There are some who say, "Oh, so many witnesses heard this and so many witnesses heard that." But the fact of the matter is that Chief Curry and Officer Hargis thought the shots came from the bridge, and Hargis thought specifically that they came from the north end of the bridge, where the man with the gun was standing when Officer Haygood arrived. Even if he did kinda look like a railroad detective, Officer Haygood should have asked him what he was doing there with a gun right where Chief Curry told him to go and see what was happening up there when the president got his brains blown out. It seems to me this needs to be addressed, regardless of what percentage of witnesses thought what. But, I'm funny that way. When the president gets murdered, I like to know who did it.
> I am afraid you have it rather confused ( or maybe I am mis-sreading
> your post). I did not aid the HSCA in any way with the magazine insert nor
> did I aid the HSCA in any way, shape or from. By the time the record from
> which I discovered the crosstalk was available, the HSCA had already ended
> their investigation, having concluded that there was a conspiracy, based
> primarily on the Dallas police recording. In Sept. 1980, I discovered the
> crosstalk on the recording that you refer to, which was, as some have
> called it "the silver bullet" in disproving the conclusions reached by the
> HSCA's acoustical team BBN & Weiss and Aschkenasy. The Committee on
> Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), better known as the "NAS Panel" or the "Ramsey
> panel" was whom I helped.
Thanks for helping to clear that up. I don't think you have previously pinpointed the exact date when you found the crosstalk.
So, do you have any way to upload whatever letters you wrote to the HSCA to point out their errors?
Do you know how to OCR so that you can cut and paste them here?
On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:06:15 AM UTC-4, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> There are some who say, "Oh, so many witnesses heard this and so many
> witnesses heard that." But the fact of the matter is that Chief Curry and
> Officer Hargis thought the shots came from the bridge, and Hargis thought
> specifically that they came from the north end of the bridge, where the
> man with the gun was standing when Officer Haygood arrived. Even if he did
> kinda look like a railroad detective, Officer Haygood should have asked
> him what he was doing there with a gun right where Chief Curry told him to
> go and see what was happening up there when the president got his brains
> blown out. It seems to me this needs to be addressed, regardless of what
> percentage of witnesses thought what. But, I'm funny that way. When the
> president gets murdered, I like to know who did it.
So you honestly believe that a guy was standing among all those railroad workers and a Dallas police officer stationed on the underpass, and shot the president?
In article <1b76b111-1af2-4348-a004-adeb6ae3efef@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> There are some who say, "Oh, so many witnesses heard this and so many > witnesses heard that."
And you keep failing to address the obvious implications of that.
> But the fact of the matter is that Chief Curry and > Officer Hargis thought the shots came from the bridge, and Hargis thought > specifically that they came from the north end of the bridge, where the > man with the gun was standing when Officer Haygood arrived.
Yes, he thought ALL of the shots came from the bridge. Not just one of the shots. Not just some of the shots. ALL of the shots. Others thought ALL of the shots came from the TSBD. Others thought ALL of the shots came from the grassy knoll. What are the obvious implications of this?
> Even if he did > kinda look like a railroad detective, Officer Haygood should have asked > him what he was doing there with a gun right where Chief Curry told him to > go and see what was happening up there when the president got his brains > blown out. It seems to me this needs to be addressed, regardless of what > percentage of witnesses thought what.
And what you keep failing to address is how S.M. Holland could be standing less than 30 feet away from your supposed gunman on the bridge and not notice him firing shots right down at the limousine with a rifle. Holland said he thought one shot came from behind the trees along the GK fence, and that the others came from a more distant location. You have yet to offer any even remotely plausible explanation as to why he would say these things if a man almost right beside him on the bridge fired right down at the limousine as it was approaching the bridge.
> But, I'm funny that way. When the > president gets murdered, I like to know who did it.
As if the rest of us don't? Just because we have a different opinion from you as to who really did it doesn't automatically mean that we don't want to know who really did it just as much as you do. We just don't agree with you that the assassin was where you say he was. And your extremely childish comment to me on Youtube yesterday that I could "rub my lone nut" articulates just how biased you are.
In article <4918fb3d-6984-43f7-82fb-a29b4038ab04@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> I mean, if I wanted to find out what happened, I would have asked Haygood who > the guy with the gun on the bridge was. It seems to me that might be a > relevant question. He is looking right at him in the Cabluck photo. Who was > he, Officer Haygood? Did you bother to ask him why he had a rifle with him? > Or if he saw who shot JFK? He must have. He was standing right where somebody > did shoot JFK. I suppose maybe he was cleaning his gun and didn't see who > shot JFK. You know how carried away you can get with cleaning your gun. The > whole world just seems to disappear and you don't see or hear a thing but > your sweet little rifle, right there on the bridge while the presidential > limousine idles below. It's perfectly understandable, I suppose, that this > guy wouldn't have noticed anybody right next to him blasting away at JFK. > Even a presumed railroad detective might miss that. But, it would have been > nice to ask him, just the same.
Why wouldn't you ask S.M. Holland in addition to Haygood? The officer, whether it was Haygood or Hargis, didn't get to the bridge until *after* the shooting. But S.M. Holland was standing *on* the bridge *during* the shooting. In fact, he was standing directly over the *middle* of Elm Street. This would mean that he would be much less than 30 feet away from your shooter. In fact, he'd have to almost be standing right *beside* your shooter. And have you noticed how many people he already knew by *name* whom he said were standing right there near him? If you're so intent on getting to the real truth, as you claim to be, why are you making no reference whatsoever to S.M. Holland and these other people, since there is *no* *possible* *way* for someone to fire down at the limousine from almost right beside them as the limousine was approaching the bridge without them noticing it? Or are you going to stoop to the level of calling S.M. Holland and these other people liars when there is no specific evidence of it? You've called so many others liars that I am perfectly justified in suspecting you might do that with Holland et al too.
> I am afraid you have it rather confused ( or maybe I am mis-sreading > your post). I did not aid the HSCA in any way with the magazine insert nor > did I aid the HSCA in any way, shape or from. By the time the record from > which I discovered the crosstalk was available, the HSCA had already ended > their investigation, having concluded that there was a conspiracy, based > primarily on the Dallas police recording. In Sept. 1980, I discovered the > crosstalk on the recording that you refer to, which was, as some have > called it "the silver bullet" in disproving the conclusions reached by the > HSCA's acoustical team BBN & Weiss and Aschkenasy. The Committee on > Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), better known as the "NAS Panel" or the "Ramsey > panel" was whom I helped.
You may not have noticed yet, but the following day in this thread Dave posted another article in which he plainly admitted that he had not been nearly as clear as he should have been in his article to which you here responded, and made it quite clear that he already knew that you did not aid the HSCA in any way. I also didn't notice his second article until after I had already replied to his first. Here is what he said in the second article:
**********
The version of this that I sent earlier was garbled and error-ridden. My apologies. I hereby try again.
It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis that seemed to show additional shots (beyond 3) having been recorded over an open Dallas police microphone thought by the HSCA's panel to have been recorded in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. Although Steve was working initially from a copy of the Dictabelt material given out as a magazine insert, the evidence that the recording was not made at the time of the assassination based on "crosstalk" from other channels (and later further evidence from the ambient sounds that the recording microphone was not located in the position originally believed) that Steve contributed helped lead to the NAS report correcting the major errors of the HSCA's analysis of the acoustic evidence.
Sorry for the incredibly misleading botched edition from earlier. My apologies to Steve, especially.
> In article <e1473bfb-82ae-405d-8ba3-68b3f1acccd8@googlegroups.com>,
> elpdrum...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dear Dave,
>> I am afraid you have it rather confused ( or maybe I am mis-sreading
>> your post). I did not aid the HSCA in any way with the magazine insert nor
>> did I aid the HSCA in any way, shape or from. By the time the record from
>> which I discovered the crosstalk was available, the HSCA had already ended
>> their investigation, having concluded that there was a conspiracy, based
>> primarily on the Dallas police recording. In Sept. 1980, I discovered the
>> crosstalk on the recording that you refer to, which was, as some have
>> called it "the silver bullet" in disproving the conclusions reached by the
>> HSCA's acoustical team BBN & Weiss and Aschkenasy. The Committee on
>> Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), better known as the "NAS Panel" or the "Ramsey
>> panel" was whom I helped.
> You may not have noticed yet, but the following day in this thread Dave
> posted another article in which he plainly admitted that he had not been
> nearly as clear as he should have been in his article to which you here
> responded, and made it quite clear that he already knew that you did not
> aid the HSCA in any way. I also didn't notice his second article until
I also dispute the impression left that Steve criticized the HSCA at the time. Maybe in the shower, but I have never seen anything in public or letters in private to the HSCA.
> after I had already replied to his first. Here is what he said in the
> second article:
> **********
> The version of this that I sent earlier was garbled and error-ridden. My
> apologies. I hereby try again.
> It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin
> theory if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis that seemed to
> show additional shots (beyond 3) having been recorded over an open
> Dallas police microphone thought by the HSCA's panel to have been
> recorded in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. Although
> Steve was working initially from a copy of the Dictabelt material given
> out as a magazine insert, the evidence that the recording was not made
> at the time of the assassination based on "crosstalk" from other
> channels (and later further evidence from the ambient sounds that the
> recording microphone was not located in the position originally
> believed) that Steve contributed helped lead to the NAS report
> correcting the major errors of the HSCA's analysis of the acoustic
> evidence.
> Sorry for the incredibly misleading botched edition from earlier. My
> apologies to Steve, especially.
> In article <4918fb3d-6984-43f7-82fb-a29b4038ab04@googlegroups.com>,
> fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I mean, if I wanted to find out what happened, I would have asked Haygood who
>> the guy with the gun on the bridge was. It seems to me that might be a
>> relevant question. He is looking right at him in the Cabluck photo. Who was
>> he, Officer Haygood? Did you bother to ask him why he had a rifle with him?
>> Or if he saw who shot JFK? He must have. He was standing right where somebody
>> did shoot JFK. I suppose maybe he was cleaning his gun and didn't see who
>> shot JFK. You know how carried away you can get with cleaning your gun. The
>> whole world just seems to disappear and you don't see or hear a thing but
>> your sweet little rifle, right there on the bridge while the presidential
>> limousine idles below. It's perfectly understandable, I suppose, that this
>> guy wouldn't have noticed anybody right next to him blasting away at JFK.
>> Even a presumed railroad detective might miss that. But, it would have been
>> nice to ask him, just the same.
> Why wouldn't you ask S.M. Holland in addition to Haygood? The officer,
> whether it was Haygood or Hargis, didn't get to the bridge until *after*
> the shooting. But S.M. Holland was standing *on* the bridge *during* the
> shooting. In fact, he was standing directly over the *middle* of Elm
> Street. This would mean that he would be much less than 30 feet away from
> your shooter. In fact, he'd have to almost be standing right *beside*
> your shooter. And have you noticed how many people he already knew by
> *name* whom he said were standing right there near him? If you're so
> intent on getting to the real truth, as you claim to be, why are you
> making no reference whatsoever to S.M. Holland and these other people,
> since there is *no* *possible* *way* for someone to fire down at the
> limousine from almost right beside them as the limousine was approaching
> the bridge without them noticing it? Or are you going to stoop to the
> level of calling S.M. Holland and these other people liars when there is
> no specific evidence of it? You've called so many others liars that I am
> perfectly justified in suspecting you might do that with Holland et al
> too.
There is no physical problem with shooting AT the limo from the overpass when it is still at the top of Elm except that such a shot would be blocked by the windshield.
How about a witness standing only 10 feet away from the shooter, as three black men were on the sixth floor? Does that guarantee that the shooter is stopped before he can shoot again or identified or caught immediately?
He was not standing among the railroad workers. He was around a corner on the north end of the bridge, with pillars between him and the railroad workers. There were four people right near him who were not railroad workers and who were also not identified by the Warren Commission, apparently, who would have seen anything he did there. And I believe there were 2 uniformed police officers stationed on the bridge. In my opinion, the only man who could shoot the president from there and under those circumstances and get away with it would be a Dallas police detective. But, Officer Haygood maybe kinda thought he was a presumed railroad detective, or something, so I suppose that presumably could be possible, I suppose, but I'd have liked something more definitive. Of course, something definitive would have been a lie, so maybe I should be glad that we got wishy-washy baloney.
Some say, "But what of Skinny Holland? What of reliable old Skinny? Why quote ye not he?"
Mr. Holland.
And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. Stern.
What number would that have been in the----
Mr. Holland.
Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. Stern.
The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. Holland.
The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. Stern.
So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND. It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
Mr. Stern.
You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND. I have no doubt about it.
"It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots."
elpdrum...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:06:15 AM UTC-4, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> > There are some who say, "Oh, so many witnesses heard this and so many
> > witnesses heard that." But the fact of the matter is that Chief Curry and
> > Officer Hargis thought the shots came from the bridge, and Hargis thought
> > specifically that they came from the north end of the bridge, where the
> > man with the gun was standing when Officer Haygood arrived. Even if he did
> > kinda look like a railroad detective, Officer Haygood should have asked
> > him what he was doing there with a gun right where Chief Curry told him to
> > go and see what was happening up there when the president got his brains
> > blown out. It seems to me this needs to be addressed, regardless of what
> > percentage of witnesses thought what. But, I'm funny that way. When the
> > president gets murdered, I like to know who did it.
> So you honestly believe that a guy was standing among all those > railroad workers and a Dallas police officer stationed on the underpass, > and shot the president?
That's what I'd like to know. He almost always only mentions one officer who didn't get there until *after* the shooting. He almost never mentions all those people standing almost right beside his supposed gunman *during* the shooting.
> On 10/7/2012 6:08 PM, elpdrum...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Dear Dave,
> > I am afraid you have it rather confused ( or maybe I am mis-sreading
> > your post). I did not aid the HSCA in any way with the magazine insert nor
> > did I aid the HSCA in any way, shape or from. By the time the record from
> > which I discovered the crosstalk was available, the HSCA had already ended
> > their investigation, having concluded that there was a conspiracy, based
> > primarily on the Dallas police recording. In Sept. 1980, I discovered the
> > crosstalk on the recording that you refer to, which was, as some have
> > called it "the silver bullet" in disproving the conclusions reached by the
> > HSCA's acoustical team BBN & Weiss and Aschkenasy. The Committee on
> > Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), better known as the "NAS Panel" or the "Ramsey
> > panel" was whom I helped.
> Thanks for helping to clear that up. I don't think you have previously > pinpointed the exact date when you found the crosstalk.
> So, do you have any way to upload whatever letters you wrote to the HSCA > to point out their errors?
He's already said that he didn't make his discovery until after the HSCA disbanded, so I don't see how he could have written any letters to the HSCA. Do you mean letters he may have written to certain participants in the HSCA investigation after the HSCA disbanded?
By the way, Anthony, a week has now passed, and although I've reminded you about it every day, several times a day since then, you still haven't admitted that a week ago you made a mistake when you erroneously claimed that I said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225. Remember how just a few days ago when I asked John Fiorentino what he was trying to hide by continuously refusing to say what material he was stretching in his experiment, you answered, "The truth"? Is that also what you're trying to hide by refusing to admit that you were mistaken, and that I never once said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225?
I think that if only you would abandon this obsession of yours, with your Lone Nut, and set aside your fear of the C-word, that a whole new world of possibilities would open to you. A Lone Nut does not a world make.
> In article <50720...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 6:08 PM, elpdrum...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Dear Dave,
>>> I am afraid you have it rather confused ( or maybe I am mis-sreading
>>> your post). I did not aid the HSCA in any way with the magazine insert nor
>>> did I aid the HSCA in any way, shape or from. By the time the record from
>>> which I discovered the crosstalk was available, the HSCA had already ended
>>> their investigation, having concluded that there was a conspiracy, based
>>> primarily on the Dallas police recording. In Sept. 1980, I discovered the
>>> crosstalk on the recording that you refer to, which was, as some have
>>> called it "the silver bullet" in disproving the conclusions reached by the
>>> HSCA's acoustical team BBN & Weiss and Aschkenasy. The Committee on
>>> Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), better known as the "NAS Panel" or the "Ramsey
>>> panel" was whom I helped.
>> Thanks for helping to clear that up. I don't think you have previously
>> pinpointed the exact date when you found the crosstalk.
>> So, do you have any way to upload whatever letters you wrote to the HSCA
>> to point out their errors?
> He's already said that he didn't make his discovery until after the HSCA
> disbanded, so I don't see how he could have written any letters to the
> HSCA. Do you mean letters he may have written to certain participants in
> the HSCA investigation after the HSCA disbanded?
And I didn't say he did. But why can't he write down his objections to the HSCA analysis SOME TIME?
Show me ANY letters he wrote to the HSCA.
> By the way, Anthony, a week has now passed, and although I've reminded you
> about it every day, several times a day since then, you still haven't
> admitted that a week ago you made a mistake when you erroneously claimed
> that I said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225. Remember how just
> a few days ago when I asked John Fiorentino what he was trying to hide by
> continuously refusing to say what material he was stretching in his
> experiment, you answered, "The truth"? Is that also what you're trying to
> hide by refusing to admit that you were mistaken, and that I never once
> said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225?
> In article <a6e2db4c-a2d7-4961-84e5-7b4f30bba7ab@googlegroups.com>,
> elpdrum...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:06:15 AM UTC-4, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> There are some who say, "Oh, so many witnesses heard this and so many
>>> witnesses heard that." But the fact of the matter is that Chief Curry and
>>> Officer Hargis thought the shots came from the bridge, and Hargis thought
>>> specifically that they came from the north end of the bridge, where the
>>> man with the gun was standing when Officer Haygood arrived. Even if he did
>>> kinda look like a railroad detective, Officer Haygood should have asked
>>> him what he was doing there with a gun right where Chief Curry told him to
>>> go and see what was happening up there when the president got his brains
>>> blown out. It seems to me this needs to be addressed, regardless of what
>>> percentage of witnesses thought what. But, I'm funny that way. When the
>>> president gets murdered, I like to know who did it.
>> So you honestly believe that a guy was standing among all those
>> railroad workers and a Dallas police officer stationed on the underpass,
>> and shot the president?
> That's what I'd like to know. He almost always only mentions one
> officer who didn't get there until *after* the shooting. He almost
> never mentions all those people standing almost right beside his
> supposed gunman *during* the shooting.
Why are you even trying to make logic out of a kook theory? He can easily explain it as the gunman hiding in the storm drain, not standing on the bridge. Do you really think that you can nail jello to the wall?
In article <2e9bf654-a60c-4f5b-8940-7bcbd8eded5b@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He was not standing among the railroad workers. He was around a corner on the > north end of the bridge, with pillars between him and the railroad workers.
Whoa. Perhaps you've done so and I've simply forgotten or have missed it, but I honestly do not recall you ever proposing that exact location for your gunman before now. But if you have already, my apologies.
But now that I'm aware of it, what is your evidence to support this? I thought there weren't any photographs taken of the bridge *during* the shooting, only afterward.
> There were four people right near him who were not railroad workers and who > were also not identified by the Warren Commission, apparently, who would have > seen anything he did there.
And that assertion comes from what photographic evidence that was taken *during* the shooting?
> And I believe there were 2 uniformed police > officers stationed on the bridge.
And several other people besides that were on the bridge.
> In my opinion, the only man who could shoot > the president from there and under those circumstances and get away with it > would be a Dallas police detective. But, Officer Haygood maybe kinda thought > he was a presumed railroad detective, or something, so I suppose that > presumably could be possible, I suppose, but I'd have liked something more > definitive. Of course, something definitive would have been a lie, so maybe I > should be glad that we got wishy-washy baloney.
Whatever. Do you realize you've still got some considerable problems with this? Even if this shooter is at the time of the shooting out of sight of the railroad workers, it's still awfully close to witnesses like S.M. Holland, who said that the closest shot came from much farther away than this. You've also then got to get your shooter to walk south on the bridge so that he can be in the position seen in the Cabluck photo with his supposed rifle while at the same time Holland is walking right past him in the opposite direction to go to see around the back of the "arcade" from which he thought the closest shot came, and you have to explain why Holland would not see that rifle since it is supposedly leaning right against the railing in plain sight. You also have to explain how all those other witness on the bridge *besides* the officers never noticed any shot being fired from anywhere near that close to them.
> Mr. Holland.
> And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see > that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something > out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the > previous reports or shots.
> Mr. Stern.
> What number would that have been in the----
> Mr. Holland.
> Well, that would--they were so close together.
> Mr. Stern.
> The second and third or the third and fourth?
> Mr. Holland.
> The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
> Mr. Stern.
> So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
> Mr. HOLLAND. It could have been the third or fourth, but there were > definitely four reports.
> Mr. Stern.
> You have no doubt about that?
> Mr. HOLLAND. I have no doubt about it.
> "It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots."
> Ah! reliable old SKinny!
Your quotation is certainly skinny, as in not nearly enough. I find it fascinating that you didn't quote any of the other parts of his testimony which are much more relevant to this discussion, such as exactly what the "location" was that he was talking about, and what he did after the shooting which indicates that he would have gone right past your shooter and his rifle without seeing them. I will now quote the parts you conveniently left out. First of all let's see who was on the bridge with Holland. Well above where you quoted he named quite a few people, and for him to know their names, he'd have to, uh, know them, if you take my meaning. This naming of people lasts for quite a few sentences, after which Stern reads off the names to Holland to make sure he's got all of them:
**********
Mr. STERN - Tell me if this is correct, Mr. Holland. At the time' the Presidential motorcade arrived, to the best of your recollection, on the overpass there were two uniformed Dallas Police, and the following employees of the Terminal Co. yourself, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Potter, Mr. Winburn, Mr.Johnson, Mr. Cowzert, and perhaps one other man? Mr. HOLLAND - That's right.
**********
So, to start with, there were six other men up there whom Holland knew by name, not one of whom was a police officer or even dressed like one.
Now yes, Holland did also say there were several officers he did not know, and that even more people came up onto the bridge in the last minutes before the motorcade arrived, and one of these could be your shooter...
...except we need to consider that just taking Holland and his co-workers alone, we've got seven witnesses who have to hear a shot fired from only a short distance away, even if you put your shooter way over at the north end of the bridge and out of their sight, and then your shooter has to come into plain sight of all seven of them with his rifle to get to the position is in in the Cabluck photo, still without any of these seven men noticing he has a rifle, even though it's supposedly leaning against the railing in plain sight.
Next let's find out exactly where Holland was standing, which you also failed to quote:
**********
Mr. STERN - At that time will you show me on this drawing where you were and just make a mark and put the No. 1 next to that mark. That is where you were at that time? Roughly in the middle of the overpass over Elm street? Mr. HOLLAND - That's right. Mr. STERN - And where, in relation to the concrete fence that---- Mr. HOLLAND - Picket fence or concrete? Mr. STERN - No; the concrete. Mr. HOLLAND - Oh, the concrete banister? Mr. STERN - The concrete banister. Were you right at the banister? Mr. HOLLAND - I was; would you like to see the exact location? Mr. STERN - Yes. Mr. HOLLAND - This is my son standing in the exact location I was in [indicating]. Mr. STERN - Off the record a moment.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. STERN - Back on the record. Well, then, we'll mark this as Exhibit B, reserving Exhibit A for this drawing, and Exhibit B is a photograph you took on Saturday, November 23, of your son standing in the position at the banister of the triple overpass where you were at the time the motorcade came into view. Mr. HOLLAND - That's right.
**********
He was standing "in the middle of the overpass over Elm street." And here's the very document he marked:
You also conveniently failed to quote what Holland did immediately after the shooting, and also exactly where he thought the closest shot had come from, so I will rectify your misdemeanor now:
**********
Mr. STERN - What did you then do? Mr. HOLLAND - Well, immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence. Mr. STERN - That is the picket fence? Mr. HOLLAND - That is the picket fence. Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street? Mr. HOLLAND - Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles and I couldn't see up in that corner. I ran on up to the corner of this fence behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. I didn't give anyone my name. No one--didn't anyone ask for it, and it wasn't but an hour or so until the deputy sheriff came down to the office and took me back up to the courthouse.
**********
So he said that "immediately" (his exact word) after the shots were fired he ran to the end of the bridge to look behind the fence. This makes it an absolute necessity for him to go right past your shooter and his rifle as he is carrying the rifle, because there is no possible way otherwise for your shooter to already be in his position shown in the Cabluck photo in time for that photo to be taken unless he and Holland are passing each other going in opposite directions, and then you have to explain why Holland doesn't see the rifle.
Now let's see some more about where Holland thought the shots came from, which you also, interestingly, did not quote:
**********
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, the impression was that the shots, the first two or three shots came from the upper part of the street, now, from where I was. Mr. STERN - East on Elm? Mr. HOLLAND - Yes, up in here somewhere. [Indicating.] I didn't have the least idea that it was up any higher, hut I thought the shot was coming---coming from this crowd in here [indicating]. That is what it sounded like to me from where I was. Mr. STERN - You are indicating on this Exhibit C. Why don't you put a square around the area that you just pointed to. You had no idea, I take it, that the shots were coming from your area? Mr. HOLLAND - No. Mr. STERN - It is your impression that they did not, could not, as far as the sound was concerned? Mr. HOLLAND - As far as the sound was concerned they did not. Mr. STERN - Did you see anything on the overpass that seemed to you any way unusual? Mr. HOLLAND - Oh, no; no.
**********
All right, so Holland thought the first two shots came from somewhere up Elm Street (and there is further clarification for this, which I'll get to below). And get a load of the last bit. Nothing unusual on the bridge. Does that seem familiar? It should. Hargis said that too.
Why would both a police officer and a railroad worker have any common motivation to say the same thing unless...
...they were both in on the plot together, or...
(dare I say it?)
...wait for it...
...they were both simply telling the truth?
Just a thought.
Anyhoo...
Now what about the third shot? And the *fourth* and *final* shot? (Oh yes, dear friends and neighbors, he said there were four.) Where did Holland think that came from? "Around a corner on the north end of the bridge, with pillars between him and the railroad workers" where you have placed your shooter? Let's see if Holland said anything like that in the parts you, er, "forgot" to quote. Ah yes, here it is:
**********
Mr. STERN - Back on the record. Now, Mr. Holland, I'm showing you a copy of an affidavit which I am marking as Exhibit D. That is the affidavit you made that you described a few moments ago? Mr. HOLLAND - That's right. Mr. STERN - Would you read that. Mr. HOLLAND - "I am signal supervisor for the Union Terminal, and I was inspecting signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on the top of the triple underpass and the President's car was coming down Elm Street, and when they got just about to the arcade, I heard what I thought for a moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade to the trees. After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out.
...
> In article <2e9bf654-a60c-4f5b-8940-7bcbd8eded5b@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He was not standing among the railroad workers. He was around a corner on the
>> north end of the bridge, with pillars between him and the railroad workers.
> Whoa. Perhaps you've done so and I've simply forgotten or have missed it,
> but I honestly do not recall you ever proposing that exact location for
> your gunman before now. But if you have already, my apologies.
> But now that I'm aware of it, what is your evidence to support this? I
> thought there weren't any photographs taken of the bridge *during* the
> shooting, only afterward.
>> There were four people right near him who were not railroad workers and who
>> were also not identified by the Warren Commission, apparently, who would have
>> seen anything he did there.
> And that assertion comes from what photographic evidence that was taken
> *during* the shooting?
>> And I believe there were 2 uniformed police
>> officers stationed on the bridge.
> And several other people besides that were on the bridge.
And several other people were also in the TSBD. So by your logic the shots could not have come from the TSBD.
I can't remember his name, but there is some kook who has a theory that the shooter hid in a secret maintenance room in the underpass. Near Tague.
>> In my opinion, the only man who could shoot
>> the president from there and under those circumstances and get away with it
>> would be a Dallas police detective. But, Officer Haygood maybe kinda thought
>> he was a presumed railroad detective, or something, so I suppose that
>> presumably could be possible, I suppose, but I'd have liked something more
>> definitive. Of course, something definitive would have been a lie, so maybe I
>> should be glad that we got wishy-washy baloney.
> Whatever. Do you realize you've still got some considerable problems with
> this? Even if this shooter is at the time of the shooting out of sight of
Someone has a theory that a real Dallas cop named Roscoe White was the shooter from the front.
> the railroad workers, it's still awfully close to witnesses like S.M.
> Holland, who said that the closest shot came from much farther away than
> this. You've also then got to get your shooter to walk south on the
> bridge so that he can be in the position seen in the Cabluck photo with
> his supposed rifle while at the same time Holland is walking right past
> him in the opposite direction to go to see around the back of the "arcade"
> from which he thought the closest shot came, and you have to explain why
> Holland would not see that rifle since it is supposedly leaning right
> against the railing in plain sight. You also have to explain how all
If he's down in the storm drain how is that "plain sight"? Could you see Ken Rahn when he was hiding in a storm drain?
In article <7399645a-6484-42be-a851-7f65ba761ef8@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if only you would abandon this obsession of yours, with your > Lone Nut, and set aside your fear of the C-word, that a whole new world of > possibilities would open to you. A Lone Nut does not a world make.
I'd love to, if only just somebody, just anybody, would produce, for the first time ever, credible evidence that I should do so. You certainly haven't.
On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
"...You've also then got to get your shooter to walk south on the bridge so that he can be in the position seen in the Cabluck photo with his supposed rifle while at the same time Holland is walking right past..."
You don't even know north from south. How can you presume to know what you're talking about? The Cabluck photo shows the north side of the bridge.
Our King has been studying the assassination for 150 years and he doesn't know north from south in the photos. I suspect he is not alone. Six months ago, I used to look at these photos and have no idea of the context, so they wouldn't mean so much. Even if somebody said one of them proved something, I would be skeptical just because I didn't know the context for the photo. And, knowing the context is more than somebody saying it's on the north side of Elm Street. You need the whole Dealey Plaza in your head. At this point, it is just mind boggling to me that anybody can think he understands the photographs and then tell me that I have to get my gunman to walk south to get into the Cabluck photo. And what's he going to say? "Oops! Sorry. But, you're still a kook." The basis for my assertion that the man in the Cabluck photo fired the shot in Z322 is the photos, and Mr. King does not understand the photos. And he refuses to take the time to understand them. And he cannot hope to intelligently critique my assertion until he does so.
Yes, I see now. Mr. King does not understand the geometry of the bridge. To him it is just one place with all these people there. I suppose I could hold his hand and try to educate him, but I know it wouldn't work. You can't learn unless you want to learn, and he doesn't want to learn. When I saw that guy with the gun in the Cabluck photo, it became my mission to understand that bridge. If I'd been within 200 miles of it, I would have gone there myself. But, I googled every damn picture of it I could find, and studied them. My knowledge is not perfect, but my opinion must be better than some in this newsgroup. Given the structure, a gunman could fire a shot on that north bend of the bridge out of sight of people on the middle section. The gun, facing away from the bridge, would probably not sound as loud as a gun in the TSBD pointed *at* the bridge, so, so far as the sound goes, the people on the middle section might not realize that it is being fired on the bridge. And, it was only 1 or 2 quick shots. The 4 or 5 people I mentioned were not in the middle section of the bridge, and they certainly would have seen the gunman. So far as I know, these people were never identified officially. There is mention of some people coming up by the railroad guys, and a presumption that they were checked by the cops. There is also mention of a plainclothes cop, but no name. Those 4 or 5 people, appear in photographs to be black people, not dressed as railroad workers. Who are they, Mr King? You know so much. Who is the plainclothes cop? Surely, this being your life's work, you must know. You must have studied *something.*
