Officer Haygood's call in at 12:34-12:35

[fatol...@gmail.com]

As can be seen on the transcript of DPD radio communications, Chief Curry
said at 12:30-12:31, "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see
what happened up there." What happened up there, many people, including
Chief Curry and Officer Hargis, apparently thought was that somebody had
been shooting at the presidential limousine.

Officer Haygood was the first officer to get up there and he reported in
at 12:34-12:35, "I just talked to a guy up here who was standing close to
it and the best he could tell it came from the Texas School Book
Depository Building here with that Hertz Renting sign on top."

You can see in the Cabluck photo that Haygood is the first cop up there,
and the person he's looking at, the closest person to him, is a man
dressed as a DPD detectve, apparently talking on a walkie talkie, and a
gun leaned up on the concrete railing in front of him. I think it's likely
that this is Haygood's "guy standing close to it," but how does he make
any sense? If he had somehow run up there before Haygood, wouldn't he
still have his gun in his hands and be looking for snipers? It looks like
he's settled in very comfortably and chatting to somebody. But, who could
he be chatting to? He's obviously not on the police channels. This guy
never got mentioned in the Warren Commission testimony of Haygood. Yet,
there he is with a gun where several people thought shots originated, and
where the Weigman film shows a tiny figure with a cloud of smoke drifting
away from it while the presidential limousine starts under the underpass.
How can nobody mention this guy for 60 years? And what does Officer
Haygood mean, that somebody close to what happened on the bridge says the
shots came from the TSBD? All the railroad guys up there thought the shots
came from the fence, which is the direction of this guy from where they
were. Seeing this guy there with a gun, why would Haygood believe him,
unless he was a Dallas cop? But if he is a Dallas cop, why doesn't he say,
"Lt. So-and-so said the shots came from the TSBD?" Doesn't anybody think
this is weird?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2012 10:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> As can be seen on the transcript of DPD radio communications, Chief Curry
> said at 12:30-12:31, "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see
> what happened up there." What happened up there, many people, including
> Chief Curry and Officer Hargis, apparently thought was that somebody had
> been shooting at the presidential limousine.
>
> Officer Haygood was the first officer to get up there and he reported in
> at 12:34-12:35, "I just talked to a guy up here who was standing close to
> it and the best he could tell it came from the Texas School Book
> Depository Building here with that Hertz Renting sign on top."
>
> You can see in the Cabluck photo that Haygood is the first cop up there,

It would help if you could upload the photo you are talking about.
Hargis was up in that area also so we don't know if you are sure which
was which. Hargis is the motorcycle cop wearing black gloves. Haygood
was not.

> and the person he's looking at, the closest person to him, is a man
> dressed as a DPD detectve, apparently talking on a walkie talkie, and a

Show me the walkie-talkie.

> gun leaned up on the concrete railing in front of him. I think it's likely
> that this is Haygood's "guy standing close to it," but how does he make

If you could show us the guy maybe we'd know who he is, where he was and
what he reported seeing and hearing. Remember, most witnesses only heard
the shots or saw the effects of the shots and did not actually see them
fired. For instance Baker knew instantly from the sound that the shots
came from a high floor of the TSBD in the eastern corner.

> any sense? If he had somehow run up there before Haygood, wouldn't he
> still have his gun in his hands and be looking for snipers? It looks like
> he's settled in very comfortably and chatting to somebody. But, who could

Who ran up there with a gun in his hand? Only Joe Smith.

> he be chatting to? He's obviously not on the police channels. This guy
> never got mentioned in the Warren Commission testimony of Haygood. Yet,

Yeah, so what? Maybe the WC knew better than to ask.
Maybe Bowles did.

> there he is with a gun where several people thought shots originated, and
> where the Weigman film shows a tiny figure with a cloud of smoke drifting

Show me the tiny figure with a cloud of smoke drifting away from it.
I think the only cloud of smoke drifting away stems from what you are
smoking.

> away from it while the presidential limousine starts under the underpass.
> How can nobody mention this guy for 60 years? And what does Officer

Maybe somebody did. Maybe there is a recorded interview that you don't
know about. How about Rosemary Willis. She waited until she grew up to
be the first person to mention seeing the man behind the retaining wall.

> Haygood mean, that somebody close to what happened on the bridge says the
> shots came from the TSBD? All the railroad guys up there thought the shots

I think what he means is that a spectator who was close to the moment of
the head shot.

> came from the fence, which is the direction of this guy from where they
> were. Seeing this guy there with a gun, why would Haygood believe him,
> unless he was a Dallas cop? But if he is a Dallas cop, why doesn't he say,
> "Lt. So-and-so said the shots came from the TSBD?" Doesn't anybody think
> this is weird?
>

Don't expect perfect English from a Dallas cop.

>

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

No,I don't think it's "weird". I think it's ridiculous that people can
actually come up with nonsense such as this. You are saying that all of
those railroad employees, plus Dallas police officer J.W. Foster who is
with the railroad emplyees, were in on the assassination. All of those
people who were standing on the underpass during the shooting were
accounted for. Sam Holland also is dressed in suit and tie. Does that make
him "suspicious"?

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:15:45 PM UTC-4, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Maybe the WC knew better than to ask.

I'll *bet* they did.

Actually, neither Haygood nor Hargis told the Warren Commission that the
they ran up to the bridge, but Haygood said he ran to the railroad yard,
which you can get to by way of the bridge. Hargis's WC testimony, assuming
it is accurate, excludes the possibility of him being on the bridge.
Perhaps it isn't accurate. You'll have to take that up with him. Maybe he
wanted to show Haygood his new gloves before he went over to the TSBD.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

I think it is interesting to compare different versions of evidence of the
same event. It's kinda fun, and sometimes it suggests possibilities.
Regarding the current topic at hand, according to the police radio log
Chief Curry issued this command just after 12:30: "Get a man on top of
that triple underpass and see what happened up there." Presumably, and we
must presume because the Warren Commission had the good sense not to ask,
Officer Haygood heard this order while he was tooling down Houston Street,
and one might assume that that was the reason he brought his bike down Elm
and ran up there to the underpass bridge. Again, we must assume, because
the Warren Commission had the good sense not to ask. In fact, in a nimble
show of footwork, Mr. Belin manages to avoid any mention of the overpass
or of Cury's order. Touche. But, interestingly, he does bring up Haygood's
radio communication at 12:34-12:35. He has Haygood read a special WC
transcript: "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." The actual transcript, however, reads: "I just talked to a

guy up here who was standing close to it and the best he could tell it
came from the Texas School Book Depository Building here with that Hertz

Renting sign on top." Considering that this was presumably a response to
Cury's order to check out what happened on top of the underpass, one may
note a curious difference between the two, the replacement of the words
"up here" with "at the scene." The original gives the impression that
Haygood talked with somebody on the bridge. The WC version obliterates
that impression, and, combined with Haygood's testimony, creates the new
impression that the radio message referred to somebody at street level.
Perhaps this was an editorial clarification, but this is not the way to
treat evidence. You don't change the words to what you would like them to
be. You use the original words and ask the witness to clarify, if
necessary...unless you're trying to cover up something.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

Another curiosity coming out of new impressions created by Haygood's
testimony is the time element. Haygood says he is on Main Street when he
hears the shots. For the purposes of discussion we'll say the last one
occurs at 12:30. Haygood rides down Houston Street, turns onto Elm and
goes down to the underpass and attempts to ride his bike up over the curb.
Failing this, he parks his bike and runs up the hill, or as his says in
his testimony, "to the railroad yard." He looks around and sees "nothing"
except people running around. The his says he went back to his radio,
which is on his bike. But, Mr, Belin, apparently lacking good sense at
this point, asks him if he talked to anybody in the railroad yard. Haygood
says he talked to a man he "presumed" to be a railroad detective. The
reason for this presumption is not explained. Haygood does not remember
what he said. Anyway, back at the bike, he doesn't get on the radio yet.
He talks to one witness who says the president got shot in the head. That
guy said he didn't know where the shots came from. Then he talked to James
Tague about his cheek's brush with death. Then he talked to another
witness who said of the TSBD, "...there was something in the building, he
couldn't determine what it was, but it was just something there that he
couldn't explain, but he was definite that the shots did come from there."
Yikes! That sounds familiar. Yeah, the guy just before Haygood testified,
Bobby Hargis, had told the WC, "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..." These guys must have the same writer. Anyway, after
all of this, then he calls in at 12:34-12:35. It took less than 5 minutes
from the time he was on Main Street for all of that to happen.
Interesting.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:28:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 10:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>

Actually, your idea that it is Hargis in the Cabluck photo is an
interesting notion. Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not
testify to going up there. But, I think it is a possibility. If it really
had been Hargis, that would mean that he ran directly from where he
stopped his bike when the president was shot to what he thought was the
source of the shots and saw my rifle man there. This in fact was my
original interpretation. But, the various photographs seem to suggest that
Hargis had actually got back to his bike and left before the press bus
carrying Cabluck came by. A photo shows Hargis approaching his bike while
Jean Hill is still sitting down. Another photo, when Jean Hill and most
everybody else had already stood up again, shows a bus approaching the
underpass while a notorcycle cop is about to reach the top. That can't be
Hargis, and that is probably Cabluck's bus. I'm not going to upload all
this stuff, since it is already a generally accepted fact that the Cabluck
photo is of Haygood.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:28:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 9/26/2012 10:15 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As can be seen on the transcript of DPD radio communications, Chief Curry
>
> > said at 12:30-12:31, "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see
>
> > what happened up there." What happened up there, many people, including
>
> > Chief Curry and Officer Hargis, apparently thought was that somebody had
>
> > been shooting at the presidential limousine.
>
> >
>
> > Officer Haygood was the first officer to get up there and he reported in
>
> > at 12:34-12:35, "I just talked to a guy up here who was standing close to
>
> > it and the best he could tell it came from the Texas School Book
>
> > Depository Building here with that Hertz Renting sign on top."
>
> >
>
> > You can see in the Cabluck photo that Haygood is the first cop up there,
>
>
>
> It would help if you could upload the photo you are talking about.
>
> Hargis was up in that area also so we don't know if you are sure which
>
> was which. Hargis is the motorcycle cop wearing black gloves. Haygood
>
> was not.

There is absolutely no proof that Hargis went to that area. None.

>
>
> > and the person he's looking at, the closest person to him, is a man
>
> > dressed as a DPD detectve, apparently talking on a walkie talkie, and a
>
>
>
> Show me the walkie-talkie.
>
>
>
> > gun leaned up on the concrete railing in front of him. I think it's likely
>
> > that this is Haygood's "guy standing close to it," but how does he make
>
>
>
> If you could show us the guy maybe we'd know who he is, where he was and
>
> what he reported seeing and hearing. Remember, most witnesses only heard
>
> the shots or saw the effects of the shots and did not actually see them
>
> fired. For instance Baker knew instantly from the sound that the shots
>
> came from a high floor of the TSBD in the eastern corner.
>
>
>
>
>
> > any sense? If he had somehow run up there before Haygood, wouldn't he
>
> > still have his gun in his hands and be looking for snipers? It looks like
>
> > he's settled in very comfortably and chatting to somebody. But, who could
>
>
>
> Who ran up there with a gun in his hand? Only Joe Smith.

Hargis was gun-drawn when he ran to the light pole on Elm Street, and
is still gun drawn as he is scanning the area, according to Dick Sprague
and the Bell film.

>
>
>
> > he be chatting to? He's obviously not on the police channels. This guy
>
> > never got mentioned in the Warren Commission testimony of Haygood. Yet,
>
>
>
> Yeah, so what? Maybe the WC knew better than to ask.
>
> Maybe Bowles did.
>
>
>
> > there he is with a gun where several people thought shots originated, and
>
> > where the Weigman film shows a tiny figure with a cloud of smoke drifting
>
>
>
> Show me the tiny figure with a cloud of smoke drifting away from it.
>
> I think the only cloud of smoke drifting away stems from what you are
>
> smoking.
>
>
>
> > away from it while the presidential limousine starts under the underpass.
>
> > How can nobody mention this guy for 60 years? And what does Officer
>
>
>
> Maybe somebody did. Maybe there is a recorded interview that you don't
>
> know about. How about Rosemary Willis. She waited until she grew up to
>
> be the first person to mention seeing the man behind the retaining wall.
>
>
>
> > Haygood mean, that somebody close to what happened on the bridge says the
>
> > shots came from the TSBD? All the railroad guys up there thought the shots
>
>
>
> I think what he means is that a spectator who was close to the moment of
>
> the head shot.
>
>
>
> > came from the fence, which is the direction of this guy from where they
>
> > were. Seeing this guy there with a gun, why would Haygood believe him,
>
> > unless he was a Dallas cop? But if he is a Dallas cop, why doesn't he say,
>
> > "Lt. So-and-so said the shots came from the TSBD?" Doesn't anybody think
>
> > this is weird?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Don't expect perfect English from a Dallas cop.

Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.


>
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Steve, the original question was about some cop running up to the grassy
knoll. That was Joe Smith not Billy Hargis.

[Anthony Marsh]

Let me ask you this simple question and see if you can figure it out.
Look at whatever photo you are talking about, don't show it to me. Can
you see that the cop is wearing black gloves? Can you find any other
cycle cop wearing black gloves that day? Some did.
BTW, Robert Cutler did an elaborate diagram of Hargis's movements after
the last shot. He actually at one time suspected that it was Hargis who
had his microphone stuck on open, not McLain. I can't remember which
issue it was, but this weekend I'll look through my old Grassy Knoll
Gazettes and see if I can find it. If I do I'll scan it in at 300 DPI,
but try to keep the file size down with compression.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

Of related interest may be some of Hargis's testimony. I've already quoted his dingy description of where he thought the shots came from. This comes after:

Mr. HARGIS. Well, then, I thought since I had looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on, but none of them were looking towards, or near anywhere the shots had been fired from. At the time I didn't know, but about the only activity I could see was on the bridge, on the railroad bridge so---
Mr. Stern.
What sort of activity was that?
Mr. HARGIS. Well, the people that were up there were just trying to get a better look at what was happening and was in a haze and running, or in a confused fashion, and I thought maybe some of them had seen who did the shooting and the rifle.

Ahem.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly
following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come
from the overpass. He also had told them that the only spectator activity
he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
> Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
>
> may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
>
> as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>
> kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>

I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
has a strange notion of respect.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

There is a Cancellare photo that shows a cop standing up on the railing
with nice black gloves. Maybe that's the one you had in mind. I don't know
who that is, but all of the other evidence says it is not Hargis. In this
picture, you can see that another motorcycle cop is already on the other
side of the railing, and a crowd has gathered on the knoll side, so this
is after the Cabluck photo.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

"Billy" Hargis was never in Dealey Plaza. Bobby Hargis was. Regardless of
that, Bobby Hargis never said he ran up the knoll. He ran to the light
pole on the north side of the street, stood there for several seconds, was
filmed by at least two motion picture camera's Mal Couch and F.M. Bell
hile at the light pole. Both Bell and Couch's camera's captured him in
motion, running back to his parked motorcycle in the middle of the south
lane of Elm Street. Wilma Bond snapped her 4th photograph which shows
Hargis in mid-step, just about to reach his motorcycle. Richard Bothun
then snapped his 4th photograph showing Hargis after he boarded his
motorcycle. He described what his next movements to the Warren Commission
after he got back onto his motorcycle. FYI. I am the person who first
pointed out the fact that Hargis was wearing gloves to R.B. Cutler and
others, who were working on the acoustics with me back in 1980.

"Billy" Hargis was never in Dealey Plaza. Bobby Hargis was. Regardless
of that, Bobby Hargis never said he ran up the knoll. He ran to the light
pole on the north side of the street, stood there for several seconds, was
filmed by at least two motion picture camera's Mal Couch and F.M. Bell
hile at the light pole. Both Bell and Couch's camera's captured him in
motion, running back to his parked motorcycle in the middle of the south
lane of Elm Street. Wilma Bond snapped her 4th photograph which shows
Hargis in mid-step, just about to reach his motorcycle. Richard Bothun
then snapped his 4th photograph showing Hargis after he boarded his
motorcycle. He described what his next movements to the Warren Commission
after he got back onto his motorcycle. FYI. I am the person who first
pointed to the fact that Hargis was wearing gloves to R.B. Cutler and
others, who were working on the acoustics with me back in 1980.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, they should have been fired if they did. As a prosecutor you should
know better than to ask any question which creates reasonable doubt.

For example, Liebeler did not ask Joe Smith about the fake SS agent on
the grassy knoll. Smith brought it up himself spontaneously as an
afterthought.

[Sandy McCroskey]

He was being ironic, mirroring the prejudice Marsh showed toward cops in
Dallas.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:44:52 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 11:25 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>

Also, I notice that Hargis seems to have a bright white spot between his
glove and his sleeve in several pictures, on his left hand at least. The
cop in the Cancellare photo does not have this. Also, it looks as if
Haygood, when he's running up on the Bell film, is wearing gloves, though
I'm not certain.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.

[dklou...@comcast.net]

And no one has a photo or film of Hargis using his motorcycle radio?
Supposedly, he did call in at 12:34. But at neither the WC hearings nor
the HSCA did Hargis say he radioed from Dealey. In fact, I think he
specifically told the HSCA that he did not use his radio....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing wrong with using multiple aliases. I already replied to your
message addressing you as Steve. You try to include drummer or drumrolls
in each of your aliases. But if you can't remember which alias you are
using for which newsgroup you could at least sign the messages here with
your real name.

Nothing wrong with being polite.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, Bobby Hargis.

> that, Bobby Hargis never said he ran up the knoll. He ran to the light
> pole on the north side of the street, stood there for several seconds, was
> filmed by at least two motion picture camera's Mal Couch and F.M. Bell
> hile at the light pole. Both Bell and Couch's camera's captured him in
> motion, running back to his parked motorcycle in the middle of the south
> lane of Elm Street. Wilma Bond snapped her 4th photograph which shows
> Hargis in mid-step, just about to reach his motorcycle. Richard Bothun
> then snapped his 4th photograph showing Hargis after he boarded his
> motorcycle. He described what his next movements to the Warren Commission
> after he got back onto his motorcycle. FYI. I am the person who first
> pointed out the fact that Hargis was wearing gloves to R.B. Cutler and
> others, who were working on the acoustics with me back in 1980.
>

So did you really think that it was Hargis whose cycle had the microphone
stuck on? Do you remember which issue of the Grassy Knoll Gazette has the
diagram where Cutler explains your theory and Hargis's movements?

[Saintly Oswald]

Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
"unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
multiple names.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, show me a photo of amy OTHER cop other than Hargis in Dealey Plaza
wearing black gloves. Steve Barber just said that he was the first to
point out that Hargis was wearing black gloves.
Is the other cop Haygood? Do you know what clues to look for to tell the
difference between a traffic cop or beat cop from a motorcycle cop? Most
of the cops on the ground in Dealey Plaza did not wear helmets.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are ways to find out where he is from, but that may be unrelated
to what he is from.

[Sandy McCroskey]

The irony that it is *Marsh* saying this will be lost on no one.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Gee, and here I thought "Saintly Oswald" was a pseudonym.


/sm

[John Reagor King]

In article <bc2d3e35-2acc-4e4b...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly
> following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come
> from the overpass.

Hargis said he thought ALL of the shots, not some of them, not just one
of them, but ALL of them came from the overpass, correct?

> He also had told them that the only spectator activity
> he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
> the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
> overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
> session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
> DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?

No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in
front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's
existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared
in it. I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of
Haygood. In another article you said this:

"Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up
there."

"Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several
minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And
Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he
said he went up there.

Belin obviously didn't mention the overpass in *Haygood's* testimony
because nowhere in it does Haygood say he went to the overpass. He said
he went to the railroad tracks. I just looked at it.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

Officer Hargis did in fact use his radio at 12:34, and whether or not
he remembers using his radio is irrelevant. Hargis' call number was 136 on
November 22,1963, and 136 made a transmission at 12:34. On top of this,
Hargis didn't testify to the HSCA, and you are confusing what H.B. McLain
said with Hargis. McLain is the person who said he didn't use his radio
that day, not Hargis.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

At the time I thought it was a possibility. Re: Cutler diagram... I
have no idea. I got rid of all of that junk years ago.

[Saintly Oswald]

Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."

[Saintly Oswald]

In Officer Haygood's WC chat, Mr. Belin coaxes mention of the "presumed"
railroad detective out of Haygood, and the only detail we get about him is
that Haygood says the "presumed" detective arrived in the railroad yard
after he did. That seems to be all that Belin wanted to know about him.
Richard C. Dodd, who was on the bridge with the other railroad workers
told Mark Lane, "And then I went North to look around the corner to see if
there is anyone behind the hedge and met a special agent of the railroad.
And he went down there, and I walked along with him to see if there were
any tracks there." If Dodd was walking to the north from where he was, he
would have come upon my man on the bridge with the rifle. Perhaps this is
Dodd's "special agent." But, if he is also Haygood's "presumed" detective,
which seems likely to me, then he was already there when Haygood arrived,
as we can see in the Cabluck photo. Dodd says he is a special agent of the
railroad. Did he know this for sure, or was that also presumed? It sounds
like he knows. Assuming that this guy in the picture is the special
agent/"presumed" detective, then Belin's fancy footwork would be an
attempt to say that he isn't. Belin doesn't want us to know that that guy
with the gun on the bridge is a guy with a gun, a railroad detective. "The
railroad detective showed up later, so that guy with the gun is just some
guy. And that's not a gun; it's a shovel or blowtorch or something."

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before Steve Barber always tries to use a variant of Drums or
Drummer or such in his many aliaes.
If you've never been curious about the acoustical evidence he is the guy
who told the NAS panel about the crosstalk which he claims puts the
shots that BBN found too late on the tape to fit the shooting.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That was (accidentally) sent to you personally, after Thunderbird
changed its interface, in case anyone else here is wondering what
message you're referring to.

And I still don't have any time to discuss the goofy theory that Greer
shot Kennedy, which is what that was in reference to.

/sm

[Saintly Oswald]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:31:36 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <bc2d3e35-2acc-4e4b...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Think about this, wise ones. Belin and Stern questioned Haygood directly
>
> > following Hargis. Hargis had told them that he thought the shots had come
>
> > from the overpass.
>
>
>
> Hargis said he thought ALL of the shots, not some of them, not just one
>
> of them, but ALL of them came from the overpass, correct?
>
>
>
> > He also had told them that the only spectator activity
>
> > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
>
> > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
>
> > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
>
> > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
>
> > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
>
>
>
> No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in
>
> front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's
>
> existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared
>
> in it.

Maybe he didn't have the photo, but he certainly had some version of the
police radio log, he knew that Chief Curry thought somebody was shooting
from the overpass. He knew that Chief Curry ordered "somebody" to get up
there and see what happened. And, if he didn't know that Haygood had run
up there, then he was just too stupid for his job.

I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of
>
> Haygood. In another article you said this:
>
>
>
> "Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up
>
> there."
>
>
>
> "Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several
>
> minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And
>
> Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he
>
> said he went up there.

I should never say "everybody." You have a point there. You misunderstand
Hargis's testimony. If you quote it here, I will set you straight. If you
could see anything in photographs, I would upload a dozen of them to show
you that Hargis was back on his bike before that picture was taken. For
that to be Hargis, he would have to be blatantly lying to the WC. I do not
say that is impossible, but since Haygood says that he is the one who
tried to jump the curb, and it is clear from the Bell film, which you
wouldn't be able to see anything in, that the cop who tried to jump the
curb is the cop who ran up to the bridge, then I would have to be a crazy
conspiracy theorist to think that that is not Haygood in the Cabluck
photo.

[Saintly Oswald]

You accidentally sent me 3 emails? I hope you don't think I'm rude, just
crazy. I didn't respond because I'm not in the habit of checking that
email account. Anyway, I doubt that anybody else was wondering. Most of
them probably have better things to do.

[Bud]

What I think is weird is that Oswald takes his rifle to work and shoots
some people and for nearly 50 years people study the reaction of innocent
people to that action.

[John Reagor King]

In article <15bcfe97-ed2c-46df...@googlegroups.com>,

Ugh. It's solely because the recent changes in Google Groups, through
which Steve is quite obviously posting, started causing certain posters to
appear as "unknown," when Google Groups didn't do that before. Steve has
no control over what Google does.

And since you say you have no idea who Steve Barber is, I'd suggest you
look him up. It's safe to say he's one of the more famous living people
who has had any connection whatsoever to the assassination literature.

[John Reagor King]

In article <84e02d27-c221-4aea...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gee, and here I thought that you were the one who said, "OK, you're not
> getting any more of *my* time. Better things to do."

And I have noticed that only in *some* of your articles does "Saintly
Oswald" appear on the From line. I'm looking right now at several others
in this thread alone in which only your email address appears on the From
line, and it does not start with any variation of Saintly Oswald. So I
would suggest you back off before erroneously accusing another poster of
deliberately using multiple identities.

[curtjester1]

He 'accidents' me as well. It's nice to be thought of as an
obsession.

CJ

[curtjester1]

"What I think" ... I won't say it, but that has to be the height of
something!

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

There's no way that you can possibly check all your aliases every day.

[John Reagor King]

In article <7b55c049-56c2-438a...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:31:36 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <bc2d3e35-2acc-4e4b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > He also had told them that the only spectator activity
> > > he saw that indicated anybody knew where the shots had come from was on
> > > the overpass. On the day of the assassination, Haygood ran up to the
> > > overpass. We have the Cabluck photo to show it. And yet, in Haygood's
> > > session, Belin and Stern and Haygood do not once mention the overpass.
> > > DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS WEIRD?
> >
> > No, because I know of no evidence that Belin had the Cabluck photo in
> > front of him during the testimony, or that he even knew of the photo's
> > existence at that time, or if he did that he even knew Haygood appeared
> > in it.
>
> Maybe he didn't have the photo, but he certainly had some version of the
> police radio log, he knew that Chief Curry thought somebody was shooting
> from the overpass. He knew that Chief Curry ordered "somebody" to get up
> there and see what happened.

And "somebody" is not one particular officer, correct?

> And, if he didn't know that Haygood had run
> up there, then he was just too stupid for his job.

If it's really true that Haygood had run up there.

> > I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't Hargis instead of
> > Haygood. In another article you said this:
> >
> > "Everybody says it is Haygood and Hargis did not testify to going up
> > there."
> >
> > "Everybody" says it is Haygood? Strange then that in the past several
> > minutes I have just seen several webpages saying it is Hargis. And
> > Hargis did not testify to going up there? I'm looking right at where he
> > said he went up there.
>
> I should never say "everybody." You have a point there. You misunderstand
> Hargis's testimony. If you quote it here, I will set you straight.

Yes, I think you're right. I had been looking at this part:

**********

Mr. HARGIS - 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. I knew it couldn't have come from the county
courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over
there.

**********

He said he ran up to the light post, up to a little wall, to get a
better look on the bridge, and I had been thinking he meant the little
wall that connects to the concrete railing on the bridge, but now I see
from the full context that he was running up to a light post farther up
Elm, closer to the Newmans on the ground with their children, to look at
the bridge from there. And of course the only light post visible in the
Cabluck photo is in the foreground, and nowhere close to the bridge. ;-)

> If you
> could see anything in photographs, I would upload a dozen of them to show
> you that Hargis was back on his bike before that picture was taken. For
> that to be Hargis, he would have to be blatantly lying to the WC. I do not
> say that is impossible, but since Haygood says that he is the one who
> tried to jump the curb, and it is clear from the Bell film, which you
> wouldn't be able to see anything in, that the cop who tried to jump the
> curb is the cop who ran up to the bridge, then I would have to be a crazy
> conspiracy theorist to think that that is not Haygood in the Cabluck
> photo.

I think you may well be right. My apologies.

[Sandy McCroskey]

This was happening for a little while because the Thunderbird I use at
the office is different from the one on my laptop, the latter having a
"Followup" button to send to the *group* as well as a "Reply," with the
unfortunate result of invading someone's personal mailbox.

When you then replied, via e-mail, I responded. This was a mistake,
perhaps, but not an accident.

I took the liberty of being a little more frank there.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2012 10:56 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <15bcfe97-ed2c-46df...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>>
>> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
>> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>> multiple names.
>
> Ugh. It's solely because the recent changes in Google Groups, through
> which Steve is quite obviously posting, started causing certain posters to
> appear as "unknown," when Google Groups didn't do that before. Steve has
> no control over what Google does.
>

It's a conspiracy I tell ya. Why are you trying to cover up for Google?
Own stock or something?

[Saintly Oswald]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <7b55c049-56c2-438a...@googlegroups.com>,
>

Now that you, presumably, think it was Haygood on the bridge, what do you
think of his WC testimony where he didn't mention the bridge and where he
was not asked about the bridge, even though twenty minutes before (or
whatever) Hargis had said that he thought the shots came from the bridge?
Don't you think that is weird?

[Saintly Oswald]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In

And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood, he
must have known that seconds after JFK was shot, that the chief of police
had broadcast an order on the channel that Haygood had been monitoring to
get up on the bridge and "see what happened up there." Don't you think it
is weird that he didn't mention this to Haygood who was sitting in front
of him and chatting under oath? And, don't you think it is weird that
Belin interrupted Haygood when he started to talk about getting back to
his radio, to remind Haygood to say that bit about the "Presumed railroad
detective?" Haygood almost started telling the real story, there. Oops!
Those Dallas cops! Once they get talking, they just tend to start telling
the truth. What they need is some lawyer training. Lawyers never lose
sight of the fact that they are advocates, not truth-tellers. Was Mr.
Belin a lawyer? I suppose I could look it up, but I don't feel the need
to.

[Saintly Oswald]

I'm looking at a picture now I had downloaded which somebody labelled "Darnell Frame," and Buddy Walthers is in it and Clyde Haygood is also labelled, and he is wearing black gloves. This is in the parking lot with the TSBD visible in the background, and another cop, D.V. Harkness looking into the camera. If that's Haygood before he radioed in, he sure is taking his sweet time with those 4 and a half minutes.

[Saintly Oswald]

Regarding the time element, Mr. Tague's testimony confirms the it was
about 4 to 5 minutes bewteen the shooting and the time that Haygood
radioed in. He was not asked this question and he did not overtly put it
that way, but he mentions the minutes and Haygood's actions very
specifically. And complains that the cops did virtually nothing until 5, 6
or 7 minutes after the shooting, and that would be after Haygood called in
the info about the TSBD. Haygood is with Walthers at this time, and the
two had also been photographed together in the railroad yard near the
parking lot just before, but he doesn't mention Walthers in his testimony.
It sounds like he's saying he talked to the witnesses as the only cop, but
both Walthers and Tague say that Walthers was there. Not only that, but
Tague says there was a "patrolman who evidently had been stationed under
the triple underpass." also present, unmentioned by Haygood or Walthers.
And nobody but Haygood mentions the guy who said, "...there was something
in the building, he couldn't determine what it was, but it was just
something there that he couldn't explain, but he was definite that the
shots did come from there."

Tague, starts talking about how they looked at the building and focused on
one window that wasn't Oswald's that had sun reflection and spider webs,
and then Mr. Liebler of the WC changed the subject. That's as close as
anybody gets to saying the shots came from the TSBD, according to Tague,
who sounds like a much more reliable witness than either cop.

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:23:02 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> Another curiosity coming out of new impressions created by Haygood's
>
> testimony is the time element. Haygood says he is on Main Street when he
>
> hears the shots. For the purposes of discussion we'll say the last one
>
> occurs at 12:30. Haygood rides down Houston Street, turns onto Elm and
>
> goes down to the underpass and attempts to ride his bike up over the curb.
>
> Failing this, he parks his bike and runs up the hill, or as his says in
>
> his testimony, "to the railroad yard." He looks around and sees "nothing"
>
> except people running around. The his says he went back to his radio,
>
> which is on his bike. But, Mr, Belin, apparently lacking good sense at
>
> this point, asks him if he talked to anybody in the railroad yard. Haygood
>
> says he talked to a man he "presumed" to be a railroad detective. The
>
> reason for this presumption is not explained. Haygood does not remember
>
> what he said. Anyway, back at the bike, he doesn't get on the radio yet.
>
> He talks to one witness who says the president got shot in the head. That
>
> guy said he didn't know where the shots came from. Then he talked to James
>
> Tague about his cheek's brush with death. Then he talked to another
>
> witness who said of the TSBD, "...there was something in the building, he
>
> couldn't determine what it was, but it was just something there that he
>
> couldn't explain, but he was definite that the shots did come from there."
>
> Yikes! That sounds familiar. Yeah, the guy just before Haygood testified,
>
> Bobby Hargis, had told the WC, "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..." These guys must have the same writer. Anyway, after
>
> all of this, then he calls in at 12:34-12:35. It took less than 5 minutes
>
> from the time he was on Main Street for all of that to happen.
>
> Interesting.

[John Reagor King]

In article <18d128fd-70b1-48a7...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <7b55c049-56c2-438a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
>
> Now that you, presumably, think it was Haygood on the bridge,

Well, I'm virtually certain it wasn't Hargis, anyway. Is Haygood the only
other possibility? I can't see his motorcycle anywhere in the photo, but
of course that doesn't mean that isn't him. And I know you've posted
other evidence to support your position that it is him, and you almost
certainly are better acquainted with this issue than I am.

> what do you
> think of his WC testimony where he didn't mention the bridge and where he
> was not asked about the bridge, even though twenty minutes before (or
> whatever) Hargis had said that he thought the shots came from the bridge?

Er, twenty minutes before?

"The testimony of Bobby W. Hargis was taken at 3:20 p.m., on April 8,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Samuel A. Stern, assistant
counsel of the President's Commission."

Testimony of Clyde A. Haygood was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 9, 1964,
in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and
Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. Belin, assistant counsel of
the President's Commission.

Haygood testified the day after Hargis. Hargis was questioned by Samuel
Stern and Haygood by David Belin. Is there proof that Belin had yet had
time to read Hargis's testimony, at which he was not present, before he
questioned Haygood?

> Don't you think that is weird?

Hmm, lemme eyeball that again.

Ok, I believe you've already quoted this part, but it won't hurt to
quote it again:

**********

Mr. BELIN. What did you do after you heard the sounds?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I made the shift down to lower gear and went on to the
scene of the shooting.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by the scene of the shooting?
Mr. HAYGOOD. There on Main Street.
Mr. BELIN. On Main Street?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I am sorry, on Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. What position of Elm Street?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Be just west of Houston Street.
Mr. BELIN. By the scene of the shooting, do you mean the place where you
believed the President's car was when the bullets struck?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. When I first got to the location there, I was still on
Houston Street, and in the process of making a left turn onto Elm Street
I could see all these people laying on the ground there on Elm. Some of
them were pointing back up to the railroad yard, and a couple of people
were headed back up that way, and I immediately tried to jump the north
curb there in the 400 block, which was too high for me to get over.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with your motorcycle?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. HAYGOOD. And I left my motor on the street and ran to the railroad
yard.
Mr. BELIN. Now when you ran to the railroad yard, would that be north or
south of Elm?
Mr. HAYGOOD. The railroad yard would be located at the---it consists of
going over Elm Street and back north of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Well, there was nothing. There was quite a few people in
the area, spectators, and at that time I went back to my motorcycle it
was on the street--to the radio.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any people running away from there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. No. They was all going to it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you talk to any people over there or not?
Mr. HAYGOOD. In the railroad yard, I talked to one of the people I
presumed to be a railroad detective that was in the yard.
Mr. BELIN. Had he been in the yard before or not?
Mr. HAYGOOD. No. He was just coming into the area after I was.
Mr. BELIN. He was coming into the area after the shooting?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to you, that you remember?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Nothing that I remember.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I went back to my motorcycle, which was sitting on Elm
Street.

**********

Yeah, nothing is said about the bridge specifically. But I am being
totally honest in saying to you that this could simply be because
Haygood ran up to the end of the bridge, looked to his left briefly, saw
nothing of interest, and continued into the railroad yards. He did at
least say that the railroad yard consists of the tracks going over Elm
Street (which would of course be the bridge itself) plus the
continuation of the tracks going north from the bridge. I myself would
not call the bridge part of the "railroad yards," but my English usage
is at least slightly better than some of these good-ole-boy Texans.

But I'm honestly not sure I understand the significance you seem to be
attaching to this. Honestly. And this has nothing to do with any
preconceived bias on my part to lean toward an LN scenario. I've seen
you say in at least one other article that Haygood testified immediately
after Hargis, but that is not true. Your point, if I understood it, was
that Belin ought to have known that Hargis had just testified about
hearing shots that all seemed to be coming from the bridge, but I don't
see any specific evidence that Belin yet knew that Hargis had said that
on the previous day when he questioned Haygood on the following day.
These attorneys had a lot of stuff to keep up with besides just witness
testimony, as they were also having to pore through many documents and
so forth to prepare for the questioning of each witness, and I don't
know how quickly testimony with one witness by one attorney was shared
with the other attorneys. My impression is that their duties were
divided, so that, for example, Belin would handle some witnesses, and
Stern would handle others, and Liebeler would handle others, and so
forth. I don't know how quickly one attorney would have the chance to
read the testimony of a witness questioned by another attorney on a
different day, do you? Especially when the one attorney had questioned
the witness during the afternoon, and the other attorney questioned a
different witness the following morning. How many other documents did
Belin have to study between the afternoon of April 8 and the morning of
April 9 when he questioned Haygood? And did he have a sort of "backlog"
of previous witness testimony that he still had to read, testimony taken
prior to the afternoon of April 8? Do you know? I do not.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5069ca4f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/30/2012 10:56 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <15bcfe97-ed2c-46df...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> >>> I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
> >>> I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
> >>> shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
> >>
> >> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
> >> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
> >> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
> >> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
> >> multiple names.
> >
> > Ugh. It's solely because the recent changes in Google Groups, through
> > which Steve is quite obviously posting, started causing certain posters to
> > appear as "unknown," when Google Groups didn't do that before. Steve has
> > no control over what Google does.
>
> It's a conspiracy I tell ya. Why are you trying to cover up for Google?
> Own stock or something?

I wish.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2012 4:38 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <18d128fd-70b1-48a7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <7b55c049-56c2-438a...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>
>> Now that you, presumably, think it was Haygood on the bridge,
>
> Well, I'm virtually certain it wasn't Hargis, anyway. Is Haygood the only
> other possibility? I can't see his motorcycle anywhere in the photo, but
> of course that doesn't mean that isn't him. And I know you've posted
> other evidence to support your position that it is him, and you almost
> certainly are better acquainted with this issue than I am.
>

Not too many other possibilities. Do you see his bike helmet? Most of
the other cyclists are accounted for.

[Saintly Oswald]

My point is severely blunted by my error about Hargis being questioned by
Belin, which of course you focus upon, but the fact is that Belin had
Haygood reading the a transcript of the DPD radio communications, and it
is not credible to think that Belin did not know that the chief of police
had just ordered his men to get up on the overpass and see what happened,
clearly implying that Curry thought somebody up on the bridge had blown
Kennedy's brains out. Haygood went up there and nothing was said about it
in his testimony. But, Haygood did meet a "presumed railroad detective,"
who was just arriving. What, did he just have that railroad detective
look? We'll never know. They talked, but Haygood doesn't remember anything
they said? You are satisfied with that? You know what? He might
technically be telling the truth. Richard C. Dodd, who was on the bridge

with the other railroad workers told Mark Lane, "And then I went North to
look around the corner to see if there is anyone behind the hedge and met
a special agent of the railroad. And he went down there, and I walked

along with him to see if there were any tracks there." Perhaps, after
walking by The "presumed detective" on the bridge, he followed Haygood
into the railroad yard area, "after the shooting." But he was on the
bridge *during* the shooting. In light of this picture, which would have
been known by april 8, 1964 to anybody orchestrating a cover up, this is
an extremely important point. Haygood is seen in this picture looking
straight at a man with a rifle. The cover up would have to avoid talking
about him. And Belin's examination of Haygood is consistent with that
objective. Indeed, he even avoids talking about the bridge he is standing
on.

[Anthony Marsh]

Consider your source.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2012 2:56 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>> In
>
> And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood, he
> must have known that seconds after JFK was shot, that the chief of police
> had broadcast an order on the channel that Haygood had been monitoring to
> get up on the bridge and "see what happened up there." Don't you think it
> is weird that he didn't mention this to Haygood who was sitting in front
> of him and chatting under oath? And, don't you think it is weird that

Not odd at all. A prosecutor knows better than to ask any question which
produced reasonable doubt.

[Saintly Oswald]

I can't vouch for the source, but it is consistent with the testimony of
Haygood and Hargis and the other photographic evidence. It is only your
assertion that Hargis had cornered the black motorcycle cop gloves market
in the Dealey Plaza area, which conflicts with that conclusion. I stress
the point only so that I can move on. It makes an even better case for
conspiracy if it is not Haygood on the bridge, because then they are all
lying.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:34:11 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 2:56 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
> >> In
>
> >
>
> > And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood, he
>
> > must have known that seconds after JFK was shot, that the chief of police
>
> > had broadcast an order on the channel that Haygood had been monitoring to
>
> > get up on the bridge and "see what happened up there." Don't you think it
>
> > is weird that he didn't mention this to Haygood who was sitting in front
>
> > of him and chatting under oath? And, don't you think it is weird that
>
>
>
> Not odd at all. A prosecutor knows better than to ask any question which
>
> produced reasonable doubt.

Of course it's not odd if you expect them to be dishonest. The Warren
Commission's job was to convict a dead man who had no defense attorney.
And why was that their job? Because the president of the United States
said so. Why would the president of the United States do that? National
security? Or Lyndon security?

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop guessing. Show me.

[Saintly Oswald]

Now you've done it. I am once again entertaining the notion that it is actually Hargis in the Cabluck photo. First, it is absolutely clear from the photographic evidence that this cop is the same cop in the Bell film parking his bike. No doubt at all about that. Could that be Hargis? If it is, it means that he got back on his bike across the street and then rode over there to go up to the bridge, when just running straight to the bridge would have been quicker. Why would he do that? Maybe he heard something on his radio after he got back on his bike that made him decide to do this, or maybe he saw something. In Bond5, while Hargis is going back to his bike and looking up to that very spot on the bridge the cop does go to, it looks as if he has interrupted his stride, as if he had seen something that had changed his plans. It's possible he got back on his bike, since he was there already, and rode it across the street. It means his testimony and Haygood's have some serious lies, but it's possible. Why would they change the story like that? It would blunt the idea that Hargis had run to the spot where he thought the shots had come from, and make it easier not to scrutinize with bothersome questioning what he saw when he got there. If Hargis didn't run up there, you can't ask him what he saw at the spot he thought the shots had originated. Haygood being the cop means that the questioning can be more vague, and it was, considering they didn't even mention the bridge. If it had been Hargis, they would have to have acknowledged the existence of the bridge in his questioning, and that might get messy. This might explain why Haygood had to be prompted to remember his encounter with the "presumed railroad detective." This might also explain why Haygood didn't mention Buddy Walthers who was present when he supposedly talked to Tague, and why Walthers didn't mention him. Tague, the most reliable witness involved here, never knew their names, but he knew that they were both there. This would mean that the radio log transcript has to incorrectly identify Hargis as Haygood, since it would be Hargis calling in. Also, the odd literary similarity between two statements made, one in each cop's testimony, might also be explained by such a re-wroking of the story. It's possible.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

If you take a look at the F.M. Bell film and the 4th slide taken by
Wilma Bond, you will see Hargis while off his motorcycle. Hargis can
clearly be seen standing at the same light post that appears in Zapruder's
film, seconds before the head shot. Hargis is gundrawn,and obviously
looking around. After he leaves the light post, he can be seen running
into the street as motorcycle officer H.B. McLain passes him as he's
running. The next person to capture Hargis is Wilma Bond in her 4th slide
which shows Hargis almost back to his motorcycle. For years and years,
people mistook Hargis for Haygood. One of them being Josiah Thompson in
Six Seconds in Dallas. Hargis is captured by Richard Bothun in his very
clear photograph showing that Hargis has remounted his cycle. Note his
gloves.

[Saintly Oswald]

This is Hargis getting back to his bike. https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XzajVmekCso/UGyIOF-UugI/AAAAAAAAAPM/ELE8e5_i80I/s647/bond4Crop7.jpg

This is from the Couch film. The cop in the foreground is identified as
Haygood. Hargis can be seen beginning to cross the street in the distance,
from right to left where his bike can be seen.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NHfh-Y08w84/UGyIW_CVcqI/AAAAAAAAAPc/_V5b
q7iiyTM/s647/couch3bikecops02b.jpg

This is from the Couch film. It presumably shows Haygood with his bike
down, where he will leave it when he runs up the to the bridge. The film
does not follow him from the prior frame to here, so it is not impossible
that this is somebody else, but that makes the most sense.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAPk/HOTqVZeMPPE/s647/couch3wheeler.jpg

This is Hargis crossing the street back to his bike, just after that first
Couch frame. Note the white area between his glove and sleeve. This can be seen on several of these Bell frames.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mnl4Z_dHu9E/UGyIcka2uuI/AAAAAAAAAPs/3TvMYLa4G7s/s647/Pdvd_047.jpg

This is what I have been calling the Cancellare photo of the cop on the
bridge, obviously taken after the Cabluck. There appears to be another
motorcycle cop standing on the bridge, visible through the concrete railing.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AAkte2ol9FU/UGyIghdpTuI/AAAAAAAAAP0/K5SU7lBdf64/s647/todos+fueron+hacia+el+mont%C3%ADculo+de+hierba.jpg

This is the Cabluck photo. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CKZpxgKFrAQ/UGyIlMlHNBI/AAAAAAAAAP8/j6qnRGfY6GQ/s647/Cabluck.jpg

And this is the Darnell frame which somebody other then myself has tagged the names to. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Sd0GSJbBiCg/UGyIoIWClII/AAAAAAAAAQE/4AMVQMNbJzA/s647/9388~0.jpg

[John Reagor King]

In article <fdde8554-05e4-49dc...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood,

"Hosting"? Do you mean that he had the transcript in front of him as he
was questioning Haygood?

> he
> must have known that seconds after JFK was shot, that the chief of police
> had broadcast an order on the channel that Haygood had been monitoring to
> get up on the bridge and "see what happened up there."

That would only tell Belin that Curry had broadcast that order. That
would not tell Belin which officer(s) responded to that order.

> Don't you think it
> is weird that he didn't mention this to Haygood who was sitting in front
> of him and chatting under oath?

I don't know, since I'm seeing nothing in that entire testimony that would
give Belin any reason to know that Haygood responded to that specific
order. I do not see Haygood saying that he even heard that particular
order being broadcast. Maybe he did, but I do not yet see any specific
mention of that. I see other references to his own transmissions in the
transcript, but none of those are in reference to Curry's order to go to
the bridge.

> And, don't you think it is weird that
> Belin interrupted Haygood when he started to talk about getting back to
> his radio, to remind Haygood to say that bit about the "Presumed railroad
> detective?"

You mean this part?

**********

Mr. BELIN. Now when you ran to the railroad yard, would that be north or
south of Elm?
Mr. HAYGOOD. The railroad yard would be located at the---it consists of
going over Elm Street and back north of Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Well, there was nothing. There was quite a few people in
the area, spectators, and at that time I went back to my motorcycle it
was on the street--to the radio.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any people running away from there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. No. They was all going to it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you talk to any people over there or not?
Mr. HAYGOOD. In the railroad yard, I talked to one of the people I
presumed to be a railroad detective that was in the yard.
Mr. BELIN. Had he been in the yard before or not?
Mr. HAYGOOD. No. He was just coming into the area after I was.
Mr. BELIN. He was coming into the area after the shooting?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to you, that you remember?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Nothing that I remember.

**********

All I see is Belin saying, "Did you talk to any people over there or not?"
and Haygood responding that he talked to someone he presumed to be a
railroad detective. I don't see Belin "interrupting" Haygood in the
middle of anything. The previous sentence is simply, "They was all going
to it," and Haygood does not appear to me to be about to say anything more
than that. Belin appears to me to be merely asking if Haygood talked to
anyone back there or not. I'm honestly not sure I understand why you seem
to find this so curious.

> Haygood almost started telling the real story, there. Oops!

Huh? Where? He just said that he went back to the railroad yards and
found nothing of interest except quite a few spectators, and then said he
went back to his cycle. Belin then asked him if he saw anyone running
away from there, and Haygood said no, the spectators were running toward
the area, not away from it. Since Haygood had still not mentioned whether
or not he talked to anyone back there, Belin asked him if he had.
Haygood then said yes, he talked to someone whom he thought was a railroad
detective, who was coming into the area after Haygood. When Belin then
asked him if this "railroad detective" said anything to him, he said not
that he could remember. I don't see Belin appearing to interrupt Haygood
in the middle of anything, such as in the middle of a sentence while
Haygood was speaking. Instead I see Belin doing precisely the opposite,
trying to get more information out of Haygood when Haygood had previously
only said that he went back there and looked, saw spectators going toward
the area but no one running away, but then just said that he went back to
his cycle without saying whether he had talked to anyone back there or
not.

> Those Dallas cops! Once they get talking, they just tend to start telling
> the truth.

Yes, and I plainly see Belin asking Haygood repeatedly for more
information, not interrupting him in the middle of saying something.

> What they need is some lawyer training. Lawyers never lose
> sight of the fact that they are advocates, not truth-tellers. Was Mr.
> Belin a lawyer? I suppose I could look it up, but I don't feel the need
> to.

All of the WC counsel were licensed attorneys.

[John Reagor King]

In article <0d0a9872-36cf-44e5...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My point is severely blunted by my error about Hargis being questioned by
> Belin, which of course you focus upon, but the fact is that Belin had
> Haygood reading the a transcript of the DPD radio communications, and it
> is not credible to think that Belin did not know that the chief of police
> had just ordered his men to get up on the overpass and see what happened,
> clearly implying that Curry thought somebody up on the bridge had blown
> Kennedy's brains out.

I have never once said that it isn't credible that Belin knew that Curry
had given that order. What I *have* said is that it *is* credible that
Belin did not know during his questioning of Haygood that Haygood himself
responded to that particular order. Knowing about Curry's order doesn't
tell Belin which officers did or did not respond to it.

> Haygood went up there and nothing was said about it
> in his testimony.

Probably because Haygood said nothing in his testimony about even
hearing that order in the first place.

> But, Haygood did meet a "presumed railroad detective,"
> who was just arriving. What, did he just have that railroad detective
> look? We'll never know. They talked, but Haygood doesn't remember anything
> they said? You are satisfied with that?

Well, not entirely. Haygood said that he talked to this "railroad
detective" but that he didn't remember the person saying anything to him.
Perhaps that simply means he spoke to the person but that the person made
no reply. Or maybe Haygood simply meant that the person said nothing of
importance to him. I do not know. But that is really the only part I
find curious. He says he talked to this person, but did not remember this
person saying anything to him. Did this "railroad detective" just ignore
Haygood when Haygood spoke to him? Ignored a Dallas police officer? I'm
having a bit of difficulty believing that.

> You know what? He might
> technically be telling the truth. Richard C. Dodd, who was on the bridge
> with the other railroad workers told Mark Lane, "And then I went North to
> look around the corner to see if there is anyone behind the hedge and met
> a special agent of the railroad. And he went down there, and I walked
> along with him to see if there were any tracks there." Perhaps, after
> walking by The "presumed detective" on the bridge, he followed Haygood
> into the railroad yard area, "after the shooting." But he was on the
> bridge *during* the shooting. In light of this picture, which would have
> been known by april 8, 1964 to anybody orchestrating a cover up, this is
> an extremely important point. Haygood is seen in this picture looking
> straight at a man with a rifle.

Objection. Looking straight at a man whom you *think*, in your *opinion*,
had a rifle. It has not yet been conclusively established that that
really is a rifle. I agree that it *might* be, but it is hardly proven
just yet.

> The cover up would have to avoid talking
> about him. And Belin's examination of Haygood is consistent with that
> objective.

I do not see that. Instead I plainly see Belin repeatedly asking
Haygood for more information, not less, and I see him doing it
throughout the testimony, not just in the passage I quoted above only.

> Indeed, he even avoids talking about the bridge he is standing
> on.

Now that I at least agree with. If that is indeed Haygood in the Cabluck
photo, and you have presented a good case that it is, nowhere in his
testimony does he specifically mention going up to the bridge and looking
to his left before climbing over the wall to get to the railroad tracks.
I will say, however, that that was the only way he could get into the
railroad yard from that position, since the picket fence connected to that
very wall that we see him about to climb over (I guess) in that photo.
Unfortunately the photo tells us nothing about the length of time he
looked to his left along the bridge before climbing over the wall. I
suppose it is possible that the photo actually happened to catch him in
the midst of climbing over the wall and that he was in that position only
for a few seconds at most. I do not know.

[John Reagor King]

In article <f4cc38e6-ac35-495a...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding the time element, Mr. Tague's testimony confirms the it was
> about 4 to 5 minutes bewteen the shooting and the time that Haygood
> radioed in. He was not asked this question and he did not overtly put it
> that way, but he mentions the minutes and Haygood's actions very
> specifically. And complains that the cops did virtually nothing until 5, 6
> or 7 minutes after the shooting, and that would be after Haygood called in
> the info about the TSBD. Haygood is with Walthers at this time, and the
> two had also been photographed together in the railroad yard near the
> parking lot just before, but he doesn't mention Walthers in his testimony.
> It sounds like he's saying he talked to the witnesses as the only cop, but
> both Walthers and Tague say that Walthers was there. Not only that, but
> Tague says there was a "patrolman who evidently had been stationed under
> the triple underpass." also present, unmentioned by Haygood or Walthers.
> And nobody but Haygood mentions the guy who said, "...there was something
> in the building, he couldn't determine what it was, but it was just
> something there that he couldn't explain, but he was definite that the
> shots did come from there."
>
> Tague, starts talking about how they looked at the building and focused on
> one window that wasn't Oswald's that had sun reflection and spider webs,
> and then Mr. Liebler of the WC changed the subject.

Are you talking about here?

**********

Mr. LIEBELER. There is an area circled here with the letter "C" in it.
Is that where the policeman ran toward the grassy area; included in that
circle, is that right?
Mr. TAGUE. Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked
toward the School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it
was something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six
windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be
where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had
spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window.
We said maybe this is where they came from. And the deputy sheriff ran
back to the policeman. I may not be quite accurate, but I believe at the
time there was a whole swarm of motorcycle policemen coming back to the
area under the underpass going the wrong way here on Elm. They came back
and parked, and he mentioned to them--that is probably 5 minutes after
it happened, and he was on the radio, and everybody ran up around the
School Book Depository at this time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let's go back and fix the general spot when the deputy
sheriff saw the mark on the street, going back to point No. 6, which is
where you were standing when you were hit. We go east along----

**********

I don't see Tague specifically saying that he heard anyone say that the
window with the "spider webs or dust" was the window that the shots were
fired from, merely that that was the window they were looking at and that
*maybe* it was the window the shots had come from. I don't see him saying
that he heard anyone say that it was *definitely* the window the shots
came from. And why would this be significant anyway? When one looks at
all the statements of all witnesses who said shots came from any
particular window in the TSBD, there is no clear consensus among them as
to exactly which window it was; they were even somewhat divided on which
floor it was. This is to be expected, the typical random variations in
witness statements, especially when you're looking at witnesses numbering
in the single-digits only, and there is no clear convergence of a majority
on a single detail, such as which window it was. This neither proves nor
disproves which window the shots were actually fired from.

> That's as close as
> anybody gets to saying the shots came from the TSBD, according to Tague,
> who sounds like a much more reliable witness than either cop.

He could well be. But remember what I've told you several times before.
It's not so much which direction each witness named for the gunfire, but
how *many* directions each witness named. Nearly all of the witnesses
seemed to think that all of the gunfire had come from a single direction.
They simply didn't agree with each other on what that single direction
was. Bobby Hargis thought all the shots came from the Triple Underpass.
Mary Woodward thought all the shots came from the fence. Victoria Adams
thought all the shots came from somewhere to the west of the Depository.
Harold Norman thought all the shots came from the floor above him. James
Jarman thought all the shots came from somewhere to the east of the
Depository. There are c.200 more I can cite who said such things. Do you
see the obvious pattern? Do you understand the obvious significance of
what the vast majority of these witnesses said?

[John Reagor King]

In article <c5af5f41-f498-43b9...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can't vouch for the source, but it is consistent with the testimony of
> Haygood and Hargis and the other photographic evidence. It is only your
> assertion that Hargis had cornered the black motorcycle cop gloves market
> in the Dealey Plaza area, which conflicts with that conclusion.

I disagree with Anthony about 99% of the time, but occasionally I find him
to be quite solid on certain aspects of the assassination. I am not yet
convinced that he is wrong about the gloves. I have been doing some
searches for photos that are *confirmed* to be of Haygood in Dealey Plaza
that day, and I have not yet found any. That's what we really need to
resolve this issue. If you have already posted the link for such a photo
I have forgotten.

> I stress
> the point only so that I can move on. It makes an even better case for
> conspiracy if it is not Haygood on the bridge, because then they are all
> lying.

Why?

[Saintly Oswald]

That Bothun photo is key. It shows Hargis on his way before Haygood gets
there. That was the one I needed to find. And Hargis wears dhort gloves.
Haygood wears long gloves.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop saying that. Woodward did not say fence. You are misrepresenting
historical evidence to push a political agenda. Disgraceful.

> thought all the shots came from somewhere to the west of the Depository.
> Harold Norman thought all the shots came from the floor above him. James
> Jarman thought all the shots came from somewhere to the east of the
> Depository. There are c.200 more I can cite who said such things. Do you
> see the obvious pattern? Do you understand the obvious significance of
> what the vast majority of these witnesses said?
>

I understand that the scientific evidence proved that 75% of the shots
came from the sniper's nest. I also understand that you do not like
scientific evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2012 10:49 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <fdde8554-05e4-49dc...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And, since Belin was hosting a DPD radio transcript reading by Haygood,
>
> "Hosting"? Do you mean that he had the transcript in front of him as he
> was questioning Haygood?
>
>> he
>> must have known that seconds after JFK was shot, that the chief of police
>> had broadcast an order on the channel that Haygood had been monitoring to
>> get up on the bridge and "see what happened up there."
>
> That would only tell Belin that Curry had broadcast that order. That
> would not tell Belin which officer(s) responded to that order.
>
>> Don't you think it
>> is weird that he didn't mention this to Haygood who was sitting in front
>> of him and chatting under oath?
>
> I don't know, since I'm seeing nothing in that entire testimony that would
> give Belin any reason to know that Haygood responded to that specific
> order. I do not see Haygood saying that he even heard that particular
> order being broadcast. Maybe he did, but I do not yet see any specific
> mention of that. I see other references to his own transmissions in the
> transcript, but none of those are in reference to Curry's order to go to
> the bridge.
>

Minor technicality, but can you even prove that Haygood had his radio on
the right channel to hear that message?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2012 9:02 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> This is Hargis getting back to his bike. https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XzajVmekCso/UGyIOF-UugI/AAAAAAAAAPM/ELE8e5_i80I/s647/bond4Crop7.jpg
>

Great. Did you notice black gloves? Who do you think the cop is who is
passing him? Is that cop wearing black gloves?

> This is from the Couch film. The cop in the foreground is identified as
> Haygood. Hargis can be seen beginning to cross the street in the distance,
> from right to left where his bike can be seen.

> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NHfh-Y08w84/UGyIW_CVcqI/AAAAAAAAAPc/_V5b=

> q7iiyTM/s647/couch3bikecops02b.jpg
>

> This is from the Couch film. It presumably shows Haygood with his bike
> down, where he will leave it when he runs up the to the bridge. The film
> does not follow him from the prior frame to here, so it is not impossible
> that this is somebody else, but that makes the most sense.

> https://lh6.googleuserc=tent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAPk/HOTqVZeMPPE/s647/couch3wheeler.jpg
>

Server not found

Are you confirming that you don't have the Couch film or several frames
from it?

> This is Hargis crossing the street back to his bike, just after that first
> Couch frame. Note the white area between his glove and sleeve. This can be seen on several of these Bell frames.
>
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mnl4Z_dHu9E/UGyIcka2uuI/AAAAAAAAAPs/3TvMYLa4G7s/s647/Pdvd_047.jpg
>
> This is what I have been calling the Cancellare photo of the cop on the
> bridge, obviously taken after the Cabluck. There appears to be another
> motorcycle cop standing on the bridge, visible through the concrete railing.
>
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AAkte2ol9FU/UGyIghdpTuI/AAAAAAAAAP0/K5SU7lBdf64/s647/todos+fueron+hacia+el+mont%C3%ADculo+de+hierba.jpg
>

Can you see his black gloves?

> This is the Cabluck photo. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CKZpxgKFrAQ/UGyIlMlHNBI/AAAAAAAAAP8/j6qnRGfY6GQ/s647/Cabluck.jpg
>

You seem to have these two photos reversed in time.

> And this is the Darnell frame which somebody other then myself has tagged the names to. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Sd0GSJbBiCg/UGyIoIWClII/AAAAAAAAAQE/4AMVQMNbJzA/s647/9388~0.jpg
>

<CR><LF> would help. Your source is unreliable.

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks Steve. I wish certain people here had some way to look through
the old messages before guessing.

[John Reagor King]

In article <c482d17e-8852-4d5b...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That Bothun photo is key. It shows Hargis on his way before Haygood gets
> there. That was the one I needed to find. And Hargis wears dhort gloves.
> Haygood wears long gloves.

Are you talking about the photo labeled here as "Bothun Annotated
Motorcycle Identification"?

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=4

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=7

If so, for the one labeled "Haygood," the front of his motorcycle is
barely in frame, and I can't see either of his hands. If that's not the
right one, which of the Bothun photos are you talking about? Could you
give a link to it, please?

And I just noticed something else. I looked at the Cabluck photo again
just now. You've been saying in quite a few articles that he's wearing
black gloves. I just zoomed in on that, and neither of his hands are
visible. His left hand is obviously placed on the wall, but because of
the camera being at a lower elevation, his left hand is not visible. And
his entire right arm and hand are behind his body.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about that being Haygood,
but I do not now understand where you've gotten your claim from that you
can tell what sort of gloves he's wearing in the Cabluck photo, since
neither of his hands are visible in it.

[John Reagor King]

In article <7551db42-d79b-466f...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now you've done it. I am once again entertaining the notion that it is
> actually Hargis in the Cabluck photo.

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

> First, it is absolutely clear from the
> photographic evidence that this cop is the same cop in the Bell film parking
> his bike. No doubt at all about that. Could that be Hargis? If it is, it
> means that he got back on his bike across the street and then rode over there
> to go up to the bridge, when just running straight to the bridge would have
> been quicker. Why would he do that? Maybe he heard something on his radio
> after he got back on his bike that made him decide to do this, or maybe he
> saw something. In Bond5, while Hargis is going back to his bike and looking
> up to that very spot on the bridge the cop does go to, it looks as if he has
> interrupted his stride, as if he had seen something that had changed his
> plans. It's possible he got back on his bike, since he was there already, and
> rode it across the street. It means his testimony and Haygood's have some
> serious lies,

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.

> but it's possible. Why would they change the story like that?

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.

> It would blunt the idea that Hargis had run to the spot where he thought the
> shots had come from,

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?

> and make it easier not to scrutinize with bothersome
> questioning what he saw when he got there.

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?

> If Hargis didn't run up there, you
> can't ask him what he saw at the spot he thought the shots had originated.

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.

> Haygood being the cop means that the questioning can be more vague, and it
> was, considering they didn't even mention the bridge.

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?

> If it had been Hargis,
> they would have to have acknowledged the existence of the bridge in his
> questioning, and that might get messy.

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.

> This might explain why Haygood had to
> be prompted to remember his encounter with the "presumed railroad detective."

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.

> This might also explain why Haygood didn't mention Buddy Walthers who was
> present when he supposedly talked to Tague, and why Walthers didn't mention
> him.

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.

> Tague, the most reliable witness involved here, never knew their names,
> but he knew that they were both there. This would mean that the radio log
> transcript has to incorrectly identify Hargis as Haygood, since it would be
> Hargis calling in.

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?

> Also, the odd literary similarity between two statements
> made, one in each cop's testimony, might also be explained by such a
> re-wroking of the story. It's possible.

You are picking away at the strangest trivialities.

[Dave Yandell]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:35:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Oh, don't worry Tony, we won't. Their English is fine, but the grammar
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > may not be perfect. However we can't expect everyone to talk as "perfect"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > as you think you do, any more than we can expect courtesy, respect,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > kindness and dignity from people who live in Massachusetts.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I don't know where he's from, but somebody here masquerading as "Unknown"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > has a strange notion of respect.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I do not know why my name isn't coming up, but my name is Steve Barber.
>
> >
>
> > I'm not "masquerading". Ever since G mail changed everything (and they
>
> >
>
> > shouldn't have) I have been seeing my postings as "me" in the newsgroup.
>
>
>
> Yes, I think my comment was in error. I assumed you were showing us lack
>
> of respect by hiding the fact that you were a board regular and sniping as
>
> "unknown." Not that I think your actually name is important, I don't know
>
> Steve Barber from CrazyHickDude, but I think it is unethical to use
>
> multiple names.

Not knowing who Steve Barber is, is not reassuring from someone offering
theories about Dallas cops on the overpass shooting guys.

It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory
if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis Steve contributed leading
to the NAS report that led the HSCA to conclude that there were more than
3 shots. Steve's work also continued and contributed to later scientific
re-evaluation of the acoustic evidence. See the following:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/barber.htm

[John Reagor King]

In article <afed9bf2-c53f-4ab9...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is Hargis getting back to his bike.
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XzajVmekCso/UGyIOF-UugI/AAAAAAAAAPM/ELE8e5_
> i80I/s647/bond4Crop7.jpg

That one is coming up.

> This is from the Couch film. The cop in the foreground is identified as
> Haygood. Hargis can be seen beginning to cross the street in the distance,
> from right to left where his bike can be seen.

> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NHfh-Y08w84/UGyIW_CVcqI/AAAAAAAAAPc/_V5bfq7
> iiyTM/s647/couch3bikecops02b.jpg

At this moment I'm getting an error on that one.

> This is from the Couch film. It presumably shows Haygood with his bike
> down, where he will leave it when he runs up the to the bridge. The film
> does not follow him from the prior frame to here, so it is not impossible
> that this is somebody else, but that makes the most sense.

> https://lh6.googleuserc�tent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAPk/HOTqVZeM
> PPE/s647/couch3wheeler.jpg

Got an error on that too. It should be lh6.googleusercontent.com, not
lh6.googleuserc�tent.com as you posted it. Here is the correct URL:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0kmpKNCzczU/UGyIZgzuzAI/AAAAAAAAAPk/HO

TqVZeMPPE/s647/couch3wheeler.jpg

> This is Hargis crossing the street back to his bike, just after that first
> Couch frame. Note the white area between his glove and sleeve. This can be
> seen on several of these Bell frames.
>
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mnl4Z_dHu9E/UGyIcka2uuI/AAAAAAAAAPs/3TvMYLa
> 4G7s/s647/Pdvd_047.jpg

That one comes up.

> This is what I have been calling the Cancellare photo of the cop on the
> bridge, obviously taken after the Cabluck. There appears to be another
> motorcycle cop standing on the bridge, visible through the concrete railing.
>
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AAkte2ol9FU/UGyIghdpTuI/AAAAAAAAAP0/K5SU7lB
> df64/s647/todos+fueron+hacia+el+mont%C3%ADculo+de+hierba.jpg

Ah yes. I hope you see this in time, but please ignore what I said in
an earlier reply about not being able to see the officer's hands in the
Cabluck photo. In this one you certain can see both of them. I'd
forgotten about this, though I've seen it before.

> This is the Cabluck photo.
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CKZpxgKFrAQ/UGyIlMlHNBI/AAAAAAAAAP8/j6qnRGf
> Y6GQ/s647/Cabluck.jpg

Yes.

> And this is the Darnell frame which somebody other then myself has tagged the
> names to.
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Sd0GSJbBiCg/UGyIoIWClII/AAAAAAAAAQE/4AMVQMN
> bJzA/s647/9388~0.jpg

Ok.

I'm still not sure I'm with you on the gloves business though. Both
officers look to me to have on black gloves. Yes, one of them you can
see a gap between the end of the glove and his sleeve, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that he was wearing shorter gloves than the other
officer. That may simply mean that his sleeve was a bit pulled up at
the instant the photo was taken exposing part of his wrist, or that the
glove was bunched a bit at that moment.

[Saintly Oswald]

For whatever reason, my links to the Couch film frames were each corrupted with an "=" character when posted here. The same links posted to the conspiracy group did not suffer this corruption. If you would like to follow the links, you can remove the "=", or you can see the pictures on my profile. It is obvious that I have not arranged them in chronological order. Anybody incapable of determining their chronological order, will never understand what they imply, nor that different people wear different gloves, either, I'm sure.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:49:40 PM UTC-4, Dave Yandell wrote:
> Not knowing who Steve Barber is, is not reassuring from someone offering
theories about Dallas cops on the overpass shooting guys.

Great. You're not reassured. But, did you hear what happened? Somebody shot JFK! Chief Curry and Officer Hargis both thought that shots came from the bridge. There is a photo of a man with a gun standing on that bridge. Aren't you curious to know who he was and what he was doing there?

[Dave Yandell]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:49:40 PM UTC-5, Dave Yandell wrote:
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:18:11 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 4:25:36 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>

I posted

> Not knowing who Steve Barber is, is not reassuring from someone offering
>
> theories about Dallas cops on the overpass shooting guys.
>
>
>
> It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory
>
> if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis Steve contributed leading
>
> to the NAS report that led the HSCA to conclude that there were more than
>
> 3 shots. Steve's work also continued and contributed to later scientific
>
> re-evaluation of the acoustic evidence. See the following:
>
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/barber.htm

The version of this that I sent earlier was garbled and error-ridden. My apologies. I hereby try again.

It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory

if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis that seemed to show additional shots (beyond 3) having been recorded over an open Dallas police microphone thought by the HSCA's panel to have been recorded in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. Although Steve was working initially from a copy of the Dictabelt material given out as a magazine insert, the evidence that the recording was not made at the time of the assassination based on "crosstalk" from other channels (and later further evidence from the ambient sounds that the recording microphone was not located in the position originally believed) that Steve contributed helped lead to the NAS report correcting the major errors of the HSCA's analysis of the acoustic evidence.

Sorry for the incredibly misleading botched edition from earlier. My apologies to Steve, especially.

Best to all,
Dave

[John Reagor King]

In article <506d157a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Minor technicality, but can you even prove that Haygood had his radio on

I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
also refused to admit.

[John Reagor King]

In article <506d1307$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I understand that the scientific evidence proved that 75% of the shots

[Ace Kefford]

I can assume that you have never read a deposition or been deposed or
taken a deposition.

I have.

There is nothing unusual about oral testimony not flowing or "making
sense" like careful written language. Reading a transcript of that oral
testimony, with the pauses, cadences and emphasis omitted, only further
expands the difference.

If those involved with the questioning, the questioner, the deponent, and
if applicable a panel or officer of some type tried to stop the
questioning, repeat points and aim for total clarity, they would (a) take
forever, and (b) be chasing the end of the rainbow. Certainly, testimony
can be taken and given in better ways and some questioning is really
inept, but you can't get anywhere near the perfection the nit-pickers seem
to think is "normal".




On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:47:45 PM UTC-4, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Of related interest may be some of Hargis's testimony. I've already quoted his dingy description of where he thought the shots came from. This comes after:
>
>
>
> Mr. HARGIS. Well, then, I thought since I had looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on, but none of them were looking towards, or near anywhere the shots had been fired from. At the time I didn't know, but about the only activity I could see was on the bridge, on the railroad bridge so---
>
> Mr. Stern.
>
> What sort of activity was that?
>
> Mr. HARGIS. Well, the people that were up there were just trying to get a better look at what was happening and was in a haze and running, or in a confused fashion, and I thought maybe some of them had seen who did the shooting and the rifle.
>
>
>
> Ahem.

[John Reagor King]

In article <879de7cf-e3a9-43d6...@googlegroups.com>,

Dave Yandell <dyan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not knowing who Steve Barber is, is not reassuring from someone offering
> theories about Dallas cops on the overpass shooting guys.
>
> It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory
> if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis Steve contributed leading
> to the NAS report that led the HSCA to conclude that there were more than
> 3 shots.

Hmm, that sentence, as written, is a bit misleading, because it makes it
seem as if Steve contributed to the HSCA coming to the conclusion that
there were more than three shots. Steve actually did not go public with
his discovery until after the HSCA had already disbanded. I would state
it something like this:

It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory

if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis by Aschkenasy and Weiss
which concluded that there were four shots fired, including one from the
grassy knoll. Steve contributed a discovery leading to the NAS report
that refuted the original findings of Aschkenasy and Weiss.

[John Reagor King]

In article <af7b6bfa-a98a-4b12...@googlegroups.com>,

Dave Yandell <dyan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The version of this that I sent earlier was garbled and error-ridden. My
> apologies. I hereby try again.
>
> It is arguable that the HSCA would have confirmed the lone assassin theory
> if it weren't for the Dictabelt audio analysis that seemed to show additional
> shots (beyond 3) having been recorded over an open Dallas police microphone
> thought by the HSCA's panel to have been recorded in Dealey Plaza at the time
> of the assassination. Although Steve was working initially from a copy of the
> Dictabelt material given out as a magazine insert, the evidence that the
> recording was not made at the time of the assassination based on "crosstalk"
> from other channels (and later further evidence from the ambient sounds that
> the recording microphone was not located in the position originally believed)
> that Steve contributed helped lead to the NAS report correcting the major
> errors of the HSCA's analysis of the acoustic evidence.
>
> Sorry for the incredibly misleading botched edition from earlier. My
> apologies to Steve, especially.
>
> Best to all,
> Dave

Yes, that's better. ;-) And I'm sorry, I should have read this one
before I replied to the other one.

[John Reagor King]

In article <177edbcf-734a-4864...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:49:40 PM UTC-4, Dave Yandell wrote:
> > Not knowing who Steve Barber is, is not reassuring from someone offering
> theories about Dallas cops on the overpass shooting guys.
>
> Great. You're not reassured. But, did you hear what happened? Somebody shot
> JFK!

Yes, we already knew that, thanks.

> Chief Curry and Officer Hargis both thought that shots came from the
> bridge.

Why do you keep saying it that way, as if they thought only some of the
shots came from the bridge, instead of specifically admitting that
Hargis in particular initially thought that ALL of the shots came from
the bridge?

> There is a photo of a man with a gun standing on that bridge.

No, there is a photo of man who you *think*, in your *opinion*, has a
gun. I wish you'd stop stating that as if it is simply proven fact,
which it obviously isn't.

> Aren't
> you curious to know who he was and what he was doing there?

What a strange question. He was simply telling you more about Steve
Barber. That doesn't automatically mean that he is or isn't interested
in that man on the bridge; what he said in fact indicates nothing either
way.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, more than arguable. The first HSCSA was shut down because they were
looking for conspiracy. They were shut down and the second HSCA was formed
to rubberstamp the WC. Then they found the DPD tape and the scientist
found a fourth shot on it. If they were really clever they could have
argued their way out of it, but they realized it meant conspiracy. They
asked the DOJ to do more analysis of the tape, but the DOJ refused because
they considered the case closed. Please learn what <CR><LF> means.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean the cop? Is this the new theory Du Jour, that a cop who
wasn't on the bridge during the shooting shot from the bridge during the
shooting? That's the only way to get your shot through the windshield.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/5/2012 10:36 AM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> For whatever reason, my links to the Couch film frames were each corrupted with an "=" character when posted here. The same links posted to the conspiracy group did not suffer this corruption. If you would like to follow the links, you can remove the "=", or you can see the pictures on my profile. It is obvious that I have not arranged them in chronological order. Anybody incapable of determining their chronological order, will never understand what they imply, nor that different people wear different gloves, either, I'm sure.
>

Maybe because you don't know how to post properly.
Try adding a carriage return every now and then.
So is your theory now that Haygood was wearing Hargis's black gloves?
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

You think it is "nit-picking" to expect that Haygood should have been
asked who the guy with the gun on the bridge was? Or that he should have
just volunteered the information? Or that he should have said or have been
asked why he "presumed" a man to be a railroad detective? Did this
detective have a gun? Is that why he was presumed to be a detective? There
was a crime that day, you know, involving guns.

[Anthony Marsh]

You have things backwards. The HSCA did confirm the conspiracy because of
the acoustical evidence and Steve Barber did not tell them they were
wrong. Can you upload the letter you claim that Steve Barber wrote to the
HSCA pointing out their errors?

Steve Barber did not create the NAS panel. He contributed to it. They
already had a mandate from the DOJ to invalidate the acoustical evidence
by whatever means necessary. Their method did not alone rely on Steve
Barber's work. It relied on their lying about the synchronizing of channel
one with channel two.

Steve Barber did not find shots on the tape AFTER the assassination.

Steve Barber did not even buy the Gallery record until August 1979. He
writes:

"In August 1979, I was leaving Ohio for a week's vacation in Dallas,
Texas. I was going to meet assassination eyewitness Charles Brehm. The day
I was leaving Ohio, the Gallery magazine featuring the infamous "paper
record" hit the news stands. I rushed out and bought a copy. J. W. Burke
-- then publisher of The Grassy Knoll Gazette -- briefly mentioned in the
May 1979 edition that this particular issue of Gallery was going to
feature a recording of the Dallas police radio frequency, with the
"stuck-open microphone sequence." I was thrilled to hear this!

Not long after I returned from Dallas, I began listening to the recording.
Contrary to popular opinion, I was not convinced there were gunshots
recorded on it, because I could not hear any. But I accepted the word of
the computers and the experts who ran them."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/4/2012 11:46 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <c482d17e-8852-4d5b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That Bothun photo is key. It shows Hargis on his way before Haygood gets
>> there. That was the one I needed to find. And Hargis wears dhort gloves.
>> Haygood wears long gloves.
>
> Are you talking about the photo labeled here as "Bothun Annotated
> Motorcycle Identification"?
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=4
>

Do you mean this photo?

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=2103&fullsize=1

> http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=7
>

You have to click on it to get the fullsize picture. Even that is not as
large as other versions found elsewhere.
I am not sure that the resolution is not high enough for you to be able
to see that Hargis is wearing black gloves.
Does fatoldcreep think that all cops wore black gloves that day?

[Anthony Marsh]

"Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."

[Anthony Marsh]

[John Reagor King]

In article <506f4563$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Do you mean this photo?

I've already told you I'm not going to take anything else you say
seriously unless you admit that you made a mistake when you said this:

**********

I am pointing out the incongruity of your ever changing frames. You have
JFK"s fists up by Z-225 and then the bullet hitting Connally at Z-226.
You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c63bbb87a1a1dc9
?dmode=source

**********

Now here's what I really said:

**********

Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1f66ddfa97e3bde
8?dmode=source

**********

Nothing there about JFK already having his fists up by Z225, eh Anthony?
And nowhere there did I say Connally was hit by the bullet at Z226.
Instead I said that both men begin to react at Z226.

You gonna admit you were wrong now?

[John Reagor King]

In article <506f7c1d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/5/2012 4:20 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506d157a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Minor technicality, but can you even prove that Haygood had his radio on
> >
> > I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
> > that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
> > obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
> > probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
> > also refused to admit.
>
> "Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."

And as you so often do, you act like I was talking about something
different there from what I was actually talking about. Was I giving
those frames for JFK already having his fists up? No. What was the
sentence right before that, Anthony? Oh that's right, you "conveniently"
didn't quote that, did you? What was the sentence right after that? Oh
yeah, you "conveniently" didn't quote that either. Let's all look,
everybody, at what Anthony is leaving out here:

**********

Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1f66ddfa97e3bde

8?dmode=source&output=gplain

**********

I gave Z226 for the beginning of the reactions of both men. Nowhere
there did I say JFK already had his fists up by Z225. And nowhere there
did I say Connally was hit by a bullet at Z226.

So when are you ever, ever, ever going to admit you made an obvious
mistake about this, Anthony?

[John Reagor King]

In article <506f7c09$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/5/2012 4:20 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506d1307$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that the scientific evidence proved that 75% of the shots
> >
> > I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
> > that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
> > obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
> > probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
> > also refused to admit.
>
> "Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."

Lol! You're going to do this this many times and think you can get away
with it? Post that single sentence out of context as many times as you
please, and I'll just post the full context every time. And where in that
sentence did I say that Z225 was where JFK already had his fists up? Oh
that's right, nowhere. Where in that sentence do I say that Z226 is where
Connally was hit by a bullet? Oh that's right, nowhere. You didn't even
quote a sentence of mine that says what you falsely claim I said, lol.

Ok everybody, here's what Anthony is leaving out. He "conveniently"
didn't quote the sentence before it and the sentence after it:

**********

Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1f66ddfa97e3bde
8?dmode=source

**********

Sorry, don't see anywhere there anything about when JFK had his fists up.
Certainly nothing there about him having his fists up by Z225. Also
nothing there about Connally being hit by a bullet at Z226. I said that's
when they both begin to react.

Watch everybody, Anthony will still never, ever, ever admit he made a
mistake about this.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

One might logically conclude, that since the chief of police, and the
motorcycle cop riding behind Jackie both thought that the shots came from
the bridge, that they might have been right about that, and that the
bridge, perhaps, should have been mentioned by the Warren Commission to
the police officer who first went up on the bridge, and who looked at a
man standing there with a rifle. But I guess they didn't think that was
important enough to talk about.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/6/2012 10:09 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <506f7c09$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2012 4:20 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <506d1307$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I understand that the scientific evidence proved that 75% of the shots
>>>
>>> I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
>>> that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
>>> obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
>>> probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
>>> also refused to admit.
>>
>> "Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."
>
> Lol! You're going to do this this many times and think you can get away
> with it? Post that single sentence out of context as many times as you

You're going to simply repeat exactly the same message hundreds of times
and think you can get away with your SPAM?

> please, and I'll just post the full context every time. And where in that
> sentence did I say that Z225 was where JFK already had his fists up? Oh
> that's right, nowhere. Where in that sentence do I say that Z226 is where
> Connally was hit by a bullet? Oh that's right, nowhere. You didn't even
> quote a sentence of mine that says what you falsely claim I said, lol.
>
> Ok everybody, here's what Anthony is leaving out. He "conveniently"
> didn't quote the sentence before it and the sentence after it:
>
> **********
>
> Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
> violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
> beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
> for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
> anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
> clearly begins no later than Z226.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1f66ddfa97e3bde
> 8?dmode=source
>
> **********
>
> Sorry, don't see anywhere there anything about when JFK had his fists up.
> Certainly nothing there about him having his fists up by Z225. Also
> nothing there about Connally being hit by a bullet at Z226. I said that's
> when they both begin to react.
>
> Watch everybody, Anthony will still never, ever, ever admit he made a
> mistake about this.
>

What King leaves out that he has never been brave enough to say when thee
SBT frame happened. Let's see if he'll pick a frame after he sees the
reactions in Z-226. He's already rejected Lattimer's Z-224. And he won't
buy by suggestion of Z-221. So there are not too many frames left. So he's
stuck with something after Z-224, but before Z-226, but he doesn't know
that Z-225 is between Z-224 and Z-226.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

I mean, if I wanted to find out what happened, I would have asked Haygood who the guy with the gun on the bridge was. It seems to me that might be a relevant question. He is looking right at him in the Cabluck photo. Who was he, Officer Haygood? Did you bother to ask him why he had a rifle with him? Or if he saw who shot JFK? He must have. He was standing right where somebody did shoot JFK. I suppose maybe he was cleaning his gun and didn't see who shot JFK. You know how carried away you can get with cleaning your gun. The whole world just seems to disappear and you don't see or hear a thing but your sweet little rifle, right there on the bridge while the presidential limousine idles below. It's perfectly understandable, I suppose, that this guy wouldn't have noticed anybody right next to him blasting away at JFK. Even a presumed railroad detective might miss that. But, it would have been nice to ask him, just the same.

[John Reagor King]

In article <6e14207d-f227-409e...@googlegroups.com>,

As I believe I've reminded you several times, and which is an issue I'm
exploring here more than ever before in another current thread, the vast
majority of the witnesses who thought shots came from the bridge thought
ALL the shots came from the bridge. Same thing with any other location
ever named by the witnesses. The vast majority of the witnesses who
thought shots came from the knoll thought ALL the shots came from the
knoll. The vast majority of the witnesses who thought shots came from
the Depository thought ALL the shots came from the Depository. This was
obviously simply tricks of acoustics. Witness A is standing in one
place, and thinks all the shots sound as if they came from the TSBD.
Witness B, standing in another place, thinks all the shots are coming
from the knoll. Witness C in another location thinks all the shots are
coming from the Triple Underpass. All three witnesses are obviously
hearing shots being fired from the same rifle, but due to the acoustic
patterns of Dealey Plaza, different witnesses in different locations
would perceive the direction of the sounds of those shots differently.

To work out where the single rifle was was hardly difficult for the
Commission. There was only one location given by the witnesses for
actually *seeing* a man with a rifle, with some of them even seeing the
rifle fire at least one shot: the TSBD. That's also where a rifle was
found. In addition, since the majority of the witnesses said they heard
three shots, there were three shells found in the TSBD, the same number
as the number of shots.

There were *no* witness statements of seeing a man on the Triple
Underpass with a rifle, and certainly none of seeing a rifle pointed at
the motorcade and seeing it *fire* at the motorcade. There were instead
witness statements which contradicted that. Hargis said he saw nothing
suspicious on the bridge. But the Commission *also* had the statements
of S.M. Holland. He was standing *on* the bridge. He never said
anything at all about a man standing near him firing down at the
motorcade. Instead he said that at least one shot was fired from
somewhere behind the picket fence, and also said he saw smoke come out
from there right after he heard the shot. He is also one of the
extremely few witnesses who said shots came from multiple directions, as
he later told Mark Lane that except for the shot he thought had come
from behind the fence, the other shots had come from somewhere more
distant, and in the film with Lane he waved his hand toward the
intersection of Elm and Houston. I have been waiting and waiting and
waiting for someone, anyone to quote him in that other thread as I've
known about him for years, but so far no one has.

But I brought up Holland to you twice in the thread "No bank stamped the
back of the money order for the rifle" in two different articles on
September 30 and in your replies you did not even mention that I had
brought him up, much less address what I said about him. Another poster
brought him up too and you still didn't address that either.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5070...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

What Anthony leaves out is that the issue isn't the frame when the shot
hit. The issue is Anthony falsely claiming that I ever said that JFK's
fists were already up by Z225, which is something that I've never said.
And we can all see that Anthony still isn't brave enough to simply admit
he made an obvious mistake. So that raises the question of how many
*other* mistakes he has *also* made about the JFK assassination which he
*also* refuses to admit, no matter how obvious they are.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

Dear Dave,

I am afraid you have it rather confused ( or maybe I am mis-sreading
your post). I did not aid the HSCA in any way with the magazine insert nor
did I aid the HSCA in any way, shape or from. By the time the record from
which I discovered the crosstalk was available, the HSCA had already ended
their investigation, having concluded that there was a conspiracy, based
primarily on the Dallas police recording. In Sept. 1980, I discovered the
crosstalk on the recording that you refer to, which was, as some have
called it "the silver bullet" in disproving the conclusions reached by the
HSCA's acoustical team BBN & Weiss and Aschkenasy. The Committee on
Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), better known as the "NAS Panel" or the "Ramsey
panel" was whom I helped.