald.

turbonium then questioned why this policy was subsequently reversed if it wasn't really a trial.

I categorized this as a fallacy of affirming the consequent, and gave as an example the fact that witnesses have the right to counsel even in nonjudicial proceedings.

To put this in the form of a logical argument:

If the Warren Commission had been a judicial proceeding, then Mark Lane would have been permitted to represent Oswald before the Commission.

Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald before the Commission.

Therefore, the Warren Commission was not a judicial proceeding.

(Note: there are other reasons why it was not a judicial proceeding--this was just an example that I had offered.)

turbonium questioned this by observing that Oswald did have a lawyer appointed several weeks later.

The logical fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs because the fact that Oswald was later allowed to have a lawyer does not necessarily imply that the Warren Commission was a judicial proceeding.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

First, I observe that your story has changed from "short, a little on the heavy side, and somewhat bushy," to the above; a significant change.

Second, you ignored the word "initially" in my post, and, of course, you omitted the part of the transcript where she emphatically told Lane that she hadn't ever said that.

So now, turbonium, where is your evidence that she ever told anyone this before she talked to Lane? Note that Lane's question itself does not constitute evidence--even if accepted at face value, it is at best hearsay.

Third, you complained vociferously about Arlen Specter's allegedly asking leading questions (which weren't), yet you have no problem with questions that are clearly leading in this case.

Fourth, "short" and "tall" can obviously be somewhat subjective. Oswald was 5'9" according to his Marine record and his autopsy report. J.D. Tippit was 5'11" according to his autopsy report. These are both in the range of "average" (which is about 5'10 for white American males at the present time)--however, Mrs. Markham might well have perceived Oswald as "short" because he was about two inches shorter than Tippit.

Fifth, Mrs. Markham declined even to accept Lane's characterization of the shooter as "slightly heavy." Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that by "not too heavy" she meant, "not at all overweight," rather than the inference conspiracists wish to suggest, as you orginally did, of "a little on the heavy side."

Finally, you omitted (as usual) the part of the transcript that makes clear that by "a little bit bushy" she meant "in need of combing."

Here is the complete original transcript of the tape.

First, Lane identifies himself simply as "Mr. Lane" at the beginning of the conversation--not "Mark Lane," and never repeats his name. But of course, she was lying about not knowing him, wasn't she?

Second, in 1964, Mrs. Markham had likely never heard a recording of her own voice. Presumably you know that a person's own voice sounds different to him- or herself than it does to other people. Add to that 1964 tape-recording technology, plus the fact that the recording was made at Lane's end of the telephone, and it's perfectly reasonable that she wouldn't have recognized her own voice at first (she subsequently stated that she was uncertain). For you to claim otherwise frankly only makes you look desperate and foolish.

Third, Lane stated that he was "investigating the Oswald case," and that he had a copy of the deposition she'd given to the police. She could have assumed that he must be some sort of police or district attorney's office investigator.

Fourth, mild agreement would be a reasonable explanation even if she hadn't thought he was a police investigator.

Finally, you are frankly in no position to be characterizing anyone else's explanations as "absurd."

Just like you lied, turbonium, about J.M. Poe's telling the Warren Commission that he marked the shell casings, and about Dr. Marion Jenkins' claiming that the back wound was a shallow entry wound, and--what's that? Oh, you say you weren't lying? Those were just mistakes? Oh, okay--but you accused Mrs. Markham of lying. How do you know she wasn't just mistaken? Oh, I see--because you just know deep down in your heart of hearts that there really and truly was a conspiracy to kill JFK, and you just know it has to be true, if you just wish and hope and believe enough, so she just has to be lying...


<snip of lame attempt to parody Mrs. Markham's testimony>

Mrs. Markham stated that she only finished the 8th grade, and it seems likely from reading all of her testimony that she lacked well-developed communication and abstract reasoning skills, had a rather limited perspective on life, might have been easily manipulated, and was possibly of below-average intelligence. Evidently you don't mind making fun of someone like that, which is unsurprising, considering your track record of insults and reckless accusations against all sorts of people connected with JFK's assassination.

More to the point, you have failed to explain how the apparent inconsistencies in Mrs. Markham's testimony are evidence of any kind of a conspiracy. You are simply falling back on the standard conspiracist line: "something is wrong--therefore I am right."

Additionally, unless you can somehow explain away all the other eyewitnesses who identified Oswald, there is no reason to question Mrs. Markham's testimony.


[edit: grammar]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

That's an excellent observation, Photon. From what is known or suspected of JFK's "extracurricular" activities, photos and other such evidence would have been relatively easy to obtain--especially if the Secret Service had been in on the plot as many conspiracists maintain.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

There are so many footling CTs surrounding JFK's assassination, I've almost lost count of them!

One thing though, the so-called mysteries have provided SF series with so much 'core material', I wonder what I'd be watching without them??

__________________
Kind regards

Pete Tattum

The plural of anecdote isn't data!

Alright, I guess I'm going to have to find time to read that thing then. A link would have been nice though.

Here is the page I use for original research, at history-matters.com, as it has scans of all the original pages, rather than converted-to-text versions, many of which contain typos.

Why is it nobody is ever wrong if they agree with you though? The doctors who actually saw the neck wound later said it could have been an exit wound but you insist that they are wrong and their initial opinion was right even though they disagreed later.

Because, like most conspiracists, he has to cherry-pick the evidence, and add, delete or move data points as needed, in order to attempt to make the evidence fit a conspiracy theory. Except turbonium doesn't seem even to have a theory; just a collection of vague suspicions and innuendo.

Pathologists don't just look at the body and figure out what happened. They use outside information too. Such as when determining time of death. A coroner is not going to render a report that sets a time of death when the police report says the victim was seen at a mall during that time, unless they are absolutely sure. They use all available information and then give their best estimate. So it's not out of line for the commision to furnish information which makes it easier for them to render an opinion.

As we've seen in the S911T thread, conspiracists begin with a conclusion and work backwards in an attempt to find facts that support, or appear to support, that conclusion. Therefore, any facts that do not support the conclusion must be explained away in some manner; generally by handwaving, or else by pointing out anomalies that inevitably exist in any legitimate evidence and claiming those anomalies invalidate the evidence.

...the depository, where he worked, was the only no deflection angle in the plaza and from the top floor, it did line up Kennedy and Conally quit nicely.

Have you seen Dale Myers' computer simulation that was featured on the ABC special a couple of years ago? It's outstanding. Most conspiracists dismiss it out of hand, of course, as it proves the Single Bullet Theory, which destroys many conspiracy theories. These conspiracists conveniently ignore or attempt to handwave away the fact that ABC News hired a leading forensic computer modeling firm to independently evaluate Myers' work, and the company gave the simulation a sterling review.


Although I disagree that the limo slowed down. It was already going pretty slow, not that it mattered since it was heading directly away from Oswald.

Evidence that the limo slowed down is mixed--two of the motorcycle officers escorting it seemed to believe so; they would presumably have had reason to know. Agent Greer, the driver, testified that he was looking around to see what had happened after he heard someone react to being shot--it stands to reason that he might have unconsciously braked while doing so. I'm planning to buy Myers' DVD of his animation--I'm hoping that will provide some evidence on this point.

I tend to agree with you, though, that it didn't matter whether Greer slowed down or maintained speed--the important point is that he didn't immediately speed up or take other evasive action, either of which might well have saved Kennedy's life.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

The discussion here, from Frazier's testimony, just after Rep Boggs enters the room discusses the lead, or hold over needed to hit a target moving straight away. He states that in order to hit the aim point at that speed, the shooter would need to aim about 6 to 8 inches high. The round that hit the neck seemed to be consistent with this, if it were fired at the back of the head. The second round was fired higher, possibly aimed 2 inches over the top of the head. If the imo had sped up, the second round would have hit further down on the body. possibly passing through the upper chest. If the limo suddenly stopped, the bullet may well have gone high. But then a 4th shot would have probbaly been fired at a stationary target.

This doesn't really change anything, but I think it does show that a straight line acceleration may have still resulted in a second hit, just further down.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

I know I'm weighing in fairly late on this issue, but the Orville Nix film shows quite clearly that the limo was in no danger of stopping. The slight braking manouver isn't even strong enough to cause the occupants of the car to shift forward due to inertia, what's more it seems to me that it occurs after the headshot.

View version one.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Nah, Oswald was the lone nut assassin. He must have been ecstatic to see the limo slow to a crawl so he could hit the President and Governor in one shot.

Oh, so now the Secret Service is in on the conspiracy, too??

Yet again, you're out of line, turbonium. In your zeal to demonstrate your rapier wit and incisive ability to ferret out evidence of a conspiracy, you have failed to take into consideration that the entire motorcade had to slow down in order to turn onto Elm Street, and couldn't speed up again until after the last car had finished its turn, in order to maintain spacing. Further, the pace was being set by the lead car--not the Presidential limo.

But wait - he got even luckier! After firing off a couple of shots, the limo driver slowed down even more - nearly to a stop! He and his front seat passenger kept looking back and staring at the President. Hmm...they must have just been really curious to see why he wasn't waving at the crowd and smiling anymore! He was just grimacing and clutching his throat! What's he doing that for?

<snip of even more asinine attempt to ridicule the actions of Agents Greer and Kellerman during the shooting>

So, Greer thought the first shot was one of the escort motorcycles backfiring, and Kellerman evidently didn't hear the first shot. But, of course, they're lying, because they're part of the conspiracy, right, turbonium?

[edit: Another observation: if Greer and Kellerman were in on the conspiracy, they had a hell of a lot of guts, as either one of them could have easily been hit by a shot that missed Kennedy.]

Note: Jackie Kennedy also took the first shot for a backfire. Nellie Connally heard "a frightening noise," but whether it was the first or second shot is unknown, as she stated that she immediately looked back and saw that Kennedy had been hit. Of the limo's occupants, only Governor Connally correctly identified the first report as a rifle shot, which is why he was twisted around in his seat when he was subsequently struck. Kennedy turned to his right at the same time as Connally, but this may have been a coincidence, as Kennedy's movements do not seem to indicate that he was at all alarmed.

[edit: punctuation]

[edit: clarification]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Must've been a Foil. I could break those easily with my schlager...

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

Definitely a foil--at least for some of us. After all, Spitfire's been fencing words with him for pages (and winning, too).

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

<faces Gillianren, executes fencing salute, and then bows at the waist> Thank you for your kind words, dear lady. I'm I'm not sure the fencing analogy is the best, though. It was turbonium's bad luck that I've been rather upset the past two weeks about a situation involving my former girlfriend, and haven't felt like studying as much as I should have. He's made a convenient verbal punching bag--very therapeutic for taking out my frustrations.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I'm sorry to hear about your personal problems but I have enjoyed your counter-point arguments. Without being on the other side of course.

__________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, people want to be entertained.

Sorry to backtrack, Spitfire, but I wanted to follow up on a previous post regarding the Zapruder film while I think of it. I'll address the recent posts afterwards.

In post #279, you said that...

Connally was hit about z223, one frame before his lapel flips.

So when do you think JFK was hit? I assume you would have to place it at around z221 or so? That is, during the time JFK was hidden from view by the sign. But it appears to me that he is already reacting to a bullet by z205 to z207, when he has turned his head to face forward.

Don Olson and Ralph Turner wrote an article, "Photographic Evidence and
the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.". published in the Oct. 1971 issue of the Journal of Forensic Sciences. They noted that JFK is reacting to a shot at about z200.

The HSCA came to the same conclusion in their report...

By Zapruder frame 207, when President Kennedy is seen going behind a sign that obstructed Zapruder’s view, he appears to be reacting to a severe external stimulus. This reaction is first indicated in the vicinity of frame 200 of the Zapruder film. The President’s right hand freezes in the midst of a waving motion, followed by a rapid leftward movement of his head. There is, therefore, photographic evidence of a shot striking the President by this time.(HSCA Report and Vol. 6:17)

That would make the SBT impossible due to the length of time between JFK being hit and Connally being hit...

Mrs. Markham stated that she only finished the 8th grade, and it seems likely from reading all of her testimony that she lacked well-developed communication and abstract reasoning skills, had a rather limited perspective on life, might have been easily manipulated, and was possibly of below-average intelligence. Evidently you don't mind making fun of someone like that, which is unsurprising, considering your track record of insults and reckless accusations against all sorts of people connected with JFK's assassination.

More to the point, you have failed to explain how the apparent inconsistencies in Mrs. Markham's testimony are evidence of any kind of a conspiracy. You are simply falling back on the standard conspiracist line: "something is wrong--therefore I am right."

My point is that Markham, as the WC's "star" witness in the Tippit shooting, was an utterly unreliable witness. To wit, she is the only witness who claimed to have seen Oswald actually shoot Tippit. But her testimony conflicted with other witnesses - she said she was the only bystander for 20 minutes, and said she talked to Tippit until he was placed in the ambulance. Other witnesses said they were at the scene - and that is why they said they saw the shooter leaving the area immediately afterwards. The others also said Tippit had died basically after being shot - certainly not alive and talking for 20 minutes afterwards.

I didn't say Markham's unfounded and contradictory testimony proved there was a conspiracy. But it takes away the prime witness to the Tippit shooting as being even remotely reliable evidence against Oswald.

No problem--I've been working on a couple of follow-ups myself.

Kennedy was also hit about z223, by The Single Bullet.


The problem is that your and these other analyses fail to consider the strong possibility that Kennedy was reacting to something else at that point--either the sound of the first shot (less likely), or Connally's movements (more likely). The most probable explanation is that Kennedy stopped waving, faced front, and leaned forward because he thought that Connally wanted to tell him something, as Connally was twisting around in his seat and attempting to look at the President. Also, the HSCA accepted the Single Bullet Theory; they simply placed the hit too early. Note that Connally's lapel flip at z224 had not been discovered at the time of the HSCA's research.

One of the conclusions researcher Dale Myers reached as a result of his computer simulation is that there are only three instances of evidence of reaction to gunfire--Connally's movements as discussed, the Single Bullet strike, and the head shot.

I'll have more on the Single Bullet Theory in a later post.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

My point is that Markham, as the WC's "star" witness in the Tippit shooting, was an utterly unreliable witness.

I take issue with your characterization of Mrs. Markham as the Commission's "star" witness. According to the Warren Report, "...even in the absence of Mrs. Markham's testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit."

To wit, she is the only witness who claimed to have seen Oswald actually shoot Tippit.

First, I note that your story has changed from "[t]he only person said to actually witness the shooting" to the above. You are attempting, by handwaving, to explain away all the other witnesses' testimony by implying that the fact that Mrs. Markham was the only person who both a) actually saw the shooter pull the trigger, and b) positively identified Oswald in a line-up, somehow casts doubt on the other witnesses' testimony.

Direct question, turbonium. The Davis sisters (actually sisters-in-law) both heard the shots, both heard Mrs. Markham screaming, looked outside and saw a man cut across their lawn and empty shell casings from a revolver into some bushes. That same evening, having seen no photographs or video of Oswald, they both picked him out of a line-up. Please explain, if you can, how this testimony can possibly fit any scenario other than "Oswald (or his purported CIA double ) murdered Patrolman Tippit." Please explain also, in view of the foregoing, why there is any reason whatsoever to question Mrs. Markham's identification of Oswald as the shooter.

But her testimony conflicted with other witnesses - she said she was the only bystander for 20 minutes, and said she talked to Tippit until he was placed in the ambulance. Other witnesses said they were at the scene - and that is why they said they saw the shooter leaving the area immediately afterwards. The others also said Tippit had died basically after being shot - certainly not alive and talking for 20 minutes afterwards.

Evidently you got this "factoid" from the Sparticus web site.

Quote:

Spartacus On 22nd November, 1963, Markham was in the Oak Cliff area when she saw Officer J. D. Tippit killed. She later described the killer as being short and somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair." Later, Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald in a police lineup, but this was after she had seen his photograph on television. Although considered the star witness, her testimony was full of mistakes. She said he was alive when the ambulance arrived, but the other witnesses say he died immediately. She also falsely claimed that for the first twenty minutes she was the only person to attend the body. Once again, the other witnesses disagreed with her. [Emphasis added]

Yet again, you uncritically parroted a conspiracist factoid without bothering even to check Mrs. Markham's testimony. You quoted from her actual testimony in a previous post when that testimony appeared contradictory, yet in this case you paraphrased a factoid that is clearly a grossly inaccurate characterization of that testimony.

I didn't say Markham's unfounded and contradictory testimony proved there was a conspiracy. But it takes away the prime witness to the Tippit shooting as being even remotely reliable evidence against Oswald.

Now, turbonium, please explain exactly what testimony of Mrs. Markham's is "unfounded" or "contradictory," citing actual excerpts rather than paraphrases. Please explain also how any of that testimony is both a) material to the case against Oswald, and b) in conflict with the testimony of other witnesses. Also please discuss how any of her documented misstatements cannot be explained as honest mistakes or understandable misperceptions due to her being extremely distraught.

Yet again, it is blatantly obvious that you and other conspiracists will alter data points as necessary rather than admit to the dreadful possibility that there might not be a conspiracy.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

“Democracy is a terrible system – but it’s the best we have.” – Winston Churchill (from memory, I think that’s pretty close).

The SBT may be a “terrible theory,” or merely a difficult one – but it seems to be the best we have. Turbonium, unless you are willing to defend some version of a Multiple Bullet Theory, I am going to claim that the SBT wins by default.

Problems with the MBT as I see it:

1. What happened to the bullet in Kennedy’s throat?
2. What caused the wound to the back of Kennedy’s [lower neck, upper back, pick one]?
3. What happened to the bullet that hit Connally?

Turbonium you cannot deny that the SBT answers these questions, although I accept the idea that you disagree with those answers.

What answers are provided by the MBT? Unless and until you can explain the answers provided by your alternate theory, I fail to see why we should give your criticisms the time of day.

I still don't see what's so "terrible" about the SBT. It's even been proven, repeatably, to be perfectly possible.

The bullet didn't turn angles and do crazy stunts; it went on a normal trajectory. Quite frankly, every guns expert I've talked to so far has said, without a doubt, that it was completely and entirely possible.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

The Davis sisters (actually sisters-in-law) both heard the shots, both heard Mrs. Markham screaming, looked outside and saw a man cut across their lawn and empty shell casings from a revolver into some bushes. That same evening, having seen no photographs or video of Oswald, they both picked him out of a line-up. Please explain, if you can, how this testimony can possibly fit any scenario other than "Oswald (or his purported CIA double ) murdered Patrolman Tippit." Please explain also, in view of the foregoing, why there is any reason whatsoever to question Mrs. Markham's identification of Oswald as the shooter.

The lineups were tainted from the start. Oswald was the only one with cuts & bruises on his face and he was the only one dressed scruffily. He had also been shown on TV countless times by then.

Below is from the link, which also details the many problems with the lineups....

When they were later asked if they had watched any televison that afternoon, both ladies claimed that they had not. Virginia Davis, however, also stated "Our television was blurred anyway, so we couldn't hardly tell."

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp..../id_draft.html

In light of the tainted lineups due to Oswald being already seen on TV and appearing much different than the others in the lineups, I see no reason to consider Markham's flip-flop testimony as valid. She repeated that she did not recognize any of the faces in the lineup. That was all that should have been included in the Warren Report - she clearly stated that she recognized none of the men in the lineup!. But then, Specter muddied the waters when he suddenly (for who knows what reason??) mentions "Was there a number two man in there?"!!

Spitfire, even you should be able to admit that specifically pointing out one of the people in a lineup to a witness is a no-no. It instantly taints the witness' testimony as inadmissable (in a standard court of law, or any procedure claimed to be fair and unbiased).

From the link below are some of the points for conducting a fair and proper lineup. All those listed below were not followed during Oswald's lineups!

Policy: - The investigator should compose the lineup in such a manner that the suspect does not unduly stand out.
Include a minimum of five fillers (nonsuspects) per identification procedure.

Consider creating a consistent appearance between the suspect and fillers with respect to any unique or unusual feature (e.g., scars or tattoos) used to describe the perpetrator by artificially adding or concealing that feature.

Consider placing suspects in different positions in each lineup, both across cases and with multiple witnesses in the same case. Position the suspect randomly in the lineup.

When showing a new suspect, avoid reusing fillers in lineups shown to the same witness.


http://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/eyewitness_id.html

Of course, they don't even mention this one, it's such a no-brainer: Don't "suggest" a specific person to a witness from a lineup!

Oh, so now the Secret Service is in on the conspiracy, too??

Yet again, you're out of line, turbonium. In your zeal to demonstrate your rapier wit and incisive ability to ferret out evidence of a conspiracy, you have failed to take into consideration that the entire motorcade had to slow down in order to turn onto Elm Street, and couldn't speed up again until after the last car had finished its turn, in order to maintain spacing. Further, the pace was being set by the lead car--not the Presidential limo.

Yes, imo they certainly were in on the conspiracy (at least some of them). Standard protocol was completely abandoned that day by the Secret Service. You should already be familiar with the many standard procedures they did not follow.....

1. What happened to the bullet in Kennedy’s throat?
2. What caused the wound to the back of Kennedy’s [lower neck, upper back, pick one]?
3. What happened to the bullet that hit Connally?

Turbonium you cannot deny that the SBT answers these questions, although I accept the idea that you disagree with those answers.

What answers are provided by the MBT? Unless and until you can explain the answers provided by your alternate theory, I fail to see why we should give your criticisms the time of day.

First, the MBT I support explains that the extra bullets were simply removed after the body was quickly and illegally swiped from Parkland (which is a solid reason for the quick, illegal removal of the body).

A bullet caused the wound to JFK's back, which was located about 5 1/4" below the collar. The SBT also requires one to believe the BJST (Bunched Jacket and Shirt Theory) is somehow valid. The evidence does not support that theory. Below is a good link explaining the actual location of the back wound...

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id177.htm

Exhuming JFK's body and releasing all the documents still sealed (for no valid reason) would certainly help answer some questions if a new, fully independent investigation were ever to be opened. Those who actually were involved may never be known, or may take decades. But the evidence already shows Oswald was not the LN that the WC so desperately tried to prove was the assassin.

If both wounds wewre entrance wounds and neither bullet left the body, what sort of round/caliber, ammuition would have been used? Even a 22 is likely to have come out from the hit to the throat.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Can you show a timeline that supports this assertion? Yes I know that the body was removed against the wishes of the Dallas coroner, but when and where were the bullets "simply removed"? My understanding is that the body and casket were never unattended.

You yourself have attempted to describe this wound as very shallow. What kind of bullet was this?

And question #3 remains: What happened to the bullet that wounded Connally?