JFK Assassination - Was Officer Tippet Supposed to Have Killed Oswald?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972

A funny thing, while watching a movie clip of the Dallas Police Dept announcing that Oswald has "EXPIRED" i.e has died, he states that oswald "expired" at 1.07.pm

Exactly the same time he enters the Texas Movie Theatre..1.07pm
Exactly the same time he allegedy shoots Tippet..1.07pm



The times simply don't make sense. There's no way Oswald could have shot Tippet at 1:07 and been at the theater at 1:07. The only people who might say that are probably trying to promote some connection to some paranormal theory. I think the Warren commission said it happened at 1:15, and I would guess that they said that Oswald entered the Theater at a reasonable time after that.

As far as I know there's not a lot of info out there about the Tippet murder. The best account of it that I've found so far was on Wikipedia. According to whoever it was that made the entry there were 12 witnesses connected to the Tippet murder.

Source

Twelve people witnessed the shooting or its aftermath.[8] Domingo Benavides saw a policeman standing by the left door of the police car parked along the side of the street, and a man standing at the right side of the parked police car. When he heard shots and saw the policeman fall to the ground, he stopped his pickup truck on the opposite side of the street near Tippit's car. He observed the shooter fleeing the scene, removing the empty cartridge cases from the gun as he went. After waiting in his truck until the gunman disappeared, Benavides rushed to Tippit's side, and finding him apparently dead, attempted to report the shooting to police headquarters over the radio in Tippit's car.[9] Helen Markham witnessed the shooting and then saw the man with a gun in his hand leave the scene.[10] Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as Tippit’s killer in a police lineup she viewed that evening.[11] Barbara Jeanette Davis and her sister-in-law Virginia Davis heard the shots and saw the killer crossing their lawn and shaking a revolver as if he were emptying it of cartridge cases. Later each woman found a cartridge case near the scene and submitted them to police. On the evening of November 22, Barbara Jeanette Davis and Virginia Davis viewed a group of four men in a lineup and each one picked Oswald as the man who crossed their lawn while emptying his pistol.[12]




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


I suggest you watch the MARK LANE videos on YOUTUBE..just type in TIPPET..

The guy in the texas movie theatre who rang the cops states Oswald enters at 1.07 pm and the Dallas Police records state that Oswald, at this time, was busy shooting Tippet.

Watch the video of Acquilla Clemons..

And there is plenty of information about the Tippet murder..and wikipedia is probably NOT one of the best informed..the stories (and stories they are) of Helen Markham etc dont coincide with each other, theres too many discrepancies and contradictions..

Acquilla Clemons WAS NOT called by the Warren Commission, which stated that there was only ONE female witness, Helen Markham.



[edit on 24-1-2008 by andy1972]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The famous 'wallet' that was found at the Tippet killing was the one that contained the 'Alek Hidell' library card.

Link

In his book Assignment: Oswald, James P. Hosty wrote that Dallas Police Captain W.R. Westbrook found a wallet with the identification of both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell at the Tippit murder scene and showed it to FBI Agent Bob Barrett. Since Dallas Police Detective Paul Bentley removed Harvey's wallet, which also included the Hidell identification, from his left rear pocket in a squad car after his arrest at the Texas Theater, little was made of that claim. Recently, however, footage from WFAA-TV newsreel film was discovered and published in Dale Myers' book With Malice supporting Hosty's claim that Oswald's wallet was discovered at the sight of the Tippit murder.


Some authors think that this wallet was intentionally left at the scene to implicate the Oswald who was being set up for the JFK killing.

There's no testimony that there was any struggle that might have caused anyone to drop their wallet. Even so, it's unlikely enough to raise eyebrows.

Oddly, other accounts claim that Oswald had this wallet when he was arrested at the Theater.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Heres the Acquilla Clemons version..



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972
 


I suggest you watch the MARK LANE videos on YOUTUBE..just type in TIPPET..

Watch the video of Acquilla Clemons..

Acquilla Clemons WAS NOT called by the Warren Commission, which stated that there was only ONE female witness, Helen Markham.


I couldn't find the video you mentioned by searching for Tippet or Mark Lane.

I watched the Acquilla Clemons video. She's got believable story. I'd never heard her version of what happened.

The witness I'd heard about is Helen Markham. I guess she was the Warren Commission witness. There was a video of her on the page when I watched the Acquilla video.



Originally posted by Badge01
The famous 'wallet' that was found at the Tippet killing was the one that contained the 'Alek Hidell' library card.


Seems like I read somewhere that there were 5 Oswald wallets found in various locations.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Here's some more interesting 'Oswald' information.

A few years ago, the DPD released their 'secret' Oswald/JFK files and guess what turned up?

A photo of the famous backyard Oswad photo, but with the person cut out:



You can view the short expose that Jim Marrs does, covering this.


Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Here's another compilation of 'Oswald' face shots.

Some are truly strange (Row2Pic3).

Some are probably composites, taking one side of a face and pasting it with the other side of another look-a-like's face (Row3Pic3 and Row3Pic5). Based on comparisons and a peculiar bulge in the right wrist, Jack White, noted photoanalyst, thinks it may be Roscoe White.

Note the mugshot (or probably a Marine photo) Row4Pic2) has a face that is 13" long (from below the 4'9" mark to the 5'9" mark). This is clearly impossible for a normal-sized person.

One might think the 'too tall face' image was taken with 'Oswald' standing away from the wall, but then the numbers and face wouldn't both be in focus:

Going by art standards, when drawing a normal face you make an oval about 1/6 an individual's height in inches . Thus Oswald's head should be from 11.5" to 11.8" and not almost 13".



[edit on 27-1-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Never know, I think theirs a government in this country that is higher up then the President, perhaps it had some involvement into the Assasination. Who these people are is beyond me, but I bet their power alone is something we cant comprehend.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Gentlemen,
I had the opportunity during 1998 whilst working as a news helicopter pilot in Dallas, to investigate the murder of Officer Tippett. I had no pre-conceived notions about Oswald as I, like many others had simply accepted the official version, however, I became intrigued as I used to fly over Dealey Plaza and the Oakcliff area of Dallas many times each day and once a colleague had pointed out and given me a tour of these areas, I decided with his help to investigate as best as I could.
I had as a result of that summers work compiled a complete picture of the events of that day, based upon first eyewitness accounts, walking and driving around the streets of Oakcliff taking down times and possible routes and interviews with relevant individuals who were around during November 1963. These notes are complete and clearly point to a different conclusion than that of the Warren Commission. Anyone who is seriously interested in exposing these events is more than welcome to copies of my notes and conclusions. I had been in contact with Jim Marrs at that time but for reasons I cannot remember, neglected in passing along what I had discovered to him.
Simply put, There was absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK on the 22rd November 1963 and most definitely not the murder of officer Tippett; there simply didn't need to be. The trouble with the word conspiracy is that it is too broad a concept; it implies groups of people all involved in the same enterprise. Kennedy was shot by more than one shooter certainly, but that does not necessarily involve a conspiracy; they were professional shooters employed by one man and nobody outside that group was involved. The CIA, FBI, Dallas Police, Cuban Exiles, Johnson et al were not remotely aware of what was to transpire and there is absolutely no evidence to support that they were. It is very easy with 20-20 hindsite to piece together what looks like related events, when in fact they are not related at all and that in my view has muddied the waters over the decades. Opinions simply don't count here, only evidence.
The evidence points clearly to Oswald being unwittingly manipulated into being the fall guy; he was most definitely not a shooter of either JFK or Tippett. It is abundantly clear when one sifts through the witnessed evidence and applying logical process to that evidence that Officer Tippett was supposed to shoot Oswald on the waste ground at the back of the Texas Theater, thereby disposing of the only piece to cause any doubts or concerns. He failed to achieve that objective because in the final analysis he was not a murderer and paid for his ultimate decency by being eliminated by a member of the original group.
There were at most six people, all part of the same crew and employed by the same person who carried out both shootings that day. For those of you genuinely interested, I would be glad to expand upon this statement and the events in Oakcliff. There are clues which can only be seen from the air even today and it was these clues which first put me on track.
I want to make it perfectly clear I have no agenda with regard to this subject. I frankly coundn't care less about Oswald or Kennedy for that matter. My only interest was to discover what actually happened in Oakcliff that day which I am sure I have been able to do. I have ruminated about this off and on over the passed ten years, trying to pick holes in my conclusions. Apart from one or two minor details I am confident that I was able to discern the truth. The difficulty with this is to interest objective people to go through it with me; I contacted a number of prominent writers on the subject but I soon found out that they were more interested in promoting their own pet theories. I guess that is why I did not send it all to Jim Marrs, who of all people was most helpful to me; I apologize to Jim for that.
David J. Millea-Hunt (206)910-4985 David.Millea-Hunt@AlaskaAir.com



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidJMH
Simply put, There was absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK on the 22rd November 1963 and most definitely not the murder of officer Tippett; there simply didn't need to be. The trouble with the word conspiracy is that it is too broad a concept; it implies groups of people all involved in the same enterprise. Kennedy was shot by more than one shooter certainly, but that does not necessarily involve a conspiracy; they were professional shooters employed by one man and nobody outside that group was involved. The CIA, FBI, Dallas Police, Cuban Exiles, Johnson et al were not remotely aware of what was to transpire and there is absolutely no evidence to support that they were.


OK, I'll play along. Good post BTW.


Any ideas about who the one person may have been that employed the multiple shooters? Did that one person have the ability to control the government and press in order to cover up the truth?

I don't agree with you completely, but because of your excellent post I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and listen to more of what you have to say.

Peace


[edit on 31-1-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Dr. Love,
Thank you for your kind comments. One of the things I have discovered necessary is to be most careful about being too specific unless there is direct evidence to support a definitive conclusion. I will leave you to fathom the identity of the prime-mover behind the JFK assassination for the time being; I am not evading although it may seem so, I simple do not have any direct evidence to support what seems to me to be fairly obvious and I doubt that any connection could now be made to that person anyway.

To answer your second point, there was no conspiracy to "cover-up" anything after that day; again for the same reason as the assassination, there really doesn't need to be. The anti-conspiracy theorists are correct by claiming that it would not be possible to keep such a thing quiet amongst various groups and the perpetrator behind these events must have known this; he didn't even have to know how the assassination plot would be achieved; he simply gave the order. The proper question in my view is whether or not a conspiracy needs to exist for an event or series of events to occur. It is very tempting, as I wrote before, to connect dots with hindsight where there is nothing other than coincidence or the appearance of collusion and no direct evidence. Undoubtably, an instruction was given to wrap this affair up as expeditiously as possible and where that instruction came from again is to me at least, obvious (there is anecdotal evidence to support it) simply because the very political and social fabric of a nation was at stake; it was most expedient to ensure that Oswald, who could no longer now defend himself, should be the focus of the conclusions.

The person behind the assassination didn't need to plan or have control over subsequent events either; it was obvious what would happen just so long as Oswald could not defend himself. Tippet failed to silence Oswald so it was left up to the on the ground organizer, Jack Ruby to ensure there would be no trial. Oswald's shooting was ad hoc, to close the loophole and from the available evidence it appears to have been entirely unplanned and only occurred to Ruby minutes before doing it. Ruby was undoubtably desparate as the plan to have Tippett dispose of Oswald had failed. That placed Ruby's own life in immediate danger and he knew it, which is supported by his statements when in jail; in jail he was safe and he had cleared up the mess. It is very important to understand that there was no way Oswald could be allowed to testify at a trial, which I won't go into here and now as it is irrelevant to this posting.

The evidence on the ground and from the air at Oakcliff makes it abundantly clear that Oswald could not have shot Tippet. Tippet was executed by an unknown participant in the plot to assassinate JFK, simply because he had failed to complete his part to kill Oswald and needed to be eliminated so he couldn't talk. There is evidence to support this but is to some degree circumstantial, however, many weeks trekking around Oakcliff eventually gave up it's clues. Contrary to the Warren Commission, and anyone is welcome to try it for themselves, it would not have been possible for Oswald to be at 10th and Patton when they claim he was. This brings up an interesting question, the answer to which requires an aerial map and knowledge of the Oakcliff suburb; why was Tippett shot at 10th and Patton? I can assure you it was not pure chance and will leave you at this time to have a stab at it for yourself.

There is much more of interest in Oakcliff than around Dealey Plaza. The Zapruda film asnwers most of what needs to be asked as does the reaction of the people immediately after the assassination. The murder of Officer Tippet was claimed by the Warren Commission as proof that Oswald shot Kennedy as well. The evidence that I have been able to gleen clearly disproves this connection.

DM-H.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by DavidJMH]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DavidJMh


The evidence that I have been able to gleen clearly disproves this connection.

As of yet we havnt seen any of the evidence you speak of sir.
Would you be so kind as to display us a little.

As you claim there was "no conspiracy" in the assassination, by the very fact that there was one or more shooters is the very proof that there was a "conspiration" between one or more person to kill the president.

And if there was no cover up AFTER the event, then please explain me why the Warren Commission was held behind closed doors.

Witnesses such as Aquilla Clemons, (whose version of the Tippet shooting didnt agree with the official version) where ignored and never called, or Orville Nix, whose testimony stated that he heard shots from the knoll, was forced to change his version on TV.

That Oswald, or who ever HE was, was "just a patsy" is clear,a poor fool manipulated by forces way,way,way beyond his control, and that Jack Ruby was sent to silence him, again obvious. b
But none of the this would have been necessary if the "conspiracy" didnt involve some "heavy weights" behind it.

Like Jack Ruby said " IF ADELIE STEVENSON WAS VICE PRESIDNT THE ASSASSINATION WOULD´NT HAVE HAPPENED"

What does that imnply to you....



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
As you claim there was "no conspiracy" in the assassination, by the very fact that there was one or more shooters is the very proof that there was a "conspiration" between one or more persons to kill the president.

And if there was no cover up AFTER the event, then please explain to me why the Warren Commission was held behind closed doors, and yet not one newspaper or magazine in the U.S claimed it had a right to be present.

Why were witnesses such as Aquilla Clemons, (whose version of the Tippet shooting didnt agree with the official version) ignored and never called, or Orville Nix, whose testimony stated that he heard shots from the knoll, who was forced to change his version on TV.

That Oswald, or who ever HE was, was "just a patsy" is clear, a poor fool manipulated by forces way,way,way beyond his control.
That Jack Ruby was sent to silence him, again obvious, by the paymasters.
But none of the this would have been necessary if the "conspiracy" didnt involve some "heavy weights" behind it.

Like Jack Ruby said " IF ADELIE STEVENSON WAS VICE PRESIDNT THE ASSASSINATION WOULD´NT HAVE HAPPENED"

What does that imply to you....

[edit on 1-2-2008 by andy1972]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Dear Sir,
Firstly, I am not remotely interested in opinions about these events; I thought I had made it clear in my initial posting to this topic that over the intervening years, there have been way too many speculations, ideas and half-baked theories, all of which have detracted from trying to solve this puzzle. It is all too easy for people to sit at home and invent whatever pet "theory" they wish and then try to find "evidence" to support it; this is upside down thinking. One has to first look at the available evidence, all of it, and then see what set of circumstances is "completely" consistent with them, only then can one consider the solution as a viable theory of what happened.

Secondly, I don't see that there is any future in discussing the semantics of the English language, however, clearly the word "conspiracy" needs some defining. When a boss tells a number of his subordinates to perform a particular task, that is not a conspiracy; it is simply an instruction or order to achieve a particular outcome. Conspiracy by definition requires colluson and an order or instruction from a single source is not part of that definition.

The assassination of JFK does not need to have been a conspiracy although I will concede the possibility that it may have been, however, there is not the slightest jot of "evidence" to show that it was. If one is unable to accept that then there is no future for investigation. Generally, the simplest answer to a problem is the correct one and I repeat, 20-20 hindsight has the temptation of making connections where in reality there are none. Let us only continue this subject by what can be proven, not by what our ideas may be, please.

You ask for facts and I have previously stated, I am more than willing to supply them but only to serious students of the subject and only through private channels, that is why I gave my email address and phone number. I do not have sole custody of the facts surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit, they are available to anyone who is willing to objectively sift through the eye-witness accounts, walk and drive the ground as I have done and then put their thinking cap on and see what series of events fit.

What I am prepared to do here is pose questions and let any interested parties answer them; in other words, start a serious investigation and see whether or not other people are able to independently draw similar conclusions to mine or change my conclusions althogether. If a concensus from independent people can be achieved then maybe a viable solution can be the result. In my last posting I already posed a question about 10th and Patton. Answer it based upon available evidence and not by guessing and then let us see where that leads.

Regards, DM-H.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by DavidJMH]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
If you are not prepared to discuss or enter into light hearted banter over the "semantics" of the English language or accept the "pet" theories of other members then ATS probabley isnt for you, sir.

As, being an Englishman living in Spain, i will probably never have the opportunity to tread Dealy Plaza or any other of the other significant sights of the JFK assassination, and thus, unlike yourself, sir, i will die in my ignorance, never knowing the FULL FACTS and never knowing ALL THE TRUTHS, i will humbly continue being just one more of the poor uneducated fools who believe in the "conspiracy" theory.

I just wish i was so englightened as your good self, sir.

Wishing you a pleasent stay on ATS,

yours,

one of the poor, living in the dark unenlightened multitude without the common sense to think for himself and so simply follows the crowd and shouts "CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY" every time he recieves a parking ticket.

P.S. Still think LBJ was calling the shots.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Yes it is one big qaugmire. I really truly think none of us will ever get the truth of what happened that day, I really don't. No doubt it was a conspiracy but the detalis I'm affraid will never be known. I am flabergasted at how so many people kept this secret for so long. Un heard of ability to not say anything at all.


Vance



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Dear Vance,
Your are perhaps correct. So much time has passed now and so much BS has been perpetrated regarding this whole affair that for the serious researcher, it is increasingly difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. However, by sifting through the original eyewitness accounts and doing the research on the ground, I believe it still to be possible at the very least, to achieve a plausable and testable theory of what actually took place. Without actually visiting Oak Cliff, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to get a sense of how all the relevant locations relate to each other and the time frames required to piece all the facets of Tippit's murder together. This is proven by so many people's guesswork; they have simply never been there.
Further, those who try to insist a wide ranging conspiracy was necessary for the assassination and everything that happened subsequently, have not in my humble opinion thought it through and I have written about that in some detail above. I have asked a straight forward question to which I would like other contributers to provide input based upon known evidence. Perhaps Andy 1972 is correct after all, this is a venue for adolescent chit-chat and not serious discussion. Therefore, I have opened a Google Group "Officer JD Tippit Murder" to accomodate those of us who have something of interest to contribute whilst at the same time excluding the peanut gallery.

Regards, DM-H.

Mod edit: Let's get back to being civil.


Peace



[edit on 4-2-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01



I meant to comment on this before, but I forgot. The physical similarities between the two are striking. Makes me wonder if Tippett's body, or parts of it (the head) were used in the coverup?

Peace


[edit on 4-2-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 



Yes sireee..you´ve got to admit that the resemblance is really striking.

And this would be a perfect body for a swap..

(But why swap when theres really no conspiracy etc etc etc benign childish chatter and childish chit chat etc etc etc)

And if a certain newbie on this forum doesnt find the conversation sufficiently intelectually stimulating why does´nt he stay put on his own freakin page on Google and leave the rest of us in peace and harmony
(Sorry Doc - civility code etc etc)

Maybe the body would have been used for the autopsy thus eliminating the need for uncomfortable questions such as why the frontal head wound etc etc


[edit on 5-2-2008 by andy1972]



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 



This theory is proposed in "American Tabloid"- James Elroy





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join