Dave Curbow

Jack White was the first to say it was his hand, and I initially agreed. But look at the lines along the edge of the limo. What is hanging down over these lines? The size of the "hand" is another problem, IMO. To me, it seems disproportionately small when compared to Hill's hand in the background. BTW, I concluded long ago that it doesn't matter much what it was. What matters, IMO, is that the press altered the photo to make it look like JFK's right foot, and that this altered photo then made its way into not only the Secret Service's files, but the recollections of a number of witnesses. If I recall correctly, NONE of the 11-22 witness statements mentioned JFK's foot flying over the side of the car. A number of subsequent statements, however, mentioned the flying foot. It's example 1A of how the media helped screw up the investigation, IMO. Look at the picture from the other side, obviously taken at some time shortly before the ones posted before. That picture showing Hill's alignment in the car displays what is possible and what is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clint_Hill_on_the_limousine.jpg Dave

Mr. Gordon, Post Mortem, pages 331 and following may be what you are looking for. Dave

I believe the WC published photos taken from the Tower in which Bowers sat. Oh, good. Please post them, then. (Because I have evidence that Bowers' view was open & unobstructed! ) (Oh, no!... You're NOT going to claim that you do not have access to these alleged photos? This isn't going to be your tactical repeat of the mythical "Weitzman Report" tactic, which tactic you used to evade the refutation of Hoffman's story?? Yes or No? - ) The elevated tower, along with the overhanging tree foliage, prevents me prevents me?... But only if you can see the alleged photos you allege exist. Can you see these photos? Can anyone? Do they exist? Oh, that's right, they are hidden deep within the never existing, unfindable "Weitzman Report." I see. from seeing the area Uh, but you can't see what you can't see, right? Can you see that what you can't see, you can't see? See what I mean? Duncan you see what I mean, don't you? being claimed to be in full view, so I do not see how Bowers could see something that the photos Uh, pardon me. What photos? show was not visible. Bill Miller Bower's view: WCH volume 24 p. 548 CE 2118 In addition I will try to post a photo that I first found posted by Mr. Robin Unger of Bower's view. Dave

I am in the mountains of British Columbia where I spend the majority of the year, thus I am not in reach of the 26 volumes. I have contacted several other researchers who might be able to help, but two are out of town - one didn't know - and the other said he'd look when he had free time. This subject is old news and Weitzman's report had been discussed on Lancer long ago. I will try and do a search in more detail as time allows it. Does anyone by chance have Mark Lanes book called "Rush to Judgment" because in the index it should have Weitzman's name and Lane was pretty good at referencing the 26 volumes when necessary. Possibly someone can assist us here? Bill Volume 7, page 109 at the end of his testimony Dave

Lee, the tree I spoke of will not be found in pictures taken of the plaza in recent years, unlike what Jack thinks. As I recall, I saw the tree that I believed it to be in the photo taken on the afternoon of the assassination ... the same day Moorman took her photo. That photo should be in Trask's book "POTP". Josiah Thompson would have to post his photo because I don't have a copy of it. Bill Miller What Bill is referring to, I think, is on pages 223-225 of Six Seconds. "Question 5: Did the fatal shot come from a 'gunman' perched on a 'station wagon' located near the concrete pergola? Answer: No. The 'station wagon' is a vehicle parked some 30 to 40 feet behind the pergola, while the 'gunman' turns out to be a pattern of light and dark shadows on its west wall." His answer was based on an Itek study of the Nix film, plus his own observations of the Hughes and Bell films. The quote that Bill may have in mind is on 224: "The man with the rifle, however, was found to be nothing more than the shadows of tree branches and leaves on the side of the white pavilion." The photos in Six Seconds are the ones we all are familiar with. Hope this helps. Dave Thanks Dave. I don't believe that the car is that far back, which is why I did the study to begin with. Hicks said that there was a '56 Pontiac 'backed up to the fence.' I think it's likely he was telling the truth, it is simply a matter of how one interprets what that line 'backed up to the fence' means - to the best of my knowledge, there are no records indicating what he was pointing to in what diagram during the Clay Shaw trial to assist - however, the fence did end there in 1963. Also, it's too much of coincidence that 2 unfamiliar cars with out-of-state plates would be parked in the reserved Sheriff's parking location, with men taking long packages out of the trunk - that morning, as per Whatley. Plus of course, Hicks being tossed out a window and later tossed into the asylum - an interesting coincidence. And again, Whatley is adamant that the event she described took place - although there isn't a shred of documentation to support it, and Truly never reported anything. Add that there was a car seen by Brennan parked on the Elm St extension [Olds] which disappeared shortly after the shooting, and maybe we have a similar modus. On the alleged Nix Classic Gunman - well, maybe he's light and shadow, I don't know. What I find interesting is that the location, generally speaking, corresponds with where folks have indicated to me that the 'other film' from this location was taken from - a bit lower and to the right of what we see in the Zapruder film. Curious anyway. Thanks to you and Bill for the references - I would like to see the photo Bill is referring to sometime. - lee Lee, I hope you have access to POP and That Day in Dallas by Trask. After I looked more carefully at what Bill was saying, I scanned the books to see if I could identify the photograph he was talking about. I haven't the time to scan them, but pictures I saw that he could be referring to were in Picture of the Pain p. 39, 333, and 494; I checked That Day in Dallas to see if maybe something was there, and the best I could do was p. 33. I am sorry if you don't have access to the books and that scanning them isn't practical for me now. Hopefully Bill will chime in, or someone who can scan them will do that. Dave

Lee, the tree I spoke of will not be found in pictures taken of the plaza in recent years, unlike what Jack thinks. As I recall, I saw the tree that I believed it to be in the photo taken on the afternoon of the assassination ... the same day Moorman took her photo. That photo should be in Trask's book "POTP". Josiah Thompson would have to post his photo because I don't have a copy of it. Bill Miller What Bill is referring to, I think, is on pages 223-225 of Six Seconds. "Question 5: Did the fatal shot come from a 'gunman' perched on a 'station wagon' located near the concrete pergola? Answer: No. The 'station wagon' is a vehicle parked some 30 to 40 feet behind the pergola, while the 'gunman' turns out to be a pattern of light and dark shadows on its west wall." His answer was based on an Itek study of the Nix film, plus his own observations of the Hughes and Bell films. The quote that Bill may have in mind is on 224: "The man with the rifle, however, was found to be nothing more than the shadows of tree branches and leaves on the side of the white pavilion." The photos in Six Seconds are the ones we all are familiar with. Hope this helps. Dave

Lets start with the right side image of the pillar. The rounded corner at the top goes dark ...because dark is being reflected in the chrome. In this case the dark is the darker blue of the sky at the zenith. This is not uncommon to see the sky gradate from lighter at the horizon ( due to seeing through more of the atmosphere and pollutants) and darker at the zenith. This is simply REFLECTED in the chrome. Now for the small chrome strip beside the window on the far side of the car...it is not dark because it is in shadow, but rather that it is angled in such a manner that what is reflected in it is the dark interior of the car. Lets move the the left hand image. Nothing that darkens the chrome is a shadow but rather SOMETHING DARK, like the seat or the coat sleeve that is being REFLECTED in the chrome. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Of course that has been my point all along, that a shadow from the seat CANNOT cause the chrome to be dark...it HAS to be a reflection or an object blocking the chrome from the camera. As to the foot/ hand I'm not 100% certain its a foot but based on other images its appears to be the most likely option. One thing is for certain...the dark area is NOT a shadow. Some object HAS to be in place over the chrome or something DARK has to be reflected into the chrome. Since there is nothing dark to reflect into the chrome it has to be an object OVER the chrome. If this is JFK's hand then what is HANGING OVER THE SIDE OF THE CAR? His Elbow? That would be a neat trick. Bill has a very valid point...you need good images to study or you are just spinning your wheels. And You also need to understand the light and how photography works if you want to make any meaningful studies. At least you seem willing to learn. Jack on the other hand..... Mr. SPECTER. And where were the President's legs at that time? Mr. HILL. Inside the car. Mr. HILL. It is a little bit hard for me to judge, since I was lying across the rear portion of the automobile. I had no trouble staying in that particular position--until we approached the hospital, I recall, I believe it was a left-hand turn and I started slipping off to the right-hand portion of the car. So I would say that we went 60, maybe 65 at the most. Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I had my legs--I had my body above the rear seat, and my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car. WCH V. II 140/141 Dave

I didn't see CSPAN there this year, but the conference was taped and will be available from the AARC.Check the History Matters website for details. Dave

I, too, know Dave Perry, and my regard for him differs from Mr. White’s by 180 degrees. I find Mr. Perry remarkably intelligent, discerning, honest, and one who is open to where the evidence leads him. I was honored with the pleasure to visit many of the assassination related sites with Mr. Perry and other researchers, all who are far from being “disinformation” specialists. He has responded to my queries promptly and professionally since. Mr. Perry’s efforts in retracing Oswald’s steps following the assassination must be applauded, whether one agrees or disagrees with what the reenactment revealed. He, Mr. Mack, and others at least made the effort to determine if Oswald could have made it to the Tippit murder site in the time stipulated by the evidence instead of relying on what others have written. The same can be said about Oswald’s ability to descend to the lunchroom in time to be observed by Officer Baker and Mr. Truly. Mr. Perry has invested the legwork and sweat to determine if what certain witnesses said was, in fact, possible. Instead of dismissing his work through a condescending label, it needs to be displayed empirically where his research is flawed. So far, at least, I haven’t seen where anyone has accomplished that. Last, I am more than mildly amused about how labels are assigned, as if being an LN or a CT gives anyone any particular ability to recognize the truth. Is the truth concerning the historical event about what happened or which camp one associates with? Does one camp has a particular dispensation that is superior to the other camp’s? Challenging Mr. Perry’s work is acceptable; challenging his or anyone’s character through insinuation without indisputable evidence is not. Dave

I have been an evaluator (I believe that term fits me better) rather than researcher, as Bill Miller referred to me, for over thirty years. I am a high school teacher living in the Midwest United States. I am in the process of writing a critical thinking manuscript with an emphasis on writing for an advanced placement course in my school, hence my interest in your forum.