It's 2002, & Bob Jackson Still Can't Say Why No Pix of JFK's Assassin
dcwi...@netscape.net
Almost 40 years later, Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert Jackson still
can't explain why--altho he was the first newsperson in Camera Car 3 to spot
JFK's assassin--he did not get a picture of the rifle in the window. The
contemporary record on the subject is missing, or at best incomplete. Missing:
his 11/22/63 statement, about which we have only Deputy Sheriff CL Lewis'
comment, "Saw shooting." (Hearings v19 p527) We don't have the actual
statement. It has long since disappeared.
In his next chance to explain--in his 11/23/63 Times Herald story, "Lensman
Heard Shots, Saw Gun"--Jackson ignores the subject of photographs. At last, in
a follow-up Times-Herald Story, "Lensman Tells of Big Moment," (11/25/63), he at
least tiptoes around the problem: "I was in the motorcade when the shots were
fired at Kennedy & saw the rifle being pulled back in the window in the TSBD.
It happened too fast, then, for me to get a photo of it." But Jackson is still
vague here--it didn't happen "too fast" for fellow Camera 3 photographer Tom
Dillard to snap two photos with *two different cameras*. The next year, at the
WC Hearings, counsel Arlen Specter did not even bother to ask Jackson why he
failed to get a photo of the shooter.
Much more recently, however, Jackson has--at least twice in the last 5
years--attempted to explain his failure on 11/22/63. On June 30, 2002, a front
page Dallas Morning News story read,
Mr Jackson had 2 cameras, one with a wide-angle lens, the other a telephoto.
Cursing his bad luck, he realized he had snapped his last picture just before
turning onto Houston St. He had no time to reload.
Anyone who knows the story knows that this, again, is no answer. Jackson did
not have to reload:
Specter: Were you carrying 1 camera or more than 1 camera?
Jackson: 2 cameras.
Specter: And was one camera loaded at the time you rounded the corner of Main &
Houston?
Jackson: Yes, sir. And one was empty.
Specter: Was it from the camera which was empty that you had taken the roll of
film which you have just described?
Jackson: Yes, sir.... I had 1 camera around my neck & the camera I had just
emptied, it was in my lap. (Hearings v2pp158, 164)
The camera with the wide-angle lens, around his neck, was loaded. Why didn't
Jackson use it? In 1998, former Dallas Morning News reporter Connie E Kritzberg
asked him "'why no pix' & he said he only had wide angle left & it 'wouldn't
have done any good'. Then I noticed that [Tom] Dillard's famous photo [of the
TSBD] was taken with wide angle lens & then cropped. So that doesn't wash. You
put your finger on the lie Bob told me." (5/5/98 e-mail)
Jackson, then, had a loaded camera around his neck, with a perfectly good usable
lens. How did Dillard get off two photos, with 2 different cameras, & Jackson
none, altho Jackson saw the rifle first? Jackson has attempted to explain, at
least 3 times, & failed. Pretty clearly, then, it's not the *answer* which is
the problem here, but the question. It's the wrong *question*. Clearly,
Jackson *did* take at least one photo with the camera with the w.a. lens. The
real question is, What did you photograph? What did you see in the upper
windows of the SE corner of the TSBD that the authorities did not want you--or
anyone else--to see? Would your long-lost original statement explain? Was it
the wrong assassin? The wrong window? The wrong rifle? All of the above...?
Donald Willis
John McAdams
You're being silly. A wide angle lens might certainly show a shooter,
but it would be vastly less likely to actually show enough detail to
allow the identification of the shooter.
>Jackson, then, had a loaded camera around his neck, with a perfectly good usable
>lens. How did Dillard get off two photos, with 2 different cameras, & Jackson
>none, altho Jackson saw the rifle first? Jackson has attempted to explain, at
>least 3 times, & failed. Pretty clearly, then, it's not the *answer* which is
>the problem here, but the question. It's the wrong *question*. Clearly,
>Jackson *did* take at least one photo with the camera with the w.a. lens. The
>real question is, What did you photograph? What did you see in the upper
>windows of the SE corner of the TSBD that the authorities did not want you--or
>anyone else--to see? Would your long-lost original statement explain? Was it
>the wrong assassin? The wrong window? The wrong rifle? All of the above...?
>
So Bob Jackson is now one of the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy, eh?
What is your theory? That he photographed the shooter, and it wasn't
Oswald, so he destroyed the photo?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gary Mack
Donald,
I've known Bob for years. He saw the rifle after the last shot.
The telephoto lens camera around his neck had no film, that's why there
was no photo. The printed version of the Dallas Morning News story
included a close-up photo of Jackson in the motorcade on Main Street and
the camera was around his neck then, too.
By the time he grabbed his other camera, the one with the wide angle lens,
the rifle had been pulled back in.
Gary Mack
Denis Morissette
Even though the rifle had been pulled back in, I feel he should have
taken a photo of the sniper's window anyway, the shooter possibly
still being there.
Did Jackson say that he did not take the photo just because no rifle
could be seen?
dcwi...@netscape.net
reversed. In fact, with your switcheroo, you actually wind up making an
excellent, if accidental case for the existence of a Bob Jackson photo of the
rifle in the window: "There was no photo," you say, because the "telephoto lens
camera around his neck had no film.... By the time he grabbed his other camera,
the one with the wide angle lens, the rifle had been pulled back in." Terrif!
But the "camera around his neck" DID have film:
Jackson: "I had thrown my film out to this reporter over the side of the car as
we rounded the corner & I still had the camera lying in my lap, & THE OTHER ONE
WAS AROUND MY NECK." (v2p164)
In other words, the empty, telephoto lens camera was lying in his lap; the
loaded, wide-angle-lens camera was around his neck. But his testimony here
actually goes even further. Here it is in full:
Ford: "At the time you heard the first shot, what was your position in the car?
Were you standing or sitting?"
Jackson: "I was sitting on the back of the seat, on the right-hand side of the
back seat, sitting up."
Ford: "Did you have your camera in your hand?"
Jackson: "Yes. I had one camera around my neck & the camera I had just
emptied, it was in my lap. I had thrown my film out...."
"Did you have your camera in your hand?" "Yes." Jackson, then, had a loaded
camera in his hand. He heard 3 shots, then saw a rifle "drawn fairly slowly
back into the building" (p159). He did not have to scramble around trying to
locate the camera with the film; all he had to do was aim & click. He had to
have gotten at least one shot of the slowly-drawn-back rifle. To rephrase your
sentence:
The wide angle lens camera around his neck had film, that's why there was a
photo. If there was a loaded camera around his neck--IN HIS HAND--there was at
least one photo.... Talk to Bob again.
dw
Gary Mack
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:agtqm...@drn.newsguy.com...
> reversed. In fact, with your switcheroo, you actually wind up making an
> excellent, if accidental case for the existence of a Bob Jackson photo of
the
> rifle in the window: "There was no photo," you say, because the
> camera around his neck had no film.... By the time he grabbed his other
camera,
> the one with the wide angle lens, the rifle had been pulled back in."
a
> photo. If there was a loaded camera around his neck--IN HIS HAND--there
was at
> least one photo.... Talk to Bob again.
> dw
There's no need, for my "switcheroo" has no bearing on what actually
happened. Jackson had his telephoto lens camera around his neck within a
few blocks of Dealey Plaza (the overhead view of him in Trask on page 437 is
the same picture that ran in the recent Dallas Morning News story.) That
was the camera that was out of film and Jackson had, indeed, unloaded it and
included that roll and others in the package he tossed to Dallas Times
Herald reporter Jim Featherston at Main & Houston in their pre-arranged
plan. Jackson and the others in his car - as can be seen in the Robert
Hughes film - were watching Featherston scramble after the dropped package.
Seconds later, while the photographers were turned away from the TSBD, the
first shot was fired.
As Jackson testified, and told many times over the years, he saw the black
guys in a window and a rifle in the window above them, then saw the rifle
being withdrawn. He grabbed for his telephoto lens camera, then realized it
had no film. He then grabbed his wide angle lens camera, which was around
his neck by the time he reached Dealey Plaza, but it was too late. He could
see nothing and concentrated, instead, on the commotion in and around the
motorcade in front of him.
For you or anyone to suggest that Jackson got a picture of the TSBD and has
lied about doing so and kept the picture hidden is just ridiculous.
Here's the background on the recent Dallas Morning News story, which was my
suggestion. News reporter Michael Granberry and I collaborated for weeks,
tracking down people at both newspapers and elsewhere who knew Jackson or
Jack Beers. Several people in the local news media, including Jackson,
recounted knowing at the time how distraught he was over missing out on
getting a picture of the gun in the window. It still bothers Bob that he
was too slow when it counted, but he made up for it - he feels, as explained
in the story - by his classic picture of Ruby shooting Oswald.
Gary Mack
dcwi...@netscape.net
I isolate the following to show how LNers (as well as witnesses) change their
stories, the better apparently to protect the Warren Commission's sanitized
conclusions. Remember that "too late," just days ago, meant that the wide angle
lens camera was lying in Jackson's lap. Now, altho Jackson is seen to have
testified that he had the loaded camera IN HIS HAND, Gary has him somehow
grabbing for *another* camera, & it's "too late" again. Next, look for Gary &
John to explain away Jackson's lost statement from 11/22/63 (v19 p527).... I
think it is pretty safe to say that there is a connection between the
disappearance of said statement & Jackson's continued inability to explain why
he did not take at least one picture with the camera which was in his hand.
dw
**** >He grabbed for his telephoto lens camera, then realized it
>had no film. He then grabbed his wide angle lens camera, which was around
>his neck by the time he reached Dealey Plaza, but it was too late.
****
Denis Morissette
did take one. Are you 100% sure about it? You have not shown any evidence
yet. When will you?
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote in message news:<agupl...@drn.newsguy.com>...
GMcNally
> Donald, how all your saying proves that Jackson took a photo? You claim he
> did take one. Are you 100% sure about it? You have not shown any evidence
> yet. When will you?
Bonjour Denis,
DW uses the classic CT line "it doesn't make sense [to me]" -
therefore, the man must have been lying.
The CT believe that things should invariably happy as *they expect*.
So if something happens otherwise orwitness say or behave some other
way then they expect, they conclude that some conspiracy must have
occurred.
Using this approach - "it doesn't make sense" - DW has concluded that
nearly everybody in Dallas lied as part of a massive conspiracy.
Jerry
Gary Mack
Denis Morissette
I see what you mean. And it seems to me that the proper way of
investigating the murder of a president is to look for hard, physical
evidence. So far, Donald has not done so. I know that Donald is bright
man, so I expect him to be more serious. I have always liked his style of
writing and is very interested to read. He has the talent to write a book
on the JFK assassination.
jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02071...@posting.google.com>...
dcwi...@netscape.net
mikesm...@hotmail.com says...
>
>Bonsoir Jerry,
>
>I see what you mean. And it seems to me that the proper way of
>investigating the murder of a president is to look for hard, physical
>evidence. So far, Donald has not done so. I know that Donald is bright
>man, so I expect him to be more serious. I have always liked his style of
>writing and is very interested to read. He has the talent to write a book
>on the JFK assassination.
Denis -- Thank you for your words, both the kind & the prodding. I'll try to
touch on your several recent posts right here. First, no, I don't believe
Jackson ever explained why he did not at least get a photo of an empty window,
even if the rifle had been withdrawn. Why do I believe that he did get at least
one photo of the TSBD? He was the first in the camera car to spot the rifle, &
as he testified he had a loaded camera in his hand. Even if he were a little
slow, I'd expect that he would have *tried* to get a shot of the rifle, even if
he were a second too late. We should at least have a Jackson photo of an empty
window! More than that, though, I think we should actually have a photo of the
rifle itself, which as he testified was "slowly" withdrawn. And one document to
which I have previously referred suggests that we might have a photo of even
more than that:
"Bob Jackson... is reported to have seen THE RIFLE and THE MAN THAT FIRED THE
SHOTS AS THE SHOTS WERE FIRED. This information from Sgt WGJennings...." (v19
p517)
If this is true, then Jackson got a photo of "the man that fired the shots."
But as I've noted, his inability to explain his failure to get a pic of the
TSBD, & the disappearance of his 11/22 statement suggest that Jackson got a shot
of a man, a rifle, or a window which undercut the official story.
And in one instance, I can't say that I myself unearthed a piece of hard
evidence which suggests conspiracy & cover-up, but Dale Myers did--tho he didn't
realize it--& it's on page 161 of his 'With Malice'. He pooh poohs the
testimony of Tippit witness Helen Markham's son for the HSCA, in which he said
that his mother saw the killer flee down the alley off Patton (p216). The
killer most certainly took Jefferson, not Patton [many witnesses here, plus
Patrolman Summers' radio message], so Markham's story suggests a 2nd shooter, or
at least (as I believe) a 2nd man with a gun, tho not a shooter.
Myers insists that there's no contemporary evidence that a gunman fled down the
alley, but Officers Poe & Jez did a report 11/22 which concluded, "There were
approximately 6 to 8 witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was
running west in the alley between 10th & Jefferson streets." (Myers p487)
Again, all credit to Myers for unearthing this remarkable document, but the most
telling one is Sgt Barnes' sketch of the crime scene (p161), which maps only
10th St., Patton, & the alley, & notes, "W on alley to Crawford left on Crawford
to E Jefferson 300 blk -- W on Jefferson to Texas Theater." He's documenting
the apparent shooter's escape route--the alley, not Jefferson. Look at the
photos pp150-153: There are Poe, Jez, & Barnes, all listening to... Helen
Markham. In 1977, Markham was saying "alley"; in 1963, she was saying "alley."
And Poe Jez & Barnes heard "alley." Who was their shooter, or gunman? The
Barnes sketch validates Markham's son's '77 testimony.
And I like to think that I have uncovered hard evidence of a cover-up in
Dealey--the Sawyer Exhibits, in which Insp Sawyer is transcribed as saying the
hulls were found on the 5th floor (all other transcriptions say "3rd", which may
seem to be in error, but that is apparently what he said, & a transcription is a
transcription, not an interpretation)... someone other than Sgt Hill is
transcribed as saying that the Tippit killer used an automatic & that they have
a witness in a squad car... and Officer Clyde Haygood is transcribed as saying
(at 12:37) that the shots came from the 2nd window from the end, & Officer
Brewer is transcribed as saying (at 12:38) I'll leave the witness here. Did
dispatcher/transcriber Henslee simply make a lot of typos? No, it's a little
more than that, because Sawyer, Hill, Haygood & Brewer all "corroborated"
Henslee's errors when they went before the WC. And the WC used *only* Henslee's
transcription when talking to the Dallas Police, tho other, better ones were
made available in '64.
Sgt Hill, for instance, denied making both the "automatic" call *and* the call
in which he said he had a witness in his car. Haygood testified he made the
"2nd window" call, when officer 22--Patrolman Leonard Hill--can clearly be
heard, on the radio tapes, making it. And in "First Day Evidence," Gary Savage
again transcribes (Patrolman) Hill as making the "I'll leave the witness here"
call generally attributed to Brewer. It was actually "witnesses," & Hill left
them where they were, near the triple underpass. (Haygood testified that he
sent them to the depository.) This checks with witness James Tague, who
confirmed when I talked to him that Hill left him there, with an admonition to
go to city hall to talk to police.
What was being covered-up here? Hard to say for sure, since the LLHill
transmissions involve the "2nd window," Tague, & Charles Brehm, hot potatoes
all. As is pretty well known, I place my main money on the window, since the
witness/contact is still unknown, tho it may have been (back to the beginning of
these ruminations) Jackson himself, whose testimony was curiously cut off at the
point at which he jumped out in Dealey, near Hill & the triple underpass....
dw
>jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message
>news:<a163e09.02071...@posting.google.com>...
>>mikesm...@hotmail.com (Denis Morissette) wrote in message
>>news:<59b0d1e4.02071...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Donald, how all your saying proves that Jackson took a photo? You claim he
>> > did take one. Are you 100% sure about it? You have not shown any evidence
>> > yet. When will you?
>>
>> Bonjour Denis,
>>
>> DW uses the classic CT line "it doesn't make sense [to me]" -
>> therefore, the man must have been lying.
>>
>> The CT believe that things should invariably happy as *they expect*.
>> So if something happens otherwise orwitness say or behave some other
>> way then they expect, they conclude that some conspiracy must have
>> occurred.
>>
>> Using this approach - "it doesn't make sense" - DW has concluded that
>> nearly everybody in Dallas lied as part of a massive conspiracy.
>>
>> Jerry
SNIP
twalsh
things.
DCWillis quoted Jackson's testimony:
Ford: "Did you have your camera in your hand?"
Jackson: "Yes. I had one camera around my neck & the camera
I had just emptied, it was in my lap. I had thrown my film
out...."
Then wrote, among other things,:
"Jackson, then, had a loaded camera in his hand."
and
"If there was a loaded camera around his neck--IN HIS
HAND--there was at least one photo"
Unless some relevant portion of Jackson's testimony was left out, Jackson
never specifies which camera was in his hand, the empty one in his lap or
the loaded one around his neck. Willis for some reason, as shown in his
quotes above assumes Jackson had the loaded camera around his neck in his
hand even though the testimony does not specify which one was in his hand.
Seems to me you can't just guess which camera he meant when he aswered yes
to the question. If you did guess, it would actually seem more logical to
be holding the camera in the lap to keep it from falling, the one around
the neck was supported by a strap and not likely to end up on the
floorboard.
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote in message news:<agupl...@drn.newsguy.com>...
dcwi...@netscape.net
tuchd...@yahoo.com says...
>
>I isolate the following to show how CTers read what they want into
>things.
>
>DCWillis quoted Jackson's testimony:
> Ford: "Did you have your camera in your hand?"
> Jackson: "Yes. I had one camera around my neck & the camera
>I had just emptied, it was in my lap. I had thrown my film
>out...."
>
>
>Then wrote, among other things,:
>
> "Jackson, then, had a loaded camera in his hand."
> and
> "If there was a loaded camera around his neck--IN HIS
>HAND--there was at least one photo"
>
>Unless some relevant portion of Jackson's testimony was left out, Jackson
>never specifies which camera was in his hand, the empty one in his lap or
>the loaded one around his neck. Willis for some reason, as shown in his
>quotes above assumes Jackson had the loaded camera around his neck in his
>hand even though the testimony does not specify which one was in his hand.
>Seems to me you can't just guess which camera he meant when he aswered yes
>to the question. If you did guess, it would actually seem more logical to
>be holding the camera in the lap to keep it from falling, the one around
>the neck was supported by a strap and not likely to end up on the
>floorboard.
>
was in his hand, since he wrote "[Jackson] grabbed for his telephoto lens
camera, then realized it had no film...." If something's in your hand, you
don't have to grab for it....
dw
John Hill
that Jackson had a loaded camera in his hand. Help please.
--
John Hill (joisa)
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ah30v...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Hill
news:763beff9.02071...@posting.google.com...
> I isolate the following to show how CTers read what they want into
> things.
>
> DCWillis quoted Jackson's testimony:
> Ford: "Did you have your camera in your hand?"
> Jackson: "Yes. I had one camera around my neck & the camera
> I had just emptied, it was in my lap. I had thrown my film
> out...."
>
>
> Then wrote, among other things,:
>
> "Jackson, then, had a loaded camera in his hand."
> and
> "If there was a loaded camera around his neck--IN HIS
> HAND--there was at least one photo"
>
> Unless some relevant portion of Jackson's testimony was left out, Jackson
> never specifies which camera was in his hand, the empty one in his lap or
> the loaded one around his neck. Willis for some reason, as shown in his
> quotes above assumes Jackson had the loaded camera around his neck in his
> hand even though the testimony does not specify which one was in his hand.
> Seems to me you can't just guess which camera he meant when he aswered yes
> to the question. If you did guess, it would actually seem more logical to
> be holding the camera in the lap to keep it from falling, the one around
> the neck was supported by a strap and not likely to end up on the
> floorboard.
That's the way I read it too. That's why I'm asking DC to clarify for me. As
a long time camera user (often carrying two or more at a time), I can say
that I've placed an open camera on my lap to reload it hundreds of times.
Quite often during the reloading process, I've held on to the camera, even
though it was also lying on my lap. My honest first reaction to Jackson's
statement was that he had one camera (apparently loaded) hanging around his
neck and was in the process of reloading the camera in his lap (having just
tossed film to his partner suggests the camera had already been opened,
unloaded and was lying in his lap for reloading). Certainly, the process of
rewinding, opening, unloading, getting another roll out to load, etc. could
cause one to miss a shot that was only available for a moment or two. That's
how I read Jackson's statement, FWLIW.
--
John Hill (joisa)
John Hill
news:ah5o7...@drn.newsguy.com...
I think that may be but semantics. I can easily see myself with one hand on
an open and unloaded camera in my lap and then "grabbing" for it, under such
suddenly startling conditions, before I realized it was empty. Perhaps he
started to raise it to take a shot before he remembered it was empty. FWLIW.
--
John Hill (joisa)
> dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ford's question, "Did you have your camera in your hand?") to apply to "one
camera around my neck" because the latter was the one he referred to immediately
after the "Yes." Not necessarily, true, I admit. And your comments re
rewinding etc. might, yes, be the scenario behind Jackson's original It happened
too fast. But *he* has never provided such a scenario. The only 2 he has
apparently provided have been (a) the wide angle lens was no good [altho Dillard
used both of *his* cameras, inc. the one with the w.a.l., both *after* Jackson
spotted the rifle, & had had a chance to grab for 6 different cameras], & (b),
now, this year, that he "had no time to reload." Neither is an explanation of
"too fast." The wal would have been fine; he had a loaded camera around his
neck.
Finally, Jackson was apparently not in the unloading/rewinding process, or he
would not have been the first to spot the rifle. The closest approximation we
have of his situation at the critical moment is the photo on p437 of Trask:
Jackson is sitting up, telephoto-lens camera in hand, looking *up* & around.
Mutatis mutandis (necessary changes being made, thank you WFBuckley), he's now
on Houston, still looking up, now with the *w.a.lens* camera in his hand, or
perhaps only around his neck, but he's ready to shoot, certainly prepared enuf
to get off a shot or 2 by the time the belated Dillard got his shot his 2....
dw
R2JUDGE
>Assassin
>From: Gary Mack GM...@jfk.org
>Date: 7/16/02 5:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ah2eeh$2k2$1...@shell.datasync.com>
***Out of curiosity, how many shots did he say he heard and what did he
describe
as the timing?
***Ron Judge
Andrew Mason
Three shots. 1.......2...3. 2 H 159
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0084a.htm
Andrew Mason
> ***Ron Judge
John Hill
ANY picture of the shooter, even a wide angle shot, would be better than
no picture at all. I'm assuming he was using Pan X or Tri X. Both are, and
were then, very good quality, sharp film. Even a relatively wide angle
shot might well have yielded an image good enough to stand a good bit of
blowing up.
> Finally, Jackson was apparently not in the unloading/rewinding process, or
he
> would not have been the first to spot the rifle.
Now, that's an interesting observation.
> The closest approximation we
> have of his situation at the critical moment is the photo on p437 of
Trask:
> Jackson is sitting up, telephoto-lens camera in hand, looking *up* &
around.
> Mutatis mutandis (necessary changes being made, thank you WFBuckley), he's
now
> on Houston, still looking up, now with the *w.a.lens* camera in his hand,
or
> perhaps only around his neck, but he's ready to shoot, certainly prepared
enuf
> to get off a shot or 2 by the time the belated Dillard got his shot his
2....
Curiouser and curiouser.
--
John Hill (joisa)