On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:48:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<
hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 5:33:52?PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:
Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect
As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor. But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff. It is
centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet. That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches. In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley. And it's a short street,
only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long. Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley. Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley",
and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches. ("This will do fine.") And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street
names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle. Whaley recognized that
particular intersection. (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west. *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches". (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had
it.)
dcw
Accepting all that for the sake of argument, how does that:
A. Come close to disproving Oswald shot Tippit?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Or will you run away like the coward you are again?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)