Jim Hicks says a road sign was hit by a bullet
Vern Pascal
didn't you? I'm impressed with your infallible perspicacity, but you
failed to answer any of my questions. You do admit that the sign was
taken down. How do you know it wasn't take down at night, simply because
you say it was still up in the daytime several days later. You got a
source for that? do you happen to know when and why a perfectly good
sign was removed? Do you know what ultimately became of the sign?
Seems to me that a bullet hole is the most logical reason for its
removal and apparent disappearance. I do not believe in this case in the
presumption of innocence, its just one more in a whole host of
coincidences. So, until the reason is proven to be an innocent one,
I'll uphold my belief in a sinister reason.---Vern
DRoberdeau
>
>Don;
>
>I agree with your assessment, and your conclusion that the shot hitting
>the sign was most likely the result of either a ricochet or a misfire,
>and I lean towards the ricochet.
>
>Interestingly, in one of my many books (the title and authors will come
>to me---I have a good memory--it's just short), there is a photograph of
>a bullet mark on the sidewalk of Elm,with the TSBD in the background.
>The mark points more toward the SW corner of the bldg., rather than the
>SN, or it could point towards the TSBD roof for that matter.
....Good Day Vern.... I do not conclude, nor, subscribe to the theory that a
bullet ever struck the SFS-- I was just providing theoretical information based
from DP map angles, the SFS, and theorized assassin locations.
With regards to a sidewalk mark, you may be remembering the photo on page 40 of
GRODEN's, "TKOAP" (softcover,1993). With respect to that mark, on 08APR02 GARY
MACK emailed me,
<QUOTE>
The "bullet strike" on the north sidewalk of Elm was not a strike at all. It
was made by a piece of cloth caught in the concrete when it was poured back in
the 30's (and soon removed). Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz had the
mark removed and examined back in December 1976. I saved the core and it will
eventually go to The Sixth Floor Museum.
<END QUOTE>
Don
CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
"I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. .... It
seemed to have come left, and back. .... Sir, whatever it was that I saw did
fall, both, in that direction, and, over into the curb there."
----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-Day, Ranger veteran,
statements during the 1966 assassination documentary film, "Rush to Judgement"
"(D)rehm (sic) seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE the
President." (my EMPHASIS)
----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-Day, Ranger veteran,
"Dallas Times Herald," 11-22-63, final edition
>Possibly
>this bullet struck the SFS. ----Vern
Anthony Marsh
> Well Tony, I guess you sure shot down another wacko conspiracy notion,
I have no problem shooting down any wacko theory, whether it be
conspiracy
or LNer. We don't need a wacky theory in order to prove conspiracy.
This sign theory does not even need to involve conspiracy. The WC said
that
one of the shots from the sniper's nest missed everything. Maybe it
hit
the sign. Surely you can't prove that if the sign was hit that it was
caused by a shot from a different location.
> didn't you? I'm impressed with your infallible perspicacity, but you
> failed to answer any of my questions. You do admit that the sign was
I am not going to answer every one of your questions, because they are
silly
and irrelevant. Next you'll ask for the names of the men who took down
the sign. And then you'll ask for the names of their wives. And the
names of
their children. Why don't you ask who resurfaced Elm Street and when,
then
turn that into something conspiratorial. What were they trying to
cover up, literally? Maybe too many bullet holes in the street?
I told you that we have discussed this before and that there are
articles on the web. Go do some homework.
> taken down. How do you know it wasn't take down at night, simply because
> you say it was still up in the daytime several days later. You got a
> source for that? do you happen to know when and why a perfectly good
We have photographs from that day and many days afterward that show
the same sign in place and undamaged.
> sign was removed? Do you know what ultimately became of the sign?
>
And who are you to say that they can not remove or replace a sign?
That is a decision for the public works department to make. We're
lucky that enough of the right people fought or they might have torn
down the TSBD.
> Seems to me that a bullet hole is the most logical reason for its
> removal and apparent disappearance. I do not believe in this case in the
"Seems to me"? That really proves something I guess. Like the rumors
of the limousine being instantly torn apart, this rumor about the sign
is an unnecessary crutch for weak minds who think that they can prove
a conspiracy
simply by pointing out suspicious circumstances.
> presumption of innocence, its just one more in a whole host of
> coincidences. So, until the reason is proven to be an innocent one,
> I'll uphold my belief in a sinister reason.---Vern
Innocent intentions have nothing to do with this. The motives may have
been the most sinister possible, to cover up evidence. So what? The
sign was not hit by
a bullet and did not have a bullet hole in it. The sign was not
removed that night.
twalsh
I don't know much about the whole sign issue, but would point out
there are non-sinister explanations of at least some of your
questions. I know around here they tend to do a lot of work on the
busy highways at night, less cars that way. Repaving and bridge work
I've seen personally at night and wouldn't doubt it would be easier to
close a lane to work on the signs above it at night than during the
day.
Vern Pascal
Inquiring minds want to know why it is that you are so sure of
everything? You say there was no hole in the sign, yet offer no evidence
for this definitive assrtion, other than your arrogance and bluster. You
say, "so what?" to all missing evidence, whether it be signs, autopsy
photographs and X rays, bullets or brains. To you, all the evidence is
before us and not lost or hidden, no need to speculate or deduce
alternate explanations for anything. Any scenario outside your orbit of
thinking is labeled a wacky conspiracy theory. I wish I could be so sure
of my own opinions, so that I need not learn anything new, nor even have
to wonder or speculate about unusual events in this case.
A closed mind gathers no facts.
Vern
Vern Pascal
"I don't know much about the whole sign issue, but would point out there
are non-sinister explanations of at least some of your questions. I know
around here they tend to do a lot of work on the busy highway at night,
less cars that way."
Hi TW;
It's mainly two things that bother me, and not just that the sign was
taken down at night. No, what gives me pause is the timing. Here, a
president of the U.S. is gunned down within a few feet of this sign, and
quite soon it is slated for removal, even though the Z film and many
photographs show there was nothing overtly wrong with the sign? It was
not delapidated. Why did it have to be replaced? And why at that
particular time? I still haven't learned just when it came down, let
alone why. Maybe my suspicions are unwarranted, but I'm not gettin' any
answers either.-----Vern
Walt
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2592-3D5...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Bravo Vern!!.... Agent Mush is royal pain in the ass.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
> Tony;
>
> Inquiring minds want to know why it is that you are so sure of
> everything? You say there was no hole in the sign, yet offer no evidence
I am sure, because it has been researched. There are ample photos
showing the sign after the shooting such as the Cancellare which show
no holes. And yes
I can test shoot a sign for you with a 6.5 mm bullet to SHOW you what
a bullet
hole in wood looks like.
> for this definitive assrtion, other than your arrogance and bluster. You
> say, "so what?" to all missing evidence, whether it be signs, autopsy
Again, you resort to false charges. And who was it who uncovered the
proof
that they actually destroyed evidence? I do not remember bumping into
you
at the National Archives when I was spending countless hours looking
through
thousands of documents. It is fun and easy to speculate. It is harder
to
actually sit down and look through the evidence.
The autopsy photos are genuine. The X-rays are genuine. Yes, there
were some
photos which they thought were destroyed. But someone actually did
something
about that instead of merely speculating that those photos would show
a massive rear head wound. Turns out that they do not show that area.
> photographs and X rays, bullets or brains. To you, all the evidence is
Missing bullets? *I* am the one who always teases the WC defenders
about whatever happened to THEIR missing bullet. I and a few others
are the only ones
who actually try to account for all the bullets. And who was it who
proved
that one bullet or fragment hit the chrome topping, contrary to the WC
position?
> before us and not lost or hidden, no need to speculate or deduce
> alternate explanations for anything. Any scenario outside your orbit of
Of course you have to speculate when there is missing evidence. The
sign was
not missing. It was right there in Dealey Plaza and many photos were
taken of it
which show that there was no bullet hole in it. The best thing for
your theory
is to backpedal and change your story to a bullet hitting the metal
post, thus
causing a ringing sound and obviously no bullet hole in the sign
itself.
> thinking is labeled a wacky conspiracy theory. I wish I could be so sure
> of my own opinions, so that I need not learn anything new, nor even have
> to wonder or speculate about unusual events in this case.
>
Hmm, ever bother reading any of my articles?
> A closed mind gathers no facts.
>
> Vern
If you think that it is fun to speculate about something which has
been disproven long ago, go ahead. Claim that it was really Oswald and
not Lovelady
in front of the TSBD, or that Greer turned around and shot the
President.
I see no difference between such wacky theories and the one about the
sign.
Anthony Marsh
True, but in this particular case the sign was on poles in the grassy
area to
the right of the street. The allegation is that they brought in a
crane in the middle of the night and replaced a damaged sign with an
exact duplicate sans
bullet hole.
Anthony Marsh
> TWalsh wrote:
>
> "I don't know much about the whole sign issue, but would point out there
> are non-sinister explanations of at least some of your questions. I know
> around here they tend to do a lot of work on the busy highway at night,
> less cars that way."
>
> Hi TW;
>
> It's mainly two things that bother me, and not just that the sign was
> taken down at night. No, what gives me pause is the timing. Here, a
What bothers me is that you accept a rumor as a proven fact when it
has
already been disproven.
> president of the U.S. is gunned down within a few feet of this sign, and
> quite soon it is slated for removal, even though the Z film and many
Now you seem to be backpedaling. "Quite soon"? As in months later? Not
that night in the middle of the night? "Slated for removal"? What no
hurry, let everyone see the bullet hole in the sign for weeks? That
doesn't sound very
conspiratorial to me.
> photographs show there was nothing overtly wrong with the sign? It was
> not delapidated. Why did it have to be replaced? And why at that
Why does any sign need to be replaced? Falling apart is not the ONLY
possible reason.
> particular time? I still haven't learned just when it came down, let
At what particular time? You have no idea at what time it was removed.
Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that they put up
overhead
signs years later saying exactly the same thing?
> alone why. Maybe my suspicions are unwarranted, but I'm not gettin' any
> answers either.-----Vern
You refuse to look for the answers.
Vern Pascal
You've got me wrong. I don't think it's fun to speculate, especially
about things which have been disproven. But in this cas you haven't
disproven it to my satisfaction. When you say that photos such as that
by Cancellare show no 6.5 mm bullet holes in the sign, I say you are the
one who is speculating, since you can't possibly discern, even with a
magnifying glass whether or not there is a bullet hole in it or not. And
why are you hung up on that 6.5 mm caliber? Different sized rounds were
probably employed by professional assassins in various locations.
I know how dogmatic and rigid you are re: the autopsy photos being
genuine. As a teaser, how do you explain that the present BOH photos are
not included in the View Descriptions from the 1966 NA Inventory? And
that the 6th View from the Inventory, "wound of entrance in right
posterior occipital region", is missing? Or do you believe that this
description really applies to the current BOH photos which show an
intact rear of head, and no sign of either an entry, or exit wound, in
the "right posterior occipital region"? If you believe these photos are
compatible with each other and with the medical evidence, we need not
pursue your "all the photos and X rays are genuine" argument any
further, as it would be a painful exercise in futility.------------Vern
Vern Pascal
You're exasperating! I started this whole brouhaha, by askng questions
about a vague story I've heard for years, and I wanted to nail it down
one way or the other. for I assumed someone here might have some
answers, settle the question, and thus properly DISPEL THE RUMORS WITH
FACTS. And from you, I expected at least some factual answers, even if
not civil, but instead, all I get are snide remarks about this "rumor"
being disproven years ago, but with no cites for sources, and then you
go into a tirade about extraneous and completely irrelevant "wacky
cnspiracy theories", as if having questions about te sign automatically
consigned me to the looney-bin. So all I, and I think anyone else
reading this and wondering, are provided in the way of evidence is your
word, but sorry, that's not good enough for me.
If you can't tell me exactly when and why the sign was taken down, then
why not say so in the first place, and cut out all the crap?
Vern
Walt
story..... I did find a photo that showed what might have been a bullet hole
in the sign. It was a small black spot but inconclusive as to it being a
bullet hole. After seeing that photo I realized it was wasted effort
.....Because I could see no way to prove that the black spot was in fact a
bullet hole.....
I gave up on that aspect of the evidence....
Walt
tomnln
When viewed in Slide Form.
"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ulma8t9...@corp.supernews.com...
Sam McClung
is the answer no one?
Vern Pascal
"Who reported seeing the sign hit or hearing it hit 11-22-63. Is the
answer no one?"
Sam;
All I know is Denis Morisette started this thread by quoting Jim Hicks
from the History Matters site:
"I think they hit the sign." He may not have actually witnessed it,
but then Hicks says, "The DPD car, people I assume to be because one of
them was in uniform...took the sign down there...the sign was marked."
I don't know if he said exactly when he (apparently) saw this sign being
taken down or not, because I couldn't read the small print in the mny
documents on the History Matters site, the link Denis provided in his
post. Maybe you, or someone else, can actually examine these documents
and glean some pertinent information, at least find out when he says he
saw the sign being taken down by "the DPD.".
I know many here would just as soon ignore Jim Hicks' story. I don't
even know if he's the origin of the tale of the bullet hole in the sign,
followed by sign removal.. Maybe he's FOS about this, but I'll keep an
open mind until further notice. However, this sign business may be on a
dead end street. It's certainly not a good sign anyway, and I may have
to sign off on it.
Regards, Vern
tomnln
sign from 212 through 220.
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2719-3D...@storefull-2318.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Sam McClung
i see the sign as a rabbit trail