Dealey Plaza
cdddraftsman
No, it doesn't matter that you may be a hard-bitten believer in
Oswald's sole guilt. It does not matter that you believe that the
assassination was an historical fluke, with no particular larger
significance. This is The Place where all assassination buffs,
conspiratorialists and lone-nutters alike, have to go. This is the
necessary pilgrimage.
Dealey Plaza has changed a bit since 1963. The famous Stemmons
Freeway sign is gone, and the Hertz car rental sign is gone from atop
the Depository. Some of the train tracks over the Triple Underpass
have been replaced with electrified commuter rail tracks, and the
parking lot behind the Stockade Fence is now paved. A plaque now
defaces the grass between the Pergola and Elm Street. Otherwise, it's
pretty much the same place, The Place.
The history of this unique piece of ground is put into
perspective in two essays by Jerry Organ:
A history of Dealey Plaza :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ5.htm
from the founding of Dallas by John Neely Bryan through the WPA
project in the 1930s that created the Plaza to the 1960s when Dallas
was unfairly labelled the "City of Hate."
A history of the Texas School Book Depository :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ4.htm
which has served as a plow factory, a wholesale grocery warehouse, and
textbook distribution center, and
(most recently) a museum.
lazu...@webtv.net
and why was it removed?
David Von Pein
It's obvious.....
The sign was removed by the post-11/22 cover-up crew after the sign
was riddled with bullets by that team of inept, 'couldn't-even-miss-
hitting-this-sign' assassins.
Why did you have to even ask?
aeffects
Now David, the sign was moved soon after the assassination, are you
denying that? It's okay to stuff your ego for a change and say you
don't know...
David Von Pein
how its removal proves "conspiracy". Can you?
And you've got some really crappy "pro" assassins in that Plaza if you
really think one of them hit that sign instead of JFK, who was in the
middle of Elm Street.
That shooter must have been blindfolded when he fired.
tomnln
Procedure David.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176356077....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176358576.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
Not only don't you know the facts of the case, Healy, by your own
admission you don't even care about the facts.
The sign was not moved "soon after the assassination" Films and photos
show the sign was still in places as late as at least May of 1964.
>
>
>
> > Why did you have to even ask?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
lazu...@webtv.net
the sign was removed right after the assassination, but you don't have
an official answer as to who removed it, nor why it was removed?
No I don't believed the sign was "riddled with bullet holes". Just one
hole will do. You wonder at how a sniper could possibly miss JFK and hit
the sign. Well, two points 1: the entire limo was missed by one bullet,
remember? and 2. Where was JFK positioned when he was struck in the
neck? He was behind the sign from Zapruder's position. The Grassy knoll
was to Z's right.
So It's a possibility that the sign could be hit inadvertently by a
frontal shooter. Until someone comes up with an innocent and reasonable
explanation for why a perfectly good and functional sign was removed
right after the assassination, I'll hold with the distinct possibility
that there was a bullet hole in it, which would indicate a shot from the
front, hence its removal. LN'ers have weakly countered this argument by
saying that photographs taken in the aftermath of the shooting don't
reveal any holes in the sign, but these photos were taken at some
distance and grainy. They wouldn't show a hole under an inch or so in
diameter anyway---
Old Laz, who says that sign when hit went back and to the left.
Anthony Marsh
> DVP, I'm ashamed of you. You should be on top of this. You admit that
> the sign was removed right after the assassination, but you don't have
> an official answer as to who removed it, nor why it was removed?
>
NO, it wasn't.
> No I don't believed the sign was "riddled with bullet holes". Just one
> hole will do. You wonder at how a sniper could possibly miss JFK and hit
> the sign. Well, two points 1: the entire limo was missed by one bullet,
> remember? and 2. Where was JFK positioned when he was struck in the
> neck? He was behind the sign from Zapruder's position. The Grassy knoll
> was to Z's right.
>
There was no bullet hole in the sign.
aeffects
wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:50 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:34 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "How soon after the assassination was the Stemmons Freeway sign removed, and why was it removed?" <<<
>
> > > It's obvious.....
>
> > > The sign was removed by the post-11/22 cover-up crew after the sign
> > > was riddled with bullets by that team of inept, 'couldn't-even-miss-
> > > hitting-this-sign' assassins.
>
> > Now David, the sign was moved soon after the assassination, are you
> > denying that? It's okay to stuff your ego for a change and say you
> > don't know...
>
> Not only don't you know the facts of the case, Healy, by your own
> admission you don't even care about the facts.
What are you babbling about? If you're alluding to the breadth of
knowledge concering books-reports written concerning this case, gott'a
tell you champ, I've read much more than the average.... Hey, my
admissions are here forever on the USNET boards - as are your VERY
carefully crafted responses.
Concerning the Stemmons sign, are you telling us the sign was NOT
removed (within days) after the assassination? If that's you positiion
you need to have a chat with Gary Mack, get up to date if you will...
> The sign was not moved "soon after the assassination" Films and photos
> show the sign was still in places as late as at least May of 1964.
"...in places..." that narrows it down -- ROTFLMFAO.... call Gary,
Todd -- maybe you need a vacation!
lazu...@webtv.net
in place in 1964.
Todd W. Vaughan
> On Apr 12, 10:10 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 1:50 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 10:34 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "How soon after the assassination was the Stemmons Freeway sign removed, and why was it removed?" <<<
>
> > > > It's obvious.....
>
> > > > The sign was removed by the post-11/22 cover-up crew after the sign
> > > > was riddled with bullets by that team of inept, 'couldn't-even-miss-
> > > > hitting-this-sign' assassins.
>
> > > Now David, the sign was moved soon after the assassination, are you
> > > denying that? It's okay to stuff your ego for a change and say you
> > > don't know...
>
> > Not only don't you know the facts of the case, Healy, by your own
> > admission you don't even care about the facts.
>
> What are you babbling about? If you're alluding to the breadth of
> knowledge concering books-reports written concerning this case, gott'a
> tell you champ, I've read much more than the average.... Hey, my
> admissions are here forever on the USNET boards - as are your VERY
> carefully crafted responses.
Hey, I've been saying for weeks now that I don't think you know the
facts of the case.
NOW you get all huffy?
Just yesterday I said "Funny, coming from someone who has proven he
doesnt really know the facts in this case.", and you replied with
"Frankly, I don't need facts..."
Don't need the facts?
That fits, 'cause you don't know them.
>
> Concerning the Stemmons sign, are you telling us the sign was NOT
> removed (within days) after the assassination? If that's you positiion
> you need to have a chat with Gary Mack, get up to date if you will...
>
> > The sign was not moved "soon after the assassination" Films and photos
> > show the sign was still in places as late as at least May of 1964.
>
> "...in places..." that narrows it down -- ROTFLMFAO.... call Gary,
> Todd -- maybe you need a vacation!
Typo, Davey, typo. What I meant to write was "Films and photos
show the sign was still in place as late as at least May of 1964."
"STILL IN PLACE"
Life's a vacation.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Why did you have to even ask?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> Todd, citation please on the films and photos which show the sign still
> in place in 1964.
Here's one.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052b.htm
FBI Reconstruction in Dealey Plaza, 24 May 1964.
David Von Pein
When did I ever say "right after the assassination"? I never said
that.
>>> "Just one hole {in the sign} will do." <<<
And if a "hole" HAD been in that sign, what makes you think it HAD to
be a "bullet" hole? Is a bullet the ONLY thing that can create a hole
in a piece of metal?
>>> "The entire limo was missed by one bullet, remember?" <<<
Sure. And, based on the sum total of evidence, that "miss" almost
certainly came from Oswald's rifle from the SN/TSBD at approx. Z160 on
the Zapruder Film.
So if that bullet went through that Stemmons sign, it either took a
very dramatic turn, or Oswald decided to waste a shot by firing in a
totally-different direction from where the President was located at
the time. Neither option is very likely.
>>> "Until someone comes up with an innocent and reasonable explanation for why a perfectly good and functional sign was removed right after the assassination, I'll hold with the distinct possibility that there was a bullet hole in it, which would indicate a shot from the front, hence its removal." <<<
Highway signs are removed and replaced all the time. In fact, I can
recall highway signs in my area being replaced for seemingly no reason
whatsoever....because the new signs being put up looked exactly like
the older ones.
It could be a case of deterioration or rust setting in on the old sign
or sign poles, or some other unknown reason for the highway department
wanting to remove a particular sign.
But if you want to think it was removed in order to hide a multi-gun
conspiracy....you'd better garner a little bit of hard evidence to
show that such a theory should be considered.
IOW -- WHO gave the order for the sign to be removed on the basis of
the following mindset: "Get that sign out of there, because there's a
bullet hole in it that proves a conspiracy"?
Like so many other conspiracy theories, the "missing sign" theory is a
dead-end for CTers. They can't provide any evidence of the sign
containing a bullet hole, but they'll keep theorizing such an
occurrence anyway.
Plus: What about Todd's post just a little bit ago re. the sign being
in place as of 5/24/64 (for the FBI re-construction of the
assassination)? We can see the sign in place here....
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052b.htm
Did the FBI/WC have the sign RE-INSTALLED in Dealey Plaza for the re-
creation on May 24th (6 months after the shooting)?
So, WHEN exactly was that Stemmons sign supposedly "removed" (due to
"bullet hole" damage), per the CTers?
Todd W. Vaughan
> in place in 1964.
Further, many films and photographs taken the weekend of the
assassination of the floral displays in Dealey Palza show the sign
still in place.
aeffects
> On Apr 12, 5:13 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Todd, citation please on the films and photos which show the sign still
> > in place in 1964.
>
> Here's one.
>
>
> FBI Reconstruction in Dealey Plaza, 24 May 1964.
perhaps you can clear this WC testimony up for us
[...]
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, that sign says, "R. L. Thornton Freeway, keep
right." Where is the Stemmons Freeway sign in this picture? Can you
see it in that picture at all - I can't.
Mr. HUDSON - I can't either - that isn't it - it's farther up this
way.
Mr. LIEBELER - That's further back up and it's out of the picture?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - There are two signs in picture No. 18, one says, "R.L.
Thornton Freeway, keep right." and the other one says, "Fort worth
Turnpike, keep right."
Mr. HUDSON - There were two of them that wasn't too far apart right
throught here - them signs was - one was right along in here and the
other one was either further up, I guess. It's not in that picture - I
don't believe. Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have
moved the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign.
Mr. LIEBELER - They have? They have moved it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - That might explain it, because this picture here, No.
18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the
time - No. 1.
[...]
Todd W. Vaughan
I'll need to see the Photos they are looking at.
This photo, http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/9973.jpg , taken 2 or
3 days after the assassination, shows the Stemmons sign in place.
Films and photos taken the next week do as well.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
As I recall, wasn't Hudson the groundskeeper for Dealey Plaza? Seems that Toddy
can't accept the *FACT* that the signs were "moved".
It doesn't really matter what *photos* you look at - what matters is that Hudson
testified that: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved the
R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign."
That statement doesn't depend on *any* photo... it's an assertion of personal
knowledge by the person who tended to the area.
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1176487500.822538.191...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
You're lying again, Ben.
I can accept the fact that the signs were moved/and or removed just
fine. The question is when did that occur.
I've pointed out that the Stemmons sign is still in place during the
FBI re-enactment, which took place on 24 May 1964.
But Hudson didn't testify until 2 months after that, on 22 July 1964.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm).
The signs could have easily been moved between 24 May 1964 - 22 July
1964, and Hudson could have testified as he did.
As for the photos Hudson is refering to in his testimony, you don't
think it would be nice to see them, and see what they show?
>
>
> >I'll need to see the Photos they are looking at.
>
> >This photo,http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/9973.jpg, taken 2 or
> >3 days after the assassination, shows the Stemmons sign in place.
>
> >Films and photos taken the next week do as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
lazu...@webtv.net
Do you suppose it had something to do wth the FBI re-enactment?-----Old
Laz, who likes to play musical signs
aeffects
LMAO... here's a treble-clef for ya .....
I was reading recently [someplace] in Mark Lane's work/material where
MLane gave credit to some group or other doing DP research, research
concerning gunfire. Evidently someone in the group performing the work
noticed possibile bullet holes in the Stemmons Freeway sign. That
being a young physics grad student from Cornell University, the name
of: David Lifton..... in 1966 no-less
aeffects
> In article <1176487500.822538.191...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
That is he...
> It doesn't really matter what *photos* you look at - what matters is that Hudson
> testified that: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved the
> R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign."
>
> That statement doesn't depend on *any* photo... it's an assertion of personal
> knowledge by the person who tended to the area.
>
> >I'll need to see the Photos they are looking at.
>
> >This photo,http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/9973.jpg, taken 2 or
Ben Holmes
I'm often amused at people who make that claim, yet cannot *quote* any such
statement of mine - along with the citation that makes it a "lie".
>I can accept the fact that the signs were moved/and or removed just
>fine. The question is when did that occur.
>
>I've pointed out that the Stemmons sign is still in place during the
>FBI re-enactment, which took place on 24 May 1964.
>
>But Hudson didn't testify until 2 months after that, on 22 July 1964.
>(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm).
>
>The signs could have easily been moved between 24 May 1964 - 22 July
>1964, and Hudson could have testified as he did.
>
>As for the photos Hudson is refering to in his testimony, you don't
>think it would be nice to see them, and see what they show?
Not needed when the question is whether or not the signs were moved.