In article <7551db42-d79b-466f-9759-6159915c352c@googlegroups.com>,
 Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, I just have to say that I burst out cackling when I read that.  
No offense meant. ;-)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 you read what you said there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. It says, "Get men to cover the building, Texas School Book
Depository, believe the shots came from there, facing it on Elm Street
looking at the building it will be the second window from the end in the
upper right hand corner."
Mr. BELIN. Did you say that?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Then the transmission made to you, 531 to 142 calling, "How
many do you have there?" And you made a response which is?
Mr. HAYGOOD. "One guy possibly hit by a ricochet off the concrete and
another seen the President slump."

**********

Or are you talking about some other portion of the transcript?

You are picking away at the strangest trivialities.