Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four
times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the
east sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[with]
his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),
which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported
witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of
the street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would
Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness
his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different
definitions of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west side
gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was
expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime.
Or the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or
timber wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently very,
very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who were
waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[with]

his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness his

superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions of "
good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west side

gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently very,

very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who were

waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently very,

very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who were

waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

I never cease to be amazed at the stupid shit Don focuses on while ignoring the overwhelming
evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. CTs are in the business of self delusion. For reasons I cannot
comprehend, they want to convince themselves that Oswald was innocent of crimes he obviously
committed.

Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The assassination of JFK and the murder of J. D. Tippit
happened only one way and that way is clear to anyone willing to take an objective look at the
evidence. Oswald killed both men. There is no credible evidence anyone else was involved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[with]

his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness his

superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions of "
good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west side

gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently very,

very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who were

waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

dcw

To glean from something you said elsewhere, I suppose you might not be familiar with a reported visitation of 4 armed men looking for Guinyard, and FBI report from the John Armstrong archives https://postimg.cc/SJXMXQTf . I don't know whether he lived
long and prospered after that. There is an obit out there that indicates he lingered a good long time, but it might be some other Sam Guinyard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

IMO, neither Callaway nor Guinyard saw the man up close. Both ducked for cover after they heard the shots and looked up the street to see him coming towards them with a gun in his hand.
There are several reasons that bring me to that conclusion:

1. You are correct. Their descriptions have him on opposite sides of the street.
2. When Callaway got to the Tippit murder scene, he asked Benavides which way the shooter went. ( 6 H 452 )
3. Calaway testified that both he and Guinyard were told that Tippit's murderer was in the lineup prior to viewing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiFbINQx8w
4. During the faux TV trial, Callaway's identification skills were tested and he "vaguely, faintly" recognized Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD as Oswald.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVtcn_Vf7Qw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently

very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who

were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

I never cease to be amazed at the stupid shit Don focuses on

Back to remedial English-language comprehension for you, John Robot!

while ignoring the overwhelming

evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. CTs are in the business of self delusion. For reasons I cannot
comprehend, they want to convince themselves that Oswald was innocent of crimes he obviously
committed.

Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The assassination of JFK and the murder of J. D. Tippit
happened only one way and that way is clear to anyone willing to take an objective look at the
evidence. Oswald killed both men. There is no credible evidence anyone else was involved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently very,

very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who were

waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

I thought she said she saw TWO conspirators. Callaway never suggested that.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

Ford: "You saw him run from about the taxicab"
Callaway: "Across the street." So, Callaway had the man crossing very near 10th St., behind Scoggins' cab.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

I think he only came out with that in a later interview with Myers, when he again talked about the guy's hand going up to the butt of the gun. He mentioned the latter in his WC testimony, but didn't mention its significance.

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

Typical low-road LN talk. Don't read too closely or you'll get bit...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently

very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who

were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

I never cease to be amazed at the stupid shit Don focuses on while ignoring the overwhelming
evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. CTs are in the business of self delusion. For reasons I cannot
comprehend, they want to convince themselves that Oswald was innocent of crimes he obviously
committed.

Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The assassination of JFK and the murder of J. D. Tippit
happened only one way and that way is clear to anyone willing to take an objective look at the
evidence. Oswald killed both men. There is no credible evidence anyone else was involved.

Certainly no evidence here that John Robot even read my posts!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:28:24 PM UTC-8, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently very,

very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who were

waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

dcw

To glean from something you said elsewhere, I suppose you might not be familiar with a reported visitation of 4 armed men looking for Guinyard, and FBI report from the John Armstrong archives https://postimg.cc/SJXMXQTf . I don't know whether he lived

long and prospered after that. There is an obit out there that indicates he lingered a good long time, but it might be some other Sam Guinyard

Thank you. Just read and answered Alan Ford's reposting of this on edforum. No reason, really, to confront Guinyard *after* his devastating testimony. The damage was already done, to Callaway & Ball! Apparently, Guinyard was kept in a hermetically
sealed jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch between 11/22 and the day of his testimony...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:06:07 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The assassination of JFK and the murder of J. D. Tippit
happened only one way and that way is clear to anyone willing to take an objective look at the
evidence. Oswald killed both men. There is no credible evidence anyone else was involved.

Certainly no evidence here that John Robot even read my posts!

Why the hell would I? They're all the same. You take a few insignificant facts and weave a twisting tale
full of speculation and assumptions and reach totally illogical conclusions. How many times do I need
to take part in that silly exercise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 4:04:24 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:28:24 PM UTC-8, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently

very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who

were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

dcw

To glean from something you said elsewhere, I suppose you might not be familiar with a reported visitation of 4 armed men looking for Guinyard, and FBI report from the John Armstrong archives https://postimg.cc/SJXMXQTf . I don't know whether he

lived long and prospered after that. There is an obit out there that indicates he lingered a good long time, but it might be some other Sam Guinyard

Thank you. Just read and answered Alan Ford's reposting of this on edforum. No reason, really, to confront Guinyard *after* his devastating testimony. The damage was already done, to Callaway & Ball! Apparently, Guinyard was kept in a hermetically

sealed jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch between 11/22 and the day of his testimony...
The damage was done, but Guinyard probably knew stuff, and somebody thought that intimidation was in order. Funny he didn't call the Dallas Police. Nice of the FBI to do so!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:39:47 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:06:07 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The assassination of JFK and the murder of J. D. Tippit
happened only one way and that way is clear to anyone willing to take an objective look at the
evidence. Oswald killed both men. There is no credible evidence anyone else was involved.

Certainly no evidence here that John Robot even read my posts!

Why the hell would I? They're all the same.

And yet you imply that you continue to be "amazed" by what I write even as, you admit, you don't read it:

I never cease to be amazed at the stupid shit Don focuses on

You're like movie-guy John Stanley, who would review movies which are no longer extant and he couldn't have seen.

You take a few insignificant facts and weave a twisting tale
full of speculation and assumptions and reach totally illogical conclusions. How many times do I need
to take part in that silly exercise.

Are you asking yourself? And yet you do continue to comment...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 2:11:50 AM UTC-8, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

IMO, neither Callaway nor Guinyard saw the man up close. Both ducked for cover after they heard the shots and looked up the street to see him coming towards them with a gun in his hand.

I think it's better to take them at their word here--together, their testimonies make quite a case for a cover-up. Who then do you think was Summers' witness re the dark-finish automatic?

There are several reasons that bring me to that conclusion:

1. You are correct. Their descriptions have him on opposite sides of the street.
2. When Callaway got to the Tippit murder scene, he asked Benavides which way the shooter went. ( 6 H 452 )

I remember quoting that once, and someone (probably an LN) offered a logical explanation. I forget what that logical explanation was.

3. Calaway testified that both he and Guinyard were told that Tippit's murderer was in the lineup prior to viewing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiFbINQx8w
4. During the faux TV trial, Callaway's identification skills were tested and he "vaguely, faintly" recognized Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD as Oswald.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVtcn_Vf7Qw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 9:24:36 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:39:47 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:06:07 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-8, JE Corbett wrote:

Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The assassination of JFK and the murder of J. D. Tippit
happened only one way and that way is clear to anyone willing to take an objective look at the
evidence. Oswald killed both men. There is no credible evidence anyone else was involved.

Certainly no evidence here that John Robot even read my posts!

Why the hell would I? They're all the same.

And yet you imply that you continue to be "amazed" by what I write even as, you admit, you don't read it:

I didn't imply anything. I stated it unambiguously.

I never cease to be amazed at the stupid shit Don focuses on

You're like movie-guy John Stanley, who would review movies which are no longer extant and he couldn't have seen.

You take a few insignificant facts and weave a twisting tale
full of speculation and assumptions and reach totally illogical conclusions. How many times do I need
to take part in that silly exercise.

Are you asking yourself? And yet you do continue to comment...

For amusement only.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:04:52 AM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--four

times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the east
sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police. Witness

his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different definitions
of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently

very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who

were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

I thought she said she saw TWO conspirators. Callaway never suggested that.

She never said that. The "second gunman" shtick was projected onto her by people like Mark Lane.
If you watch her interview in R2J, she says that the two men were moving in opposite directions
on opposite sides of Patton street. She said that the second man "may have been just a boy getting
out of the way." In the Martin interview, this Other Guy goes up Patton, and in the R2J footage, the
Other Guy winds up going down 10th. Just Like Callaway. And, the more that you look at Clemons'
actual statements, the more you'll realize that she was describing the encounter between Callaway
and the gunman.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

Ford: "You saw him run from about the taxicab"
Callaway: "Across the street." So, Callaway had the man crossing very near 10th St., behind Scoggins' cab.

Ford said "about the taxicab," not Callaway, and it's still a fairly vague description.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

I think he only came out with that in a later interview with Myers, when he again talked about the guy's hand going up to the butt of the gun. He mentioned the latter in his WC testimony, but didn't mention its significance.

I'm not seeing where he says in his testimony or affidavit that the gunman's "hand going up the butt of the gun."

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

Typical low-road LN talk. Don't read too closely or you'll get bit...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 4:11:50 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

IMO, neither Callaway nor Guinyard saw the man up close. Both ducked for cover after they heard the shots and looked up the street to see him coming towards them with a gun in his hand.
There are several reasons that bring me to that conclusion:

1. You are correct. Their descriptions have him on opposite sides of the street.

2. When Callaway got to the Tippit murder scene, he asked Benavides which way the shooter went. ( 6 H 452 )

At the point he reached the immediate scene of the crime, he could not have known how many were involved in the shooting, and what role anyone might have played. For all Callaway knew, the guy he saw running down Patton could have been the shooter, a
shooter, the intended victim, or just some bystander who was armed but decided to get the hell out of Dodge, pronto.

3. Calaway testified that both he and Guinyard were told that Tippit's murderer was in the lineup prior to viewing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiFbINQx8w

So what?

4. During the faux TV trial, Callaway's identification skills were tested and he "vaguely, faintly" recognized Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD as Oswald.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVtcn_Vf7Qw

23 years after the fact, someone shows Callaway a grainy, indistinct face in an enlargement of a photo. This grainy, indistinct face looks just enough like Oswald's that there is a fairly large armada of researchers who will swear to you that it is
indeed Oswald's face. So Callaway was shown a grainy, indistinct image that shows a face that a large number of people think looks like Oswald's face, and he says that this grainy indistinct face in the image looks "vaguely, faintly" like Oswald.

That is, Spence's little stunt means nothing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:14:31 AM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:04:52 AM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]...
Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--

four times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the
east sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position...[

with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-log
transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (p398),

which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would also,
at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police.

Witness his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different
definitions of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/west

side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and was

expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime. Or
the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or timber
wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently

very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who

were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

I thought she said she saw TWO conspirators. Callaway never suggested that.

She never said that. The "second gunman" shtick was projected onto her by people like Mark Lane.
If you watch her interview in R2J, she says that the two men were moving in opposite directions
on opposite sides of Patton street. She said that the second man "may have been just a boy getting
out of the way." In the Martin interview, this Other Guy goes up Patton, and in the R2J footage, the
Other Guy winds up going down 10th. Just Like Callaway. And, the more that you look at Clemons'
actual statements, the more you'll realize that she was describing the encounter between Callaway
and the gunman.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

Ford: "You saw him run from about the taxicab"
Callaway: "Across the street." So, Callaway had the man crossing very near 10th St., behind Scoggins' cab.

Ford said "about the taxicab," not Callaway, and it's still a fairly vague description.

Callaway said it first:
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

I think he only came out with that in a later interview with Myers, when he again talked about the guy's hand going up to the butt of the gun. He mentioned the latter in his WC testimony, but didn't mention its significance.

I'm not seeing where he says in his testimony or affidavit that the gunman's "hand going up the butt of the gun."

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

Typical low-road LN talk. Don't read too closely or you'll get bit...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 1:46:03 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:14:31 AM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:04:52 AM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street.
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]...
Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--

four times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the
east sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol position..

.[with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (DPD radio-
log transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (

p398), which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would
also, at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's reported

witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side of the
street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What would

Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police.

Witness his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different
definitions of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/

west side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and

was expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime.
Or the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or
timber wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an apparently

very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers, who

were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

I thought she said she saw TWO conspirators. Callaway never suggested that.

She never said that. The "second gunman" shtick was projected onto her by people like Mark Lane.
If you watch her interview in R2J, she says that the two men were moving in opposite directions
on opposite sides of Patton street. She said that the second man "may have been just a boy getting
out of the way." In the Martin interview, this Other Guy goes up Patton, and in the R2J footage, the
Other Guy winds up going down 10th. Just Like Callaway. And, the more that you look at Clemons'
actual statements, the more you'll realize that she was describing the encounter between Callaway
and the gunman.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

Ford: "You saw him run from about the taxicab"
Callaway: "Across the street." So, Callaway had the man crossing very near 10th St., behind Scoggins' cab.

Ford said "about the taxicab," not Callaway, and it's still a fairly vague description.

Callaway said it first:
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Your excerpt shows that Ford said it. Literally.

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

I think he only came out with that in a later interview with Myers, when he again talked about the guy's hand going up to the butt of the gun. He mentioned the latter in his WC testimony, but didn't mention its significance.

I'm not seeing where he says in his testimony or affidavit that the gunman's "hand going up the butt of the gun."

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

Typical low-road LN talk. Don't read too closely or you'll get bit...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 1:32:09 PM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 1:46:03 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:14:31 AM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:04:52 AM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:05:10 PM UTC-6, Donald Willis wrote:

Ted Callaway and the "55 feet"--Genius!

Mr. Dulles: [The suspect] was going south on Patton?
Ted Callaway: On the WEST [emphasis added] side of the street. Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]...
Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Sam Guinyard: [The suspect] come down Patton until he got to five feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. Ball: What side of the street did you see him coming down on? Guinyard: When he come down... it would be the EAST [emphasis added] side. (v7p397)

This west side/east side conundrum I always found curious, though not quite compelling, as apparently most everyone else has also found it, or it would have been brought up more often. Just a simple mix-up.

However, in looking at it more closely, I can't quite envision how such a contretemps could happen. Callaway and Guinyard were both on the east side of the street. Guinyard testifies that the gunman got to "about 10 feet from me" (p398). But--

four times--Callaway testifies that the gunman crossed the street, early on, near Patton (v3p353). I think Ball got the point, thank you. Callaway "figured [the man] was about 55 feet from him when he passed." (v7p398) Supposedly, the two were near the
east sidewalk at the same time, and saw the same man. (Guinyard: "We was together" [p398].)

At 10 feet, Callaway, certainly, could have identified the type of gun, simply by its look--revolver or automatic. But at 55 feet, Callaway says that he could tell the type of gun only by the way the man held it--in the "raised pistol

position...[with] his left hand going toward the butt of the gun, like the way you'd load an automatic." (With Malice p78) It was apparently he who told DPD Patrolman Summers that the man was "apparently armed with a 32 dark finish automatic pistol." (
DPD radio-log transcription/CE 1974 p74)

At 55 feet, that was apparently just a wild, wrong guess. But Guinyard clung to his "east side" version, even when counsel informed him re Callaway's version: "Well," he maintained, "[the gunman] crossed over after he crossed the driveway" (

p398), which was more than two-thirds of the block, on Patton, from 10th. (In his diagram, Myers has Callaway at the north end of that driveway--before the crossover point described by Guinyard ([WMp83].) Yes, according to Guinyard, then, Callaway would
also, at one point, have been just about 10 feet from the man.

We see which witness that counsel Joseph Ball favored, in this gentleman's disagreement, when the latter invokes Callaway's "55 feet" during Guinyard's testimony. Hint, hint. Guinyard must have been a little disconcerted by Callaway's

reported witnessing here. Even after Guinyard says "east side" (p397), Ball tries to correct Guinyard's "mistake": "And [Oswald] was across the street from you, wasn't he?" Guinyard: "No, we was on this side of the street." Ball: "He was on the east side
of the street?" Ah! Guinyard: "Yes, sir. And he was on the east side of the street until he got across our driveway." (p398)

The Ball monkey wrench fails. His leading-the-witness favoritism backfires and--along with Guinyard's plucky persistence in the face of a determined lawyer and possible backlash from his boss, Callaway--tips the scales the other way. What

would Guinyard have to gain, anyway, by sabotaging Callaway's reloading scenario? At one point, he too endorses a "pistol up" image, but not Callaway's left-hand-towards-the-gun-butt reloading. Guinyard has the gunman *unloading*, not reloading. In fact,
Guinyard testifies, "I never did see him use his left hand" (v7p397). But it all comes back to "10 feet"... If the Callaway version were correct, why would Guinyard have to be, shall we say, weaned off "55 feet" and reloading? No logical reason.

However, plenty of reason to have Callaway weaned off "10 feet", if that were the correct version. "10 feet" makes the weapon an automatic. I'm not saying that Callaway was in any way leaned on--he always seemed happy to assist the police.

Witness his superfluous call re the Tippit shooting on the latter's police radio, and the Great Car Chase with Scoggins. That "dark finish automatic pistol" had to be neutralized. Did Callaway change his story in order to help nail Oswald? Different
definitions of "good citizen" may come into play here...

And all Callaway had to do was to go to the other side of the street, or, more precisely, have the gunman go to the other side. And if he was willing to do that in order to help out, he might also have been glad to ID Oswald as the east side/

west side gunman. And it certainly would have bolstered the government's case if the latter somewhat resembled Oswald, who, after all--Callaway may have been reminded--murdered the President.

But why the startling lack of coordination between the respective testimonies of Callaway and Guinyard? How could Ball, that is, have blundered into his "And he was across the street from you, wasn't he?", as if he, Ball, knew the answer and

was expecting Guinyard just to confirm it. He put himself, and Callaway, out on a limb, and Guinyard cut it off. Ball must have been pissed. It's as if much thought had gone into developing Callaway's story, and Guinyard had been neglected until showtime.
Or the Guinyard version had been developed in a vacuum, by some moron unfamiliar with what was going on with Callaway, Benavides, and the Davises. In any event, Ball is left lying, rather bruised, on the ground. But the Patton Street train wreck, or
timber wreck, is instructive in its glimpse into the behind-the-scenes workings of the wheels of "justice".

On the other (Callaway) hand... Misplaced brilliance: to wit, the inventive conspirers having Callaway testify that the guy with the gun was so very, very far away from him, from, that is, his ears as well as from his eyes--across an

apparently very, very noisy street--that he could not quite make out what the man was trying to tell him. An inspired invention. The audible reinforcing the visible. I imagine Ball wished they'd shared their brilliance with Guinyard...

(Note: Well-placed brilliance: The comparable scene at the end of "La Dolce Vita", with Marcello unable to make out what the "Umbrian angel" is saying to him. Not that I think that the conspirers took their cue from Fellini and his writers,

who were waxing existential here, rather touchingly.)

1.) Acquilla Clemmons' account (especially the Shirley Martin interview) backs up Callaway's
version of events.

I thought she said she saw TWO conspirators. Callaway never suggested that.

She never said that. The "second gunman" shtick was projected onto her by people like Mark Lane.
If you watch her interview in R2J, she says that the two men were moving in opposite directions
on opposite sides of Patton street. She said that the second man "may have been just a boy getting
out of the way." In the Martin interview, this Other Guy goes up Patton, and in the R2J footage, the
Other Guy winds up going down 10th. Just Like Callaway. And, the more that you look at Clemons'
actual statements, the more you'll realize that she was describing the encounter between Callaway
and the gunman.

2.) Callaway doesn't say exactly where on Patton that he saw the gunman cross 10th street.

Ford: "You saw him run from about the taxicab"
Callaway: "Across the street." So, Callaway had the man crossing very near 10th St., behind Scoggins' cab.

Ford said "about the taxicab," not Callaway, and it's still a fairly vague description.

Callaway said it first:
Rep. Ford: You saw him run from about the taxicab [at 10th & Patton]... Callaway: Across the street, up this sidewalk. (v3p353)

Your excerpt shows that Ford said it. Literally.

I thought you were talking about Alan Ford, at the edforum. But notice that Callaway is simply continuing Gerald Ford's statement: You saw him run from about the taxicab... across the street. Check Myers' diagram on page 78 of With Malice. He has the
gunman running from about the middle of the Patton side of the Davis house, across the street, much closer to the cab than to the alley.

dcw

3.) I can't see how someone could pull the empty shells out of a revolver with only one hand,
the same hand used to hold the bloody thing. Then again, an automatic would have spit the
shells out as the gun was being fired, so Guinyard would not have seen the guy pulling shells
out at all had the guy had an auto.

4.) however, Callaway said that the gunman held the gun in only one hand, so that does kind of
fit with Guinyard's version.

5.) where does Callaway say in his testimony that he could tell what kind of gun it was? Or
why he could tell that?

I think he only came out with that in a later interview with Myers, when he again talked about the guy's hand going up to the butt of the gun. He mentioned the latter in his WC testimony, but didn't mention its significance.

I'm not seeing where he says in his testimony or affidavit that the gunman's "hand going up the butt of the gun."

Basically, all you are doing is saying "there's some discrepancy between Guinyard and
Callaway's testimony" then using that to launch into a massive stinking pile of your own
supposition.

Typical low-road LN talk. Don't read too closely or you'll get bit...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:05:05 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

I never cease to be amazed ...

That's what happens when you don't know anything. EVERYTHING is
amazing...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)