Hunt a Tramp?
John McAdams
CHO...@UMUC.UMD.EDU (Eric Chomko) writes:
>I'm currently reading Groeden's book, Killing of a President. He mentions
>a possible JFK assination, Watergate link.
>
>I guess the common thread is E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis as they
>were the "plumbers" in various breakins occurring during the Nixon
>administration.
>
>These two were thought to be the bums from the trainyard near Dealy Plaza
>on Nov. 22, 1963.
>Hunt tryed to sue for a million bucks but could not prove he was in
>Washington DC that day.
>Does anybody know the latest with these two?
The HSCA Photographic evidence panel closely reviewed the tramp
photos, and concluded that neither Sturgis nor Hunt was a tramp.
See their Volume 6, pp. 257-273.
Then there is the fact that two Texas researchers named La Fontaine
have uncovered the arrest records of the tramps.
Below I'm posting an edited version of the article they wrote for the
Houston Post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article appeared in the Sunday, February 9, 1992 edition
of the Houston Post (Houston, Texas).
First Look at Dallas' JFK Files
-----------------
Evidence on Oswald Photo, Arrested 'Bums'
-----------------
By Ray La Fontaine and Mary La Fontaine
Special to the Houston Post
-----------------
DALLAS - Recently released documents from Dallas Police Department files
on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy will add fuel to one
argument favored by conspiracy buffs and raise new questions on another.
Lodged within the 18 legal-size standing file folders in the
city's archives are several photos of accused presidential killer Lee
Harvey Oswald and police arrest forms for three men who until now were
nameless and identified only as "bums" or "tramps" who were picked up
following the shooting of Kennedy and then-Texas Gov. John Connally.
One photo of Oswald's back yard in the Oak Cliff section of
Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation of a type long
associated by some photo analysts with attempts to frame Oswald by
"inserting" him into the background.
Whether the manipulation was done by conspirators or by police
personnel seeking to duplicate the process has not been determined.
Copies of the print, which ostensibly dates to 1963 and is part of the
collection administered by Dallas city archivist Cindy Smolovik, have
not yet been made available for publication.
The purported arrest records housed in the files -- recently
ordered opened by the Dallas City Council -- reveal for the first time
the stated names of three enigmatic "tramps" arrested within minutes
of the Nov. 22, 1963 shooting of Kennedy and Connally as they rode in
a motorcade through Dealy Plaza shortly before noon.
At the time of their arrests -- because of their efforts to
reach boxcars in the rail yard behind the plaza -- the three were
suspects in the assassination.
Until now, no arrest records were believed kept -- a frequent
criticism leveled at Dallas police by assassination conspiracy
researchers and widely repeated in the media, including a recent cover
story in Newsweek magazine.
...
There have been many unanswered questions concerning the three
men -- one apparently in his 50s, the others in their early 30s --
arrested within minutes of the shooting in Dealy Plaza.
Though allegedly vagrants pulled from boxcars, the men were
noted in photographs to sport fresh haircuts and suspiciously good shoes.
The supposed lack of official arrest documentation -- including the
failure to even retain their names and their immediate release and
disappearance -- has raised the greatest consternation among conspiracy
researchers.
The archival files show records were indeed apparently kept on
the three. They list their names as Gus W. Abrams, 53, Harold Doyle,
32, and John Forrester Gedney, 38. Left empty on arrest forms, however,
are spaces for an arrest number, ID number and right thumbprint.
The reports, filed by officer W. E. Chambers, are dated Nov. 22,
1963, at 4 p.m. They list charges against the three as vagrancy and
robbery.
"These men were taken off a train boxcar in the rail yards right
after President Kennedy as shot," Chambers writes on Abrams' arrest
description. Descriptions on the two other reports are similar.
The reports indicate the men were not released immediately, as
previously believed, but four days later.
The files appear to dispute the claims of Chauncey Holt, an
admitted felon from San Diego, Calif., who -- among others -- has
confessed to being one of the tramps.
In Holt's account, the three men were not arrested, but "escorted"
out of Dealy Plaza and released.
Previously available records show the tramps were taken by
Dallas County Sheriff's Deputy Harold Elkins to Dallas Police Capt. Will
Fritz. There the trail ended.
-------------------------------------
N.R.Harrison
>In article <2jbieg$k...@nova.umd.edu>,
>CHO...@UMUC.UMD.EDU (Eric Chomko) writes:
>
>>I'm currently reading Groeden's book, Killing of a President. He mentions
>>a possible JFK assination, Watergate link.
>>
>
[deletia]
>The HSCA Photographic evidence panel closely reviewed the tramp
>photos, and concluded that neither Sturgis nor Hunt was a tramp.
>
>See their Volume 6, pp. 257-273.
>
>Then there is the fact that two Texas researchers named La Fontaine
>have uncovered the arrest records of the tramps.
>
[deletia]
Two points, John.
1) I'm afraid that the government deciding whether three people are government
agents just doesn't wash. If you enter the discussion by distrusting offical
information, then quoting the HSCA doesn't actually change anyone's mind. I
wish I could read the HSCA report, but it's rather hard to come by over here
in Britain. It would be really cool if you could outline the HSCA argument
for me.
2) The fact that the tramps arrest is on record is irrelevant. The article you
quoted states that vital pieces of information (ID number and arrest number)
were missing from the files. Also, it would be very simple for CIA agents to
pass as vagrants (both Sturgis and Hunt used aliases). Has anybody checked
the fingerprints against Hunt or Sturgis? Has anybody managed to track down
the tramps? I know that if the tramps were CIA, it implicates the Dallas
Police in the cover-up, but let's keep an open mind.
Neil...
Pete MacKinnon
Gee, John this is mighty sportin' of ya! This article seems to raise more
questions about the arrest of the hobos than it answers (just as it said).
1) No fingerprints, arrest number, ID number?
2) A doctored LHO photo?
BTW, care to tell us what details were in the section of the article
deleted?
Pete MacKinnon
BNR Ottawa
#include standard.disclaimer
"Strictly my opinions alone."
John McAdams
pet...@bnr.ca (Pete MacKinnon) writes:
OK, more Conspiracy Speak.
Is Conspiracy Speak, any discrepency "raises questions." And if
enough "questions" can be raised, then there must be a conspiracy.
Of course, when researchers like the La Fontaines actually come up
with an *answer* to a question, the answer is scoffed at by
conspiratorialists. Having answers is no fun, only "questions" are
fun.
>BTW, care to tell us what details were in the section of the article
>deleted?
>
I deleted the details of the "doctored LHO photo." Apparently, the
Dallas Police were out in the back yard of the Neeley Street apartment
trying to see if it really was possible to fake the Oswald backyard
photo.
By the time they were doing this, the real photos were long gone to
DC.
Look, if you want to believe badly enough that Hunt and Sturgis were
two of the tramps, I guess nothing anybody says is going to influence
you.
.John
Pete MacKinnon
(John McAdams) wrote:
[Cut to the chase...]
> >Gee, John this is mighty sportin' of ya! This article seems to raise more
> >questions about the arrest of the hobos than it answers (just as it said).
> >
> >1) No fingerprints, arrest number, ID number?
> >2) A doctored LHO photo?
> >
>
> OK, more Conspiracy Speak.
>
> Is Conspiracy Speak, any discrepency "raises questions." And if
> enough "questions" can be raised, then there must be a conspiracy.
>
> Of course, when researchers like the La Fontaines actually come up
> with an *answer* to a question, the answer is scoffed at by
> conspiratorialists. Having answers is no fun, only "questions" are
> fun.
>
Sorry, but I don't recall seeing an *answer* in the article about the
missing details of the arrest records.
>
> >BTW, care to tell us what details were in the section of the article
> >deleted?
> >
>
> I deleted the details of the "doctored LHO photo." Apparently, the
> Dallas Police were out in the back yard of the Neeley Street apartment
> trying to see if it really was possible to fake the Oswald backyard
> photo.
>
When? Did the DPD conduct its own official investigation into the guilt or
innocence of LHO? This statement suggests that the DPD undertook this well
after the assassination when the validity of the photos were being publicly
questioned. When was that Life cover photo published...1964,1966?
> By the time they were doing this, the real photos were long gone to
> DC.
>
> Look, if you want to believe badly enough that Hunt and Sturgis were
> two of the tramps, I guess nothing anybody says is going to influence
> you.
>
> .John
It has nothing to do with whether these men were Hunt and Sturgis (may he
RIP). I wouldn't care if it was Larry, Curly and Moe...I do care that if it
was them, why Larry, Curly and Moe were in Dealey Plaza at the time of the
assassination.
I think people are curious in who these men were - hobos with new shoes and
haircuts. I know that you have listed the "given" names of the hobos...have
the La Fontaines run these names down? Have they located the whereabouts of
these men?
Mark Singer
>of the Houston Post (Houston, Texas).
This story was sold to "A Current Affair" (broadcast 2/25). The LaFontaines
are regular producers for that show as well as "Hard Copy". The story
was turned down by 60 Minutes, among others.
[Just a note, John. Nothing sinister. Thought I'd further clarify
the source.]
> Lodged within the 18 legal-size standing file folders in the
>city's archives are several photos of accused presidential killer Lee
>Harvey Oswald and police arrest forms for three men who until now were
>nameless and identified only as "bums" or "tramps" who were picked up
>following the shooting of Kennedy and then-Texas Gov. John Connally.
I'll have to find the exact number, but there were about a dozen
"tramps" or "hoboes" picked up that day. At least two others were
picked up in the RR yards following the assassination.
Following the ACA broadcast, the New York Daily News reported on
Gedney and Doyle.
"they said they were at a mission the day of the assassination,
'had gotten some food and had gotten cleaned up and were
wandering back toward the railroad yard' when they were
arrested, said Oliver Revell, head of the Dallas FBI office."
In the ACA report, Kay Lyon is quoted as a former neighbor of Doyle.
"Well, he told me he was in jail for two or three days, and
during that time he had been fingerprinted and questioned.
He showed me a photograph of him when he was arrested after
they got off the train and you know he was not proud of it
but he didn't mind showing it to anybody."
Apparently, he did. The photo was not broadcast by ACA, and a follow-up
investigation was unable to see it. Perhaps it no longer exists.
Note his claim (albeit through hearsay) that he was fingerprinted.
Doyle, himself, on the ACA broadcast:
"...We was booked and I went in front of the Judge and
got six days for vagrancy and turned loose. That morning
we went over to the railroad yards. We was going to Fort
Worth and i seen a guy in the railroad...before we went
to the railroad yards, sirens and everything was going on
and all and we asked somebody what happened and they said
the Presidents been shot. Then all at once someone said,
'Don't make a move.' We looked up the end we were siting
in and the far end down the side be were surrounded by
policemen with guns drawn and they said, 'Don't make a move.'
Because the got us out of the boxcar and took us through the
park...all the people was a hollering, was going on and the
sirens were going and people were taking pictures of us
and people were hollering, 'Are they the ones that done it?'
...they took us into the jail. They took us up and interrogated
us. Kept us till they caught Oswald. He was right across the
desk from us and the man that was with us said, 'You boys
are sure lucky. You see the guy that killed the President
in person.'"
There is no record of Doyle being booked. The DPD says they just
"threw him in the cooler" for a few days. Had he been booked, he
would have been fingerprinted, as he claims he was.
Doyle claims that sirens were blaring *before* he entered the RR yard,
which is consistent with the FBI statement cited above.
Doyle claims he was in Oswald's proximity and actually saw him.
While there is no way to refute that, it is inconsistent with the
timing reported. He would have already been in custody at the
Sherriff's department (county jail) where the "tramps" were taken
following their arrest. They were transferred to the city facility
in time for the arrest record to reflect the time of 4pm. Why on
earth they would have been allowed into the proximity of LHO during
that period is beyond me.
Doyle says he went before a judge and was held for six days. He
saw no judge, and was released in four.
Doyle says he was taken from a boxcar; arresting officers Vaughn
and Harkness say the "three tramps" they marched across Dealey were
taken from a gondola car. Harkness is also on record as denying
these three men were the ones he helped to arrest and march through
Dealey because the three tramps he arrested were all released immediately.
Doyle, upon being shown photos of the "three tramps", claims he
was the forwardmost "tramp". Doyle was eight years younger than
Gedney. While it is impossible to determine age from a photo,
one should consider the age difference reflected by Doyle's
statement as compared to what the photos show. If anything,
the second tramp does not look eight years older than the first
one.
Finally, Doyle doesn't look anything like the first tramp shown.
See for yourself.
> Until now, no arrest records were believed kept -- a frequent
>criticism leveled at Dallas police by assassination conspiracy
>researchers and widely repeated in the media, including a recent cover
>story in Newsweek magazine.
There is no record of these men in any of the docket books in any
of the Dallas courts that day. No jailhouse records. Only these
grossly incomplete arrest records. More on that.
> The archival files show records were indeed apparently kept on
>the three. They list their names as Gus W. Abrams, 53, Harold Doyle,
>32, and John Forrester Gedney, 38. Left empty on arrest forms, however,
>are spaces for an arrest number, ID number and right thumbprint.
>
> The reports, filed by officer W. E. Chambers, are dated Nov. 22,
>1963, at 4 p.m. They list charges against the three as vagrancy and
>robbery.
W.E. Chambers, following the ACA broadcast:
"You mean all that stuff on the news? They got that wrong.
My name is on the document but it is wrong. I never questioned
them. I might have seen them. I don't remember. I signed the
reports but there was some mistake."
Chambers has refused all comment since that interview.
All three arrest records show that the men were released November
26 at 9:25am by DPD Officer Ernest Beck. Following the ACA broadcast
Officer [retired] Beck stated that he cannot remember anything of this
event.
> "These men were taken off a train boxcar in the rail yards right
>after President Kennedy as shot," Chambers writes on Abrams' arrest
>description. Descriptions on the two other reports are similar.
Yet the arrest records reflect the time of 4pm. And DPD Officer
D.V. Harkness is on record as being part of the arrest team of the
three tramps who were photographed going through Dealey Plaza, yet
his first performed duty following the assassination was to help
seal the TSBD.
I don't doubt that Doyle and his friends were arrested as indicated
by the report. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Doyle
is one of the infamous three tramps in the photo. The details
cited above and the "official" records are, of course, not definitive,
though they do indicate significant disparities between Doyle's story
and what is known of the tramps. Also Doyle's memory is questionable.
But we have photos.
See for yourself. The information I have posted is from _Coup D'Etat
In America_, Weberman & Canfield, republished 1992 by Quick Trading
Company. It contains copies of the arrest reports, detailed photo
analyses, and a current photo of Mr. Doyle.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Mark Singer
>Is Conspiracy Speak, any discrepency "raises questions." And if
>enough "questions" can be raised, then there must be a conspiracy.
>
>Of course, when researchers like the La Fontaines actually come up
>with an *answer* to a question, the answer is scoffed at by
>conspiratorialists. Having answers is no fun, only "questions" are
>fun.
I'm not "scoffing" at it, I'm refuting it. Having answers may be
"fun" in your world, getting the truth is what counts in mine.
Why do you accept the LaFontaines' work as credible? Have you studied
it? Researched it? Do you have a copy of the broadcast? Are you
familiar with their background?
Getting answers means *NOTHING*. Getting the truth is what it is all about.
>Look, if you want to believe badly enough that Hunt and Sturgis were
>two of the tramps, I guess nothing anybody says is going to influence
>you.
And if you want to believe badly enought that they weren't, same thing.
Only in this case, *you* also fail to review the physical evidence
that is so readily available. You'd rather rely on a government
report, and a tabloid piece of "journalism".
You can rely on the HSCA if you like. Again, readers. You can see
the photos for yourselves. You can view photos of Hunt and Sturgis
and compare them with the most comprehensive compilation of tramp
photos available to the general public. McAdams hasn't done this.
Weberman & Canfield, _Coup D'Etat in America_, Quick Trading, 1992.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
John McAdams
n...@ukc.ac.uk (N.R.Harrison) writes:
>
>>The HSCA Photographic evidence panel closely reviewed the tramp
>>photos, and concluded that neither Sturgis nor Hunt was a tramp.
>>
>>See their Volume 6, pp. 257-273.
>>
>>Then there is the fact that two Texas researchers named La Fontaine
>>have uncovered the arrest records of the tramps.
>>
>
>[deletia]
>
>Two points, John.
>
>1) I'm afraid that the government deciding whether three people are government
>agents just doesn't wash. If you enter the discussion by distrusting offical
>information, then quoting the HSCA doesn't actually change anyone's mind.
The problem I have with this argument is that it assumes a monolithic
entity called "the government." I don't think that's really true
where you are, and I know it's not true here in the U.S. of A.
The HSCA was Congress, not the Executive Branch. Not that the
Executive Branch is monolithic itself. The HSCA was set up in
response to the belief of a lot of House members that there *was* a
conspiracy. Indeed, they ended up claiming this. But they debunked a
lot of silly claims along the way.
>I
>wish I could read the HSCA report, but it's rather hard to come by over here
>in Britain. It would be really cool if you could outline the HSCA argument
>for me.
>
I'll post the HSAC analysis as soon as I get a chance to type it in.
It's basically the work of forensic anthropologists who assembled a
complete a set of tramp pictures as they could find, and a complete a
set of Hunt pictures as they could find.
The conspiracy way of handling this sort of situation is to dig
through all the Hunt pictures, find one that looks like one of the
tramp pictures, and say "See, it's Hunt!"
The forensic anthropologists handled it differently.
>2) The fact that the tramps arrest is on record is irrelevant. The article you
>quoted states that vital pieces of information (ID number and arrest number)
>were missing from the files. Also, it would be very simple for CIA agents to
>pass as vagrants (both Sturgis and Hunt used aliases). Has anybody checked
>the fingerprints against Hunt or Sturgis? Has anybody managed to track down
>the tramps? I know that if the tramps were CIA, it implicates the Dallas
>Police in the cover-up, but let's keep an open mind.
>
The tabloid TV show A CURRENT AFFAIR tracked one down. I frankly
haven't seen the show, but I'm getting a video of it. One of them
appeared on it.
If you really believe the Dallas Police were in on the conspiracy, how
many people total does that come to, in your scenario?
.John
John McAdams
pet...@bnr.ca (Pete MacKinnon) writes:
>[Cut to the chase...]
>> >Gee, John this is mighty sportin' of ya! This article seems to raise more
>> >questions about the arrest of the hobos than it answers (just as it said).
>> >
>> >1) No fingerprints, arrest number, ID number?
>> >2) A doctored LHO photo?
>> >
>>
>> OK, more Conspiracy Speak.
>>
>> Is Conspiracy Speak, any discrepency "raises questions." And if
>> enough "questions" can be raised, then there must be a conspiracy.
>>
>> Of course, when researchers like the La Fontaines actually come up
>> with an *answer* to a question, the answer is scoffed at by
>> conspiratorialists. Having answers is no fun, only "questions" are
>> fun.
>>
>
>Sorry, but I don't recall seeing an *answer* in the article about the
>missing details of the arrest records.
>
I'm not sure any answer is ever going to be forthcoming about the
missing details. If you insist on believing in a conspiracy until
every screwup or official oversight is explained fully, you're certain
to always believe in a conspiracy.
>>
>> >BTW, care to tell us what details were in the section of the article
>> >deleted?
>> >
>>
>> I deleted the details of the "doctored LHO photo." Apparently, the
>> Dallas Police were out in the back yard of the Neeley Street apartment
>> trying to see if it really was possible to fake the Oswald backyard
>> photo.
>>
>
>When? Did the DPD conduct its own official investigation into the guilt or
>innocence of LHO? This statement suggests that the DPD undertook this well
>after the assassination when the validity of the photos were being publicly
>questioned. When was that Life cover photo published...1964,1966?
>
Oswald, remember, said the photos were faked.
Apparently the Dallas cops, a few days after the assassination, were
trying to see if they could fake them.
Again, the real photos were long gone to Washington, and the only
plausible scenario I can figure out is that the Dallas cops wanted to
see whether it was indeed possible to fake photos like these.
>> By the time they were doing this, the real photos were long gone to
>> DC.
>>
>> Look, if you want to believe badly enough that Hunt and Sturgis were
>> two of the tramps, I guess nothing anybody says is going to influence
>> you.
>>
>>
>
>It has nothing to do with whether these men were Hunt and Sturgis (may he
>RIP). I wouldn't care if it was Larry, Curly and Moe...I do care that if it
>was them, why Larry, Curly and Moe were in Dealey Plaza at the time of the
>assassination.
>I think people are curious in who these men were - hobos with new shoes and
>haircuts. I know that you have listed the "given" names of the hobos...have
>the La Fontaines run these names down? Have they located the whereabouts of
>these men?
>
Where did you get the "new shoes and haircuts" bit?
All three men are shabbily dressed, befitting their apparent status
as vagrants. Tramp A, however, is the better attired, wearing
well-fitting jeans and a tweed-like sport jacket, although this,
judged by 1963 styles, was several years out of date. Tramp B is
wearing ill-fitting slacks and a double-breasted suit coat. Tramp
C, from his battered fedora to his worn-out shoes, has managed to
achieve a sartorial effect similar to what one would expect had he
been fired from a cannon through a Salvation Army thrift shop.
While such clothing might be a disguise, their footwear seems
consistent with their classification as vagrants. All three men
are shod in worn, low-cut oxfords that appear to be leather-soled.
Tramp C's shoes seem to be several sizes too large for him. (HSCA,
vol. VI, p. 259)
One of the tramps was interviewed on A CURRENT AFFAIR.
.John
Brent Buckner
> In article <50...@raven.ukc.ac.uk>,
> n...@ukc.ac.uk (N.R.Harrison) writes:
[various points of discussion deleted]
> >2) The fact that the tramps arrest is on record is irrelevant. The article
> >quoted states that vital pieces of information (ID number and arrest number)
> >were missing from the files. Also, it would be very simple for CIA agents t
> >pass as vagrants (both Sturgis and Hunt used aliases). Has anybody checked
> >the fingerprints against Hunt or Sturgis? Has anybody managed to track down
> >the tramps? I know that if the tramps were CIA, it implicates the Dallas
> >Police in the cover-up, but let's keep an open mind.
>
> The tabloid TV show A CURRENT AFFAIR tracked one down. I frankly
> haven't seen the show, but I'm getting a video of it. One of them
> appeared on it.
>
> If you really believe the Dallas Police were in on the conspiracy, how
> many people total does that come to, in your scenario?
To interject, I'd say that it may only require one member of
DPD be involved with the Small Conspiracy, with that one
perhaps dragging others along into the Large Coverup.
For example, someone like Bachelor could have had major
influence on DPD activities.
One could also postulate a theft of materials from the
DPD and leave them out of the Small Conspiracy entirely.
I may miss any follow-ups; I'm headed out of town for a few days.
--
Brent Buckner b5bu...@sms.business.uwo.ca
Western Business School -- London, Ontario; <Standard Disclaimers>
"It's not procrastination, it's the Incredible Just-In-Time
Workload Management System[tm]!"
Pete MacKinnon
(John McAdams) wrote:
>
> In article <petemac-18...@47.208.6.189>,
> pet...@bnr.ca (Pete MacKinnon) writes:
>
> >[Cut to the chase...]
> >> >Gee, John this is mighty sportin' of ya! This article seems to raise more
> >> >questions about the arrest of the hobos than it answers (just as it said).
> >> >
> >> >1) No fingerprints, arrest number, ID number?
> >> >2) A doctored LHO photo?
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK, more Conspiracy Speak.
> >>
> >> Is Conspiracy Speak, any discrepency "raises questions." And if
> >> enough "questions" can be raised, then there must be a conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Of course, when researchers like the La Fontaines actually come up
> >> with an *answer* to a question, the answer is scoffed at by
> >> conspiratorialists. Having answers is no fun, only "questions" are
> >> fun.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't recall seeing an *answer* in the article about the
> >missing details of the arrest records.
> >
>
> I'm not sure any answer is ever going to be forthcoming about the
> missing details. If you insist on believing in a conspiracy until
> every screwup or official oversight is explained fully, you're certain
> to always believe in a conspiracy.
>
John, why do you think people speculate that there was a conspiracy? Could
it be because there are an alarming number of these "screwups" and
"official oversights"? Missing brains, notes destroyed by FBI agents,
incomplete arrest records, etc.
Human beings, by nature, learn and understand by assimilating patterns.
Patterns exist in language, behaviour, history, ad infinitum. When people
see reports of repeated "screwups" and "official oversights" in a case such
as this, I'm guessing it is their instinct to attempt the detection of a
pattern.
>
> >>
> >> >BTW, care to tell us what details were in the section of the article
> >> >deleted?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I deleted the details of the "doctored LHO photo." Apparently, the
> >> Dallas Police were out in the back yard of the Neeley Street apartment
> >> trying to see if it really was possible to fake the Oswald backyard
> >> photo.
> >>
> >
> >When? Did the DPD conduct its own official investigation into the guilt or
> >innocence of LHO? This statement suggests that the DPD undertook this well
> >after the assassination when the validity of the photos were being publicly
> >questioned. When was that Life cover photo published...1964,1966?
> >
>
> Oswald, remember, said the photos were faked.
>
> Apparently the Dallas cops, a few days after the assassination, were
> trying to see if they could fake them.
>
> Again, the real photos were long gone to Washington, and the only
> plausible scenario I can figure out is that the Dallas cops wanted to
> see whether it was indeed possible to fake photos like these.
>
Why on earth is that the only plausible scenario? Creating faked photos in
order to incriminate LHO is not a plausible scenario? Even if the "real"
photos were on their way to D.C. we still don't know when these "empty"
photos were taken. What I am saying is how do we know that the empty
pictures weren't used to produce the ones the WC saw? Or did I miss
something in the article?
From the LaFontaine article that you posted:
*****
In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear.
Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an
apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example
of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step
in the combining of photographic images.
The silhouette print was not seen by the Warren Commission.
Photographic experts Hershal Womack of Texas Tech University
in Lubbock and Jack White of Fort Worth have noted a variety of
alleged technical inconsistencies with the backyard pictures. They
have theorized the artificial addition of Oswald's image to the
background by means of matting as the most likely explanation.
Until now, no evidence of such an attempted matting has surfaced.
Among the newly opened files are more photos of the Oswald home
back yard, but without Oswald in them.
.....
The matted print and other photos without human figures in them
appear similar in background to the long-available backyard photos
showing Oswald with rifle and newspapers, but could vary slightly from
known prints. That cannot be determined until they are released for
full examination.
The significance of the photographic finds in the police files,
Womack suggests, is that "they may represent part of the necessary
steps -- an empty background, for example -- for faking backyard photos
of Oswald.
"The real question is, what was the purpose of this exercise?
To fake the photos or to demonstrate that the faking could be done?"
Womack said. "I'd have to ask why anyone -- in or out of police
uniform -- would be trying to demonstrate this back in 1963 or 1964.
No one but Mark Lane was talking conspiracy then, and his complaints
were about the retouching done by major news organizations, not anything
as sophisticated as matting."
*****
Again, from your LaFontaine posting:
*****
Though allegedly vagrants pulled from boxcars, the men were
noted in photographs to sport fresh haircuts and suspiciously good shoes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The supposed lack of official arrest documentation -- including the
failure to even retain their names and their immediate release and
disappearance -- has raised the greatest consternation among conspiracy
researchers.
*****
Hmmm. Two interpretations of the same photos. But I'm guessing that you'll
use this particular HSCA finding because it's more "official" - and more
convenient.
John McAdams
>
>Finally, Doyle doesn't look anything like the first tramp shown.
>See for yourself.
>
I don't have this video, but ACA is sending it to me, so I will take a
look myself.
Alan Rogers posted a message on May 21, 1993 in which he said that "the
hobo who was interviewed appeared to look like an aging version of one
of them to my eyes."
So maybe we have the well-known phenomenon of people being able to see
different things in photos.
Perhaps that's why the motto of professional photo-analysts is "I
don't know what I see, I only know what I can measure."
>
>
>I don't doubt that Doyle and his friends were arrested as indicated
>by the report. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Doyle
>is one of the infamous three tramps in the photo. The details
>cited above and the "official" records are, of course, not definitive,
>though they do indicate significant disparities between Doyle's story
>and what is known of the tramps. Also Doyle's memory is questionable.
>But we have photos.
>
>
>See for yourself. The information I have posted is from _Coup D'Etat
>In America_, Weberman & Canfield, republished 1992 by Quick Trading
>Company. It contains copies of the arrest reports, detailed photo
>analyses, and a current photo of Mr. Doyle.
>
Are these the people who claimed their "photo analysis" proved that
Hunt and Sturgis were two of the tramps?
.John
John McAdams
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>>Is Conspiracy Speak, any discrepency "raises questions." And if
>>enough "questions" can be raised, then there must be a conspiracy.
>>
>>Of course, when researchers like the La Fontaines actually come up
>>with an *answer* to a question, the answer is scoffed at by
>>conspiratorialists. Having answers is no fun, only "questions" are
>>fun.
>
>I'm not "scoffing" at it, I'm refuting it. Having answers may be
>"fun" in your world, getting the truth is what counts in mine.
>
>Why do you accept the LaFontaines' work as credible? Have you studied
>it? Researched it? Do you have a copy of the broadcast? Are you
>familiar with their background?
>
The LaFontaines' seem to me to be honest, generally conspiracy
oriented reporters. They aren't necessarily right about everything,
but they're not trying to cover up for The Conspiracy either.
>Getting answers means *NOTHING*. Getting the truth is what it is all about.
>
The truth is more like to be gotten from hard evidence than from
speculation and suspicion.
>
>
>>Look, if you want to believe badly enough that Hunt and Sturgis were
>>two of the tramps, I guess nothing anybody says is going to influence
>>you.
>
>
>And if you want to believe badly enought that they weren't, same thing.
>Only in this case, *you* also fail to review the physical evidence
>that is so readily available. You'd rather rely on a government
>report, and a tabloid piece of "journalism".
>
But Mark, you're relying on a couple of conspiracy authors.
Your conspiracy authors have no better credentials than the
Lafontaines, and vastly *less* impressive credentials than the people
who analyzed the photos for the HSCA.
You don't want to believe a "government report?" I just posted the
HSCA analysis of the claim that Hunt was one of the tramps. How about
telling me where they were wrong? Does Hunt actually have a broad
nose with a bulbous, fleshy nasal tip, like the tramp has?
>
>You can rely on the HSCA if you like. Again, readers. You can see
>the photos for yourselves. You can view photos of Hunt and Sturgis
>and compare them with the most comprehensive compilation of tramp
>photos available to the general public. McAdams hasn't done this.
>
>Weberman & Canfield, _Coup D'Etat in America_, Quick Trading, 1992.
>
Again, readers, read the HSCA analysis, and compare it to Weberman and
Canfield. See which seems to take the evidence seriously.
.John
U54...@uicvm.uic.edu
McAdams) says:
>
>In article <mssCLJ...@netcom.com>,
>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>>
>>Finally, Doyle doesn't look anything like the first tramp shown.
>>See for yourself.
>>
>
>I don't have this video, but ACA is sending it to me, so I will take a
>look myself.
>
>Alan Rogers posted a message on May 21, 1993 in which he said that "the
>hobo who was interviewed appeared to look like an aging version of one
>of them to my eyes."
>
are entranced by claims of sinister doings about the tramps lose
my vote. I see any of our opinions on equal ground. There are no
official experts on the JFK assass. If you want to believe in
Weberman/Canfield, go ahead. My opinion is that this is really
deep garbage.
Only by really stretching do I see E. Howard Hunt or Frank Sturgis
as being the hobos. The hobos look different from these guys.
Hunt was slimmer and younger looking in 1963 than the old man hobo.
Sturgis looks more swarthy than the nordic looking tall hobo.
As can be seen, by playing with photos from different angles and
from differents years, W/C have found one shot that could
conceivably be closer to the named figures. But all the rest of
the shots do not match up to my eyes.
Harrelson could be the tall hobo, and on TMWKK, when confronted
with that particular blowup, even he said that it looked like him.
But he also said that the other shots do not. And again, I have to
agree with him. They don't.
When ACA aired, I saw an old man interviewed who looked like an older
version of one of the hobos seen in the photos. I can only report
what I see and this is what I saw.
There are photos of Fred Chrisman in many books. He also looks like
the older tramp, somewhat. But I have it from a well respected
JFK researcher that he tracked down Chrisman and found that several
fellow teachers place him in front of his class on Nov. 22, 1963 in
Oregon. Even if he does resemble one of the tramps, it's hard to
place him in two different towns at the same time.
Prouty says that one of the photos shows the back of Lansdale and they
used this ID in JFK, the movie. I got to ask you all: How many times
have you thought you saw someone you knew from his back and when he
turned around found you were mistaken? This is not a strong ID.
Lansdale may have been in Dallas on that day and this may have been
him from behind, but can you be so certain?
A lot of people lookalike from behind. (more at end of post)
>So maybe we have the well-known phenomenon of people being able to see
>different things in photos.
>
>Perhaps that's why the motto of professional photo-analysts is "I
>don't know what I see, I only know what I can measure."
>
>
>>
>>
>>I don't doubt that Doyle and his friends were arrested as indicated
>>by the report. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Doyle
>>is one of the infamous three tramps in the photo. The details
>>cited above and the "official" records are, of course, not definitive,
>>though they do indicate significant disparities between Doyle's story
>>and what is known of the tramps. Also Doyle's memory is questionable.
>>But we have photos.
>>
>>
>>See for yourself. The information I have posted is from _Coup D'Etat
>>In America_, Weberman & Canfield, republished 1992 by Quick Trading
>>Company. It contains copies of the arrest reports, detailed photo
>>analyses, and a current photo of Mr. Doyle.
>>
>
>Are these the people who claimed their "photo analysis" proved that
>Hunt and Sturgis were two of the tramps?
>
>.John
OK. let's look at the book.
On page 207, there is a photo of Hunt "prior to 1963." From other photos
I have seen this is much more like what Hunt looked like then. Now, flip
to 217. Instead of using the more honest photo of Hunt, they put photos of
Hunt in *1972*, taken during the Watergate case, along side the hobo photo.
Don't you think this is kind of fudging the presentation? Match the
1972 Hunt photos to the hobo photo on pages 212 and 214. I don't see them
matching even this unequal in years comparison. ANd it definitely flunks
on a 1963 match.
On page 218 is the tall hobo; on its facing page is a 1972 photo of STurgis.
I don't see the match. The hobo has a farmboy, nordic quality to him while
Sturgis is definitely swarthy Italian. Sturgis has that oily crinkly hair.
The tall hobo has light tousled hair. The comments on torso matching is
ridiculous. A lot of people match up on such crass items as body build.
Next page. Again, the two don't look anything like each other, aside from
having two arms, two legs, etc.:-)
The transparency section is equally unconvincing to me. I bet that I could
find a relative of yours that has a lot of photos and with patience, I
could find that one shot that when lined up with a hobo blowup would
would crudely lineup as shown here.
On page 363 is the Doyle shot. When I look at his mouth turned down on
the ends, it looks a hell of a lot like the old man tramp as seen on pages
222A,216,214. But looking at the arrest records, we see that the eldest
listed is Abrams at age 53. Since the other two are listed as 34 and
38, one could assume that the older looking tramp was not Doyle but Abrams.
Maybe. In looking again at both Doyle and the tall tramp, I see a
resemblance in the eye area.
Who knows? Maybe these aren't the tramps in the photo but other tramps
arrested that day. What I do see for myself is that they are not Hunt
and Sturgis. Maybe Hunt was in Dallas that day. Maybe Sturgis was too.
I have not been convinced of the likelihood of these men being the
tramps in the photos. That's my opinion.
ALAN ROGERS **** U54...@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC. 708-675-8615 * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
* as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
* as a user of U of I Services.*