> On 9/28/2012 9:18 PM, elpdrum...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the
>>>> grammar
>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as
>>>> "perfect"
>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as
>>> "Unknown"
>>> has a strange notion of respect.
>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
> Nothing wrong with using multiple aliases. I already replied to your
> message addressing you as Steve. You try to include drummer or drumrolls
> in each of your aliases. But if you can't remember which alias you are
> using for which newsgroup you could at least sign the messages here with
> your real name.
> Nothing wrong with being polite.
The irony that it is *Marsh* saying this will be lost on no one.
/sm
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
>>> has a strange notion of respect.
>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
> multiple names.
Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.
In article <bc2d3e35-2acc-4e4b-8a6c-f3f56d3ecb08@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly > following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come > from the overpass.
Hargis said he thought ALL of the shots, not some of them, not just one of them, but ALL of them came from the overpass, correct?
> He also had told them that the only spectator activity > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass. > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared in it. I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of Haygood. In another article you said this:
"Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up there."
"Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he said he went up there.
Belin obviously didn't mention the overpass in *Haygood's* testimony because nowhere in it does Haygood say he went to the overpass. He said he went to the railroad tracks. I just looked at it.
In Officer Haygood's WC chat, Mr. Belin coaxes mention of the "presumed" railroad detective out of Haygood, and the only detail we get about him is that Haygood says the "presumed" detective arrived in the railroad yard after he did. That seems to be all that Belin wanted to know about him. Richard C. Dodd, who was on the bridge with the other railroad workers told Mark Lane, "And then I went North to look around the corner to see if there is anyone behind the hedge and met a special agent of the railroad. And he went down there, and I walked along with him to see if there were any tracks there." If Dodd was walking to the north from where he was, he would have come upon my man on the bridge with the rifle. Perhaps this is Dodd's "special agent." But, if he is also Haygood's "presumed" detective, which seems likely to me, then he was already there when Haygood arrived, as we can see in the Cabluck photo. Dodd says he is a special agent of the railroad. Did he know this for sure, or was that also presumed? It sounds like he knows. Assuming that this guy in the picture is the special agent/"presumed" detective, then Belin's fancy footwork would be an attempt to say that he isn't. Belin doesn't want us to know that that guy with the gun on the bridge is a guy with a gun, a railroad detective. "The railroad detective showed up later, so that guy with the gun is just some guy. And that's not a gun; it's a shovel or blowtorch or something."
> On 9/29/12 1:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as
>>>>> "perfect"
>>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as
>>>> "Unknown"
>>>> has a strange notion of respect.
>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and
>> sniping as
>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>> multiple names.
As I said before Steve Barber always tries to use a variant of Drums or Drummer or such in his many aliaes.
If you've never been curious about the acoustical evidence he is the guy who told the NAS panel about the crosstalk which he claims puts the shots that BBN found too late on the tape to fit the shooting.
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 9/29/12 1:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
>>>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
>>>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>>>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>>>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
>>>>> has a strange notion of respect.
>>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
>>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>>> multiple names.
>> Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.
>> /sm
> Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
> getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."
That was (accidentally) sent to you personally, after Thunderbird changed its interface, in case anyone else here is wondering what message you're referring to.
And I still don't have any time to discuss the goofy theory that Greer shot Kennedy, which is what that was in reference to.
> > Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly
> > following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come
> > from the overpass.
> Hargis said he thought ALL of the shots, not some of them, not just one
> of them, but ALL of them came from the overpass, correct?
> > He also had told them that the only spectator activity
> > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
> > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
> > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
> > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
> > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
> No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in
> front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's
> existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared
> in it.
Maybe he didn't have the photo, but he certainly had some version of the police radio log, he knew that Chief Curry thought somebody was shooting from the overpass. He knew that Chief Curry ordered "somebody" to get up there and see what happened. And, if he didn't know that Haygood had run up there, then he was just too stupid for his job.
I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of
> "Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up
> there."
> "Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several
> minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And
> Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he
> said he went up there.
I should never say "everybody." You have a point there. You misunderstand Hargis's testimony. If you quote it here, I will set you straight. If you could see anything in photographs, I would upload a dozen of them to show you that Hargis was back on his bike before that picture was taken. For that to be Hargis, he would have to be blatantly lying to the WC. I do not say that is impossible, but since Haygood says that he is the one who tried to jump the curb, and it is clear from the Bell film, which you wouldn't be able to see anything in, that the cop who tried to jump the curb is the cop who ran up to the bridge, then I would have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist to think that that is not Haygood in the Cabluck photo.
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:27:24 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 9/29/12 9:38 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> >> On 9/29/12 1:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> >>>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
> >>>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
> >>>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
> >>>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
> >>>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
> >>>>> has a strange notion of respect.
> >>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
> >>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
> >>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
> >>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
> >>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
> >>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
> >>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
> >>> multiple names.
> >> Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.
> >> /sm
> > Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
> > getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."
> That was (accidentally) sent to you personally, after Thunderbird
> changed its interface, in case anyone else here is wondering what
> message you're referring to.
> And I still don't have any time to discuss the goofy theory that Greer
> shot Kennedy, which is what that was in reference to.
> /sm
You accidentally sent me 3 emails? I hope you don't think I'm rude, just crazy. I didn't respond because I'm not in the habit of checking that email account. Anyway, I doubt that anybody else was wondering. Most of them probably have better things to do.
> Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly
> following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come
> from the overpass. He also had told them that the only spectator activity
> he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
> the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
> overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
> session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
> DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
What I think is weird is that Oswald takes his rifle to work and shoots some people and for nearly 50 years people study the reaction of innocent people to that action.
In article <15bcfe97-ed2c-46df-8613-679a24142718@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> > I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber. > > I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they > > shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack > of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as > "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know > Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use > multiple names.
Ugh. It's solely because the recent changes in Google Groups, through which Steve is quite obviously posting, started causing certain posters to appear as "unknown," when Google Groups didn't do that before. Steve has no control over what Google does.
And since you say you have no idea who Steve Barber is, I'd suggest you look him up. It's safe to say he's one of the more famous living people who has had any connection whatsoever to the assassination literature.
In article <84e02d27-c221-4aea-923f-72670e6e2dfd@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not > getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."
And I have noticed that only in *some* of your articles does "Saintly Oswald" appear on the From line. I'm looking right now at several others in this thread alone in which only your email address appears on the From line, and it does not start with any variation of Saintly Oswald. So I would suggest you back off before erroneously accusing another poster of deliberately using multiple identities.
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:27:24 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> > On 9/29/12 9:38 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> > >> On 9/29/12 1:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> > >>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> > >>>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
> > >>>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
> > >>>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
> > >>>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
> > >>>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
> > >>>>> has a strange notion of respect.
> > >>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
> > >>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
> > >>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
> > >>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
> > >>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
> > >>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
> > >>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
> > >>> multiple names.
> > >> Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.
> > >> /sm
> > > Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
> > > getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."
> > That was (accidentally) sent to you personally, after Thunderbird
> > changed its interface, in case anyone else here is wondering what
> > message you're referring to.
> > And I still don't have any time to discuss the goofy theory that Greer
> > shot Kennedy, which is what that was in reference to.
> > /sm
> You accidentally sent me 3 emails? I hope you don't think I'm rude, just
> crazy. I didn't respond because I'm not in the habit of checking that
> email account. Anyway, I doubt that anybody else was wondering. Most of
> them probably have better things to do.
He 'accidents' me as well. It's nice to be thought of as an
obsession.
On Sep 30, 6:45 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 3:11 pm, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly
> > following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come
> > from the overpass. He also had told them that the only spectator activity
> > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
> > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
> > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
> > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
> > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
> What I think is weird is that Oswald takes his rifle to work and shoots
> some people and for nearly 50 years people study the reaction of innocent
> people to that action.
"What I think" ... I won't say it, but that has to be the height of
something!
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:27:24 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 9/29/12 9:38 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/12 1:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
>>>>>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
>>>>>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>>>>>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>>>>>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
>>>>>>> has a strange notion of respect.
>>>>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>>>>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>>>>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>>>>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>>>>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
>>>>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>>>>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>>>>> multiple names.
>>>> Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.
>>>> /sm
>>> Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
>>> getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."
>> That was (accidentally) sent to you personally, after Thunderbird
>> changed its interface, in case anyone else here is wondering what
>> message you're referring to.
>> And I still don't have any time to discuss the goofy theory that Greer
>> shot Kennedy, which is what that was in reference to.
>> /sm
> You accidentally sent me 3 emails? I hope you don't think I'm rude, just
> crazy. I didn't respond because I'm not in the habit of checking that
> email account. Anyway, I doubt that anybody else was wondering. Most of
> them probably have better things to do.
There's no way that you can possibly check all your aliases every day.
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:31:36 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <bc2d3e35-2acc-4e4b-8a6c-f3f56d3ecb08@googlegroups.com>,
> > fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > He also had told them that the only spectator activity > > > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on > > > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the > > > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's > > > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass. > > > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
> > No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in > > front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's > > existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared > > in it.
> Maybe he didn't have the photo, but he certainly had some version of the > police radio log, he knew that Chief Curry thought somebody was shooting > from the overpass. He knew that Chief Curry ordered "somebody" to get up > there and see what happened.
And "somebody" is not one particular officer, correct?
> And, if he didn't know that Haygood had run > up there, then he was just too stupid for his job.
If it's really true that Haygood had run up there.
> > I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of > > Haygood. In another article you said this:
> > "Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up > > there."
> > "Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several > > minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And > > Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he > > said he went up there.
> I should never say "everybody." You have a point there. You misunderstand > Hargis's testimony. If you quote it here, I will set you straight.
Yes, I think you're right. I had been looking at this part:
**********
Mr. HARGIS - Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over there.
**********
He said he ran up to the light post, up to a little wall, to get a better look on the bridge, and I had been thinking he meant the little wall that connects to the concrete railing on the bridge, but now I see from the full context that he was running up to a light post farther up Elm, closer to the Newmans on the ground with their children, to look at the bridge from there. And of course the only light post visible in the Cabluck photo is in the foreground, and nowhere close to the bridge. ;-)
> If you > could see anything in photographs, I would upload a dozen of them to show > you that Hargis was back on his bike before that picture was taken. For > that to be Hargis, he would have to be blatantly lying to the WC. I do not > say that is impossible, but since Haygood says that he is the one who > tried to jump the curb, and it is clear from the Bell film, which you > wouldn't be able to see anything in, that the cop who tried to jump the > curb is the cop who ran up to the bridge, then I would have to be a crazy > conspiracy theorist to think that that is not Haygood in the Cabluck > photo.
curtjester1 wrote:
> On Sep 30, 4:44 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:27:24 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 9/29/12 9:38 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>>> On 9/29/12 1:29 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
>>>>>>>>> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
>>>>>>>>> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>>>>>>>>> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>>>>>>>> I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
>>>>>>>> has a strange notion of respect.
>>>>>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>>>>>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>>>>>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>>>>>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>>>>>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
>>>>>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>>>>>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>>>>>> multiple names.
>>>>> Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.
>>>>> /sm
>>>> Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
>>>> getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."
>>> That was (accidentally) sent to you personally, after Thunderbird
>>> changed its interface, in case anyone else here is wondering what
>>> message you're referring to.
>>> And I still don't have any time to discuss the goofy theory that Greer
>>> shot Kennedy, which is what that was in reference to.
>>> /sm
>> You accidentally sent me 3 emails? I hope you don't think I'm rude, just
>> crazy. I didn't respond because I'm not in the habit of checking that
>> email account. Anyway, I doubt that anybody else was wondering. Most of
>> them probably have better things to do.
> He 'accidents' me as well. It's nice to be thought of as an
> obsession.
> CJ
This was happening for a little while because the Thunderbird I use at the office is different from the one on my laptop, the latter having a "Followup" button to send to the *group* as well as a "Reply," with the unfortunate result of invading someone's personal mailbox.
When you then replied, via e-mail, I responded. This was a mistake, perhaps, but not an accident.
I took the liberty of being a little more frank there.
> In article <15bcfe97-ed2c-46df-8613-679a24142718@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>> multiple names.
> Ugh. It's solely because the recent changes in Google Groups, through
> which Steve is quite obviously posting, started causing certain posters to
> appear as "unknown," when Google Groups didn't do that before. Steve has
> no control over what Google does.
It's a conspiracy I tell ya. Why are you trying to cover up for Google? Own stock or something?
> And since you say you have no idea who Steve Barber is, I'd suggest you
> look him up. It's safe to say he's one of the more famous living people
> who has had any connection whatsoever to the assassination literature.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <7b55c049-56c2-438a-8b19-5369242639ff@googlegroups.com>,
Now that you, presumably, think it was Haygood on the bridge, what do you think of his WC testimony where he didn't mention the bridge and where he was not asked about the bridge, even though twenty minutes before (or whatever) Hargis had said that he thought the shots came from the bridge? Don't you think that is weird?
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In
And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood, he must have known that seconds after JFK was shot, that the chief of police had broadcast an order on the channel that Haygood had been monitoring to get up on the bridge and "see what happened up there." Don't you think it is weird that he didn't mention this to Haygood who was sitting in front of him and chatting under oath? And, don't you think it is weird that Belin interrupted Haygood when he started to talk about getting back to his radio, to remind Haygood to say that bit about the "Presumed railroad detective?" Haygood almost started telling the real story, there. Oops! Those Dallas cops! Once they get talking, they just tend to start telling the truth. What they need is some lawyer training. Lawyers never lose sight of the fact that they are advocates, not truth-tellers. Was Mr. Belin a lawyer? I suppose I could look it up, but I don't feel the need to.
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:34:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 4:30 PM, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:44:52 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 9/27/2012 11:25 PM, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:28:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 9/26/2012 10:15 PM, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Actually, your idea that it is Hargis in the Cabluck photo is an
> >>> interesting notion. Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not
> >>> testify to going up there. But, I think it is a possibility. If it really
> >>> had been Hargis, that would mean that he ran directly from where he
> >>> stopped his bike when the president was shot to what he thought was the
> >>> source of the shots and saw my rifle man there. This in fact was my
> >>> original interpretation. But, the various photographs seem to suggest that
> >>> Hargis had actually got back to his bike and left before the press bus
> >>> carrying Cabluck came by. A photo shows Hargis approaching his bike while
> >>> Jean Hill is still sitting down. Another photo, when Jean Hill and most
> >>> everybody else had already stood up again, shows a bus approaching the
> >>> underpass while a notorcycle cop is about to reach the top. That can't be
> >>> Hargis, and that is probably Cabluck's bus. I'm not going to upload all
> >>> this stuff, since it is already a generally accepted fact that the Cabluck
> >>> photo is of Haygood.
> >> Let me ask you this simple question and see if you can figure it out.
> >> Look at whatever photo you are talking about, don't show it to me. Can
> >> you see that the cop is wearing black gloves? Can you find any other
> >> cycle cop wearing black gloves that day? Some did.
> >> BTW, Robert Cutler did an elaborate diagram of Hargis's movements after
> >> the last shot. He actually at one time suspected that it was Hargis who
> >> had his microphone stuck on open, not McLain. I can't remember which
> >> issue it was, but this weekend I'll look through my old Grassy Knoll
> >> Gazettes and see if I can find it. If I do I'll scan it in at 300 DPI,
> >> but try to keep the file size down with compression.
> > There is a Cancellare photo that shows a cop standing up on the railing
> > with nice black gloves. Maybe that's the one you had in mind. I don't know
> > who that is, but all of the other evidence says it is not Hargis. In this
> > picture, you can see that another motorcycle cop is already on the other
> > side of the railing, and a crowd has gathered on the knoll side, so this
> > is after the Cabluck photo.
> Ok, show me a photo of amy OTHER cop other than Hargis in Dealey Plaza
> wearing black gloves. Steve Barber just said that he was the first to
> point out that Hargis was wearing black gloves.
> Is the other cop Haygood? Do you know what clues to look for to tell the
> difference between a traffic cop or beat cop from a motorcycle cop? Most
> of the cops on the ground in Dealey Plaza did not wear helmets.
I'm looking at a picture now I had downloaded which somebody labelled "Darnell Frame," and Buddy Walthers is in it and Clyde Haygood is also labelled, and he is wearing black gloves. This is in the parking lot with the TSBD visible in the background, and another cop, D.V. Harkness looking into the camera. If that's Haygood before he radioed in, he sure is taking his sweet time with those 4 and a half minutes.
Regarding the time element, Mr. Tague's testimony confirms the it was about 4 to 5 minutes bewteen the shooting and the time that Haygood radioed in. He was not asked this question and he did not overtly put it that way, but he mentions the minutes and Haygood's actions very specifically. And complains that the cops did virtually nothing until 5, 6 or 7 minutes after the shooting, and that would be after Haygood called in the info about the TSBD. Haygood is with Walthers at this time, and the two had also been photographed together in the railroad yard near the parking lot just before, but he doesn't mention Walthers in his testimony.
It sounds like he's saying he talked to the witnesses as the only cop, but both Walthers and Tague say that Walthers was there. Not only that, but Tague says there was a "patrolman who evidently had been stationed under the triple underpass." also present, unmentioned by Haygood or Walthers. And nobody but Haygood mentions the guy who said, "...there was something in the building, he couldn't determine what it was, but it was just something there that he couldn't explain, but he was definite that the shots did come from there."
Tague, starts talking about how they looked at the building and focused on one window that wasn't Oswald's that had sun reflection and spider webs, and then Mr. Liebler of the WC changed the subject. That's as close as anybody gets to saying the shots came from the TSBD, according to Tague, who sounds like a much more reliable witness than either cop.
In article <18d128fd-70b1-48a7-b1d2-779243a02de7@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <7b55c049-56c2-438a-8b19-5369242639ff@googlegroups.com>,
> Now that you, presumably, think it was Haygood on the bridge,
Well, I'm virtually certain it wasn't Hargis, anyway. Is Haygood the only other possibility? I can't see his motorcycle anywhere in the photo, but of course that doesn't mean that isn't him. And I know you've posted other evidence to support your position that it is him, and you almost certainly are better acquainted with this issue than I am.
> what do you > think of his WC testimony where he didn't mention the bridge and where he > was not asked about the bridge, even though twenty minutes before (or > whatever) Hargis had said that he thought the shots came from the bridge?
Er, twenty minutes before?
"The testimony of Bobby W. Hargis was taken at 3:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President's Commission."
Testimony of Clyde A. Haygood was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 9, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Haygood testified the day after Hargis. Hargis was questioned by Samuel Stern and Haygood by David Belin. Is there proof that Belin had yet had time to read Hargis's testimony, at which he was not present, before he questioned Haygood?
> Don't you think that is weird?
Hmm, lemme eyeball that again.
Ok, I believe you've already quoted this part, but it won't hurt to quote it again:
**********
Mr. BELIN. What did you do after you heard the sounds? Mr. HAYGOOD. I made the shift down to lower gear and went on to the scene of the shooting. Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by the scene of the shooting? Mr. HAYGOOD. There on Main Street. Mr. BELIN. On Main Street? Mr. HAYGOOD. I am sorry, on Elm Street. Mr. BELIN. What position of Elm Street? Mr. HAYGOOD. Be just west of Houston Street. Mr. BELIN. By the scene of the shooting, do you mean the place where you believed the President's car was when the bullets struck? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there? Mr. HAYGOOD. When I first got to the location there, I was still on Houston Street, and in the process of making a left turn onto Elm Street I could see all these people laying on the ground there on Elm. Some of them were pointing back up to the railroad yard, and a couple of people were headed back up that way, and I immediately tried to jump the north curb there in the 400 block, which was too high for me to get over. Mr. BELIN. You mean with your motorcycle? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. Mr. BELIN. All right. Mr. HAYGOOD. And I left my motor on the street and ran to the railroad yard. Mr. BELIN. Now when you ran to the railroad yard, would that be north or south of Elm? Mr. HAYGOOD. The railroad yard would be located at the---it consists of going over Elm Street and back north of Elm Street. Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there? Mr. HAYGOOD. Well, there was nothing. There was quite a few people in the area, spectators, and at that time I went back to my motorcycle it was on the street--to the radio. Mr. BELIN. Did you see any people running away from there? Mr. HAYGOOD. No. They was all going to it. Mr. BELIN. Did you talk to any people over there or not? Mr. HAYGOOD. In the railroad yard, I talked to one of the people I presumed to be a railroad detective that was in the yard. Mr. BELIN. Had he been in the yard before or not? Mr. HAYGOOD. No. He was just coming into the area after I was. Mr. BELIN. He was coming into the area after the shooting? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to you, that you remember? Mr. HAYGOOD. Nothing that I remember. Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? Mr. HAYGOOD. I went back to my motorcycle, which was sitting on Elm Street.
**********
Yeah, nothing is said about the bridge specifically. But I am being totally honest in saying to you that this could simply be because Haygood ran up to the end of the bridge, looked to his left briefly, saw nothing of interest, and continued into the railroad yards. He did at least say that the railroad yard consists of the tracks going over Elm Street (which would of course be the bridge itself) plus the continuation of the tracks going north from the bridge. I myself would not call the bridge part of the "railroad yards," but my English usage is at least slightly better than some of these good-ole-boy Texans.
But I'm honestly not sure I understand the significance you seem to be attaching to this. Honestly. And this has nothing to do with any preconceived bias on my part to lean toward an LN scenario. I've seen you say in at least one other article that Haygood testified immediately after Hargis, but that is not true. Your point, if I understood it, was that Belin ought to have known that Hargis had just testified about hearing shots that all seemed to be coming from the bridge, but I don't see any specific evidence that Belin yet knew that Hargis had said that on the previous day when he questioned Haygood on the following day.
These attorneys had a lot of stuff to keep up with besides just witness testimony, as they were also having to pore through many documents and so forth to prepare for the questioning of each witness, and I don't know how quickly testimony with one witness by one attorney was shared with the other attorneys. My impression is that their duties were divided, so that, for example, Belin would handle some witnesses, and Stern would handle others, and Liebeler would handle others, and so forth. I don't know how quickly one attorney would have the chance to read the testimony of a witness questioned by another attorney on a different day, do you? Especially when the one attorney had questioned the witness during the afternoon, and the other attorney questioned a different witness the following morning. How many other documents did Belin have to study between the afternoon of April 8 and the morning of April 9 when he questioned Haygood? And did he have a sort of "backlog" of previous witness testimony that he still had to read, testimony taken prior to the afternoon of April 8? Do you know? I do not.
