From: willisdonald824@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:55:10 PM UTC-8, Bud 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?    
   > > 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.     
      
   >    
   > 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?     
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)