Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!news.infoave.net!easynews!news.alt.net!usenet
From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: It's 2002, & Bob Jackson Still Can't Say Why No Pix of JFK's Assassin
Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 12 Jul 2002 16:47:09 GMT
Organization: Marquette University
Lines: 78
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <3d2f09fe.257120489@news.alt.net>
References: <aglr6501ao8@drn.newsguy.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243

On 11 Jul 2002 22:58:29 -0700, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:

>It's 2002, & Bob Jackson Still Can't Say Why No Pix of JFK's Assassin
>
>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)
>


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