Jump to content
The Education Forum

Duke Lane

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Duke Lane

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday March 20

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • 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

15,886 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 might be useful to know what the cop who reported being on East Jefferson just before JDT was ordered into Oak Cliff looked like at the time. The two officers who reported themselves being in Oak Cliff - respectively on "East Jefferson" and at "105 Corinth" - and who might conceivably have been whom the Gloco guys saw, were W.P. Parker (district 56, southeast near Garland) and J.M. Lewis (district 35, northwest near Farmers Branch). You can see where those men's patrol districts were on the attached map of DPD patrol districts:
  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 shorter distance from Gloco to 8th & Lancaster and timed it to coincide with the time it takes to get there from Bonnie View, fairly stretches the imagination. Yet another: a third patrol reported being at "105 Corinth," also outside his assigned district in NW Dallas near Farmers Branch, at almost exactly the time that Tippit would have crossed that block of Corinth - again, the only street with that name in Dallas -on his way from 4100 Bonnie View to 8th & Lancaster via the most direct and logical route. Another still: the rookie (three days on the job) police dispatcher who gave Tippit the order to move into Oak Cliff, Murray Jackson, claimed that he gave the order because "I realized that we were draining the Oak Cliff area of available police officers. If there was an emergency, such as an armed robbery or a major accident to come up, we wouldn’t have had anybody there that would be in close proximity to answer the call." Fact: immediately after ordering Tippit into Oak Cliff because of this concern, the only other officer remaining in Oak Cliff, W.E. Smith in district 77, was dispatched out of it and into downtown. Another fact: R.C. Nelson, who was ordered into Oak Cliff at the same time as Tippit, described his route into downtown as he was taking it; he was not told to return to the area dispatch was "draining." Immediately before dispatch realized Oak Cliff was being drained is when unit #56 radioed being "out" at his "East Jefferson" location, yet he was not called into service there. Could it have been he who was at the Gloco? It was not far from the terminus of East Jefferson. (And did Jackson, who "realized" that Oak Cliff was being "drained" of police, not also realize that he had an extra officer on East Jefferson, and - only 90 seconds later - another one reporting in at 105 Corinth while Tippit was still en route to 8th & Lancaster ... and at about that time, crossing Corinth in the 100 block?) More: Oak Cliff was the ONLY area of town from which patrols were being assigned into downtown in the aftermath of the shooting. No attempt was made to contact the officer who was regularly assigned to the district where Tippit was shot: he had checked out to lunch immediately after the shooting downtown, "got word" of it while eating lunch after Tippit was missing; when he called in, he was immediately dispatched to handle a traffic accident. Does all of this really sound as if Tippit was a part of a conspiracy, or more likely a victim of one?
  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 we needn't presume that his "posed" photo prior to going to Washington was his normal attire. As to the times, yes, he could simply have been mistaken ... other than that he had to be able to take a bus - with its multiple and myriad stops and potential delays for the parade downtown - from Love Field to downtown from sometime after AF1 landed (11:40-ish) with enough time to get from its closest downtown stop to DP to the TSBD. The schedules I was able to come up with only barely allow that, and then only if, for example, a driver stuck around at LF to watch AF1 (he couldn't have actually seen POTUS) from the terminal access road. Absent that, the bus most likely able to have gotten him there on time (again presuming no delays downtown) would already have left. Possible? Yes ... and the question that one actually did would be nailed by Worrell's appearance in one of those images, just like Brennan being where he is, and said he was, is. A tall young man beneath TSBD6SE almost directly against the building? Not very helpful. So if Worrell isn't or wasn't there, then his observations go out the window. He didn't hear any number of shots, he didn't run a hundred yards or more (i.e., half of a city block by his own description), and he didn't see anyone run out of the side of the TSBD, just like James Romack said - vehemently! - that he didn't. If he was there but managed to escape the notice of the camera lens, then we have a problem with other people's stories, particularly about more than one man running from the TSBD, into a Rambler or around the back of the building, or walking determinedly but quickly away south on Houston in a brown suit and hat (to get in a Rambler that was already parked where that man had already been, i.e., he walked right past the Rambler he got into several blocks away, if that makes sense). For that matter, we don't see said Rambler on Houston to the right of the TSBD in the photo either. I think the truth of the matter is that he got caught skipping school (at 20, he'd have been noticeably absent) and told his mother a story that would have excused him. But she got concerned, wanted to relay his story to the cops (the responsible thing to do), and Dicky got locked into a story that grew beyond his control, known to all his friends and family, and one he couldn't rightly fly to Washington simply to recant. The tangled web. And yes, I suspect he enjoyed the limelight as well. But I'm happy to be proven wrong ....
  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 President) to DP by bus in the interim.
  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 nevertheless become ingrained in the lore, taken root, and spawned offshoots that are "true" because "there's no reason not to believe" what someone said once upon a time that is simply taken as fact. I didn't "pick" any of these people to examine, but after "Cowtown" some years ago, I found it's much simpler to find out what's not true than to prove what is. Most have been born of an initial skepticism that, once voice, has been challenged. One was rather inadvertent: I'd actually set out to show exactly the opposite of what I eventually found. xxxx happens. The Tippit thing is one of those that's more challenging to show what did happen than to point out what are pretty obvious flaws in the story if you take the time to dissect it. There are more people in the background, as it were, than there are those who try to inject themselves into the middle of the story, more people who are reluctant to talk about it than who want to tell a new story to the world. (Quite the opposite, it seems, from Dealey Plaza: maybe it's just that there's nothing "sexy" or "famous" in it?) In that arena, I will take more than just a little bit of credit for "exposing" the real "citizen caller" in Oak Cliff, and some, at least, for the City of Dallas finally recognizing Tom Bowley as being the man who called in the shooting, rather than Donnie Benavides (as per the WCR). His actions are a much more sober substantiation of Helen Markham's estimate of the time of death. The thing that really confounds me is when people will agree that Oswald wasn't or couldn't have been at 10th & Patton to shoot Tippit and then go on to discuss why he did or didn't do something while he was(n't) there. There must be a reason why nobody talks about David Atlee Phillips being under arrest in Fort Worth that afternoon anymore, but they still just don't get that some witnesses ... weren't. And some events ... didn't happen just because someone who didn't and couldn't see them says they did.
  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 exact location at the exact time he said he was there, right up to the shooting. That, on top of everything else, is why I state baldly: DICKY WORRELL WAS NOT IN DEALEY PLAZA AT 12:30 ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1963, PERIOD. If he wasn't there, the number of shots he claimed to have heard is utterly meaningless. This is why I think proving anything is a waste of time with this case, because people prefer to accept things on faith if it fits their preconceived notions, and use that faith to "refute" facts. It is why a grand jury will never be seated by those who advocate it most loudly: because everything is "true" except what they don't want to believe, and "facts" only disprove those things, never their own beliefs.
  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 that you support his story ... at least until its disproven. So other than that "he said it under oath, so it must be true," on what basis do you credit his story?
  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, after studying bus schedules and interviewing retired Dallas Transit drivers, etc., is that it was possible for Worrell ("Dicky" to family and friends) to have gotten from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in the requisite time, but if so, it was only just barely, and thus not likely. Part 3, had I ever completed it, would have shown that Dicky Worrell was not in any images taken of the TSBD facade immediately prior to the shots as he was very specific in saying he was. Nobody took off running as he said he did, and much about the timings that he described were unlikely although (if he'd been crawling instead of running) not impossible: that is, they were ridiculously slow. His claim to have been "out of breath" after running across Houston and less than a block north because he was a smoker strain credulity (he was only 20 years old). Part 2 would have included the impressions of his family, including a cousin and his sister. I'd interviewed his mother fairly extensively, but came away with the distinct impression of a mother whose dead son could have done no wrong and certainly not lied, either to attempt to cover for the fact that he'd skipped school that day and/or for a feeling of great importance. At 20, he was still in high school; draw from that what you will. I didn't pursue that angle, although I'd met his cousin and discussed Dicky briefly. In that, I can only say that I got a distinct impression of skepticism about the person (Dicky) as well as about his story, but that is by no means definitive. Part 1 remains the only part ever published, and the conclusion - as much for "political" reasons as any other - is only that he could have gotten to DP to see what he claims he saw. I don't really believe that he did.
  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 could have been the presence of gunpowder in the barrel and/or the smell of cordite in/around the breech. While the presence of particles may not have given any firm indication as to when it was fired, the absence of particles would indicate (prove?) that it wasn't fired; particles together with cordite smell might suggest (prove?) more recent firing. Given what little we know of the supposed history of the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, "well-oiled" does not seem to suggest a gun that had been lying unused in a blanket in a garage in a dry climate for a number of months. Thus, cleaning the rifle and not firing it makes little if any sense if it is to serve as incriminating evidence. Since the only time we have any indication of it having been fired proximate to November 22 is on November 22, it "must" have been fired that day to serve its purpose, if indeed that was its purpose. There seems little purpose or sense in trying to call attention to the gun or window by making it and a man or men visible (such that it and he/they were seen) and then not firing it, which would further serve to call the necessary attention to it. Did that cover all the bases? I don't know that even now there is any ability (beyond smell) to tell when a gun was fired, only that it had been fired since it was last cleaned; is there?
  • Create New...