Michael McMahon

I thought the identity of the person on the fifth floor was established...Bonnie Ray Williams. And he may look like he's in the shadows, but I've definitely seen pics of the 5th floor window after the shots were fired, and he is basically hanging out of it looking down on the crowd. I know this thread is related to the "pipe" in the 6th floor window, but there's something that's always bothered me about Williams and his account of the shots allegedly fired in the window above him. From pictures I've seen, the 6th floor window is what, five feet above the 5th floor window? If that? That's a pretty close "earwitness", the shots would have been fired practically right on top of him. And yet, although he testified that he heard three shots and the shells hitting the floor, did he even bother to yell down to the street and get the attention of police or anybody? Did he race upstairs? I know this is easy to point out given hindsight and all, but it just seems kind of odd that a witness just a few feet below the "sniper's nest" didn't have more of a reaction at the time. (by the way, if I have confused Williams with another man, my apologies. The main point still stands, even if I am mistaken about the name)

Bob Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone has lyrics which read, "You say you never compromised/ with the mystery tramp..." Someone told me he believed "mystery tramp" came from the pictures of the mystery tramps in Dealey Plaza. BTW, the song is about Edie Sedgwick, Andy Warhol star, heiress and drug addict. Kathy Dylan wrote "Like a Rolling Stone" in 1965. I don't believe the tramp photos were common knowledge then, or had even been publicized. The song may or may not have anything to do with Edie Sedgwick. He wrote the song early in the year and supposedly hadn't met her until after it had already been released. At the most, she helped inspire some of the lyrics, but I doubt it, since the tone is biting and sardonic, and their "relationship" didn't go south until well after the release of the song, when Warhol told Sedgwick that Dylan was a married man. The song's general message is probably about Dylan kissing goodbye to the predictable folk music world that had been fencing him in, and now he was going his own way, and how does it feel? Or Joan Baez. Or a thousand other possibilities.

After studying those pictures of the man in front of the Dal-Tex building, I really can't go along with that being Phil Ochs, just on the basis of the pictures alone...I don't see how anyone can pick up enough detail in such a small snapshot, to me the person in the photos is vaguely defined (at best), so I don't wager an opinion. However, as for Ochs being murdered, that seems a bit farfetched. Is there any evidence at all to back this up? Suicide seems more likely. For a few different reference points on Ochs' unstable frame of mind, take a look at: Robert Shelton: No Direction Home Clinton Heylin: Bob Dylan, Behind the Shades Revisited Larry Sloman: On the Road with Bob Dylan All three of these books deal with Dylan's career (obviously) but there are a number of different sections dealing with the NYC Folk movement, Phil Ochs in particular. All three authors note that friends and fellow musicians considered Ochs very unstable in the 1970's, and incoherent much of the time. In 1975, Dylan launched the Rolling Thunder Revue, a unique ensemble of folkies and ecelctic musicians to tour the Northeast, and eventually much of the United States and Canada. Ochs was under consideration to 'make the cut', if you will, but his often-bizarre behavior and mood swings killed his chances. Apparently, he saw this failure to tour with the Revue as possibly a final straw, and he killed himself soon after.

Another well-written bio of Hoover is by Curt Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything resembling a telephoto camera in this picture. On the other hand, I don't really see a man in this shot either. Is that supposed to be the sun reflecting off someone's hand?

A brief warning: I am not a researcher. I never have been a researcher. I never will BE a researcher. I have an abiding interest in the political assassinations of the 1960s, in particular the JFK case. I read many of the topics here with great interest, but I have never met James Files' babysitter, nor do I want to (she's crude). Therefore, if you're looking to haggle over the details in blurred-out 7th generation Altgen photos, please look elsewhere. I am sure there is opportunity aplenty all over this website. That being said... I was sitting in my apartment watching "JFK" for maybe the 10th or so time, and I realized how ambivalent I truly am about the film. After weighing both pros and cons, I have to declare that my verdict on the film is "mixed at best". This applies to both the film itself, and the impact "JFK" had on the research community in terms of the records released in the following years. So, for no reason whatsoever, and with the gift of 20/20 hindsight and the passage of time, here's a review of "JFK". I'll leave out the plot, given that we've all probably seen the damn film many times. Again, artistically the film is a mixed bag. The editing, music and purely technical aspects of the film are admittedly brilliant. Oliver Stone uses jump takes, mixes black and white with color shots, seamlessly blends both historical newsreels with new footage, and creates what is definitely palpable tension. The casting? Not so much. In a case as complex and bizarre as the Kennedy Assassination, do we really need the distractions that Stone serves up left and right? He gives us Kevin Costner as the crusading Jim Garrison, even though he can't act and doesn't resemble Garrison in the slightest. Joe Pesci plays a cartoonish version of David Ferrie, bad "N'ahlins" accent and all. The movie version of Clay Shaw is described by the (fictional) Willie O'Keefe as a "butch" type homosexual, but Tommy Lee Jones plays him as an exaggerated flame (if you'll forgive the expression). On the other hand, Stone balances out the cast with the always-absorbing Gary Oldman as Oswald, and John Candy in a surprising dramatic turn as the sleazy Dean Andrews. Donald Sutherland steals the entire film with his great performance as "X", the Fletcher Prouty/John Newman composite. Factually, Stone is all over the place. He has three teams of shooters in Dealey Plaza, firing more shots at the presidential motorcade than the British let loose at Lexington and Concord. His conspiracy suggests a plot of infinite number and magnitude, all the way down from LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover to anti-Castro Cubans to shadowy figures in the military to the Dallas Police Department. Here's the rub. Given that Stone admitted he wanted to make a counter-myth to the Warren Commission's pack of lies, and given that he has complete artistic freedom to do so, it begs the question: was any of this good for the JFK case as a whole? Yes, this film resulted in a public outcry that climaxed with the passage of the JFK Records Act and the formation of the ARRB, which has given researchers a wealth of new information, particularly about Joaniddes and the CIA's stonewalling of the HSCA in the late 1970's. But this film has also resulted in near-unanimous condemnation and ridicule in the press, both mainstream and alternative (Salon.com and David Talbot excepted). Researchers and critics of the official version carry with them the weight of being labeled as obsessed radicals. Of being guilty of cherry-picking evidence and witness testimony to fit what is characterized as a paranoid vision of a nonexistent world. Historically, Stone ends up muddying the waters with the selective use and misuse of "facts" in the case, far too numerous to be listed here. I know there is such a thing as "artistic license", and far be it from me to question any artistic deviation from reality for the purposes of entertainment. While "JFK" is obviously a film, it will remain "history" in the minds of millions of Americans who are both ignorant and incurious about their own history. Does serving up a mishmash of history and invention REALLY serve the best interests of discovering historical truth? Or is it the Big Picture that's important, and all of these criticisms simply miss the point? So, the question remains: did this film prove to be a disservice to the 40 plus year struggle to determine the truth about the assassination, or was "JFK" a landmark achievement, flaws and all? I await your crucifixion, which is okay. I need the wood.

I'll admit that there is a strong resemblance, but why would they position themselves so close together for easy identification? How does "secret" behavior apply when these alleged agents positioned themselves along a heavily populated parade route, subject to the photos and videos of hundreds of passersby and newsmen?

Is there any consensus on whether Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on this day? Is there any confirmation that he did, indeed, give a deathbed confession to being in DP? Is this just one giant red herring? What would someone of such high a rank as Ed Lansdale have to gain by risking such exposure? Or is that the point, was he meant to be noticed?

A Few Obvious Comments: This GIF is probably the clearest depiction that I've ever seen of the fatal head shot sequence. I think what stands out the most is just how obvious the vertical (and backwards) blood spray is. Is it just me, or does Kellerman's reaction seem to be almost nonexistent? He casually glances back at JFK and that seems to be about it. Everyone else in the car, from Connolly on down, has an immediate reaction to the shots, yet Greer and Kellerman do virtually nothing. This may not be an indictment of their (non)actions as an indication of guilt, but rather could simply be an example of just how varied a person's reaction to a dramatic situation can be...the only problem is, Kellerman and Greer were TRAINED TO REACT. What gives?

For whatever it's worth, here's a link to the transcript of the interview between Woody and Walters. http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/bouleva...es/bwtrans.html

I realize now that I accidentally posted this topic three times. My apologies. Let this be a lesson never to use a laptop after consuming a few adult beverages. If there is a way to erase two of these posts, please give a shout out. As you were...

Please stop me if this topic has been beaten to death already... I know this is probably a red herring (and Harrelson's dead now, right?) but I have a question nevertheless, and a few thoughts. To wit: 1. How much credence does anyone really put into this theory of Woody's dad being the tall tramp? Just based on my own observation, I'd say there is SOME resemblance but nothing that really makes me want to form a hard opinion. 2. I have seen the Lois Gibson presentation on YouTube, and while I am sure she is qualified in her "field" (facial recognizance?) she doesn't exactly make the most compelling presentation. She gets names wrong and most of her slideshow is devoted to saying over and over how obvious it all is, how there are only similarities...again, SOME resemblance in all of those comparisons but nothing definitive. And is "facial recognizance" anywhere on the same level of professional (dis)respectabiity as say, polygraph analyst? 3. "Oswald Talked" didn't do much to clear up the question either, as I have major problems with their identifications of the three tramps. Maybe it's just my own weak powers of observation, but I am just not seeing it. Also, it didn't help that their book was unreadable. 4. Finally, does Landsdale's alleged presence in Dealey Plaza (and passing the tramps on the street) depend in ANY way upon either of the proposed identifications, ie, Hunt/Harrelson/Whoever and the LaFontaines' chosen homeless trio? Couldn't it be that he WAS in the famous picture, but he just happened to be passing three hobos? That's about it for now...anyone with a clear-cut opinion (whatever it may be) please respond, I'd really like to put this one issue out of my head. Selah

While not unassailable, I think the evidence that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination is formidible. I realize that every aspect of that subgroup of rifle evidence has been challenged, and while it falls short of certainty, it is still possible that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination. Assuming arguendo that this is a true and valid evidenciary claim, there are not many options. Either Oswald used it himself, or somebody went to an awful lot of trouble before the fact to insure that a rifle incriminating Oswald was used in the assassination. Whether or not it was the only weapon, or whether or not he fired it are two separate issues. I am not presenting this as an absolute fact: I am responding to your question that, FOR ME, this is the most damning evidence. I understand your overall point, but doesn't the study by researchers at Texas A & M strip away any real evidence tying the bullet fragments to the supposed-Oswald Mannlicher Carcano? The Neutron Activation Analysis, which the HSCA relied upon to "tie" the fragments to Oswald's ammunition was found to be in error. Since that study, the FBI has stopped using such a methadology in proving cases in court. http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/550/ Is there actually any solid evidence, now that the NAA has been debunked, that proves the alleged Oswald rifle (SPECIFICALLY that rifle) was even used that day? Did the FBI even perform a cotton swab test on the barrel?

I know this is an old thread (and Harrelson's dead now, right?) but I have a question nevertheless, and a few thoughts. To wit: 1. How much credence does anyone really put into this theory of Woody's dad being the tall tramp? Just based on my own observation, I'd say there is SOME resemblance but nothing that really makes me want to form a hard opinion. 2. I have seen the Lois Gibson presentation on YouTube, and while I am sure she is qualified in her "field" (facial recognizance?) she doesn't exactly make the most compelling presentation. She gets names wrong and most of her slideshow is devoted to saying over and over how obvious it all is, how there are only similarities...again, SOME resemblance in all of those comparisons but nothing definitive. And is "facial recognizance" anywhere on the same level of professional (dis)respectabiity as say, polygraph analyst? 3. "Oswald Talked" didn't do much to clear up the question either, as I have major problems with their identifications of the three tramps. Maybe it's just my own weak powers of observation, but I am just not seeing it. Also, it didn't help that their book was unreadable. 4. Finally, does Landsdale's alleged presence in Dealey Plaza (and passing the tramps on the street) depend in ANY way upon either of the proposed identifications, ie, Hunt/Harrelson/Whoever and the LaFontaines' chosen homeless trio? Couldn't it be that he WAS in the famous picture, but he just happened to be passing three hobos? That's about it for now...anyone with a clear-cut opinion (whatever it may be) please respond, I'd really like to put this one issue out of my head. Selah

At some point in the past few months, I recall reading an account of "odd" (or suspicious, to say the least) Secret Service behavior immediately following the shooting, as the limousine arrives at Parkland. To my recollection, it involved an agent (I believe it was Emory Roberts) gruffly demanding that Jackie "get off" Kennedy, as she was shielding him from view and was obviously in great distress. Also, either Roberts or another agent said something to the effect of "You can stay with him [JFK], we're going over to Johnson", despite the fact that Kennedy hadn't been officially declared dead yet. Does this ring a bell for anyone? If so, please provide a link to the corresponding document/eyewitness account. **As a sidebar, I've recently finished watching Vincent Palamara's video conference (and lectures) in which he effectively debunks all of these myths about the Secret Service on November 22nd, from their lack of protection to the bs about JFK "ordering" agents off the back of his limousine. **For the sake of argument, if we assume that the Secret Service's actions had sinister implications (and not merely evidence of gross negligence), who precisely would be guilty? Roberts since he was in charge? Is there any other evidence to support this, besides the video of him waving off the other agents who were to stand on the back of the limousine as it rode through Dallas? Much appreciated...