From: willisdonald824@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 3:33:41 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 4:47:28 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:    
   > > 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.   
   > 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?    
      
   Clever Hank picked up on that.   
   >    
   > 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.   
      
   Oswald was in a rush.  He left the bus for a cab.  As Mrs. R says, he came in   
   and left almost immediately.  You have to speculate that some other unknown   
   circumstance slowed him down...   
      
   > > > > 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.   
   > > > > 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?    
      
   Yes, yes, yes, and yes.   
   >    
   > 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.   
      
   Ah!  You're going to check back.  Well, note that I thumb my nose at you...   
   > >    
   > > 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)