For Peter: The Ambulance Route to Bethesda

16 views
Skip to first unread message

HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 6:13:39 PM12/20/09
to
Peter,

Per your...

> Try to rely less on witnesses who are unreliable.

Is that witnesses in general or those deemed unreliable?

I would think it is a given not to rely on unreliable witnesses.

Or, are you stating that Humes is unreliable?

> The written record stated when the casket arrived.

That written record was recorded by a WITNESS and it needs

some sort of verification for support.

This is the second time this week alone that you are placing great

weight on something without support. You need support.

Kilduff’s alleged JFK comment was the first and there is no support
there.

As far as your written record is concerned, a few facts may help to
lay
some groundwork as to its reliabilty.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145280&relPageId=189

1) The written record's author can't remember specific events.

"He said he remembered very little about the events in question..."

"I (Horne) asked him if he remembered the arrival of the President's
casket, and after some thought, he said 'no' ".

2) He admits that he was "double-hatted" at the time.

3) The written record was recorded four days after the event.
11/26/1963

Not much support there, but there is still a way.

If you utilize a TV broadcaster to support a time for arrival of the
plane

then I think one could use Manchester's "Death of a President" to map

the route and travel time.

Wouldn't you agree?

It would be nice to have a depature time for the ambulance.

Be that as it may, here's the basic route based on Manchester.

http://www.mapquest.com/mq/6-eeepDgEt3l0m

Starting on Page 392

"Leaving the base Bill Greer had taken Westover Drive and Suitland Drive,
driving through forested land to Suitland Parkway's four lanes....."

I didn't have time to type the enitire route noted in the book. It spans
quite a few pages and is very verbose in nature. He utilizes quite a few
landmarks and it appears some street names have changed. Let alone the
difficulty of Mapquest to perform this task.

The difficulty is getting through the Mall area and onto the Rock Creek
Parkway.

The major streets/roadways taken were the Suitland Parkway, Rock Creek
Pkwy, Massachusetts Ave., and Wisconsin Ave. They are on this route.

Now for the speed.

on Page 396 he writes......

"As Greer moved steadily up Suitland Parkway, observing the 45 mph limit
out of habit, they were hurtling along Wisconsin at over 90."

I'd say based on this, the drive from Andrews to Bethesda took about 25
Minutes. Rounding to 30 minutes wouldn't be a bad guesstimate either,
taking everything into account as these speeds were not constant speeds.
There were slower speeds. One must take into account the slower departure
speed and arrival speed.

So, if 1815 hrs would be a time given for departure then an 1840-1845 hrs
guesstimate time for a Bethesda arrival is not out of the question. If an
earlier departure, then all the better for the Sgt. and that document.

Either way, close enough for that SGT to keep his rank. ;-)

At least for now. This is preliminary. There is still more to deal
with.

For example, Manchester writes that Jackie arrived at the upper suite at
7:15 PM.

(That kinda kills Humes guesstimate.)

That's also a 30-35 minute lapse in time based on my guesstimate that
Manchester does not account for. That's a 40 minute lapse based on that
document.

He does not state an arrival time for the casket.

You are Very Welcome! ;-)

Merry Christmas!!!!

JM


PS....And in the future when you deal with Military Time?

Trust me....

Its not 18:35 PM....There is no 18:35 PM or AM

Its 1835 hrs or just plain old 1835 for the civilian 6:35 PM

Its 0635 hrs or just plain old 0635 for the civilian 6:35 AM

PS...And I stress again....

This is preliminary. There is still more to deal with. This stll
needs
a bit of TWEAKING! for the exact route and time.


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:09:49 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Peter,
>
>Per your...
>
>> Try to rely less on witnesses who are unreliable.

>Is that witnesses in general or those deemed unreliable?
>I would think it is a given not to rely on unreliable witnesses.
>Or, are you stating that Humes is unreliable?


.John and I read many, many posts every day. I'm not sure why you have
single-spaced your post and taken some of my comments out of context
from their original posts.

It is difficult enough to keep up with all the posts everyday let
alone try to answer a question when presented with only a snippet of
my comments from any particular post in a given thread.

It's also tough on my tired eyes to try and open another window with
the original post and thread to ascertain the context of the comment
and the subsequent replies.

Of course, the comments in one post might have absolutley nothing to
do with my comments on another subject in another thread.

I have mentioned Humes a number of times on a number of different
threads.

So:

1. Which thread is this comment taken from?

2. Who was I responding to?

3. Is it possible to include my entire reply to that poster rather
than just a single comment so I have the full context without having
to search?


Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:28:20 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> The written record stated when the casket arrived.

>That written record was recorded by a WITNESS and it needs
>some sort of verification for support.

Again, you have taken a sentence of a reply from another post on
another thread. That thread contained details and URLs not available
here.

If you believe the report written, signed and authenticated by
Boyajian is in error, fine with me.

Douglas Horne provides a detailed account in his book with
corroboration.

If you are interested, buy the book and read up on the issue.

Doesn't that make sense?

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:35:01 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>This is the second time this week alone that you are placing great
>weight on something without support. You need support.

Your comment makes no sense.

First of all, you have no idea how much weight I place on anything.

Second of all, I presented some evidence provided by Horne in his
book. I did take the time to provide an url to the report in
question.

That url is missing from your post because you have taken a comment
from a reply I made on another thread and started a new thread thus
eliminating the context.

If you are interested in Horne's argument, I would advise you to read
his book, weigh the evidence he has presented and then ask questions.

I don't need support. Horne needs support for his argument, and if you
want to see what support he presents, read his book.

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:46:19 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Kilduff�s alleged JFK comment was the first and there is no support
>there.

Now you are discussing a different thread.

If I recall, I asked .John if Douglass provides a cite for this
comment. I'm not sure if he has replied. He has read the book.

Are you calling Douglass a liar?

Do you think he made up this comment from Kilduff?
That's a serious allegation.

Perhaps you might want to talk to Douglass and ask for his notes, and
Kilduff's phone number. Even then (is Kilduff still alive?) if you
call Kilduff and he tells you Douglass' account of what he told him is
accurate, will you believe him?

Now, I am willing to assume Douglass is not lying, and recorded what
Kilduff told him accurately.

How would you go about verifying a private conversation between JFK
and his press secretary?

How do you know there is no support there?

Have you talked to Kilduff?

How do you know he did not record the conversation?

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:55:36 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>As far as your written record is concerned, a few facts may help to
>lay
>some groundwork as to its reliabilty.
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145280&relPageId=189

Now we are back to the former thread. I was discussing this matter
with Jean and a few other folks I believe.

>
>1) The written record's author can't remember specific events.

Well, are you surprised?

How many decades had passed when the ARRB spoke to him?

That's why the documentary evidence written close to the events in
question is so important.

>
>"He said he remembered very little about the events in question..."

Hell, I'm sure the recollection of most people would fade with time. I
kept a diary back in the 60s. I don't remember many of the events I
wrote about in detail! Time takes its toll on memory.

>
>"I (Horne) asked him if he remembered the arrival of the President's
>casket, and after some thought, he said 'no' ".

BUT we do have his written report! And Horne has provided
corroborating evidence.

Now, would a jury rely more on a decades old non-memory of a written
record prepared within "1 or 2 days" (as Boyajian confirmed) of the
autopsy

>
>2) He admits that he was "double-hatted" at the time.

Lovely.

>
>3) The written record was recorded four days after the event.
>11/26/1963

He still has an onion-skin copy.

Good for him.

One cannot rely entirely decades after an event.

That's just a fact of life.


Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:57:02 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If you utilize a TV broadcaster to support a time for arrival of the
>plane
>
>then I think one could use Manchester's "Death of a President" to map
>
>the route and travel time.
>
>Wouldn't you agree?

I preferred to use Google Earth.

And I did.

Of course, ambulance is only one possible means of transport (as Horne
notes).

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 9:05:20 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It would be nice to have a depature time for the ambulance.
>
>Be that as it may, here's the basic route based on Manchester.
>
>http://www.mapquest.com/mq/6-eeepDgEt3l0m


Here is where your failure to read the book, leads you astray.

Why don't you read the book, and Horne's argument before ASSUMING you
know what it is?

Obviously if JFK's body arrived in a shipping casket it DID NOT arrive
in the ambulance containing the ornate casket.

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 9:08:38 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For example, Manchester writes that Jackie arrived at the upper suite at
>7:15 PM.
>
>(That kinda kills Humes guesstimate.)


Yup.

That's why I responded to David VP in "another thread" in another
context at another time and place that there was plenty of time to get
the plain casket to Bethesda in approximately 30 minutes so Boyajian
would be inclined to write "approximately 1835".

And yes, Horne mention's Humes guesstimate, and details surrounding
all the events that evening.

Why not actually read his book, and find out what he proposes?

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 9:09:18 PM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Merry Christmas!!!!
>
>JM

And a Merry Christmas to you too!

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 9:13:13 PM12/20/09
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:55:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:

>On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective
><historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>As far as your written record is concerned, a few facts may help to
>>lay
>>some groundwork as to its reliabilty.
>>
>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145280&relPageId=189
>
>Now we are back to the former thread. I was discussing this matter
>with Jean and a few other folks I believe.
>
>>
>>1) The written record's author can't remember specific events.
>
>Well, are you surprised?
>
>How many decades had passed when the ARRB spoke to him?
>
>That's why the documentary evidence written close to the events in
>question is so important.
>
>>
>>"He said he remembered very little about the events in question..."
>
>Hell, I'm sure the recollection of most people would fade with time. I
>kept a diary back in the 60s. I don't remember many of the events I
>wrote about in detail! Time takes its toll on memory.
>
>>
>>"I (Horne) asked him if he remembered the arrival of the President's
>>casket, and after some thought, he said 'no' ".
>
>BUT we do have his written report! And Horne has provided
>corroborating evidence.
>
>Now, would a jury rely more on a decades old non-memory of a written
>record prepared within "1 or 2 days" (as Boyajian confirmed) of the
>autopsy

That should be "or" a written ..... not of.

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 10:23:39 PM12/20/09
to
On Dec 20, 6:13 pm, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Per your...
>
> > Try to rely less on witnesses who are unreliable.
>
> Is that witnesses in general or those deemed unreliable?
>
> I would think it is a given not to rely on unreliable witnesses.
>
> Or, are you stating that Humes is unreliable?
>
> > The written record stated when the casket arrived.
>
> That written record was recorded by a WITNESS and it needs
>
> some sort of verification for support.
>
> This is the second time this week alone that you are placing great
>
> weight on something without support. You need support.
>
> Kilduff’s alleged JFK comment was the first and there is no support
> there.
>
> As far as your written record is concerned, a few facts may help to
> lay
> some groundwork as to its reliabilty.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145...

LNs are so comical. Any witness who says something they don't agree with
is either incredibly stupid or lying his ass off. Any evidence that proves
they are wrong is either unreliable, altered or absolute fiction. These
people do not have a position, they have a religion and they operate on
faith alone no matter what turns out.

JB

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 10:27:53 PM12/20/09
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:46:19 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:

>On 20 Dec 2009 18:13:39 -0500, HistorianDetective


><historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Kilduff�s alleged JFK comment was the first and there is no support
>>there.
>
>Now you are discussing a different thread.
>
>If I recall, I asked .John if Douglass provides a cite for this
>comment. I'm not sure if he has replied. He has read the book.
>

Yes, Douglass provides a citation. It's to a book by Kilduff, if
memory serves, and maybe an interview with Kilduff.


.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 4:10:31 PM12/21/09
to

RE: THE TIME OF ARRIVAL FOR JFK'S BODY AT BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL.....

"The presidential motorcade, having left Andrews at 6:10 p.m.
EST, takes the Suitland Parkway to Bethesda. .... At 6:55 p.m., the
navy ambulance with its escort of cars and motorcycle police arrives
at Bethesda." -- Page 144 of "Reclaiming History"

Vincent Bugliosi's source for the times:

"6:10 p.m. and 6:55 p.m.: CE 1024, 18 H 744, 757"


The "18 H 744" source used by Bugliosi comes from a report filed by
Secret Service agent Clint Hill on 11/30/63, and the "18 H 757" source
is from a 11/30/63 report by SS agent Paul Landis. Both agents say in
their respective reports that the President's body arrived at Bethesda
at "6:55 p.m.":

18 H 744:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0379b.htm

18 H 757:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0386a.htm


HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 2:53:09 PM12/22/09
to
On Dec 21, 3:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> RE: THE TIME OF ARRIVAL FOR JFK'S BODY AT BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL.....
>
>       "The presidential motorcade, having left Andrews at 6:10 p.m.
> EST, takes the Suitland Parkway to Bethesda. .... At 6:55 p.m., the
> navy ambulance with its escort of cars and motorcycle police arrives
> at Bethesda." -- Page 144 of "Reclaiming History"
>
> Vincent Bugliosi's source for the times:
>
> "6:10 p.m. and 6:55 p.m.: CE 1024, 18 H 744, 757"
>
> The "18 H 744" source used by Bugliosi comes from a report filed by
> Secret Service agent Clint Hill on 11/30/63, and the "18 H 757" source
> is from a 11/30/63 report by SS agent Paul Landis. Both agents say in
> their respective reports that the President's body arrived at Bethesda
> at "6:55 p.m.":
>
> 18 H 744:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> 18 H 757:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

David,

Or anyone here.....

Is there any film footage or pics of the motorcade other than the Andrews
AFB footage?

Per Manchester, people were lined up in the streets watching the motorcade
and thousands viewed the Bethesda arrival.

Just curious.


JM


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 12:04:58 AM12/23/09
to
On 12/22/2009 2:53 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
> On Dec 21, 3:10 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> RE: THE TIME OF ARRIVAL FOR JFK'S BODY AT BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL.....
>>
>> "The presidential motorcade, having left Andrews at 6:10 p.m.
>> EST, takes the Suitland Parkway to Bethesda. .... At 6:55 p.m., the
>> navy ambulance with its escort of cars and motorcycle police arrives
>> at Bethesda." -- Page 144 of "Reclaiming History"
>>
>> Vincent Bugliosi's source for the times:
>>
>> "6:10 p.m. and 6:55 p.m.: CE 1024, 18 H 744, 757"
>>
>> The "18 H 744" source used by Bugliosi comes from a report filed by
>> Secret Service agent Clint Hill on 11/30/63, and the "18 H 757" source
>> is from a 11/30/63 report by SS agent Paul Landis. Both agents say in
>> their respective reports that the President's body arrived at Bethesda
>> at "6:55 p.m.":
>>
>> 18 H 744:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>>
>> 18 H 757:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> David,
>
> Or anyone here.....
>
> Is there any film footage or pics of the motorcade other than the Andrews
> AFB footage?
>

Good question. Do you mean publicly available or secretly filmed?

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 12:49:57 AM12/23/09
to

>>> "Is there any film footage or pics of the motorcade other than the
Andrews AFB footage?" <<<

I know of none whatsoever. I have no such footage in my large collection
of Nov. '63 TV coverage. (Except the footage of the President's body
arriving back at the White House at approx. 4:30 AM EST on 11/23/63.)

One thing that I've always wondered about, too, is why we don't have at
least a little bit of footage in either films or still pictures of JFK's
limousine leaving the ambulance bay at Parkland Hospital on 11/22.

There's plenty of film footage of the limo parked at the emergency
entrance at Parkland shortly after it arrived there, but AFAIK there's not
a single photo or film of the limo leaving the Parkland parking lot. I've
always thought that was kind of odd.

If we did have such a photo or film of the limo, it would provide more
material for "windshield damage" comparisons.

HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 2:52:50 PM12/23/09
to
On Dec 22, 11:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/2009 2:53 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 3:10 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >> RE: THE TIME OF ARRIVAL FOR JFK'S BODY AT BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL.....
>
> >>        "The presidential motorcade, having left Andrews at 6:10 p.m.
> >> EST, takes the Suitland Parkway to Bethesda. .... At 6:55 p.m., the
> >> navy ambulance with its escort of cars and motorcycle police arrives
> >> at Bethesda." -- Page 144 of "Reclaiming History"
>
> >> Vincent Bugliosi's source for the times:
>
> >> "6:10 p.m. and 6:55 p.m.: CE 1024, 18 H 744, 757"
>
> >> The "18 H 744" source used by Bugliosi comes from a report filed by
> >> Secret Service agent Clint Hill on 11/30/63, and the "18 H 757" source
> >> is from a 11/30/63 report by SS agent Paul Landis. Both agents say in
> >> their respective reports that the President's body arrived at Bethesda
> >> at "6:55 p.m.":
>
> > 18 H 744:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> >> 18 H 757:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> > David,
>
> > Or anyone here.....

TM

> > Is there any film footage or pics of the motorcade other than the Andrews
> > AFB footage?
>
> Good question. Do you mean publicly available or secretly filmed?
>

Any will do, but film footage/video would do best.

This part of the whole assassination event, including its
beforemath and aftermathpermatah is not unlike the rest.

Conflicting data; minimal data (per circumstance);
minimal photos/film footage (per circumstance);
faded memories to verify; more...

In this particular circumstance,
a 20 Minute JFK Arrival Discrepancy.

1855 Hrs Per 2 SS Agents
1850 Hrs Per Manchester
1835 Hrs Per a Marine Sgt

Overall? An historian's typical playing field.

JM

PS...Although insignificant, it is fun
tryin' to map the route per Manchester.
http://www.mapquest.com/mq/6-eeepDgEt3l0m
Still needs alot of tweaking, but main roads are
mapped.

PSS...For Peter Fokes
FYI! This can't be done via your preferred Google Earth.

> > Per Manchester, people were lined up in the streets watching the motorcade
> > and thousands viewed the Bethesda arrival.
>
> > Just curious.
>

> > JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 5:03:06 PM12/23/09
to
On 12/23/2009 12:49 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Is there any film footage or pics of the motorcade other than the
> Andrews AFB footage?"<<<
>
> I know of none whatsoever. I have no such footage in my large collection
> of Nov. '63 TV coverage. (Except the footage of the President's body
> arriving back at the White House at approx. 4:30 AM EST on 11/23/63.)
>
> One thing that I've always wondered about, too, is why we don't have at
> least a little bit of footage in either films or still pictures of JFK's
> limousine leaving the ambulance bay at Parkland Hospital on 11/22.
>
> There's plenty of film footage of the limo parked at the emergency
> entrance at Parkland shortly after it arrived there, but AFAIK there's not
> a single photo or film of the limo leaving the Parkland parking lot. I've
> always thought that was kind of odd.
>

Yeah, and why don't we have a film or photo of the back seat of the limo
at Parkland before the President was removed? Because the cops destroyed
it. But then again you endorse the destruction of evidence lest it prove
conspiracy.

> If we did have such a photo or film of the limo, it would provide more
> material for "windshield damage" comparisons.
>

The windshield damage issue is settled.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 10:39:54 PM12/23/09
to

>>> "The windshield damage issue is settled." <<<

I agree. There was only a crack. No hole. Bob Frazier provided that
proof.


cdddraftsman

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 10:41:57 PM12/23/09
to

The comedic relief was all figured out by CTer's long ago :

How 'conspiracy' apologists convince their readers : :

*Sell emotion first
*Scare reader away from primary documents's
*Distort evidence
*Emphasize eyewitness testimony
*Emphasize unsworn witnesses
*Raise non-essential issues
*Omit complete context of the evidence
*Promote yourself to expert
*Don't solicit the other side of the story
*Accuse the defenseless
*Emphasize preliminary information
*Recycle discredited evidence repeatedly , over and over and over
again and again and again !

See John Lockes FAQ : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/faq.txt

tl

Conspiracy Theory 101 in a 'Nut'shell :

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth ..... persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic"

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

cdddraftsman

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 10:42:26 PM12/23/09
to
On Dec 22, 9:49 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> One thing that I've always wondered about, too, is why we don't have at
> least a little bit of footage in either films or still pictures of JFK's
> limousine leaving the ambulance bay at Parkland Hospital on 11/22.
>
>

No TV news video coverage either . I surmise people with camera's had by
that time used up the available stock on their person and didn't want to
leave to get more , there by missing the announcement on JFK's condition .

It's a little odd though still ....

tl


HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 23, 2009, 11:08:54 PM12/23/09
to
On Dec 23, 4:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 12:49 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "Is there any film footage or pics of the motorcade other than the
> > Andrews AFB footage?"<<<
>
> > I know of none whatsoever. I have no such footage in my large collection
> > of Nov. '63 TV coverage. (Except the footage of the President's body
> > arriving back at the White House at approx. 4:30 AM EST on 11/23/63.)
>
> > One thing that I've always wondered about, too, is why we don't have at
> > least a little bit of footage in either films or still pictures of JFK's
> > limousine leaving the ambulance bay at Parkland Hospital on 11/22.
>
> > There's plenty of film footage of the limo parked at the emergency
> > entrance at Parkland shortly after it arrived there, but AFAIK there's not
> > a single photo or film of the limo leaving the Parkland parking lot. I've
> > always thought that was kind of odd.
>

TM

> Yeah, and why don't we have a film or photo of the back seat of the limo
> at Parkland before the President was removed? Because the cops destroyed
> it. But then again you endorse the destruction of evidence lest it prove
> conspiracy.

I seriously doubt that David or anyone else here for that matter, endorses
destruction of evidence.

Destruction of evidence unfortunately occurs in real life. When it
happens, You Don't Dwell On It. You Deal With It!

Dealing with destruction of evidence is not endorsing destruction of
evidence.

Try Dealin' With It,
Instead of Dwellin' on it.

Fortunately, you don't need that evidence to conclude.

Deal With That!

JM

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 10:34:50 AM12/24/09
to
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You would not know the truth if it jumped out and bit you where the
sun doesn't shine. You jump to conclusions, ignore evidence, ignore
eyewitness testimony and worship at the alter of the WC. Someone gave
you a brain, why don't you try to think for yourself just a little
bit.

JB

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 10:48:47 AM12/24/09
to
On Dec 23, 11:08 pm, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

A great LN statement if there ever was one and it sums up the LN
position perfectly. "We don't need no stinkin' evidence."

JB

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages