From: willisdonald824@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 10:33:13 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > > On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:    
   > > > 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?    
      
   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.   
      
      
   > > 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...   
      
   > > 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?   
   > Don? Why don't you clarify your thinking here?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)