Jump to content
The Education Forum

Duke Lane

Members
  • Content Count

    1,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Duke Lane

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday March 20

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.dukelane.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,916 profile views
  1. I was pleased to see that you checked-in recently, Dike. I would like to know where you are active in posting and research. Best wishes, Micheal.

  2. I myself would be more inclined to disbelieve JDT's reported locations if, for example, the record reflected his taking a 20-minute trip in 10 minutes, or vice-versa. To have actually taken a three-minute trip, and then to report your arrival at another place eight minutes later - the exact time it would have taken to get there from where he only claimed to have been - stretches the imagination. The only reason to doubt the 4100 Bonnie View location is the Gloco sighting. The possibility that they were wrong about seeing Tippit vs. any other cop does not make them liars, merely wrong. It migh
  3. Little-known fact: another patrol (#56) radioed in his location in this same area ("East Jefferson") at around 12:45. This car was more than 10 miles outside of his assigned area in SE Dallas near Garland. There is no other "Jefferson" in Dallas outside of Oak Cliff, and none in the assigned district. Another: the time that it takes today to travel from 4100 Bonnie View to 8th & Lancaster by the most direct and logical route is to-the-minute the same span of time between Tippit's two broadcasts. The notion that Tippit at Gloco and reported being at 4100 Bonnie View, and then traveled the
  4. Thanks for that, David. Insofar as the images go, another question to ask is whether an individual in question could look "straight up," tilting his head back as I recall Worrell stated, and see a gun sticking out of any window. Your "Cardigan Man" is too far from the building and not directly under any window to do that. Dicky didn't make any claims as to what he'd been wearing, and we've got no reason (as yet) to think that a 20-year-old high school senior in a public school wore a white shirt and tie to school, particularly on a day that he skipped school. Not unheard of, I suppose, but w
  5. I didn't say it did; I think it was Robert Morrow in 1990 or thereabouts, citing Gary Shaw, et al., in an earlier book. Google "Cowtown Connection;" you'll find it in a dozen places. The whole story is there, along with some sidebars (e.g., "Tom Tilson Tells Tall Tales").
  6. David, what are we looking at? Can you post a larger or full-sized image of the inset photo? What is it, what is it looking at, and what time is it? Remember that Worrell was gone by the third shot; he heard two after he started running, he said. The key time(s) to find him would be before any shots were fired, particularly as the motorcade was moving north along Houston. Remember, too, that he was there for an hour or longer, he said, before the parade got there (even though AF1 hadn't landed even an hour before JFK got to DP, and Dicky had to get from Love Field (where he'd seen the Preside
  7. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. What does seem to be a fact is that his initial claims appear to have engendered others, a veritable family tree of red herrings, particularly a man (or in some cases, men) leaving the TSBD after the shooting from the same location, and indirectly (but directly traceable), a virtual herd of Ramblers in the area when only one can be factually and photographically placed there. While these particulars may be relatively innocuous, there are no doubt many other stories that have grown into legends that have as little basis in actual fact, but that have neverthe
  8. That's okay, anyone can believe what they want, myself included. My belief, however, is based on hard data: AF1 landing time, and motorcade departure & route; bus routes & schedules, pickup and drop-off points, distances, time, and an absolute, unqualified absence of anyone matching Worrell's description in any image showing the exact place where he said he was standing, between the TSBD doorway and the SE corner of the building. I don't question how many shots he heard, I question that he heard any shots. If he was there, he'd have shown up in a photo since photos were taken of that
  9. No, it's NOT worth noting ... if he wasn't there. According to his own description of where he was standing, he is not in any photograph or movie of the front of the TSBD. Until someone can place him there photographically, then it doesn't matter a whit about what he says occurred in DP. Nothing else about his story holds up either. He didn't witness a thing, so sorry to say.
  10. Bump. Hard to imagine this came together seven years ago now, doesn't seem anywhere near that long ago unless I think about it some ....
  11. The post I referred to is headed James Worrell: Fact or Fiction? on this forum. I didn't read it closely this time, so can't say offhand whether this is a "final" version or not. I should also point out, if I didn't in the article, that James Romack and Pops Rackley came to the attention of the WC in a vitriolic response to a news article about Worrell, Amos Euins and Bob Jackson going to Washington. Romack was not at all shy in saying that he thought - knew! - Worrell was "full of it," which is reflected more judiciously in his testimony.
  12. David, I am, of course, a CTer as the saying goes, tho' I think you've probably seen enough of my stuff here and elsewhere that suggests that I don't swallow every story that wends its way into conspiracy lore. It goes without saying that I likewise don't believe everything I hear from the other side of the aisle. You'll find my take on Worrell in another recent post, as well as elsewhere on this forum somewhere. He seems to support the LN position (seeing anything in that window alone doesn't exclude weapons elsewhere, or prove that it was LHO behind the one on TSBD6), so it would seem th
  13. I don't believe that's edited at all, other than that it might be a slightly shorter version than the original (WFAA?) tape, which I recall having had a bit more "blank" space up-front and maybe some sort of "storyboard" at the front identifying the interviewee, but maybe not. It's been a while since I've looked at what The Sixth Floor (or Gary Mack) has, but I do recall that it was a rather unsatisfying interview. I spent quite a bit of time on this subject some years ago, with "Part 1" printed in Walt Brown's "Deep Politics Quarterly," and possibly reproduced here. The conclusion of Part 1,
  14. My bad; quite right, tho' I did not actually use the word "prove," merely "tested to determine." Although I've got no idea of the rules of procedure or standards of proof at the time in this regard, the point was that the gun could not be - or should not have been - left in newly-cleaned, unfired condition. Actually, we don't really know anything about that, do we? The gun was said to be in "well-oiled" condition, suggesting - but of course not proving - that it had been recently cleaned, thus removing gunpowder residue, etc., from the barrel. What may have constituted "proof" 50 years ago co
×
×
  • Create New...