Bugliosi`s new book
Bud
I went to the local library, and was amazed that my tiny branch
actually had a copy of "Reclaiming History". Naturally, I took it out
(telling the librarian I`d return it in a hour when I finished reading
it), got it home,skipped the long introduction, and started reading.
Caught a small mistake on page 5, and something that puzzled me on
page 6. The mistake is where Bugs says "She [Linnie Mae Randle]
doesn`t recognize him [Oswald] at first but realizes he is heading to
where her brother`s automobile is parked in the carport." Wesley`s car
wasn`t parked in the carport (LMR`s husband`s was), it was parked on
the far side of the carport, as seen in this photo...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138993
The thing that puzzled me is what VB writes on page 6... "Linnie
Mae, at the back door, watches Lee go over to Wesley`s beat-up `59
Chevy four-door, open the right rear door-the sticky one with the
broken window-and lay the package he`s carrying in the backseat." That
a lot of detail to note through the slats in the wall of the carport
from LNR`s vantage point at the backdoor (The link I provided also
shows her view from the "backdoor").
eca...@tx.rr.com
Frazier's 59 Chevy in the garage, isn't
it possible the arrow on the graphic is
wrong?
Interesting either way.. .
MR :~? ED
Ed Cage
1725Jun607
On Jun 6, 5:15 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> I went to the local library, and was amazed that my tiny branch
> actually had a copy of "Reclaiming History". Naturally, I took it out
> (telling the librarian I`d return it in a hour when I finished reading
> it), got it home,skipped the long introduction, and started reading.
> Caught a small mistake on page 5, and something that puzzled me on
> page 6. The mistake is where Bugs says "She [Linnie Mae Randle]
> doesn`t recognize him [Oswald] at first but realizes he is heading to
> where her brother`s automobile is parked in the carport." Wesley`s car
> wasn`t parked in the carport (LMR`s husband`s was), it was parked on
> the far side of the carport, as seen in this photo...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
David Von Pein
Bud,
I, too, noticed some odd things on those very same pages. But more
than the "carport" problem, I took notice of a mistake (I'm nearly
sure it's a mistake) when Vince says Frazier owned a "1959" Chevy. His
car I believe was a 1953 Chevy sedan.
Frazier was filmed in 1964 during a re-creation ride to the TSBD by
United Artists for the movie "Four Days In November", and the car
certainly looks older that a '59.
Plus -- As we can see from this FBI photo (which I assume was taken
shortly after 11/22), Frazier's car here is not a '59. It's older.
Also: The car in this FBI photo doesn't match EITHER of the cars in
CE447. So possibly Frazier got a new car shortly after 11/22. Beats
me. .....
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=51
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138993
BTW, the source note provided on page 6 for VB's chronology leads to
the WC testimony of Linnie Mae Randle (as I knew it would), which, in
turns, provides this.....
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him
as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was
fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw
that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come
back and stood on the driveway.
=============
Randle says that Wesley's car was parked "by" the carport, not "in"
it. So VB may have slipped a bit there. But it's certainly not an
error worth stringing him up over. (Although certain CT-Kooks will no
doubt disagree. They'll allow no mistakes...so his "1959" error re.
the car probably means the whole book is worthless too.) ;)
BTW, the bulk of the errors in the book (and I've found very, VERY
few, btw) deal with JUST that very thing -- YEARS. On one page in the
Oliver Stone chapter, VB says that Stone discussed the film with
someone in "1961". Obviously, just a simple slip of the "year"
there...he meant 1991.
Some other "year" mistakes pop up throughout the book. But not all
that many. He twice juxtaposes the numbers of the "1986" mock trial,
saying it occurred in "1968". A common type error.
I vote we do NOT string Vince up for such minor gaffes. (Can we get
the CTers to agree? ... Prob'ly not, huh?) ;)
cdddraftsman
Bugs Book ! Be on the lookout for the right car on the wrong page ,
hint hint ! ..............tl
doug.w...@gmail.com
> actually had a copy of "Reclaiming History". Naturally, I took it out
> (telling the librarian I`d return it in a hour when I finished reading
> it), got it home,skipped the long introduction, and started reading.
> Caught a small mistake on page 5, and something that puzzled me on
> page 6. The mistake is where Bugs says "She [Linnie Mae Randle]
> doesn`t recognize him [Oswald] at first but realizes he is heading to
> where her brother`s automobile is parked in the carport." Wesley`s car
> wasn`t parked in the carport (LMR`s husband`s was), it was parked on
> the far side of the carport, as seen in this photo...
>
>
> The thing that puzzled me is what VB writes on page 6... "Linnie
> Mae, at the back door, watches Lee go over to Wesley`s beat-up `59
> Chevy four-door, open the right rear door-the sticky one with the
> broken window-and lay the package he`s carrying in the backseat." That
> a lot of detail to note through the slats in the wall of the carport
> from LNR`s vantage point at the backdoor (The link I provided also
> shows her view from the "backdoor").
I also came across an inaccurracy, IMO, on page 74 of RH. VB
speculates that Tippit attemted to call the DPD dispatcher at 1:08
p.m.. You might have seen my previous inquirey on a.a.j. in regard to
the accuracy of this attempted call from JDT. Mc Adams provided the
link to the audio of the dispatch & it does sound as if the 1:08 call
was made from unit 388 rather than 78 as stated in RH. If I'm wrong
in this regard please, let me know what I'm missing on this topic.
Bud
I only know that it has been said in previous posts here that
Tippit tried to contact the dispatcher at 1:08, and the dispatcher
didn`t respond. I suspect the original source to be the book "With
Malice". I never lestened to the original Dallas police tapes, but I
hear they aren`t of great quality. So, I guess either you are mistaken
about the squad car number given, or the other people who say the call
came from Tippit are mistaken.Maybe I`llI see if I can find the link
you say McAdams gave, and listen for myself.
wig...@xit.net
Here's the link to the audio;
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture44.ram
Also, here is the link to the transcripts;
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
The transcripts do cite unit 78 as the source of the 1:08 call. But
after listening to the audio, IMO, I believe the original mistake was
made in interpreting the call as being from unit 78 rather than 388.
Let me know what you think after listening to the audio. I'm not
bashing VB but I think this may be an erroneous point that didn't get
caught regarding the 1:08 calls' source.
David Von Pein
====================================
"Can we be 100 percent sure that the two 1:08 p.m. transmissions were
from Officer Tippit? Way back in 1964, Jim Bowles told the Warren
Commission by way of his transcription of the Dallas police channel 1
radio tape that at 1:08 p.m., a patrol officer called in "seventy-
eight" to the police dispatcher twice within a matter of seconds (CE
705, 17 H 406). The Dallas police tapes now being played by many
throughout the country are notoriously poor in fidelity. But Bowles
made four reel-to-reel magnetic-tape copies of the original channel 1
and 2
recordings, which he said were just as clear as the originals.
"Two, he said, were for the FBI, one for Chief Curry, and one copy for
himself, which he transcribed from. (He never knew what happened to
the original recordings themselves, though they would turn up in a
Dallas police lieutenant's garage in 1978, and are now at the National
Archives.) He vaguely recalls
that one of the FBI tapes was sent by the bureau "to some laboratory
in Oklahoma."
"Bowles said his instruction from the FBI (given to him by Deputy
Chief
George Lumpkin) "was to transcribe from the original recordings," and
he said he did transcribe directly from the Dictabelt and Audograph
recordings.
"But since he knew that every time the two original recordings were
transcribed from, they would be damaged by the constant starting,
stopping, and reversing that are inherent to the transcription
process, he first made, before he transcribed from the two original
recordings, the four reel magnetic-tape copies of the originals.*
* = Telephone interview of Jim Bowles by author {VB} on November 1,
2004.
"In any event, we know that Bowles heard "seventy-eight" twice on the
original Dictabelt recording, certainly much clearer than the
multigenerational copies being listened to by assassination
researchers."
"On March 25, 2004, Bowles, who had a copy of the channel 1 recording
(not his magnetic copy of the original) in his office that was clearer
than the copy I had, played it over the phone for me (in Los Angeles)
and we could hear the second "seventy-eight" (Tippit's call number)
call at 1:08 p.m., though not completely clearly, but could not make
out the first one.
"But Bowles was adamant that on the magnetic copy of the original
Dictabelt recording he listened to many years ago, he not only heard
"two 78s, but I recognized Tippit's voice." By the latter he said he
meant the inflection, tone, and cadence in the four syllables of the
words "seventy-eight." The plain-spoken Dallas sheriff said, "If I
didn't hear two 78s from Tippit at 1:08, then I've been lying to
people for forty years, and counselor [me], I haven't been lying."*
* = Telephone interviews of Jim Bowles by author {VB} on March 25,
April 23, and October 18, 2004; HSCA Record 180-10108-10192, HSCA
interview of Gerald Henslee on August 12, 1978, p.4. --- V. Bugliosi;
"Reclaiming History"; Endnotes (CD); Page 43
Bud
Sorry, this wouldn`t play for me.
David Von Pein
"OSWALD TAKES LEAK PRIOR TO SLAYING OFFICER":
=======================================
"One alleged witness Myers doesn't rely on for his "change of
direction" theory, not even mentioning
him in his book probably because of the person's almost assuredly
phony story, is Elcan Elliot, who waited thirty-one years (not too
long a period, right?) to tell his story for the first time to author
Gus Russo. Elliot claimed that after the president was shot, "there
was no one on the streets" because everyone was home watching the
assassination news on TV or radio, or simply out of fear.
"We know, of course, that this is not true. In the Tippit incident
alone, we know Helen Markham, William Scoggins, and William Lawrence
Smith (see main text) were walking on the street, and people were in
their cars (e.g., Jack Tatum and Domingo Benavides) going places other
than home to watch the TV news.
"But undoubtedly most people were at home or in their offices with
their TV or radio turned to the assassination news, a fact that could
have contributed to Tippit's having stopped Oswald. But this is a weak
inference.
"In any event, Elliot, who claimed he lived near Oswald, said he was
driving his car on the streets of Oak Cliff searching for his fourteen-
year-old daughter because he feared for her safety. He claims he saw
Oswald "relieving himself " on some bushes around the 700 block of
North Beckley. He thought Oswald looked suspicious so he followed him
(he apparently had given up worrying about his daughter) -- [LOL!
LOL!] -- and saw Oswald "reverse direction . . . three or four times"
as he approached Lancaster Boulevard, saying Oswald looked "lost,
bewildered."
"There is no indication in Russo's book that Elliot gave any reason
for his thirty-one-year silence on this matter, which alone would
almost seem to disqualify Elliot as a credible source. But based on
Elliot's story, Russo speculates that Tippit may have stopped Oswald
not just because he vaguely fit the description of the man in the
sniper's nest sent out over the police radio, but because of "Oswald's
erratic back-and-forth movements on foot in Oak Cliff." (Interview of
Elcan Elliot by Gus Russo on September 9, 1994, in Russo, Live by the
Sword, pp.307-308, 314, 564 note 1)
"But if Oswald was walking back and forth in opposite directions and
going toward Lancaster Boulevard, it would not have been physically
possible for him to reach Tenth and Patton when we know he did." ---
V. Bugliosi; Page 46 of CD-ROM Endnotes; "Reclaiming History"; c.2007
Walt
Perhaps Elliot saw the killer of Tippit who LOOKED like Oswald. The
actions of the man that Elliot describes would seem to fit with the
actions of a fugative. It's a shame that a "sharp" lawyer like
Bugliosi wouldn't see that immediately.
Walt
doug.w...@gmail.com
DVP, thanks for your input & reply.
Walt
> Very interesting Bud.. But since that's
> Frazier's 59 Chevy in the garage,
Once again you display your ignorance of the facts.... Buell Frazier
was driving a 1953 Chevy four door sedan when he gave Lee Oswald a
ride to work on November 22 1963
The cars in the photo are a 1962 Chevy in the carport, and the arrow
is pointing to a 1961 Plymouth.
Walt
> > shows her view from the "backdoor").- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
> Bud,
>
> I, too, noticed some odd things on those very same pages. But more
> than the "carport" problem, I took notice of a mistake (I'm nearly
> sure it's a mistake) when Vince says Frazier owned a "1959" Chevy. His
> car I believe was a 1953 Chevy sedan.
>
> Frazier was filmed in 1964 during a re-creation ride to the TSBD by
> United Artists for the movie "Four Days In November", and the car
> certainly looks older that a '59.
>
> Plus -- As we can see from this FBI photo (which I assume was taken
> shortly after 11/22), Frazier's car here is not a '59. It's older.
> Also: The car in this FBI photo doesn't match EITHER of the cars in
> CE447. So possibly Frazier got a new car shortly after 11/22. Beats
> me. .....
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
Hell no!! Yer hero gets no slack here.... You bastards are the very
ones who string a CT up by his thumbs when he mis-spells a word, and
you want us to overlook FACTUAL errors...Go to hell!. Da Bugs book is
NOT the "well researched" tome that you claimed it was, and now that
it's being scrutinized you KNOW that it's a CROCK just like the Warren
Report.
Walt
David Von Pein
Just because he said Wes Frazier had a 1959 Chevy instead of a 1953
car...right??
Kooky.
But did anyone bother to do the research regarding that second soda
machine that VB obviously did? (Even Gary Mack?)
No, they didn't. Nor had I...even though the PROOF of the second
machine IS right in the WC volumes...in the form of putting together
Jarman's and B.R. Williams' testimony. After reading those
testimonies, it's obvious that the Dr. Pepper machine exists. Not to
mention the PHOTO of the machine in CD496, which nobody had ever
looked at evidently (I certainly hadn't, I admit)!
Even Gary Mack wasn't sure about that Dr. P. machine....and that, in
itself, is a surprise, because Gary knows that TSBD building inside-
out.
So you can take your "VB's Book Is Not Well-Researched" bullshit and
stick it deeply up your anal cavity where such bullshit belongs. Ten-
four, kook?
BTW, as I think I've mentioned, there are many such "year" mistakes in
RH. At least 15. Probably more. But they are obviously innocent type
errors. Why? Because he gets the same mistakes re. years RIGHT in many
other parts of the book.
Ergo, we know VB knows what the truth is re. these "year" brain cramps/
gaffes in the book. (Except the 1959 Frazier car error. I don't think
that's "corrected" elsewhere; but only because, as I recall, it's only
mentioned once in the whole tome.)
BTW #2 -- There's a really strange oddity re. Connally and the 210-225
SBT timeline in the Endnotes section on the CD that even I cannot
figure out....and is something I'm surprised the CT-Kooks haven't
caught and ridiculed VB for yet. It's a very brief endnote and is
extremely strange given the sum total of VB's beliefs. See if you can
find it.
~Jeopardy music begins in background~
See ya, Mr. Kook.
BTW #3 -- Any luck finding anyone who believes your insane Howard
Brennan tale yet?
aeffects
> >>> "Da Bugs book is NOT the "well researched" tome that you claimed it was...it's a CROCK just like the Warren Report." <<<
>
> Just because he said Wes Frazier had a 1959 Chevy instead of a 1953
> car...right??
>
> Kooky.
you know what's the matter with most of you Lone Nut *alleged*
researchers? You have no idea HOW to post or cite -- therefore no one
knows what the hell your talking about or TO!
Talk about KOOKY -- Gott'a tell ya, I think your talking to yourself
most of the time, David Von Pein.
David Von Pein
You're correct for the most part. And that certainly makes much more
sense than talking to a "Z-Film Is Fake" kook like you.
Nearly all of my posts are only for my own filing cabinet anyway.
Always been that way.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1181357745....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
eca...@tx.rr.com
And I gotta give an A+ to Walt on this one..
It appears he is right with his identification
of a 1953 Chevy for Frazier (DVP got this one
first) and a 1962 Chevy in the carport, and
the arrow pointing to a 1961 Plymouth.
When I read 59 Chevy I accepted it.. Then when
DVP pointed out it was a 53 Chevy I 90% knew"
that was correct.. As for the Plymouth, I knew
it was after 1960 but pegged it a 1961 or 1962..
Turns out (I looked this one up) it was a 1961
just like Walt said.. As for the old Chevy..
The 1953 and 1954 were almost identical save a
few very minor changes.. Hooded tail light
lenses on the 54 and a round bulb-ish type tail
lights on the 53.. Also minor changes to the
grill as well. I did this last one from memory
without looking it up.. The Chevy I originally
thought was a 59 and I knew better! 59 Chevy
tail lights are dramatically different.. Like
huge tear drops laying on their side. IMO it
was clearly a 1960-62 model. Again from memory.
But Walt is right again on the 1962 Chevy ID.
What and where Randle saw appears to be fuzzy..
And I'm too tired to look it up in her testimony..
Much less deal with more important matters like
the DPD Dispatch chatter dialog..
You'll know what I mean when you hit 63..
Regards and a tip of the hat to Walt who finally
got one right.. Walt, it's not necessarily the
*facts* alone that determine the ultimate
conclusion.. Just as important is how you PROCESS
those facts.. Here you really bomb out Walter
but nice work on the car IDs.
MR );~| ED is sleepy..
0105Jun907.
On Jun 6, 7:01 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Bud,
>
> I, too, noticed some odd things on those very same pages. But more
> than the "carport" problem, I took notice of a mistake (I'm nearly
> sure it's a mistake) when Vince says Frazier owned a "1959" Chevy. His
> car I believe was a 1953 Chevy sedan.
>
> Frazier was filmed in 1964 during a re-creation ride to the TSBD by
> United Artists for the movie "Four Days In November", and the car
> certainly looks older that a '59.
>
> Plus -- As we can see from this FBI photo (which I assume was taken
> shortly after 11/22), Frazier's car here is not a '59. It's older.
> Also: The car in this FBI photo doesn't match EITHER of the cars in
> CE447. So possibly Frazier got a new car shortly after 11/22. Beats
> me. .....
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...