> On 9/30/2012 10:56 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > 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?
> 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.
Not too many other possibilities. Do you see his bike helmet? Most of the other cyclists are accounted for.
>> 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.
My point is severely blunted by my error about Hargis being questioned by Belin, which of course you focus upon, but the fact is that Belin had Haygood reading the a transcript of the DPD radio communications, and it is not credible to think that Belin did not know that the chief of police had just ordered his men to get up on the overpass and see what happened, clearly implying that Curry thought somebody up on the bridge had blown Kennedy's brains out. Haygood went up there and nothing was said about it in his testimony. But, Haygood did meet a "presumed railroad detective," who was just arriving. What, did he just have that railroad detective look? We'll never know. They talked, but Haygood doesn't remember anything they said? You are satisfied with that? You know what? He might technically be telling the truth. 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." Perhaps, after walking by The "presumed detective" on the bridge, he followed Haygood into the railroad yard area, "after the shooting." But he was on the bridge *during* the shooting. In light of this picture, which would have been known by april 8, 1964 to anybody orchestrating a cover up, this is an extremely important point. Haygood is seen in this picture looking straight at a man with a rifle. The cover up would have to avoid talking about him. And Belin's examination of Haygood is consistent with that objective. Indeed, he even avoids talking about the bridge he is standing on.
> 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.
> 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
Not odd at all. A prosecutor knows better than to ask any question which produced reasonable doubt.
> 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 Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:17:57 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 3:27 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > 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.
> Consider your source.
I can't vouch for the source, but it is consistent with the testimony of Haygood and Hargis and the other photographic evidence. It is only your assertion that Hargis had cornered the black motorcycle cop gloves market in the Dealey Plaza area, which conflicts with that conclusion. I stress the point only so that I can move on. It makes an even better case for conspiracy if it is not Haygood on the bridge, because then they are all lying.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:34:11 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 2:56 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > 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
> Not odd at all. A prosecutor knows better than to ask any question which
> produced reasonable doubt.
Of course it's not odd if you expect them to be dishonest. The Warren Commission's job was to convict a dead man who had no defense attorney. And why was that their job? Because the president of the United States said so. Why would the president of the United States do that? National security? Or Lyndon security?
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:17:57 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 3:27 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Consider your source.
> I can't vouch for the source, but it is consistent with the testimony of
> Haygood and Hargis and the other photographic evidence. It is only your
> assertion that Hargis had cornered the black motorcycle cop gloves market
> in the Dealey Plaza area, which conflicts with that conclusion. I stress
> the point only so that I can move on. It makes an even better case for
> conspiracy if it is not Haygood on the bridge, because then they are all
> lying.
Now you've done it. I am once again entertaining the notion that it is actually Hargis in the Cabluck photo. First, it is absolutely clear from the photographic evidence that this cop is the same cop in the Bell film parking his bike. No doubt at all about that. Could that be Hargis? If it is, it means that he got back on his bike across the street and then rode over there to go up to the bridge, when just running straight to the bridge would have been quicker. Why would he do that? Maybe he heard something on his radio after he got back on his bike that made him decide to do this, or maybe he saw something. In Bond5, while Hargis is going back to his bike and looking up to that very spot on the bridge the cop does go to, it looks as if he has interrupted his stride, as if he had seen something that had changed his plans. It's possible he got back on his bike, since he was there already, and rode it across the street. It means his testimony and Haygood's have some serious lies, but it's possible. Why would they change the story like that? It would blunt the idea that Hargis had run to the spot where he thought the shots had come from, and make it easier not to scrutinize with bothersome questioning what he saw when he got there. If Hargis didn't run up there, you can't ask him what he saw at the spot he thought the shots had originated. Haygood being the cop means that the questioning can be more vague, and it was, considering they didn't even mention the bridge. If it had been Hargis, they would have to have acknowledged the existence of the bridge in his questioning, and that might get messy. This might explain why Haygood had to be prompted to remember his encounter with the "presumed railroad detective." This might also explain why Haygood didn't mention Buddy Walthers who was present when he supposedly talked to Tague, and why Walthers didn't mention him. Tague, the most reliable witness involved here, never knew their names, but he knew that they were both there. This would mean that the radio log transcript has to incorrectly identify Hargis as Haygood, since it would be Hargis calling in. Also, the odd literary similarity between two statements made, one in each cop's testimony, might also be explained by such a re-wroking of the story. It's possible.
> > > > 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 take a look at the F.M. Bell film and the 4th slide taken by Wilma Bond, you will see Hargis while off his motorcycle. Hargis can clearly be seen standing at the same light post that appears in Zapruder's film, seconds before the head shot. Hargis is gundrawn,and obviously looking around. After he leaves the light post, he can be seen running into the street as motorcycle officer H.B. McLain passes him as he's running. The next person to capture Hargis is Wilma Bond in her 4th slide which shows Hargis almost back to his motorcycle. For years and years, people mistook Hargis for Haygood. One of them being Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas. Hargis is captured by Richard Bothun in his very clear photograph showing that Hargis has remounted his cycle. Note his gloves.
This is from the Couch film. The cop in the foreground is identified as Haygood. Hargis can be seen beginning to cross the street in the distance, from right to left where his bike can be seen. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NHfh-Y08w84/UGyIW_CVcqI/AAAAAAAAAP... q7iiyTM/s647/couch3bikecops02b.jpg
This is from the Couch film. It presumably shows Haygood with his bike down, where he will leave it when he runs up the to the bridge. The film does not follow him from the prior frame to here, so it is not impossible that this is somebody else, but that makes the most sense. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAP...
This is Hargis crossing the street back to his bike, just after that first Couch frame. Note the white area between his glove and sleeve. This can be seen on several of these Bell frames.
This is what I have been calling the Cancellare photo of the cop on the bridge, obviously taken after the Cabluck. There appears to be another motorcycle cop standing on the bridge, visible through the concrete railing.
In article <fdde8554-05e4-49dc-8185-37817414aaed@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood,
"Hosting"? Do you mean that he had the transcript in front of him as he was questioning 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."
That would only tell Belin that Curry had broadcast that order. That would not tell Belin which officer(s) responded to that order.
> 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?
I don't know, since I'm seeing nothing in that entire testimony that would give Belin any reason to know that Haygood responded to that specific order. I do not see Haygood saying that he even heard that particular order being broadcast. Maybe he did, but I do not yet see any specific mention of that. I see other references to his own transmissions in the transcript, but none of those are in reference to Curry's order to go to the bridge.
> 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?"
You mean this part?
**********
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.
**********
All I see is Belin saying, "Did you talk to any people over there or not?" and Haygood responding that he talked to someone he presumed to be a railroad detective. I don't see Belin "interrupting" Haygood in the middle of anything. The previous sentence is simply, "They was all going to it," and Haygood does not appear to me to be about to say anything more than that. Belin appears to me to be merely asking if Haygood talked to anyone back there or not. I'm honestly not sure I understand why you seem to find this so curious.
> Haygood almost started telling the real story, there. Oops!
Huh? Where? He just said that he went back to the railroad yards and found nothing of interest except quite a few spectators, and then said he went back to his cycle. Belin then asked him if he saw anyone running away from there, and Haygood said no, the spectators were running toward the area, not away from it. Since Haygood had still not mentioned whether or not he talked to anyone back there, Belin asked him if he had.
Haygood then said yes, he talked to someone whom he thought was a railroad detective, who was coming into the area after Haygood. When Belin then asked him if this "railroad detective" said anything to him, he said not that he could remember. I don't see Belin appearing to interrupt Haygood in the middle of anything, such as in the middle of a sentence while Haygood was speaking. Instead I see Belin doing precisely the opposite, trying to get more information out of Haygood when Haygood had previously only said that he went back there and looked, saw spectators going toward the area but no one running away, but then just said that he went back to his cycle without saying whether he had talked to anyone back there or not.
> Those Dallas cops! Once they get talking, they just tend to start telling > the truth.
Yes, and I plainly see Belin asking Haygood repeatedly for more information, not interrupting him in the middle of saying something.
> 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.
In article <0d0a9872-36cf-44e5-8af3-5a178081d315@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is severely blunted by my error about Hargis being questioned by > Belin, which of course you focus upon, but the fact is that Belin had > Haygood reading the a transcript of the DPD radio communications, and it > is not credible to think that Belin did not know that the chief of police > had just ordered his men to get up on the overpass and see what happened, > clearly implying that Curry thought somebody up on the bridge had blown > Kennedy's brains out.
I have never once said that it isn't credible that Belin knew that Curry had given that order. What I *have* said is that it *is* credible that Belin did not know during his questioning of Haygood that Haygood himself responded to that particular order. Knowing about Curry's order doesn't tell Belin which officers did or did not respond to it.
> Haygood went up there and nothing was said about it > in his testimony.
Probably because Haygood said nothing in his testimony about even hearing that order in the first place.
> But, Haygood did meet a "presumed railroad detective," > who was just arriving. What, did he just have that railroad detective > look? We'll never know. They talked, but Haygood doesn't remember anything > they said? You are satisfied with that?
Well, not entirely. Haygood said that he talked to this "railroad detective" but that he didn't remember the person saying anything to him.
Perhaps that simply means he spoke to the person but that the person made no reply. Or maybe Haygood simply meant that the person said nothing of importance to him. I do not know. But that is really the only part I find curious. He says he talked to this person, but did not remember this person saying anything to him. Did this "railroad detective" just ignore Haygood when Haygood spoke to him? Ignored a Dallas police officer? I'm having a bit of difficulty believing that.
> You know what? He might > technically be telling the truth. 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." Perhaps, after > walking by The "presumed detective" on the bridge, he followed Haygood > into the railroad yard area, "after the shooting." But he was on the > bridge *during* the shooting. In light of this picture, which would have > been known by april 8, 1964 to anybody orchestrating a cover up, this is > an extremely important point. Haygood is seen in this picture looking > straight at a man with a rifle.
Objection. Looking straight at a man whom you *think*, in your *opinion*, had a rifle. It has not yet been conclusively established that that really is a rifle. I agree that it *might* be, but it is hardly proven just yet.
> The cover up would have to avoid talking > about him. And Belin's examination of Haygood is consistent with that > objective.
I do not see that. Instead I plainly see Belin repeatedly asking Haygood for more information, not less, and I see him doing it throughout the testimony, not just in the passage I quoted above only.
> Indeed, he even avoids talking about the bridge he is standing > on.
Now that I at least agree with. If that is indeed Haygood in the Cabluck photo, and you have presented a good case that it is, nowhere in his testimony does he specifically mention going up to the bridge and looking to his left before climbing over the wall to get to the railroad tracks.
I will say, however, that that was the only way he could get into the railroad yard from that position, since the picket fence connected to that very wall that we see him about to climb over (I guess) in that photo.
Unfortunately the photo tells us nothing about the length of time he looked to his left along the bridge before climbing over the wall. I suppose it is possible that the photo actually happened to catch him in the midst of climbing over the wall and that he was in that position only for a few seconds at most. I do not know.
> 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.
Are you talking about here?
**********
Mr. LIEBELER. There is an area circled here with the letter "C" in it. Is that where the policeman ran toward the grassy area; included in that circle, is that right? Mr. TAGUE. Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked toward the School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it was something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window.
We said maybe this is where they came from. And the deputy sheriff ran back to the policeman. I may not be quite accurate, but I believe at the time there was a whole swarm of motorcycle policemen coming back to the area under the underpass going the wrong way here on Elm. They came back and parked, and he mentioned to them--that is probably 5 minutes after it happened, and he was on the radio, and everybody ran up around the School Book Depository at this time. Mr. LIEBELER. Let's go back and fix the general spot when the deputy sheriff saw the mark on the street, going back to point No. 6, which is where you were standing when you were hit. We go east along----
**********
I don't see Tague specifically saying that he heard anyone say that the window with the "spider webs or dust" was the window that the shots were fired from, merely that that was the window they were looking at and that *maybe* it was the window the shots had come from. I don't see him saying that he heard anyone say that it was *definitely* the window the shots came from. And why would this be significant anyway? When one looks at all the statements of all witnesses who said shots came from any particular window in the TSBD, there is no clear consensus among them as to exactly which window it was; they were even somewhat divided on which floor it was. This is to be expected, the typical random variations in witness statements, especially when you're looking at witnesses numbering in the single-digits only, and there is no clear convergence of a majority on a single detail, such as which window it was. This neither proves nor disproves which window the shots were actually fired from.
> 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.
He could well be. But remember what I've told you several times before.
It's not so much which direction each witness named for the gunfire, but how *many* directions each witness named. Nearly all of the witnesses seemed to think that all of the gunfire had come from a single direction.
They simply didn't agree with each other on what that single direction was. Bobby Hargis thought all the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
Mary Woodward thought all the shots came from the fence. Victoria Adams thought all the shots came from somewhere to the west of the Depository.
Harold Norman thought all the shots came from the floor above him. James Jarman thought all the shots came from somewhere to the east of the Depository. There are c.200 more I can cite who said such things. Do you see the obvious pattern? Do you understand the obvious significance of what the vast majority of these witnesses said?
In article <c5af5f41-f498-43b9-ac4e-a88034e95ab7@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't vouch for the source, but it is consistent with the testimony of > Haygood and Hargis and the other photographic evidence. It is only your > assertion that Hargis had cornered the black motorcycle cop gloves market > in the Dealey Plaza area, which conflicts with that conclusion.
I disagree with Anthony about 99% of the time, but occasionally I find him to be quite solid on certain aspects of the assassination. I am not yet convinced that he is wrong about the gloves. I have been doing some searches for photos that are *confirmed* to be of Haygood in Dealey Plaza that day, and I have not yet found any. That's what we really need to resolve this issue. If you have already posted the link for such a photo I have forgotten.
> I stress > the point only so that I can move on. It makes an even better case for > conspiracy if it is not Haygood on the bridge, because then they are all > lying.
That Bothun photo is key. It shows Hargis on his way before Haygood gets there. That was the one I needed to find. And Hargis wears dhort gloves. Haygood wears long gloves.
> In article <f4cc38e6-ac35-495a-8ef3-6572e19e9be5@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Are you talking about here?
> **********
> Mr. LIEBELER. There is an area circled here with the letter "C" in it.
> Is that where the policeman ran toward the grassy area; included in that
> circle, is that right?
> Mr. TAGUE. Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked
> toward the School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it
> was something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six
> windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be
> where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had
> spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window.
> We said maybe this is where they came from. And the deputy sheriff ran
> back to the policeman. I may not be quite accurate, but I believe at the
> time there was a whole swarm of motorcycle policemen coming back to the
> area under the underpass going the wrong way here on Elm. They came back
> and parked, and he mentioned to them--that is probably 5 minutes after
> it happened, and he was on the radio, and everybody ran up around the
> School Book Depository at this time.
> Mr. LIEBELER. Let's go back and fix the general spot when the deputy
> sheriff saw the mark on the street, going back to point No. 6, which is
> where you were standing when you were hit. We go east along----
> **********
> I don't see Tague specifically saying that he heard anyone say that the
> window with the "spider webs or dust" was the window that the shots were
> fired from, merely that that was the window they were looking at and that
> *maybe* it was the window the shots had come from. I don't see him saying
> that he heard anyone say that it was *definitely* the window the shots
> came from. And why would this be significant anyway? When one looks at
> all the statements of all witnesses who said shots came from any
> particular window in the TSBD, there is no clear consensus among them as
> to exactly which window it was; they were even somewhat divided on which
> floor it was. This is to be expected, the typical random variations in
> witness statements, especially when you're looking at witnesses numbering
> in the single-digits only, and there is no clear convergence of a majority
> on a single detail, such as which window it was. This neither proves nor
> disproves which window the shots were actually fired from.
>> 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.
> He could well be. But remember what I've told you several times before.
> It's not so much which direction each witness named for the gunfire, but
> how *many* directions each witness named. Nearly all of the witnesses
> seemed to think that all of the gunfire had come from a single direction.
> They simply didn't agree with each other on what that single direction
> was. Bobby Hargis thought all the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
> Mary Woodward thought all the shots came from the fence. Victoria Adams
Stop saying that. Woodward did not say fence. You are misrepresenting historical evidence to push a political agenda. Disgraceful.
> thought all the shots came from somewhere to the west of the Depository.
> Harold Norman thought all the shots came from the floor above him. James
> Jarman thought all the shots came from somewhere to the east of the
> Depository. There are c.200 more I can cite who said such things. Do you
> see the obvious pattern? Do you understand the obvious significance of
> what the vast majority of these witnesses said?
I understand that the scientific evidence proved that 75% of the shots came from the sniper's nest. I also understand that you do not like scientific evidence.
> In article <fdde8554-05e4-49dc-8185-37817414aaed@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood,
> "Hosting"? Do you mean that he had the transcript in front of him as he
> was questioning 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."
> That would only tell Belin that Curry had broadcast that order. That
> would not tell Belin which officer(s) responded to that order.
>> 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?
> I don't know, since I'm seeing nothing in that entire testimony that would
> give Belin any reason to know that Haygood responded to that specific
> order. I do not see Haygood saying that he even heard that particular
> order being broadcast. Maybe he did, but I do not yet see any specific
> mention of that. I see other references to his own transmissions in the
> transcript, but none of those are in reference to Curry's order to go to
> the bridge.
Minor technicality, but can you even prove that Haygood had his radio on the right channel to hear that message?
>> 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?"
> You mean this part?
> **********
> 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.
> **********
> All I see is Belin saying, "Did you talk to any people over there or not?"
> and Haygood responding that he talked to someone he presumed to be a
> railroad detective. I don't see Belin "interrupting" Haygood in the
> middle of anything. The previous sentence is simply, "They was all going
> to it," and Haygood does not appear to me to be about to say anything more
> than that. Belin appears to me to be merely asking if Haygood talked to
> anyone back there or not. I'm honestly not sure I understand why you seem
> to find this so curious.
>> Haygood almost started telling the real story, there. Oops!
> Huh? Where? He just said that he went back to the railroad yards and
> found nothing of interest except quite a few spectators, and then said he
> went back to his cycle. Belin then asked him if he saw anyone running
> away from there, and Haygood said no, the spectators were running toward
> the area, not away from it. Since Haygood had still not mentioned whether
> or not he talked to anyone back there, Belin asked him if he had.
> Haygood then said yes, he talked to someone whom he thought was a railroad
> detective, who was coming into the area after Haygood. When Belin then
> asked him if this "railroad detective" said anything to him, he said not
> that he could remember. I don't see Belin appearing to interrupt Haygood
> in the middle of anything, such as in the middle of a sentence while
> Haygood was speaking. Instead I see Belin doing precisely the opposite,
> trying to get more information out of Haygood when Haygood had previously
> only said that he went back there and looked, saw spectators going toward
> the area but no one running away, but then just said that he went back to
> his cycle without saying whether he had talked to anyone back there or
> not.
>> Those Dallas cops! Once they get talking, they just tend to start telling
>> the truth.
> Yes, and I plainly see Belin asking Haygood repeatedly for more
> information, not interrupting him in the middle of saying something.
>> 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.
Great. Did you notice black gloves? Who do you think the cop is who is passing him? Is that cop wearing black gloves?
> This is from the Couch film. The cop in the foreground is identified as
> Haygood. Hargis can be seen beginning to cross the street in the distance,
> from right to left where his bike can be seen.
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NHfh-Y08w84/UGyIW_CVcqI/AAAAAAAAAP... > q7iiyTM/s647/couch3bikecops02b.jpg
> This is from the Couch film. It presumably shows Haygood with his bike
> down, where he will leave it when he runs up the to the bridge. The film
> does not follow him from the prior frame to here, so it is not impossible
> that this is somebody else, but that makes the most sense.
> https://lh6.googleuserc=tent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAPk...
Server not found
Are you confirming that you don't have the Couch film or several frames from it?
> This is Hargis crossing the street back to his bike, just after that first
> Couch frame. Note the white area between his glove and sleeve. This can be seen on several of these Bell frames.
> This is what I have been calling the Cancellare photo of the cop on the
> bridge, obviously taken after the Cabluck. There appears to be another
> motorcycle cop standing on the bridge, visible through the concrete railing.
>>>>> 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 take a look at the F.M. Bell film and the 4th slide taken by
> Wilma Bond, you will see Hargis while off his motorcycle. Hargis can
> clearly be seen standing at the same light post that appears in Zapruder's
> film, seconds before the head shot. Hargis is gundrawn,and obviously
> looking around. After he leaves the light post, he can be seen running
> into the street as motorcycle officer H.B. McLain passes him as he's
> running. The next person to capture Hargis is Wilma Bond in her 4th slide
> which shows Hargis almost back to his motorcycle. For years and years,
> people mistook Hargis for Haygood. One of them being Josiah Thompson in
> Six Seconds in Dallas. Hargis is captured by Richard Bothun in his very
> clear photograph showing that Hargis has remounted his cycle. Note his
> gloves.
Thanks Steve. I wish certain people here had some way to look through the old messages before guessing.
In article <c482d17e-8852-4d5b-8b70-5306dcb1941c@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That Bothun photo is key. It shows Hargis on his way before Haygood gets > there. That was the one I needed to find. And Hargis wears dhort gloves. > Haygood wears long gloves.
Are you talking about the photo labeled here as "Bothun Annotated Motorcycle Identification"?
If so, for the one labeled "Haygood," the front of his motorcycle is barely in frame, and I can't see either of his hands. If that's not the right one, which of the Bothun photos are you talking about? Could you give a link to it, please?
And I just noticed something else. I looked at the Cabluck photo again just now. You've been saying in quite a few articles that he's wearing black gloves. I just zoomed in on that, and neither of his hands are visible. His left hand is obviously placed on the wall, but because of the camera being at a lower elevation, his left hand is not visible. And his entire right arm and hand are behind his body.
Again, I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about that being Haygood, but I do not now understand where you've gotten your claim from that you can tell what sort of gloves he's wearing in the Cabluck photo, since neither of his hands are visible in it.
In article <7551db42-d79b-466f-9759-6159915c352c@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now you've done it. I am once again entertaining the notion that it is > actually Hargis in the Cabluck photo.
Sorry, I just have to say that I burst out cackling when I read that.
No offense meant. ;-)
> First, it is absolutely clear from the > photographic evidence that this cop is the same cop in the Bell film parking > his bike. No doubt at all about that. Could that be Hargis? If it is, it > means that he got back on his bike across the street and then rode over there > to go up to the bridge, when just running straight to the bridge would have > been quicker. Why would he do that? Maybe he heard something on his radio > after he got back on his bike that made him decide to do this, or maybe he > saw something. In Bond5, while Hargis is going back to his bike and looking > up to that very spot on the bridge the cop does go to, it looks as if he has > interrupted his stride, as if he had seen something that had changed his > plans. It's possible he got back on his bike, since he was there already, and > rode it across the street. It means his testimony and Haygood's have some > serious lies,
Full stop. I'm sorry, but you claim people to have lied far too often.
You almost never seem to even briefly consider any other possibility whatsoever. It seems to me as if nearly every time you see the slightest imaginable inconsistency in anything a person said, you unhesitatingly jump to the conclusion that they lied, i.e., that it was a purposeful falsehood. There indeed *can* sometimes be other explanations. There really are such things as honest mistakes, where people are wrong without realizing that they are wrong. And no human has a perfect memory.
Anyone can recall certain details incorrectly later without realizing that they are incorrect.
> but it's possible. Why would they change the story like that?
Has it yet been conclusively established that they changed *any* story?
A few days ago I quoted Hargis's testimony where he said he ran up to get a better look at the bridge. At that time I agreed with you that he probably meant a different part of the knoll farther away from the bridge, but now I'm not so sure, and even you have admitted above that this may indeed be Hargis in the Cabluck photo after all. If so, what story is he "changing"? I want to look at what he said again:
"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."
Ok, I was mistaken before. I thought he said he ran to the light post and *from* *there*, as in while standing beside the light post, he looked at the bridge. But instead it seems that he meant he ran to the light post and *then* to the bridge. He also said that he ran up to a brick wall.
Well, isn't that where the officer is in the Cabluck photo, at a brick or cement wall connecting to the bridge? And of course a few sentences below that he made it plain that he saw nothing suspicious on the bridge.
Are you suggesting he was purposefully lying when he said that? If so, can you prove it?
I submit to you that if it's even *possible* that he was telling the truth, even if you're not sure you believe him, you could still admit that it is *possible* that he didn't mention seeing a rifle leaning against the concrete railing because there was no rifle to see, and that object you think is a stock really wasn't.
You could at least admit that that is *possible*, even if you don't fully believe it.
> It would blunt the idea that Hargis had run to the spot where he thought the > shots had come from,
How on earth would it blunt that? He plainly said that his initial belief was that the shots had come from the overpass:
"Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know."
So if that's him in the Cabluck photo, he ran up to the bridge to check.
And apparently saw nothing suspicious.
Unless he was lying purposefully.
Was he? Can that really be proven, or not?
> and make it easier not to scrutinize with bothersome > questioning what he saw when he got there.
Again I am honestly not following your logic. He plainly, clearly told the Commission that he initially thought the shots might have been fired from the bridge. He said he ran up there to take a look. He was then asked quite clearly if he had observed anything out of the ordinary on the overpass, and elsewhere as well, aside from bystanders running, and he said he didn't. How does this make it easier not to scrutinize with bothersome questioning? He was asked point blank if he saw anything out of the ordinary and he said he didn't. Period. What questions do you think he should have been asked about the overpass that weren't asked after he already said he didn't see anything suspicious on the overpass?
> If Hargis didn't run up there, you > can't ask him what he saw at the spot he thought the shots had originated.
Hargis is the one who said he ran up to take a look on the bridge.
Haygood said nothing even remotely like that. So I am getting more and more convinced that that is Hargis in the Cabluck photo.
> Haygood being the cop means that the questioning can be more vague, and it > was, considering they didn't even mention the bridge.
As I've said to you several times before, that appears to be simply because Haygood himself never said he looked on the bridge at all.
Possibly because it might really be true? Possibly because it really is true that that isn't him in the Cabluck photo?
> If it had been Hargis, > they would have to have acknowledged the existence of the bridge in his > questioning, and that might get messy.
LOL!!! They DID acknowledge the existence of the bridge in Hargis's testimony. You've quoted it and I've quoted it. Hargis said, plainly and unequivocally that he took a look *on* the bridge. He and Stern talked quite *openly* about the bridge. Stern asked him point blank if he saw anything suspicious on the bridge. Hargis firmly and without the slightest equivocation answered in the negative. Where on earth is the "messy" part? I don't see it. I see very plain questions and answers.
> This might explain why Haygood had to > be prompted to remember his encounter with the "presumed railroad detective."
Sigh...I do not agree that he was "prompted" to do any such thing, as I told you yesterday, and I gave you what I honestly feel to be a perfectly reasonable argument to support my opinion. To repeat a bit of it, Haygood initially said that he went back to the railroad yards, looked around, and then went back to his cycle. Since he had not mentioned talking to anyone back there, Belin asked him if he had. Then Haygood said yes, and brought up this supposed "railroad detective."
You seem to be suggesting that Belin knew in advance that Haygood would say the exact words "railroad detective" if "prompted," but I do not see any evidence of that. The only "prompting" I see is simply that Belin seemed surprised that Haygood had not yet mentioned having talked to anyone before returning to his cycle, so Belin simply asked him if he had talking to *anyone*, not any specific person necessarily.
> This might also explain why Haygood didn't mention Buddy Walthers who was > present when he supposedly talked to Tague, and why Walthers didn't mention > him.
Or, an alternate explanation: Haygood and Walthers simply didn't think it was important to mention that they both talked to Tague at the same time. Why would it be important, necessarily? So they both talked to Tague. He told them both that something had struck his cheek. They both got the same information from him. I see nothing that is necessarily any more significant than that.
> Tague, the most reliable witness involved here, never knew their names, > but he knew that they were both there. This would mean that the radio log > transcript has to incorrectly identify Hargis as Haygood, since it would be > Hargis calling in.
If you're talking about the portions of the radio transcript quoted in Haygood's testimony, I'm again not following your logic. Haygood himself said that that was him when reading from two different parts of the transcript:
**********
Mr. BELIN. I have here a Sawyer Deposition Exhibit A, which appears to be a transcript of a police radio log, and I notice that at 12:35 p.m., there is a call from 142 to 531. 531 is your station headquarters? Mr. HAYGOOD. Right. Mr. BELIN. Do you want to read what you said? Mr. HAYGOOD. "I talked to a guy at the scene who says the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository Building with the Hertz Rent A Car sign on top." Mr. BELIN. Is that what you said? Mr. HAYGOOD. Approximately. I don't recall the exact words.
..........
Mr. BELIN. I notice on there another transmission at 12:37 p.m. Could you read what the transcript has there. Mr. HAYGOOD. Well, this part of the deposition I covered it a while ago but I gave you, is when I called to have the Texas School Book Depository covered there. That is one of the witnesses I had that believed the shot came from that location. Mr. BELIN. Could
...
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, 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.
Not knowing who Steve Barber is, is not reassuring from someone offering theories about Dallas cops on the overpass shooting guys.
It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis Steve contributed leading to the NAS report that led the HSCA to conclude that there were more than 3 shots. Steve's work also continued and contributed to later scientific re-evaluation of the acoustic evidence. See the following:
> This is from the Couch film. The cop in the foreground is identified as > Haygood. Hargis can be seen beginning to cross the street in the distance, > from right to left where his bike can be seen. > https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NHfh-Y08w84/UGyIW_CVcqI/AAAAAAAAAP... > iiyTM/s647/couch3bikecops02b.jpg
At this moment I'm getting an error on that one.
> This is from the Couch film. It presumably shows Haygood with his bike > down, where he will leave it when he runs up the to the bridge. The film > does not follow him from the prior frame to here, so it is not impossible > that this is somebody else, but that makes the most sense. > https://lh6.googleuserc tent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAPk/HOTqVZeM
> PPE/s647/couch3wheeler.jpg
Got an error on that too. It should be lh6.googleusercontent.com, not lh6.googleuserc tent.com as you posted it. Here is the correct URL:
> This is Hargis crossing the street back to his bike, just after that first > Couch frame. Note the white area between his glove and sleeve. This can be > seen on several of these Bell frames.
> This is what I have been calling the Cancellare photo of the cop on the > bridge, obviously taken after the Cabluck. There appears to be another > motorcycle cop standing on the bridge, visible through the concrete railing.
Ah yes. I hope you see this in time, but please ignore what I said in an earlier reply about not being able to see the officer's hands in the Cabluck photo. In this one you certain can see both of them. I'd forgotten about this, though I've seen it before.
I'm still not sure I'm with you on the gloves business though. Both officers look to me to have on black gloves. Yes, one of them you can see a gap between the end of the glove and his sleeve, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he was wearing shorter gloves than the other officer. That may simply mean that his sleeve was a bit pulled up at the instant the photo was taken exposing part of his wrist, or that the glove was bunched a bit at that moment.
For whatever reason, my links to the Couch film frames were each corrupted with an "=" character when posted here. The same links posted to the conspiracy group did not suffer this corruption. If you would like to follow the links, you can remove the "=", or you can see the pictures on my profile. It is obvious that I have not arranged them in chronological order. Anybody incapable of determining their chronological order, will never understand what they imply, nor that different people wear different gloves, either, I'm sure.
