Duke Lane

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:

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?

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 ....

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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ....

Bump

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.

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?

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.

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?

Sorry, thought I was clear. Five cops in the car, none of them mentioned the name "Hidell" or any alias or other name in reports, etc. No contest there. As re: "the other four cops in the car, who were never called to testify by Warren Commission," three out of five of them DID testify (or more precisely, were deposed and under oath). By "only they," I refer to the two people who were mentioned in that sentence, as in "they were the only ones who" or "they alone" did not testify. The incorrect statement was that the other four cops in the car were not called to testify/depose. Bentley was not (or did not); three of the remaining four were and did.

There is often a dichotomy between the possible and the practical, the necessary, the defensible. This is one of those. Yes, this appears to be an excellent means to "plant" a shooter at the TSBD 6th floor SE window when none was there, or to otherwise cast that locale as a diversion from the real shooters perched elsewhere. What's left afterward, however, is a simple question: "what would be the point?" There is little if any doubt that there was a man or men on the TSBD's sixth floor, and little if any doubt that a rifle was present as well: too many credible people saw too much of them. If you want someone to think shots were fired from TSBD6SE, what better way than to simply fire a shot or shots from there? If that's the case, why would anyone simply shoot without intending to hit, and why would they be there if they weren't capable of hitting their target, such that there would be a need for "backup" on a building across the street (but perfectly in line with the TSBD perch)? In only makes sense for this shooting scenario if nobody - or nobody of any consequence, capability or culpability - was actually firing from TSBD6, in which case why were they even there except to get caught? If it wasn't Oswald shooting, then they had to get out of the building unaccosted. That's a huge risk for someone who wasn't even doing anything, especially with an actual rifle left behind. The rifle (or "pipe thing," as young Amos Euins described it) was seen from a press car on Houston Street after the sounds of gunfire erupted, so it's not as if the "mannequins" up top only made a spectacle of themselves before the shooting and were actually gone by the time it started: someone was still "playing the role" of shooter up to the last possible second, still standing a chance of being caught after supposedly not having shot a gun but realizing that someone else was shooting from another location nearby that would make it look as if they had. Just as this scenario would be enacted to substantiate an autopsy that they expected would take place in a normal manner (that is, by Earl Rose in Dallas), they could not have also anticipated that the rifle that would be found on TSBD6 would not be tested to determine if it had been recently fired, so it needed to be recently fired ... so why would anyone be on TSBD6 if not to fire at least one round from a rifle? Can there be any safe assumption that they'd fire it, but never aim it? Many other factors come into play, including the foreknowledge that a search would only include the TSBD and none of the surrounding buildings, leaving more than one shooter (or team) to escape another building undetected. Just as more shots from this direction are redundant, so is so much emphasis on only one direction obviating of shots from any other direction, including that of the GK or anywhere else west of the "sniper's nest" or south of the Dal-Tex/TSBD axis. All of this also presupposes a proper autopsy and much else that accompanied the ensuing investigation. So, while it is possible for shots from this locale to have "duplicated" shots from another, it just doesn't "listen" or "play" very well. IMHO, of course.

Not so, not close: three out of five of them did. They were: Det Bob K. Carroll, the driver, and Sgt. Jerry Hill (sitting next to Carroll in the middle of the front seat), and CT Walker (in the back seat). K.E. Lyons, a patrolman working in plain clothes, was the other man in the front seat, while Bentley was in the back seat with Walker and Oswald; only they did not testify.

It's not as if that's really a novel concept or a point that needs to be driven home to the vast majority of people who know anything more than mere generalities about the case. Harold Weisberg signed, sealed and delivered it a hundred dozen different ways, a long, long time ago. That said ... Leaving aside the fact that Jack Dougherty was a "special case" of his very own - neither the "village idiot" as some would have it, nor quite the sharpest pencil in the pack either - this is hardly anything like the only instance where someone once told an interesting story at one point, only to have it ignored, disregarded, overlooked or denied when it came time to report on it. Take the case of Harry Olson who, while in the hospital in December with broken knee, told FBI investigators that Jack Ruby was "no more upset than the average guy" when the two of them, together with Harry's girlfriend-cum-wife (by March, when she could no longer be compelled to testify against him in any way in their back-to-back interviews), met Jack in the parking garage downtown the night before Ruby shot Oswald. By the time of the March interview, however, Jack was practically a blubbering idiot in the Olsons' tales, and moreover they added the little detail of the garage attendant, whom they identified as "Johnny" (no last name), joining them in the conversation. When the FBI finally tracked "Johnny" down, they not only found he was named differently, but only knew any of his supposed car-mates in passing, perhaps waving to them as they picked up their cars or left the garage, but not well enough to carry on a conversation with them, much less join them in a car. As the Olsons concocted a damning (for Ruby; exonerating of themselves) new tale which had no apparent basis in earlier stated fact, WC counsel blithely accepted their testimony and never once questioned their previous interview comments so diametrically opposite their sworn statements. The list goes on and on with those two, and they are but one of many additional examples. More to the point, however, is the question of how or why, in light of the DPD, FBI and WC questioning of Danny Arce and their - not his - supression of potentially relevent data, does Danny Arce become a "suspect" or "person of interest?" If he'd meant to hide the information, he simply needed only say nothing about it (it's not as if he "got caught" by someone else's statements and had to cop to the old man thing) yet he does comment on it voluntarily several times however slightly differently. Dissecting the times he estimated seeing the old man is likewise a futile endeavor inasmuch as most of the guys who were working in TSBD at the time were not poster boys for Timex: one would say he was downstairs at lunch at 11:40 with Oswald and the next would say they came downstairs "at noon" with Danny on the way to lunch leaving Oswald behind, while few stop to consider that both things cannot be true, yet every statement is examined in a vacuum. (If that's not an exact example, it's illustrative. There are plenty of others, including particularly Bonnie Ray Williams who most likely was on the 6th floor to within 2-3 minutes of the shooting while every effort was made - successfully, for the purposes of the Report - to get him back downstairs to the 5th before 12:15.)

Curious: why would that be "the wrong thing to do?" Posting someone else's email I understand, but one's own?

(snicker!) Karl, Karl, Karl. (sigh) You're showing off your reading skills, and not in a good way. I've got over 1500 posts on this forum, and I'd daresay that you won't find any that propose an Oswald-did-it scenario. I'm not a LNer just because you want to think that I am, or because you think it'll further your argument. Quite the opposite, I fear: you're showing yourself as close-minded, uncritical and gullible; I disagree with your unfounded thesis, so I'm "the enemy." You also haven't even read all there is from the WC through Penn Jones and Jim Garrison about what Carr had to say. You don't know where he was or when, so are in no position either to judge what he did or could have seen, or to evaluate what "evidence" he might have provided. Are you even aware how disparate the accounts he gave to Penn Jones and, subsequently on Jones' recommendation, to Garrison at trial and under oath? Are you aware that his entire purported military record that he uses to support his "expert" claim is a fabrication? I didn't think so. Provide me with an original citation (not a quote from a book) where Carr says he was at ground level when he saw the "Houston Street Rambler." If you can't find it - which you won't - tell me where he did say he was when he saw it, and then prove to me that he could have seen it. You can't because he couldn't. FACT. I see a pattern of someone who believes illusions and impossibilities. You only think that the station wagon in Paschal is a Rambler, and when you finally realized that a car at Main & Record is not in the same place as one at Commerce & Record, you simply decided that someone moved the car. Do you remember Carr's claim that the car left Record Street northbound? That's in the opposite direction of where you decided it "moved" to (south one block), which it could only have done by going against one-way traffic. I'm sure you've got an explanation for that which you can satisfy yourself with. I'll also bet that you have an explanation for how Carr's supposed "Houston Street Rambler" left the scene without being seen by anyone else (including two guys who were watching that area) and over a road that was torn up and closed for construction. Or maybe you've got photographic proof that it was there? Surely someone took a photo of the intersection to show the Rambler parked on the wrong-way side of the street, no? Point out the Rambler in it. The only thing you've really got to support your argument is Craig's (and Cooper and Robinson's, let's not forget them) Elm Street Rambler, all of whom tell essentially the same story (a thing called "corroboration"). The rest is bull and/or imaginative conjecture. You have your beliefs, and it's quite clear nothing's going to shake them, as if you'd pay attention to anything contrary anyway (hands over ears, singing "la-la-la-la," not even up to the comic relief of Helen Markham playing peek-a-boo with the Tenth Street killer). Your ignorance is summed up in your first sentence. I think I'm done here.

Wasn't the original something exactly like: " ------------ QUOTE ---------- Duke Lane Nobody other than you is making a firm claim that the Paschal film shows a Rambler anyway ... and Carr in any case didn't claim to see it at the corner where the Paschal station wagon is seen. ----------------------------- Quote spartacus about Carr: After the shooting Carr saw the man emerge from the building. Carr followed the man and later told the FBI (http://www.spartacus...o.uk/USAfbi.htm): "This man, walking very fast, proceeded on Houston Street south to Commerce Street to Record Street. The man got into a 1961 or 1962 gray Rambler station wagon which was parked just north of Commerce Street on Record Street." Do your homework" ...? Quick reversal there, just 45 minutes to change your mind. The Paschal station wagon machts nichts, Rambler or not. Pity that your reference page mentions absolutely nothing about Carr. Maybe you're thinking of http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrR.htm ...? Easy error.

RE: You are right, Duke. Carr saw the man get into a rambler at the corner record/commerce street...the Paschall film shows a rambler at the corner Record/main." I'm glad you finally noticed the geography, but please don't misquote me as saying there was a RAMBLER in the Paschal film. There is a station wagon there, but as to its being a particular make & model, that's an OPINION of YOURS, NOT an established or acknowledged FACT. RE: "Two possibilities here: the Record Str. Rambler drove south on Rec. Str. after the shooting...or: we have to deal with a fifth Rambler in the vicinity of the killing-zone..." There are other possibilities, not all including the OPINION that the Record/Main station wagon was a Rambler, and not all even including the remote possibility that Carr saw one. But repeat it often enough and maybe you'll get someone to believe it. As I'd said, seeing several Ramblers in a small area in 1963 is no more remarkable than seeing a dozen F-150s downtown today. But it's not ESTABLISHED that there was more than ONE, apparently seen by three other men in front of TSBD. Carr COULD NOT see one beside the TSBD on Houston from where he SAID he was, which is NOT where you THINK he was. RE: "It is snowing Ramblers...I know for you all these Ramblers were hallucinations of witnesses..." I've already said otherwise, but maybe if you keep repeating it...? Even 20 Ramblers downtown does not a blizzard make. Have you ever seen photos of how large a crowd was dispersing on Main Street after the parade passed, *minutes* after JFK did? Robin Unger may have some. When you do, think of how that veritable sea of people might have inhibited vehicular movement.... I have DONE my homework, Karl. It is clear you're still working on last month's assignments, and I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

The difference between a "buff" and a "researcher" is said to be that buffs ask questions while researchers answer them. Another is that buffs, being askers and not answerers, don't know how to separate the wheat from the chaff and think that because it's grainy-looking, it all must be wheat: any fact that doesn't fit a preconceived theory is discarded just as quickly and easily as they claim the WC and/or FBI did. Buffs think everything is true as long as the WC didn't say it, and even if it conflicts or disproves other things that are acknowledged as every bit as "true." They cannot accept that something they heard that points to a conspiracy might not be factual or truthful because only "the other side" lies. Instead, they attack the researcher who points out that their beliefs aren't true in very much the same way that Hoover tracked the early critics and worked hard - as did the CIA - to discredit them in any way possible, true or not. Birds of a feather, those whose views are unbending. (For the record, it's quite apparent that the FBI was quite selective in their investigation and interpretations of the evidence they adduced, and not only made facts fit their boss's theory, but also discarded and/or refused to collect what did not. That is nevertheless a far cry from "proving" anybody's later claims and/or testimony that they assert was "altered" or "ignored" by the authorities.) I would be much more inclined to believe Carr if his story was consistent, or at least kept all of the same elements - or at least a few of them! - intact as time went on. The only "consistency" is "a Rambler station wagon," which was never seen twice in the same place, never twice seen from the same place, and never twice driven by people who looked the same. But hey, a Ramber's a Rambler's a Rambler, and if he said he saw one, then he did, no matter how or how often the story of seeing it changes. The fact that he said he saw a "Rambler station wagon" in a large city in 1963 is about as remarkable as me saying today that I saw a Ford pickup truck or SUV in Texas, and it's probably as likely as not that one would be nearby where I claimed to see it. Nobody other than you is making a firm claim that the Paschal film shows a Rambler anyway ... and Carr in any case didn't claim to see it at the corner where the Paschal station wagon is seen. But don't sweat the details: they only tend to ruin a good story. It's clear to me that you know the gist of Carr's story without being fully cognizant of very many of the actual details. I'd tell you to read what I've written more closely, but I doubt you'd take it with more than a grain of salt. You're so confused that you think I'm a LN'er and WC apologist: if you can't even figure that out, I can't imagine how you can sift even more elusive facts from fiction. You realize, don't you, that nobody has disproven anything I wrote about Carr (or, for that matter, Hoffman), but have only ever said "I don't believe you, you made this up, you're part of the conspiracy, why would they lie?" That is like me saying "I don't believe Lee Oswald shot anybody at all" and having no facts or substantial counter-theories to back up that opinion (of which I have many of the first and one or two of the latter). You, on the other hand, already "know" things that most others merely suspect. Tell me again why I'm having this conversation ...?

Karl, thanks for that broad-stroked reminder, as inaccurate as it may be. The problem, as you fail to see it, is that Carr never told the same story twice. Now, if you disagreed with him or wanted to form an opinion based on what he said and when, you'd have noticed that and made a point of it. However, wanting his claims to be true, you'll accept whatever he said, no matter how disparate and inconsistent, and turn it into a single, unified and coherent story. It's none of the above. When he was initially interviewed by the FBI, he made none of these claims. Of course, that "must" mean that he did and the FBI simply failed to report them. In fact, in that interview, Carr made a point of telling the FBI what he could and couldn't see from where he was, which the FBI verified on-site: he could see the "grassy area" and the very top floor of the TSBD, but nothing of the so-called sniper's nest or below to street level. Yet, several years later when he said he saw someone in the SN, then beyond any doubt, he saw it. Uncritically, you believe he could make out not only that the man he claimed to see was wearing glasses, but of just what type they were, even at the distance he was if he could see the SN window, which both he and the FBI agreed that he couldn't, but you want to think he could. He couldn't see the SN window or below it, yet he could see Houston Street? OK, it is as you wish, despite photographic proof that it was an impossibility. (If you are standing beside a building, and I am around the corner, you cannot see me when I cannot see you: line-of-sight works both ways simultaneously ... unless you have proof that it doesn't?) When he told the story of the "Record Street Rambler," he didn't mention the "Houston Street Rambler," and vice-versa, and he didn't even tell the same story from the time he first talked with Penn Jones and several months later he testified under oath during Shaw. The beauty of this case is that its truths and realities are malleable, don't you think? I documented everything he'd had to say, when, and to whom, what he'd included and what he'd omitted each time, where he claimed to be, etc., and you'd like to believe that he said things completely differently, and told a credible and consistently believeable story. It only tells me that you believe what you "know" to be the "truth," and you don't like to be distracted by facts. You're just a buff.

Looking closely at the YouTube Paschal video, I have to second Bill King's evaluation: the resolution is so poor, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess. Does it have a pull-down window shade over the front window? I can't tell. While the general shape might be something like contemporary Ramblers', it might also be like older models of other manufacturers'. But nevermind that: it's not where Carr said he saw a Rambler wagon, other than being on the same street, not even on the same block, so it means absolutely nothing even if it is a Rambler. Grasping at straws. But at least they "prove" something, eh? Tsk.